Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
There is a lot of evidence that lower speed limits in residential areas do have an impact on average speed (Tony Churchill of the Traffic Safety Group outlined some of that evidence at Council today). He also pointed out the measurable impact, for instance, on average speed the change to playground zones have had as well.
The biggest impact in residential areas is reducing both the frequency and the severity of crashes, when average speed drops. The best impacts are also had when combining with traffic calming measures that naturally slow people down to a lower speed - matching the design speed with the posted speed. That's a lot of what the motion talks about.
When you have the chance, watch the council archive of today's meeting - Churchill does a great job of explaining the science of all this. He's pretty interesting - he invented those yellow concrete things that are a cheap and easy way to create curb bulb outs - which have had a measurable impact in both reducing speed on corners, but also compliance at yielding to pedestrians at crosswalks.
|
Well sure, but the question is does lowering speed reduce risk(and even then that Boston study showed it barely affects speed, let alone harm reduction). Then the question becomes 'is it significant enough to overcome the negatives?'.
I'll try and watch the meeting. Does he actually reference studies? Because again, theory is great but a pretty low level of proving something.
What about pedestrian safety? Traffic calming measures alone?
You and council would convince a lot more people if due dillegence was actually done. It really doesn't seem that way.