With a sign protesting the 100 km/h limit fixed to his car, Thompson and a friend drove side by side at exactly the limit on Ontario's highway 401 last summer. Between them they created a moving roadblock that infuriated some drivers to the extent that they passed on the shoulders.
... They were charged with obstructing the highway and public mischief. The latter, a criminal offense, was later dropped in return for pleading guilty to the obstruction charge. Both wound up with a fine and a six-month license suspension.
... The roadblock was Thompson's protest against being fined for doing what drivers do all the time on this stretch of highway-driving at 115 to 120 km/h
... In the aftermath of the case, John Weingust Q.C., a lawyer who was prominent in the fight against photo radar, is described in a local newspaper article as being "stunned" by the charges. "At worst," Weingust said, "Mr. Thompson may have been guilty under the Highway Traffic Act, Section 147, the left-lane bandit provision. The maximum fine for that is $100. His friend in the other car did absolutely nothing wrong."
(From Drivers.com)
The incident in question is from Ontario and I should note that speeding is (if memory serves correct) a provincial matter in Canada. However, checking Alberta's relevant law notes that the corresponding penalty applies to obstructing "normal and reasonable" traffic without a reference to a maximum minimum speed at which you may no longer be ticketed. Just think for a second about the average speed driven on roads in Canada. Could a ticket be issued in Alberta (or BC) under the same circumstances as in Ontario?
Given that the average speed on a typical road in North America is above the posted speed limit, studies have shown that the safer for you to "speed" rather than to drive the posted speed limit:
Charles A. Lave. "Speeding, Coordination, and the 55 MPH Limit." The American Economic Review, 75.5 (1985 December), p. 1163.
"... all current safety campaigns emphasize that 'speed kills.' They imply that the slower driver is the virtuous one and is helping protect himself and other drivers. It isn't so. To reduce fatalities, it is important that everyone drive at about the same speed. Thus the major consideration in choosing a speed limit is that it be obeyed. And the major consideration for police is to reduce variation, not speed, because slow drivers are as much a public hazard as fast ones." (One of many sources quoted at SENSE)
With harsher, this would be different, but for now I continue to regard a high percentage of speeding tickets issued as being akin to random taxation.
As things currently stand there is no speed at which you can drive at which you are safe from both a ticket for obstructing traffic by driving too slow as a ticket for driving too fast (although you're significantly more likely to get the speeding ticket). In addition, you can be fined for driving at the speed shown to be safer in numerous studies (flow of traffic) rather than driving the speed limit (which is more dangerous).
So, the question remains - should you break the letter of the law (by speeding) or break the spirit of the law (by driving the speed limit)? Short of enforcement of the rules of the road (as in Germany), these are normally mutually exclusive states on Canadian roads.
(Footnote: My driving record is clear of speeding tickets. Sometimes that surprises me.)
