Increase Ontario 400-series Highway Speed Limit

[turbodish]

Forum Sponsor

Do you think speed had anything to do with those accidents? Or is it more likely that the driver just wasn't paying attention and pulled into or through the crosswalk (likely while making a turn) before checking for pedestrians? Likely at speeds well below 40km/hr.

Whether or not speed (or speeding per se) had anything to do with those accidents isn't really the point. Toronto Health's position appears to be that the vehicle/pedestrian and vehicle/bicycle collisions that are inevitable in a place where significiant numbers of pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles are in close proximity to each other, and that the collisions will occur despite the best efforts of either party. The goal appears to be to make the collisions more survivable for the vulnerable pedestrian and bicycle road users.

You can argue that all that can be avoided if people would only follow common sense and the rules, but that day won't come until people become infallible. Education and attitude shifting may help, but even the best already out there (driver/rider/bicyclist/pedestrian) screw up every now and then despite their best efforts and intentions. Again, while waiting for people to become infallible, the goal shifts to helping people survive until then.

You are aware that there is quite a lot of Ontario outside the GTA..... right??

The suggestion by Toronto Health to lower speed limits in the city was a Toronto-specific proposal, so the rest of Ontario doesn't really factor into it.

 

[turbodish]

So you're basing your conclusions on what the trend obviously indicates was an anomalous year?

The previous 5-year average is also given in those links. The picture doesn't change even with those prior-year average numbers.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

The previous 5-year average is also given in those links. The picture doesn't change even with those prior-year average numbers.

Really? I don't think so. I see breakdowns for 2011, exclusively. I see total numbers for the previous years. I also see injury and fatality numbers, in 2011, that are roughly 50% of those in preceding years. 2010 and 2011 were also years that saw large blitzes, based on pedestrian safety concerns.

Clearly the numbers from the 2007 study, which cover 2002-2003, show a much different picture and were gone over in much more detail.

 

[caboose56]

Whether or not speed (or speeding per se) had anything to do with those accidents isn't really the point. Toronto Health's position appears to be that the vehicle/pedestrian and vehicle/bicycle collisions that are inevitable in a place where significiant numbers of pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles are in close proximity to each other, and that the collisions will occur despite the best efforts of either party. The goal appears to be to make the collisions more survivable for the vulnerable pedestrian and bicycle road users.

You can argue that all that can be avoided if people would only follow common sense and the rules, but that day won't come until people become infallible. Education and attitude shifting may help, but even the best already out there (driver/rider/bicyclist/pedestrian) screw up every now and then despite their best efforts and intentions. Again, while waiting for people to become infallible, the goal shifts to helping people survive until then.

If vehicle speed is a non issue then why are they pushing for a decrease in speed limit?

The suggestion by Toronto Health to lower speed limits in the city was a Toronto-specific proposal, so the rest of Ontario doesn't really factor into it.

I was responding to someone who was clearly talking about highway speed limits. Try and keep up, sport.

 

[viper84737]

If vehicle speed is a non issue then why are they pushing for a decrease in speed limit?

Because they believe it is the issue and are too short-sighted to see the actual issues and provide actual solutions <--

 

[caboose56]

Because they believe it is the issue and are too short-sighted to see the actual issues and provide actual solutions <--

That was the point i was trying to make. If the car is at fault in an accident speed likely played no role in it. People run red lights because they are not paying attention or they are selfish, not because they are speeding. People make rights or block the crosswalk, infringing on a pedestrian's right of way, because they are impatient or oblivious not because they were speeding.

 

[turbodish]

That was the point i was trying to make. If the car is at fault in an accident speed likely played no role in it. People run red lights because they are not paying attention or they are selfish, not because they are speeding. People make rights or block the crosswalk, infringing on a pedestrian's right of way, because they are impatient or oblivious not because they were speeding.

Toronto Health makes no differentiation between who is at fault not, speeding or not. Their view is based on vulnerable road users mortality probability vs increasing speed. The mortality curve goes up exponentially with even small increases in vehicle speed. For average city trips, a drop from 50 to 40 makes little difference in travel time (just 6 minutes longer from 1 Yonge to the 401 at off-peak) but would make a big difference in injury severity and mortality rates. It's a matter of balancing interests and making the city more livable for all, not just drivers.

 

[caboose56]

Toronto Health makes no differentiation between who is at fault not, speeding or not. Their view is based on vulnerable road users mortality probability vs increasing speed. The mortality curve goes up exponentially with even small increases in vehicle speed. For average city trips, a drop from 50 to 40 makes little difference in travel time (just 6 minutes longer from 1 Yonge to the 401 at off-peak) but would make a big difference in injury severity and mortality rates. It's a matter of balancing interests and making the city more livable for all, not just drivers.

So decreasing the speed limit from 50 to 40 will make accidents less severe in intersections where car traffic is only going 15-25kph?

 

[OpenGambit]

you guys are talking around each other.

So nothing is new, carry on =D

 

[turbodish]

So decreasing the speed limit from 50 to 40 will make accidents less severe in intersections where car traffic is only going 15-25kph?

It might reduce the speeds of some left turners. It might reduce incoming speeds for right turners which in turn would give a bit more opportunity to see what is happening ahead of them. It might reduce the speed of red light runners. Besides. A good chunk of collisions happen in locations other than intersections where speeds would be at or slightly above the speed limit during off peak hours, so it would tend to reduce those speeds. The greater the population intensification and presence of vulnerable road users, the greater the justification for lower speed limits on surface streets.

 

[caboose56]

It might reduce the speeds of some left turners. It might reduce incoming speeds for right turners which in turn would give a bit more opportunity to see what is happening ahead of them. It might reduce the speed of red light runners. Besides. A good chunk of collisions happen in locations other than intersections where speeds would be at or slightly above the speed limit during off peak hours. The greater the population intensification and presence of vulnerable road users, the greater the greater the justification for lower speed limits on surface streets.

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't think it would change how people drive near/in intersctions at all.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

you guys are talking around each other.

So nothing is new, carry on =D

Well I'm trying a new tack; logic. Sure, you could presumably save a lot of lives by cutting the speed limit by 25% (unproved, but let's go with it), but I prefer dealing with the cause of the problem, rather than penalizing people who aren't the cause.

 

[invictus43]

Well I'm trying a new tack; logic. Sure, you could presumably save a lot of lives by cutting the speed limit by 25% (unproved, but let's go with it), but I prefer dealing with the cause of the problem, rather than penalizing people who aren't the cause.

It's basic physics..if collisions happen at a lower speed, there'll be less energy and damage. I don't think you can argue otherwise. The arguing is in the "what level of damage is acceptable" area.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

It's basic physics..if collisions happen at a lower speed, there'll be less energy and damage. I don't think you can argue otherwise. The arguing is in the "what level of damage is acceptable" area.

Until something is empirically proved, it remains unproved. Until limits are actually reduced, you can't know if it will actually have the desired effect. We're talking about more than just physics here. Statistical analysis and random chance figure into it also. As physics is the only easily grasped factor, however, I threw in "but let's go with it."

But that isn't the debate I'm dealing with. The argument at hand is whether the right approach is to tackle it from the vehicular angle, or if pedestrians should be asked to shoulder the latest burden.

 

[OpenGambit]

Well I'm trying a new tack; logic. Sure, you could presumably save a lot of lives by cutting the speed limit by 25% (unproved, but let's go with it), but I prefer dealing with the cause of the problem, rather than penalizing people who aren't the cause.

That report did say that a crash at 50 resulted in like a 85 % chance of death while at 40 its much less (30 something? i dont' remember).

the assumption of the study is that accidents are unavoidable, so lets focus on surviving something that can't be eliminated. Its a fair point, I am not saying its conclusive on changing the speed limit, but its not a baseless view.

 

[invictus43]

Until something is empirically proved, it remains unproved. Until limits are actually reduced, you can't know if it will actually have the desired effect. We're talking about more than just physics here. Statistical analysis and random chance figure into it also. As physics is the only easily grasped factor, however, I threw in "but let's go with it."

But that isn't the debate I'm dealing with. The argument at hand is whether the right approach is to tackle it from the vehicular angle, or if pedestrians should be asked to shoulder the latest burden.

Just saying, it's pretty hard to simply dismiss the physics of a collision and be taken seriously from that point on.

Obviously both parties have to do their part. Pedestrians do shoulder much of the burden since they're the ones being killed as a result of the collisions. That's a pretty serious consequence of not following the rules. I'm not sure what else you can do to make them be smarter than the threat of imminent death.

 

[invictus43]

That report did say that a crash at 50 resulted in like a 85 % chance of death while at 40 its much less (30 something? i dont' remember).

the assumption of the study is that accidents are unavoidable, so lets focus on surviving something that can't be eliminated. Its a fair point, I am not saying its conclusive on changing the speed limit, but its not a baseless view.

It's obvious that lower speeds result in less damage. A head-on collision at 160kmh is practically not-survivable. At 80kmh it's emminently survivable. So..what level of fatalities are we willing to accept?

The problem is when you add human behaviour...people who habitually weave around slower cars..would those people drive more safely with higher traffic speeds? Would higher limits mean higher traffic speeds? That's the grey area.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

That report did say that a crash at 50 resulted in like a 85 % chance of death while at 40 its much less (30 something? i dont' remember).

the assumption of the study is that accidents are unavoidable, so lets focus on surviving something that can't be eliminated. Its a fair point, I am not saying its conclusive on changing the speed limit, but its not a baseless view.

No, it isn't baseless, but the observations don't necessarily support the conclusions. Some collisions are not avoidable but, taken as a whole, they generally are. The conclusion that reducing speed limits would be the best choice as a solution is, to me, a fallacious one as it assumes that all other avenues have been exhausted.

Premise and conclusion both flawed.

Hello Mrs. Premise.

Hello Mrs. Conclusion. Busy Day?

Busy, I'll say. Just spent FOUR HOURS burying the cat.

FOUR HOURS to bury a cat?

Yes... Wouldn't keep still... Howling....

Just saying, it's pretty hard to simply dismiss the physics of a collision and be taken seriously from that point on.

Obviously both parties have to do their part. Pedestrians do shoulder much of the burden since they're the ones being killed as a result of the collisions. That's a pretty serious consequence of not following the rules. I'm not sure what else you can do to make them be smarter than the threat of imminent death.

I think that you're mixing up the concepts of burden and consequence. The burden is borne by those who are asked to act in a different manner, in order to avoid the consequence. Should pedestrians be permitted to not carry their share of the burden, if the consequences are predominantly theirs? Should motorcyclists behave as if their person is inviolate even though it is demonstrated on a daily basis not to be so, and they will be the ones to suffer? Little or no difference, between the two.

So I say hand out a few tickets, to people who leap out into traffic on the last two seconds of a light, against lights, around blind corners from drivers who currently have a green, and the like.

 

[OpenGambit]

I read it for what it is, that a bunch of doctors show that crashs at 40 are way more survivable at 50, its not about investigating ways to reduce crashes, thats not their job.

I think that reducing accidents as well as making them more survivable are 2 distinct goals that really should be done together. Whether speed limits being reduced to 40 in the city ( and by city i really just mean like .. south of bloor between Spadina and Church. ) would help? I dunno, that isn't my area either =D

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I read it for what it is, that a bunch of doctors show that crashs at 40 are way more survivable at 50, its not about investigating ways to reduce crashes, thats not their job.

I think that reducing accidents as well as making them more survivable are 2 distinct goals that really should be done together. Whether speed limits being reduced to 40 in the city ( and by city i really just mean like .. south of bloor between Spadina and Church. ) would help? I dunno, that isn't my area either =D

But don't you think that the best way to improve survivability, overall, would be to reduce the number of such incidents in the first place? If a doctor recommends a policy change, then he has come to a conclusion about how our roads operate. He should have stuck with the idea that it's more likely for a pedestrian to survive a collision at 40 Kmh, than at 50 Kmh, at which point he would have been able to take the money and run by publishing a foregone conclusion.

By the way, the publication in question is well in line with the former Mayor's 'war on the car' philosophy. Its purpose is to outline why walking and cycling are good and healthy things to do, that should be encouraged and increased, and so those activities are prioritized. When you prioritize an activity, in a shared environment, others must needs suffer.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/hl/bgrd/backgroundfile-46520.pdf

Forum Sponsor