Calgary Speed limits to be standard 30km/hr?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The survivability rate at 30 is 90 per cent. At 50, it's 10 per cent. And I expect you're into the law of diminishing returns when you go lower than 30. So 30 seems to be the sweet spot.

And if you combine all speeds between the years 2005 and 2014 its 97%.

Imagine that!

[accord1999]

I'm not sure where the data saying that impact at 50 kph are almost always fatal are coming from. Even WHO, who uses an 1991 study (which has received criticism) only mentions about a 55% fatality rate at 50 kph.



http://www.who.int/violence_injury_p...t/speed_en.pdf

And there are newer studies and reviews that suggest 50 kph is survivable.




A couple of detailed articles about the subject.

https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/pedestri...peed_rosen.pdf

https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relation...s_richards.pdf

[MoneyGuy]

I tested 30 kph yesterday. It was dreadfully slow.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I tested 30 kph yesterday. It was dreadfully slow.

Did the pedestrian survive?

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Matata

As long as it doesn't apply to the main arteries I like the idea, no one spends much time on residential roads and making them slower makes residential areas quieter and safer. It's not solving a big problem, but making this change probably means a few kids don't get brained over the coming years.

Main arteries are where the bulk of pedestrian collisions happen though, and they're not even affected by this

Originally Posted by Matata

Changing the road design of an existing residential road causes massive disruption and costs millions of dollars. "Poor drivers" is a very obtuse problem that difficult to tackle in a meaningful way. Slapping up some new signs is relatively cheap and simple.

So change for the sake of change is the correct answer, rather than tackle the actual problem? Do this because it's cheap (ish) not because it will actually help anything?

This is just a feel good activity so some councilors can pat themselves on the back without accomplishing much.

[Weitz]

8% of the pedestrian collisions happen on the roads affected by this according to the news tonight.

Brilliant

[btimbit]

Just lower the speed limit on select streets, if it can be proven with facts and statistics that speed is actually an issue with pedestrian safety on said roads.

Move photo enforcement from ticketing hot spots, focus on construction zones and problem areas.

Increase distracted driver enforcement.

Edit; Here's a post I read on beyond. He singles out Hawkwood because it was used as an example in a tweet from Druh Farrell.

Originally Posted by rage2

Looking at Hawkwood data, there has been 1 fatal, 1 major, 3 minor pedestrian injuries in Hawkwood in the last 20 years. Here is the fatal accident:

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...ision-has-died

So the one fatality was a car backing out of their driveway hitting a woman. Lower speed limit sure would have helped her!

[Swarly]

here's what we should do: all roads remain at a 50km/h speed limit. Any road that has a fatality or major incident gets reduced by 10km/h immediately. If, after 1 year, there are no fatalities or major incidents on a particular road then its limit gets raised by 10km/h. In a decade we'll be allowed to drive 100 on 95% of residential streets but only 10 on deerfoot and stoney (10 being the bottom limit) thus traffic congestion on the main arteries will also be solved as everyone races thru secondary and tertiary streets trying to avoid the slow main roads. just solved 2 problems at once without even trying

[bob-loblaw]

Let's find out from insurance companies. If my rates go down because it's much safer then I'd be more supportive of it.

I'd rather see the city or insurance industry make people park their car in their garage to reduce the risk of property crime and stolen vehicles. It seems like most people have worthless junk piled in their garages while a $30,000 car sits outside. I would think that would reduce prowling.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by bob-loblaw

Let's find out from insurance companies. If my rates go down because it's much safer then I'd be more supportive of it.

I'd rather see the city or insurance industry make people park their car in their garage to reduce the risk of property crime and stolen vehicles. It seems like most people have worthless junk piled in their garages while a $30,000 car sits outside. I would think that would reduce prowling.

The concept of the garage is lost on a lot of people. Walking my dog around the neighbourhood in cold winter days you see people parking their cars on the sidewalk and driveway plugged in because their garage has been converted to a storage room.

[Flames0910]

I assume all the people saying this won’t make a difference because of the low number of pedestrian collisions on residential streets would like to see this expanded to collector and arterial roads then?

Or should we just do nothing and accept that pedestrians will be hit, injured, and sometimes die as a fact of urban life?

https://www.economist.com/the-econom...ew-road-deaths

[Bootsy]

If they want to lower the limit to 30 Km/hr on certain streets with statistics backing it up fair enough, a blanket 30 km/hr on all residential streets is not about safety it's an obvious cash grab scheme, like all the photo radar tickets handed out in construction zones after working hours when there are no workers around.

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by Bootsy

If they want to lower the limit to 30 Km/hr on certain streets with statistics backing it up fair enough, a blanket 30 km/hr on all residential streets is not about safety it's an obvious cash grab scheme, like all the photo radar tickets handed out in construction zones after working hours when there are no workers around.

This argument is so ####ing cynical I don’t even know how to respond. Are people really so jaded as to think this is a cash grab? I’m sure there are much easier ways for the city to generate income.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by accord1999

I'm not sure where the data saying that impact at 50 kph are almost always fatal are coming from. Even WHO, who uses an 1991 study (which has received criticism) only mentions about a 55% fatality rate at 50 kph.



http://www.who.int/violence_injury_p...t/speed_en.pdf

And there are newer studies and reviews that suggest 50 kph is survivable.




A couple of detailed articles about the subject.

https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/pedestri...peed_rosen.pdf

https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relation...s_richards.pdf

I liked this allot after seeing allot of unsourced numbers thrown around that just didn't pass the smell test for me.

90% fatality rate, is a pretty substantial number for me. I also would guess the declining fatality rate as we move from 1978 to 2005 has allot to do with abs brakes and collapsing bumpers. meaning the cherry picked numbers advocates are using are even more meaningless now.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Locke

I have a bus-stop about 2 houses down from mine that drops kids off after school and the crossing is marked exclusively by a sloped sidewalk.

That's an unmarked crosswalk, and with competent drivers, it should be enough.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

I assume all the people saying this won’t make a difference because of the low number of pedestrian collisions on residential streets would like to see this expanded to collector and arterial roads then?

Or should we just do nothing and accept that pedestrians will be hit, injured, and sometimes die as a fact of urban life?

https://www.economist.com/the-econom...ew-road-deaths

Do it only on roads that are proven to be an issue, not city wide, and only if it continues to be an issue after improving crosswalk visibility and getting stricter with distracted driving.

Don't just lazily apply it across the entire city

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Do it only on roads that are proven to be an issue, not city wide, and only if it continues to be an issue after improving crosswalk visibility and getting stricter with distracted driving.

Don't just lazily apply it across the entire city

Sorry, I didn’t realize that the city consisted entirely of residential streets.

It’s obvious that residential-only was a compromise in order to limit the impacts and get something that could be approved by council. Although that has been undermined by headlines like the one in this thread. That doesn’t mean it’s not a good starting point (IMHO).

[DoubleK]

I 1000% support the lowering of the speed limit. Nobody should be driving 50kph through a residential area. The consequences of a collision are way too high. If you are in a hurry to get somewhere, leave earlier.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I 1000% support the lowering of the speed limit. Nobody should be driving 50kph through a residential area. The consequences of a collision are way too high. If you are in a hurry to get somewhere, leave earlier.

I must have missed the rash of pedestrian deaths plaguing the city. Even the few we had last year, speed between 30 and 50 was not the issue.

Good luck on Elbow Dr @ 30kmph the whole way.

[Resolute 14]

Elbow isn't a residential street, so isn't part of the original proposal.