Lower speed limits within the city?

M

mimico_polak

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Forum Sponsor
I read this article this morning regarding a study that states lower speed limits should be considered in order to prevent cyclist and pedestrian injuries from collision with vehicles....http://www.thegridto.com/city/politics/life-in-the-slow-lane/

Now we all know there are idiots in cars, and bikes, everywhere, but I think that there should be more focus on education of cyclists and pedestrians on how to follow the rules of the road as they don't own it and are responsible for their own idiocy.
 
The pedestrian walking down the middle of the 401 isn't to blame for this! Blame the idiot driver who hit him!
 
There are just as many idiot pedestrians and cyclists as there are drivers. In fact, I'd wager that there are MORE idiots on foot/bike. At least drivers get a basic level of training and have to test on rules of the road and actual driving. A lot of downtown pedestrians and bicyclists don't have drivers licences and have a complete lack of road awareness.
 
You can pretty much bet that it's written by a pro cyclist lobby. Any report citing unnamed experts is bogus.
 
I actually just posted about this in the jaywalking thread as well -- Luckily this should be one that gets laughed out of city hall (and even if it somehow passed, there'd be no way to police it without more cops).

Seriously, people need to be taught to watch out for their own lives and that jaywalking into a busy street (without even looking/caring) is generally a very very bad idea. I still remember a few years back I was stopped at a set of lights on bloor and had a pedestrian (on his phone) walk into the side of my front bumper, then proceed to flip me off and call me every name in the book (at that point I already been 100% stopped at the intersection for more than half the light, and never crept forward at all). Also reminds me of the other time not that long ago when someone was hit by a streetcar while on a phone -- I guess they thought it would swerve and go around him </sarcasm>.

Additionally, jaywalking or not, I'd NEVER step out in front a car/vehicle doing 60+ unless it was so far off in the distance I'd have to stop on the road to get hit by it. Even at a set of lights where I have the walk/green light, until I can tell cars are decelerating I don't step in front of them, as they might just blow through the light. There are two sides to almost everything, and why so many people think everything should be 100% on the driver/rider is beyond me (although drivers do seem to also be getting more clueless/worse).
 
Last edited:
I doubt this will pass. Anything less than our current in-town speed limits would be excruciatingly slow and only congest traffic further. Speed is only one possible variable in an accident and I don't believe it's even a major one most of the time. Speed gets picked on because it's easiest and most visible. Poor, poor speed.
 
The problem is where do you draw the line? Sure lowering the speed limit from 40 to 30 will stop accidents, but so would lowering it from 30 to 20 or 20 to 10. At which point does risk become "reasonable" for both drivers and pedestrians. My opinion is its fine where it is. Sounds to me like it has the potential to be a cash grab for the city in new tickets, and the chance to create more "high risk" drivers they can ultimately remove from the congestion.
 
Buddhacide said:
The problem is where do you draw the line? Sure lowering the speed limit from 40 to 30 will stop accidents, but so would lowering it from 30 to 20 or 20 to 10.
Click to expand...


0km/h. That reduces the rate of motor vehicle deaths to 0 :cool:
 
Typical lefty liberal car-hating rhetoric.
 
FiReSTaRT said:
0km/h. That reduces the rate of motor vehicle deaths to 0 :cool:
Click to expand...

It took them tens of thousands of dollars to figure out that lower-speed collisions cause less injuries. So following their conclusions you're absolutely correct. Lowering the speed limit to 0 will reduce the number motor vehicle deaths, but I am not sure if it will go down to zero though...
 
ViperZ said:
It took them tens of thousands of dollars to figure out that lower-speed collisions cause less injuries. So following their conclusions you're absolutely correct. Lowering the speed limit to 0 will reduce the number motor vehicle deaths, but I am not sure if it will go down to zero though...
Click to expand...

A 0km/h speed limit should eliminate all motor vehicles and have them converted to other uses, thus bringing the injury rate to 0 per 100,000km driven. However, you are correct. We should spend a few tens of millions of dollars and run a proper study :D
 
Slightly different direction...but if the city ever came up with a comprehensive transit plan where it wouldn't take me 3x-4x the time it takes to drive to work...I'd take the transit! But fortunately I now have the bike to make this much more fun and entertaining!
 
FiReSTaRT said:
A 0km/h speed limit should eliminate all motor vehicles and have them converted to other uses, thus bringing the injury rate to 0 per 100,000km driven. However, you are correct. We should spend a few tens of millions of dollars and run a proper study :D
Click to expand...

No because some wanker will still manage to walk into the stationary vehicle ! ;)
 
kiwi said:
No because some wanker will still manage to walk into the stationary vehicle ! ;)
Click to expand...

Not if they're all melted down and converted to other uses, such as cutlery, furnaces, coins and such ;)
 
FiReSTaRT said:
A 0km/h speed limit should eliminate all motor vehicles and have them converted to other uses, thus bringing the injury rate to 0 per 100,000km driven. However, you are correct. We should spend a few tens of millions of dollars and run a proper study :iconbiggrin:
kiwi said:
No because some wanker will still manage to walk into the stationary vehicle ! ;)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Damn, beat me to it lol.
 
mimico_polak said:
Slightly different direction...but if the city ever came up with a comprehensive transit plan where it wouldn't take me 3x-4x the time it takes to drive to work...
Click to expand...

We actually do have a really good transit plan, but you know, THERE IS NO GRAVY!!!
 
Part of the problem is that the folks running the place allowed Canadian cars to have pedestrian maiming bumpers until 2009 when they finally decided that pedestrian safety was more important than I guess generating more money for the insurance companies since it would take more to damage a car.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom