The Ongoing Super Mega Weather Thread v3

[TorqueDog]

Two things can be true at the same time:
1. It is sad and unfortunate what happened to that little boy; the truck that hit him passed a motorist stopped at a crosswalk, which is its own infraction.
2. It is an idiotic and unnecessary speed reduction for what is still a four-lane roadway, there is zero reason for it to be a 30 KM/H zone for that long. [shrug] The fact that it is one of the highest revenue generating zones for photo radar isn't surprising, because the reduction just isn't credible (which is mentioned in the Sprawl Calgary article, too). "The community called on city hall and police to do something to slow down traffic, but after the first two accidents, a police traffic inspector told the Herald that Elbow Drive was no more of a problem than other city roadways with similar volumes of traffic." The police traffic inspector was right, and one unlucky week is exactly that; an unlucky week.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Two things can be true at the same time:
1. It is sad and unfortunate what happened to that little boy; the truck that hit him passed a motorist stopped at a crosswalk, which is its own infraction.
2. It is an idiotic and unnecessary speed reduction for what is still a four-lane roadway, there is zero reason for it to be a 30 KM/H zone for that long. [shrug] The fact that it is one of the highest revenue generating zones for photo radar isn't surprising, because the reduction just isn't credible (which is mentioned in the Sprawl Calgary article, too). "The community called on city hall and police to do something to slow down traffic, but after the first two accidents, a police traffic inspector told the Herald that Elbow Drive was no more of a problem than other city roadways with similar volumes of traffic." The police traffic inspector was right, and one unlucky week is exactly that; an unlucky week.

Why is it idiotic and unnecessary? 30 is demonstrably safer (by a significant amount) than 50, so it’s certainly not idiotic. And whether it’s unnecessary is almost entirely based on whether you feel the argument is against having that section be 30 or that the argument is for even more sections being 30.

The intelligent argument is the latter.

Nobody likes going 30, but it’s significantly safer and a very minor detriment compared to 50.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Nm

[chemgear]

Why stop at 30? Force everybody down to 20. Or 10! How about 5!

Actually #### you mother####ers, you can't drive your car at all. Think of all the people that you'd save!

[Khel]

In other news, this 14 day forecast is depressing.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Why stop at 30? Force everybody down to 20. Or 10! How about 5!

Actually #### you mother####ers, you can't drive your car at all. Think of all the people that you'd save!

You jest, but the "make everything 30 KM/H" crowd's argument is basically that, it's not even worth the bother at this point. Clearly, dropping the speed limit to something unnecessarily low (based on design speed) for an excessive length is working to slow people down given how many tickets are being issued there on a regular basis... wait no, that's not right.

Perhaps setting the speed reduction to a reasonable length based on the size of the actual playground would improve compliance, while improving pedestrian signage and lighting would improve pedestrian safety... but you can't make money on that.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

You jest, but the "make everything 30 KM/H" crowd's argument is basically that, it's not even worth the bother at this point. Clearly, dropping the speed limit to something unnecessarily low (based on design speed) for an excessive length is working to slow people down given how many tickets are being issued there on a regular basis... wait no, that's not right.

Perhaps setting the speed reduction to a reasonable length based on the size of the actual playground would improve compliance, while improving pedestrian signage and lighting would improve pedestrian safety... but you can't make money on that.

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.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Why stop at 30? Force everybody down to 20. Or 10! How about 5!

Actually #### you mother####ers, you can't drive your car at all. Think of all the people that you'd save!

Because 30 is sufficiently safer without actually inconveniencing anyone.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Khel

In other news, this 14 day forecast is depressing.

The highs don't come back up. Why don't they come back up??

The stations aren't even giving their false hope LT forecasts like they usually do.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Because 30 is sufficiently safer without actually inconveniencing anyone.

I don't actually care but both components of this statement are useless in that you are arbitrarily applying some level of safety achieved by the reduction and arbitrarily deciding that said reduction achieves your personal metric, and then you have arbitrarily decided what constitutes inconvenience to a driver as if it's universal.

Make the whole city 30, I don't drive enough to give a ####, but this statement seems to have zero merit.

[Khel]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

The highs don't come back up. Why don't they come back up??



The stations aren't even giving their false hope LT forecasts like they usually do.

Right?!?! This is like January weather. Oh God January and February are coming.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Acey

I don't actually care but both components of this statement are useless in that you are arbitrarily applying some level of safety achieved by the reduction and arbitrarily deciding that said reduction achieves your personal metric, and then you have arbitrarily decided what constitutes inconvenience to a driver as if it's universal.

Make the whole city 30, I don't drive enough to give a ####, but this statement seems to have zero merit.

Studies show that pedestrians are highly likely to survive collisions at 30 and highly unlikely at 50. The WHO also recommends 30 in any areas where pedestrians and vehicles regularly mix. These are very valid and full of merit, sorry that you’re wrong though. In areas with heavy pedestrian presence, it’s the best choice based on health and science.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

You jest, but the "make everything 30 KM/H" crowd's argument is basically that, it's not even worth the bother at this point. Clearly, dropping the speed limit to something unnecessarily low (based on design speed) for an excessive length is working to slow people down given how many tickets are being issued there on a regular basis... wait no, that's not right.

Perhaps setting the speed reduction to a reasonable length based on the size of the actual playground would improve compliance, while improving pedestrian signage and lighting would improve pedestrian safety... but you can't make money on that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...we need to breed better pedestrians.

Take their 'right of way' away and make it so they understand...you'd better keep your head up and your senses about you.

[GGG]

The limitation to school zone is stupid though. There aren’t more collisions in school zones.
Also the recommendations are based on the results of an incident at x speed not the effectiveness of putting a sign up in reducing speed.


A general rule of 40 everywhere in residential would be a wonderful compromise along with building in traffic calming to make 40 feel like the correct speed. Then when people slam on the breaks at 40 they can get to 30 before mowing people down.

[Acey]

I was speaking more to what TorqueDog was saying, that is the actual application and practical real world outcome of dropping 50 zones to 30 with zero alterations of the design of the road.

Low compliance, i.e. a measurable level of driver inconvenience.

[undercoverbrother]

back on topic

I wish it was hotter

[Looch City]

#### that, this weather is perfect. Give me -20 with 30cm of snow everyday versus +30C. I love freezing my dick off.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Looch City

#### that, this weather is perfect. Give me -20 with 30cm of snow everyday versus +30C. I love freezing my dick off.

Temperature wise this weather is completely fine in terms of human comfort.

The jacknifed buses, gridlock, and 15 minute drives taking an hour are less than ideal.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The roads seem totally fine to me now. Yes, yesterday was a mess, the first snowfall always is and the city always seems totally unprepared for it for some reason, but we're in full winter mode now and normalcy seems to have been restored?

[TorqueDog]

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.