Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Ugh. They did this in Victoria despite evidence from the civil engineers here that it would make no difference in collisions. All it's done is increased congestion and made it more annoying to drive.
|
This is what no one considers until it's too late. Slowing traffic
increases congestion - it is simple math. The longer it takes each car to get where they are going, the more cars there are on the road at any given time (assuming the same number of trips).
More cars on the road, means more congestion, means more accidents.
And Farrell's quote that an accident with an injury costs society $250k... ok, but does reducing the speed limit actually
reduce the number of accidents? Not if congestion increases.
When I was living in Wpg (I know), my street, which was maybe 1 to 2 kms long, had 3 stop signs on it, and 3 schools. They decided - to save the children - they would put more stop signs on it, because this would slow down traffic. I told them this was a dumb idea, and was ostracized for saying so. They said it would slow down traffic, which would cause people to use a different road. I said: people aren't using this road because it is a tourist attraction, they are using it because they
have to.
Well, they were right that it slowed down traffic. So much so, that there were lineups from one stop sign, right through the next one. As a result, the street was bumper to bumper all day. And that made things substantially
more dangerous for the schools. It lasted 2 weeks and they took down the stop signs (but I remained ostracized).
The law of unintended consequences. People like Farrell are the Patron Saints of it.