Lots of roads are painful to drive at the posted limit. Lots of residential streets, 50km, (converted to 65km by real users) is stupid fast. They've been putting speed bumps in my neighbourhood because dickheads want to bomb 2 blocks to the corner store for a pack of fags during commercial break. Or so it would seem.
Have your say before it's too late (speed limit)
- Thread starter mxs
- Start date
This is what strikes me the most when I observe pedestrians, especially non -elderly ones. They simply walk across busy roads like they are untouchable. There's no sense of urgency or concern that things could go wrong in a hurry. It almost seems like that the car-based culture has forgotten to teach kids at early age how to do it safely and quickly.
Having said that, if I my brain tells me that the mid-block crossing is not safe, I simply do not go .... I guess we are all wired differently ....
But clearly the drivers and pedestrians have both issues to address.
conundrum
Well-known member
I think the largest part of the problem is the stupid sense of entitlement so many seem to have these days -- their decision to cross the road at whatever time and whatever speed they wish trumps a car that is coming down the same road trying to get from A to B. Although I don't want to see anyone get injured no matter how stupid they are, I just can't believe that studies which prove a 40km/h impact does less damage than a 50km/h impact don't point out the fact why not prevent the impact from even happening?
Also what happens when they do lower it to 40km/h and you combine dumb and dumber (pedestrian most interested in their phone than what is coming down the road, plus texting driver more interested in their phone than being on the road), and someone still dies because the car was doing the same speed it would have done before the limit change? Drop the limit to 30km/h? To 20km/h? I hate to say it, but all lowering limits does is fine those who do pay attention and are trying to go about their lives. Those that typically put people at risk could care less if the limit was 10km/h or 100km/h...does anyone really think a texter who can't keep their eyes on the road even looks at posted limits?
Also for anyone who doubts the above, try driving well outside of the core -- The further away you get, the more pedestrians seem to look and try to be safe, and the more drivers seem to pay attention to what's around them. Driving downtown, I've seen so many people jaywalk causing cars to slam on their brakes, so many cyclists blow red lights and stop signs, so many drivers not pay attention to anything but their phones, and even had a few people try to tell me I ran into/almost ran into them (as they look up from their phones after almost walking into my bumper) when I've been sitting completely stopped at a red for a good 30-60 seconds.
Also what happens when they do lower it to 40km/h and you combine dumb and dumber (pedestrian most interested in their phone than what is coming down the road, plus texting driver more interested in their phone than being on the road), and someone still dies because the car was doing the same speed it would have done before the limit change? Drop the limit to 30km/h? To 20km/h? I hate to say it, but all lowering limits does is fine those who do pay attention and are trying to go about their lives. Those that typically put people at risk could care less if the limit was 10km/h or 100km/h...does anyone really think a texter who can't keep their eyes on the road even looks at posted limits?
Also for anyone who doubts the above, try driving well outside of the core -- The further away you get, the more pedestrians seem to look and try to be safe, and the more drivers seem to pay attention to what's around them. Driving downtown, I've seen so many people jaywalk causing cars to slam on their brakes, so many cyclists blow red lights and stop signs, so many drivers not pay attention to anything but their phones, and even had a few people try to tell me I ran into/almost ran into them (as they look up from their phones after almost walking into my bumper) when I've been sitting completely stopped at a red for a good 30-60 seconds.
Last edited:
defeater905
Well-known member
There's a main st. Close by me in Hamilton that leads to a mountain access. It was 60, you'd see cops almost everyday it seemed giving tickets. It recently changed to 40. That's a blatant speed trap for the tax collectors.. Ahem. I mean police.
As others have said 40 is fine for suburban neighborhood streets but not a main street.
I recently heard this on a podcast. Paraphrasing here "If only every person could agree to not break any laws for a month." Even if just road laws, how much money would the police lose? What would they do with themselves and their quotas? Ha
As others have said 40 is fine for suburban neighborhood streets but not a main street.
I recently heard this on a podcast. Paraphrasing here "If only every person could agree to not break any laws for a month." Even if just road laws, how much money would the police lose? What would they do with themselves and their quotas? Ha
This is all it is, nothing less nothing more
The issue is distracted pedestrians on their cells while crossing the roads, not the speed in which the vehicle travels. Do we need a study to tell you that the risk of a car killing you is greater at a higher speed? the point is that how low is low enough, I am sure there is a study that says cars traveling at 20km/hr are safer for pedestrians than cars traveling at 40.
Ban cars from the roads and your fatality rate will reduce to 0!
I see you have shifted everything onto pedestrians.
The issue is the high ratio of pedestrian-to-vehicle interactions inherent in urban environments, and mitigating the risk posed by it. In a perfect world both drivers and pedestrians would have perfect judgement, vision, reaction time, and lack of distractions. Clearly they do not on either side of the equation.
You can't fix that issue. The issue then shifts to how to best mitigate risk and minimize harmful outcomes from the inevitable collisions that will occur.
Part of the solution may involve greater enforcement of existing laws. Part of the solution may involve shaping the environment through better infrastructure to separate vehicles and pedestrians. Part of that shaping the environment may also include lower speed limits and traffic calming measures in certain areas where you have higher pedestrian concentrations, such as in shopping areas or near schools.
Lower speed limits also make sense in many residential areas where you have limited sightlines, children, street parking, and where you want to discourage the use of those residential roads as alternatives to main arterial roads. I would much prefer lower speed limits in residential areas than a myriad of timed no-entry signs that now line many residential streets in older parts of the city.
After all, the science showing the comparative difference in fatality rates between 50km hits and 40km hits is indisputable. Once you take into account all the other things in the city that will slow you down, a 10km per hour difference in travel speed on a city residential area is negligible from a driver convenience or time consumption standpoint.
That's the thing ... one report (I wouldn't be surprised if there's more) claims to lower fatalities if a speed limit is dropped arbitrarily by 10 km/h (of course it will) ... so what a politician does to gain votes .... he/she looks into it what the gain could be .... without really being willing to dig into the root causes .... which to me are clearly three major ones .... 1) Lack of quality public transit (so people have to deal with city speed limit and driving every single day) ..... 2) Careless pedestrians with their guys glued to smart-anything and ever wandering mind .... 3) Lack of quality driving training and licensing ....
Two out of the three listed will cost quite a bit of chunk of money, so I am sure these are quickly out and have been for any color politician for the longest time. The lower speed limit will cost them nothing, it will be actually a net gain as we all know. The political equation is pretty simple to solve ...
I am sure the insurance companies will be on-board as well .... look at these guys ... (over my dead body will I agree to to the gizmo) .... Internet of things is coming to your steering wheel ... http://www.thestar.com/business/per...s-holds-promise-for-car-insurance-mayers.html
Two out of the three listed will cost quite a bit of chunk of money, so I am sure these are quickly out and have been for any color politician for the longest time. The lower speed limit will cost them nothing, it will be actually a net gain as we all know. The political equation is pretty simple to solve ...
I am sure the insurance companies will be on-board as well .... look at these guys ... (over my dead body will I agree to to the gizmo) .... Internet of things is coming to your steering wheel ... http://www.thestar.com/business/per...s-holds-promise-for-car-insurance-mayers.html
Are you ok with a 10km/hr speed limit in those areas? How low are you willing to go? Do you really think drivers will obey a 40 or 30 km/hr speed limit? it will not fix the problem and it will just become one more tax when enforcement is applied for a day, or two or once a week or month on that street.
Anyways, I hardly go downtown so "Not my circus, not my monkeys"
Anyways, I hardly go downtown so "Not my circus, not my monkeys"
Last edited:
It's a matter of balancing the need for speed vs reducing potential death and serious injury arising out of collisions. Reduced speeds in residential areas should reduce the frequency of collisions causing injury or death. Of thos colission that will still occur, reduced speed will reduce the potential for pedestrian death or serious injury.
See speed vs injury and death graph at http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0386111214000235-gr1.jpg
From the graph there is a clear rise in fatality rates when speed at moment of impact rises from 40 to 50 km per hour. Maybe even more important is what the graph does not capture - the number if collisions averted because it is always easier to avoid collisions if one is travelling slower in congested surroundings.
Society as a whole will decide where the acceptable balance between speed and safety is. I don't think drivers will obey a 30 or 40 speed limit any more than they obey the current 50 one, but in urban areas most drivers tend to drive at a point where they feel there is a minimum risk of getting a ticket that will hurt. Shift the speed limit down, and the point at which a ticket will start to hurt will also shift down. Then all you need is periodic enforcement to drive home the point and to adjust people's expectations of reasonable driving speeds.
By society as a whole ... you mean exactly who? Pedestrians, drivers, commuters .... or all? And how do you think the decision will come about?
By ticketing you are not lowering automatically the risks ... you are just generating extra cash. People still get frustrating with city traffic, so they floor it every time, the light turns green .... it's called homo sapiens and the way we became to be wired. Who the heck enjoys to be in traffic, instead of being home with loved ones? So we are all balance risk and safety every single day, the best way we can.
Give people a viable alternative and I am sure you will get some interest and you will decrease the fatalities with it ... but that costs money, so is automatically not good in GTA or Ontario.
By ticketing you are not lowering automatically the risks ... you are just generating extra cash. People still get frustrating with city traffic, so they floor it every time, the light turns green .... it's called homo sapiens and the way we became to be wired. Who the heck enjoys to be in traffic, instead of being home with loved ones? So we are all balance risk and safety every single day, the best way we can.
Give people a viable alternative and I am sure you will get some interest and you will decrease the fatalities with it ... but that costs money, so is automatically not good in GTA or Ontario.
Agreed. I have yet to hear a single argument for lowering the speed limit that isn't transparent BS. At least if they acknowledged that it would generate more revenue that would be a real argument.
You're saying 50 kph is too high?
Jeez, the roads I'm on are 40 kph, everyone is driving 80 kph, and it feels slow. I think most limits should be way higher. I hate the speed bumps in my neighborhood and have no problem with the speeders. But the speed bumps don't stop all the stop sign runners. I'd say less than half of the people driving around my place actually stop, or even slow down for that matter, for stop signs.
Are you joking? You think it's ok to be travelling at 80 km/hr on a 40 km/hr residential road? When you double the travel speed, you quadruple the stopping distance.
The lowering of the speed limits in residential roads was a misguided attempt to make roads safer. The only way to make roads safer it to take away the licences of those that think that they can drive above the maximum speed limit regardless of situation because they are better drivers/riders then the rest. There are situations where driving above the speed limits doesn't have any effect on safety; "speeding"on a 40 km/hr road with houses on both sides is not one of those situations!
Residential areas are 30, not 40, in Toronto which is silly low.
And yes, I do think 80 would be fine. Everyone follow right of way and there are no problems.
Last edited:
This won't stop until we're driving faster in parking lots than on the roads.
All about the revenue....
Look at the cash cow speed camera's are bringing to Saskatchewan? How long before they bring those bad boys back?
All about the revenue....
Look at the cash cow speed camera's are bringing to Saskatchewan? How long before they bring those bad boys back?
