Calgary Speed limits to be standard 30km/hr?

[Muta]

30 km/h? The wussification of society continues.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The largest city in North America, New York City reduced its default speed limit to 25mph (40kph). Not sure what this would have to do with the size of the place.

So if a large American city does something stupid we should too? Cool.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Weitz

So if a large American city does something stupid we should too? Cool.

No, I was responding to the assertion that somehow lower speed limits are something for villages to do, not big cities. The point was irrelevant.

[Bunk]

Guys, it’ll end up being 40 and it’ll affect about 2% of your driving time. This is not something to lose your mind about.

[Joborule]

What's the point of even having cars? You're at risk anytime you're behind the wheel. If you really want to protect pedestrians, just ban all cars.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Joborule

What's the point of even having cars? You're at risk anytime you're behind the wheel. If you really want to protect pedestrians, just ban all cars.

What kind of argument is that? Any human activity is about managing risk to a reasonable extent, not eliminating all risk.

Good lord.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Guys, it’ll end up being 40 and it’ll affect about 2% of your driving time. This is not something to lose your mind about.

Even council doesn’t know the impact of what they just passed, unless you have access to a map showing the impact that they don’t, neither do you.

They’ve decided to give city admin free reign to implement on residential roads and possibly collectors. If council is able to simply ignore facts when making decisions, what makes you think that admin will look at facts?

Council can’t even claim that this is about reducing pedestrian deaths.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Bunk

No, I was responding to the assertion that somehow lower speed limits are something for villages to do, not big cities. The point was irrelevant.

New York City has some of the most draconian traffic enforcement on earth it is nearly impossible to drive and park without getting ticketed. You want to emulate that?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Even council doesn’t know the impact of what they just passed, unless you have access to a map showing the impact that they don’t, neither do you.

They’ve decided to give city admin free reign to implement on residential roads and possibly collectors. If council is able to simply ignore facts when making decisions, what makes you think that admin will look at facts?

No, they didn’t. They asked Administration to make their best recommendation for their consideration.. That includes what the limit should be and where, and how it might be implemented. I’m simply speculating on what I think will end up getting passed, based on the position of the various Councillors.

[Wormius]

A pilot project in areas of concern would be a good start as opposed to enacting this city-wide.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by zamler

New York City has some of the most draconian traffic enforcement on earth it is nearly impossible to drive and park without getting ticketed. You want to emulate that?

I never said we should emulate that. Again, I was rebutting the assertion that lower speed limits are something that villages do, by pointing out that even the biggest cities on earth do this kind of thing (usually as part of Vision Zero programs).

[Manhattanboy]

Social engineers doing their thing.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Guys, it’ll end up being 40 and it’ll affect about 2% of your driving time. This is not something to lose your mind about.

That's what was said about playground zones. But now we're talking about 30 or 40 km/h everywhere. This will no doubt lead into discussion about highways and main arteries as there are many accidents every day (never mind that speed may not be important).

Regardless, it's not necessarily about what we're losing (although to some it is), it's about what we're not gaining.

We should be a progressive city based on science, or at the very least, logic. Yet here we are bubble wrapping everything even though the bubble wrap probably won't do anything. And now we're walking around wearing uncomfortable bubble wrap.

And hell, you want to get nitpicky about public safety?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8e33d5f0a845

We find that police departments in cities that collect a greater share of their revenue from fees solve violent and property crimes at significantly lower rates.

So now there's a chance that there are more deaths/injuries from violent offenders that weren't caught because the police force is busy being mobilized for people still driving 50 km/h. The funny thing is, as low as a risk as that may be it's actually substantiated.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

That's what was said about playground zones. But now we're talking about 30 or 40 km/h everywhere. This will no doubt lead into discussion about highways and main arteries as there are many accidents every day (never mind that speed may not be important).

Regardless, it's not necessarily about what we're losing (although to some it is), it's about what we're not gaining.

We should be a progressive city based on science, or at the very least, logic. Yet here we are bubble wrapping everything even though the bubble wrap probably won't do anything. And now we're walking around wearing uncomfortable bubble wrap.

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 harmonizing the playground zones/school zones has 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 of cars yielding to pedestrians at crosswalks.

[TheSutterDynasty]

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.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

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.

I also want to see the apparent science behind this proposal.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

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.

I wasn't able to catch all his presentation, or all the Q & A, so I couldn't say for certain what particular studies he might cite, but he is heavy on evidence based assertions. He does talk about the cost effectiveness of traffic calming alone versus speed limits and the relative impact of each alone or in combination.

I mean, the issue has been talked about since the Pedestrian Strategy as well as in the Traffic Safety Plan for years, but the average person doesn't pay that close attention. There is also another major step in consultation and Administration work before anything can be implemented, so that's another layer of due diligence. A notice of motion is typically to initiate the start of a process, is not a final Council decision.

Personally, I think the best solution overall is to invest much more money in traffic calming, including road narrowing so it's more self enforcing, rather than relying solely on limits and police enforcement. But, it seems hard to motivate major investment in that kind of thing.

[combustiblefuel]

Nm ......

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by zamler

I also want to see the apparent science behind this proposal.

The problem is when the #######s behind the wheels dont obey the poated speed there is shown no difference in studies. For the population that have a greater respect for the posted speed limits studies show a greater decline in fatal/ serious accidents when the speed is followed.



http://www.who.int/news-room/comment...-to-save-lives

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sourc...=1537865782090

[Erick Estrada]

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 harmonizing the playground zones/school zones has 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 of cars yielding to pedestrians at crosswalks.

Again what is this "frequency" of "severe" crashes? Are there statistics proving that this is on the rise? Almost all new cars have collision detection now and it's getting to the point you almost have to go out of your way to hit any object in view of the front camera of a car. I want to know what's driving this as it seems personal like the fluoride thing as this doesn't jive with the fact that automobiles are becoming closer to autonomous all the time which should theoretically reduce crashes all on it's own.