Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Well, no, the “make everything 30” crowd doesn’t really exist, and the “make more streets 30” crowd isn’t asking people not to drive or drive at 5km, so that’s not what the argument “basically” is.
But you’re free to make an argument as to why that section is “unnecessarily” low or unreasonable, with actual data that doesn’t just accidentally argue other sections should also be reduced.
But, you can’t.
[...]
Because 30 is sufficiently safer without actually inconveniencing anyone.
|
You haven't provided any evidence as to why the reduction is reasonable other than "30 is safer than 50". You can't just say it isn't an inconvenience as if you're the arbiter of what is or is not an inconvenience.
Demanding drivers go a much slower speed in a zone that is designed for a higher speed
is an inconvenience and annoyance and will result in less compliance --
we know this to be true and so does the City, hence why we see the photo radar cash cow there more often than it isn't. When people recognize that there is precious little reason to adjust their behaviour because the risks simply aren't there (the speed limit is not credible),
they don't. It's the same reason why I said the Council's plan to apply speed limits of 30 KM/H unless otherwise posted is idiotic; our roads are designed for higher speeds, you're only creating a differential of speed between people who will obey laws even when they're unreasonable and those who apply some wiggle room. The City's own evidence at the time showed that the areas with the majority of problems with pedestrian - vehicle interactions were also sections that would not qualify for a speed reduction. In areas where the conditions don't support driving 50 KM/H, the reasonable person won't go 50, they'll only drive as fast as they feel safe traveling at. Some idiot thrashing the crap out of his former rental car V6 Dodge Charger is an outlier that isn't adhering to reasonable limits generally, they're not deterred whether a sign says 30 or 50.
In the case of Elbow Drive, the design is there to justify traveling 50 KM/H: there are good sight lines, the lanes are appropriately wide to support such a speed, the pedestrian crossings are easily visible and well-marked with a couple even having well-pronounced corridors, sidewalks are set far back from the road, the (very small) playground is set far back from the road and fenced in. An unnecessarily long playground zone is inappropriate as it takes what is intended to be a safety measure to protect small children in playground areas and politicizes it; by abusing it to control a much longer stretch of roadway than what a playground zone is intended to cover, it dilutes the importance of the area in the playground zone where the actual playground exists. The credibility of the entire playground zone is diluted.
Even if you let the road stay at its currently signed 40 KM/H and made the playground zone an appropriate size for the playground that
is present, you'd get more compliance and a safer roadway because the fastest and slowest vehicles on the roadway would be traveling closer to the same speed. Differential of speed between cars sharing a roadway is where the problems start, so keeping that variance in speed between vehicles low is ideal.