Increase Ontario 400-series Highway Speed Limit

turbodish said:
Probably get badly hurt, maybe die. Do you think that's preferable?
Click to expand...

Risk is part of life, so yes, I do prefer that possibility.
 
eastcoast_gsx said:
I am just going to leave this here:

http://www.thestar.com/news/cityhal...t-pedestrians-chief-medical-officer-says?bn=1
Click to expand...

Oddly enough I think that the best way to protect pedestrians, is to make them obey the law too. They have to take SOME responsibility for their own safety. Hell, last Tuesday I not only had to dodge two disabled scooters and a bicycle that were traveling down the middle of the street, as I turned out of a parking structure, I then had to hit the horn to wake up four pedestrians who almost walked right out in front of my moving car, when I had the green and they had a red. The pedestrians at the light are an almost daily occurrence, but the scooters were something new.

I also routinely have to brake and/or avoid to keep from hitting pedestrians at Yonge and Front, who think that crossing 30 feet north of the light means that the light doesn't apply to them.
 
Welcome to Toronto, the traffic-retarded capital of North America.

Common sense has no place here.

If you think that's bad try driving through pacific mall on a daily basis...

Rob MacLennan said:
Hell, last Tuesday I not only had to dodge two disabled scooters and a bicycle that were traveling down the middle of the street, as I turned out of a parking structure, I then had to hit the horn to wake up four pedestrians who almost walked right out in front of my moving car, when I had the green and they had a red. The pedestrians at the light are an almost daily occurrence, but the scooters were something new.

I also routinely have to brake and/or avoid to keep from hitting pedestrians at Yonge and Front, who think that crossing 30 feet north of the light means that the light doesn't apply to them.
Click to expand...
 
If you are a pedestrian that gets hit by a car, unless the car jumped the sidewalk, you are a ****ing moron. Period. (except maybe kids and the elderly)

Not to mention the complete brain dead folks that get smoked by a train when they were not even trying....

A live roadway is a DANGEROUS place, treat it as such, it is not a goddamn stroll on the beach.... idiots.
 
caboose483 said:
What's the ideal speed limit then? Safety at all costs!
Click to expand...

There has to be a balance between reasonable safety and reasonable utility. Viper's last couple of comments are not realistic in a society where there is value placed on life. In particular, his comment ''and Natural Selection will take care of the remainder anyway" isn't shared by most of society, and probably not by most here either given the number of "oh no, not again" type of comments that appear in another forum section here on a regular basis.

The guiding principle to setting urban speed limits is the mix of traffic. Greater presence of slower and vulnerable road users (pedestrians and bicycles) always point to lower speed limits. That number of 50 kmph is no more sacred here than it is in the Europe that many like to point to as driving Mecca.

With respect to city speed limits, saying that pedestrians shouldn't take leisurely strolls down the road misses the point. Speed limits are never set on the basis of perfect performance by all users because there is no such thing. They are set to allow some measure of recovery from error regardless of who made the error, and crash survivability when the error is not recovered from.

Ideally people should cross at corners, but they don't always. Ideally cars shouldn't speed, but they do. For every pedestrian who gets hit because they are oblivious to oncoming traffic, there is a pedestrian who gets smoked at an intersection crossing as he or she should with the light. The other day a person in a parking lot far far away from the street got smoked by a motorcycle that lost control while making a turn at a city intersection.

I can see a 40 kmph limit as being reasonable in much of downtown Toronto and in densely population residential areas. The reality is, there will be bicycles and pedestrians in large numbers in those locations so the frequency of interaction between different classes of road users is already high, and residential intensification in urban areas will do nothing but increase over the future. We're not about to turn those streets into mini equivalents of our limited access expressways. We will most likely follow the example of Montreal, and several small Ontario towns and villages that have already set town- and village-wide 40 kmph speed limits.
 
eastcoast_gsx said:
If you are a pedestrian that gets hit by a car, unless the car jumped the sidewalk, you are a ****ing moron. Period. (except maybe kids and the elderly)
Click to expand...

Well, the kids and elderly are getting smoked, sometime by cars that jump the sidewalk, at other times by cars that jump the traffic light, and sometimes by cars that just don't see them walking across the intersection crossing with the proper light. It's far from being just able-bodied adult jaywalkers that are being hit.
 
Nobody's asking for 400-series speeds through the downtown core. We're asking for an increase in limits on the highways, to speeds that most people travel anyway, without having to worry about getting a punitive ticket for being better than limits set for vehicle and human brain design from decades ago which is now clearly and indisputably obsolete, evidenced by the vast majority of the populace travelling at those speeds safely, currently. The counterargument being made is that it's less safe. Of course it's less safe! Any increase in speeds above 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 km/h is a mathematical decrease in safety, given limited tire traction and non-zero reaction times of everyone involved, which are direct functions of time, which is directly related to speed given a distance of consideration. Therefore a decrease in speed must also increase safety. I tongue-in-cheekly proposed that speed limits should be reduced to zero to demonstrate that there is indeed an intelligent understanding of this relationship and claimed that it is human nature to evolve and advance into something better, and this requires taking on risk, just like our ancestors did, to get us to where we are now.

For you, turbodish: I'm not making these comments out of a baseless, thoughtless, mental jibberish, as you describe. Quite the exact and polar opposite, they stem from a strategic understanding of Game Theory and nature. I would claim that the Natural Selection argument happens at all times whether you or "everyone else" choose(s) to observe it or not. You might turn a blind eye to it, but it doesn't turn a blind eye to you. If a society mandates that the everyone including the weakest survive and reproduce, what do you think happens to the average of that population? Nature has not conducted itself by this approach... ever, why should it make an exception for humanity, now? Are you satisfied by the average score of modern society? I sure am not, and I'm willing to raise a really low bar a reasonable amount so we can do wonderful things as I've described in previous posts, like getting to the moon and back, etc. If you find that unrealistic, you have about 3 million years of human history to argue with (not to mention all of the non-human risks that were taken along the way) and not my pointing it out for you. I don't think I can break this down any clearer than I have.
 
turbodish said:
Well, the kids and elderly are getting smoked, sometime by cars that jump the sidewalk, at other times by cars that jump the traffic light, and sometimes by cars that just don't see them walking across the intersection crossing with the proper light. It's far from being just able-bodied adult jaywalkers that are being hit.
Click to expand...

I understand this, but I still would NEVER trust my life to a goddamn crosswalk light. THAT is the last piece of the equation as I step into a roadway, and my attention never diverts from the 3000kg+ hunks of steel and moron.

PS: Even on a sidewalk you should be very concious of the traffic, that is why we walk "into" the traffic flow. I am trying to teach my 3 year old this concept... even he gets it.
 
If you haven't figured it out by now, turbodish thinks the government is omnipotent, omniscient, effective, and loves you dearly. And they'll save us all from ourselves, because they're just that smart and capable.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Just typing that has me cracking up...!
 
turbodish said:
There has to be a balance between reasonable safety and reasonable utility. Viper's last couple of comments are not realistic in a society where there is value placed on life. In particular, his comment ''and Natural Selection will take care of the remainder anyway" isn't shared by most of society, and probably not by most here either given the number of "oh no, not again" type of comments that appear in another forum section here on a regular basis.

The guiding principle to setting urban speed limits is the mix of traffic. Greater presence of slower and vulnerable road users (pedestrians and bicycles) always point to lower speed limits. That number of 50 kmph is no more sacred here than it is in the Europe that many like to point to as driving Mecca.

With respect to city speed limits, saying that pedestrians shouldn't take leisurely strolls down the road misses the point. Speed limits are never set on the basis of perfect performance by all users because there is no such thing. They are set to allow some measure of recovery from error regardless of who made the error, and crash survivability when the error is not recovered from.

Ideally people should cross at corners, but they don't always. Ideally cars shouldn't speed, but they do. For every pedestrian who gets hit because they are oblivious to oncoming traffic, there is a pedestrian who gets smoked at an intersection crossing as he or she should with the light. The other day a person in a parking lot far far away from the street got smoked by a motorcycle that lost control while making a turn at a city intersection.

I can see a 40 kmph limit as being reasonable in much of downtown Toronto and in densely population residential areas. The reality is, there will be bicycles and pedestrians in large numbers in those locations so the frequency of interaction between different classes of road users is already high, and residential intensification in urban areas will do nothing but increase over the future. We're not about to turn those streets into mini equivalents of our limited access expressways. We will most likely follow the example of Montreal, and several small Ontario towns and villages that have already set town- and village-wide 40 kmph speed limits.
Click to expand...

It isn't a matter of pedestrians taking a leisurely stroll along the street, turbo, but rather an issue of pedestrians taking a leisurely stroll INTO the street. I could show you plenty of video, of pedestrians walking into the intersection when the counter is on 3 seconds, at a casual walking pace. I can show you much video of pedestrians crossing against the light, in front of live traffic. I can show you quite a bit of video, of pedestrians crossing 10 or 15 metres up from a light, thinking that the red no longer applies to them.

I would be willing to wager that for every pedestrian who gets taken out in a crosswalk, there are two or three who are hit while doing something illegal or stupid, at least in the core.

As to a 40 Kmh city-wide speed limit, such is frequently unnecessary. Anywhere in the old city of Toronto, you would be hard pressed to be able to do the limit during much of the day. The exception is on large, multi-lane streets, where there are fewer pedestrians at any rate.

Cars have been the whipping boy for pedestrian and cyclist injuries and deaths for quite a while now. It's time that someone looks at the other side of the equation, because it's where the biggest issues currently come from.

*EDIT* Here's a little break-down, from a study published by The City of Toronto, in 2007:
 

Attachments

  • collision study.jpg
    collision study.jpg
    57.7 KB · Views: 5
Last edited:
Rob MacLennan said:
I would be willing to wager that for every pedestrian who gets taken out in a crosswalk, there are two or three who are hit while doing something illegal or stupid, at least in the core.

As to a 40 Kmh city-wide speed limit, such is frequently unnecessary. Anywhere in the old city of Toronto, you would be hard pressed to be able to do the limit during much of the day. The exception is on large, multi-lane streets, where there are fewer pedestrians at any rate.

Cars have been the whipping boy for pedestrian and cyclist injuries and deaths for quite a while now. It's time that someone looks at the other side of the equation, because it's where the biggest issues currently come from.

*EDIT* Here's a little break-down, from a study published by The City of Toronto, in 2007:
Click to expand...

Toronto released a pedestrian collision study in 2007. Look for "City of Toronto Pedestrian Collision Study". It looked at all reported collisions involving pedestrians. If you take out parking lot collision study and "unknown" collisions, of the remaining 84%, 42% involved right of way violations by vehicles and the remaining 42% were right of way violations by pedestrians.

That's a pretty even 50-50 split in fault, which justifies pointing fingers at and targeting both pedestrians and vehicles when looking for solutions.
 
turbodish said:
Toronto released a pedestrian collision study in 2007. Look for "City of Toronto Pedestrian Collision Study". It looked at all reported collisions involving pedestrians. If you take out parking lot collision study and "unknown" collisions, of the remaining 84%, 42% involved right of way violations by vehicles and the remaining 42% were right of way violations by pedestrians.

That's a pretty even 50-50 split in fault, which justifies pointing fingers at and targeting both pedestrians and vehicles when looking for solutions.
Click to expand...

See above and note my "at least in the core" comment. The study data was from 2002-2003.
 
turbodish said:
There has to be a balance between reasonable safety and reasonable utility. Viper's last couple of comments are not realistic in a society where there is value placed on life. In particular, his comment ''and Natural Selection will take care of the remainder anyway" isn't shared by most of society, and probably not by most here either given the number of "oh no, not again" type of comments that appear in another forum section here on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

FYI that section of the forum is DEFINED as being for grieving and well wishing only, so it's hardly representative of what members in general think about those crashes.
 
If it's 50/50, I propose that the onus be placed more on pedestrians than automobiles. Why? The Pedestrian is more agile, has greater access to his senses and is less distracted by his purpose (walking vs operating a motor vehicle) than someone operating a motor vehicle.

Furthermore, I'm actually reading the 2007 report while making this comment:

1) Pedestrian hit at mid-block location (Type 8)
• 22% of all pedestrian/motor vehicle collisions
• 95% of drivers had the right-of-way

2) Vehicle is going straight through intersection while pedestrian crosses without right-of-way (Type 6)
• 14% of all pedestrian/motor vehicle collisions

3. Vehicle turns left while pedestrian crosses with right-of-way at intersection (Type 1)
• 13% of all pedestrian/motor vehicle collisions

4. Parking lot shenanigans nobody cares about, since speed limits are not part of the equation here

5. Vehicle turns right while pedestrian crosses with right-of-way at intersection (Type 3)
• 9% of all pedestrian/motor vehicle collisions <-- I will point out this is the least damaging, as the vehicle is at its slowest speed

Notice the top two? Who's at fault here most often? Who had the right of way? Who's more agile, more observant, and less distracted by his purpose and STILL at fault for these accidents?

The Pedestrian. <--
 
Shaman said:
If you haven't figured it out by now, turbodish thinks the government is omnipotent, omniscient, effective, and loves you dearly. And they'll save us all from ourselves, because they're just that smart and capable.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Just typing that has me cracking up...!
Click to expand...

They're not perfect but the public votes them in and the public can vote them out, and so there is a measure of public accountability for their actions. If you think that you somehow have a better idea of public wants and needs, by all means throw your hat in the ring and run for govt office. Somehow, I doubt many would identify with you and give you their vote if you were to bring your views to an election debate.

If you think that things would be better without government, then by all means you should make tracks for Somalia as quickly as possible. You might want to take along fans of "natural selection" with you as well. After a year, report back on how good things are there for you, assuming you are able to.
 
Last edited:
viper84737 said:
If it's 50/50, I propose that the onus be placed more on pedestrians than automobiles. Why? The Pedestrian is more agile, has greater access to his senses and is less distracted by his purpose (walking vs operating a motor vehicle) than someone operating a motor vehicle.
Click to expand...

I think you have it backwards. For all those reasons you mentioned, the onus should be on the driver to leave a healthy margin of safety. In your way of thinking, truckers shouldn't need to leave a larger gap to the vehicle in front, or train crossings shouldn't need warnings to drivers. You're basically suggesting that "might makes right". I'm suggesting that with greater power comes greater responsibility.
 
fastar1 said:
I think you have it backwards. For all those reasons you mentioned, the onus should be on the driver to leave a healthy margin of safety. In your way of thinking, truckers shouldn't need to leave a larger gap to the vehicle in front, or train crossings shouldn't need warnings to drivers. You're basically suggesting that "might makes right". I'm suggesting that with greater power comes greater responsibility.
Click to expand...

Not might makes right, but rather capability brings about responsibility.

I leave more room for truckers than they know to leave for me. That way I don't accidentally get squashed by an oblivious trucker who wasn't paying attention that moment.
Advantage in Capability to Evade: Mine.
Onus to Survive vs Danger: Mine.

When I cross railroad tracks, I look both ways first. This ensures that a faulty mechanism doesn't result in my death.
Advantage in Capability to Evade: Mine.
Onus to Survive vs Danger: Mine.

When I cross a busy street, I look for threats. In doing so I minimize my chances of being hit, vs trusting some common citizen moron to watch out for my own safety.
Advantage in Capability to Evade: Mine.
Onus to Survive vs Danger: Mine.

Pattern? Yes
Intelligent? Yes!
My Survival? YES!
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom