City votes to change school, playground zone hours

[Chill Cosby]

Is the reason for disliking this anything more than " I like to drive fast" or "I don't get the point"?

Low limits within city limits have been found to be very beneficial, and the only negative associated with a limit as low as 30 has been a minor increase in individual travel time.

If it takes you an extra 30 seconds to get where you're going because you hit 3 playground zones at 8PM, isn't that worth the benefits of higher safety, more conscious drivers, better mileage (though at a block or two that benefit is more applicable to other residential areas), and the possible improvements to traffic flow?

I can see why people don't like it, I don't agree, but personally, I'd rather they all just be "SLOW" zones and have them run 24/7 to avoid some of the semantics.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

The sidewalk on the other side of the fence is the same 1 block and 5 blocks away from the playground. What's stopping kids from walking on the roads elsewhere or darting into traffic? I can't say I've seen a difference in behavior on a sidewalk because it's adjacent to a playground.

Do I need to explain probability?

I'll be honest I am seriously entertained by the number of people complaining they might have to slow down a few times on their drive for a couple extra hours a day. But it also doesn't surprise me. The courtesy seen among drivers in Calgary has plummeted in the last 20 years. It's really quite frightening. And while I don't have a dog in this fight given I don't live in Calgary (or anywhere near but I have lived or driven in the city every one of those 20+ years) it seems like it is much ado about nothing. This will not affect your life one bit.

But you know what will? A kid jumping a fence right in front of your car and you not being able to stop in time because you were going 60 instead of 30.

[darklord700]

I support a 24 hour playground and school zone, it's much safer that way.

[normtwofinger]

Originally Posted by ernie

I don't understand how that is logical. It's not like the sun one day says "well enough with being in the sky for 16 hours, I'll only be up there for 8 hours today"

Nor is it logical to assume that kids all of a sudden stop playing at 5 pm just because it's winter (I sure as hell didn't...winters were just as late given road hockey on tennis courts or whatever).

So why is it logical to say "on November 1 to March 30 the time is this and from April 1 to Oct 30 it's this"? Why not November 15th? What constitutes "winter"?

The logical thing is to have one time all year round so there is no confusion whatsoever.

If we can remember to set our clocks back and forward for daylight savings, we can remember a change in playground zone times. What would be even less confusing is to keep it 1 hour after sunset.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Low limits within city limits have been found to be very beneficial, and the only negative associated with a limit as low as 30 has been a minor increase in individual travel time.

Considering that research has pointed to exactly the opposite of what you're saying, I'd love to see where you read that it was "very beneficial". Lowering speed limits doesn't mean the majority of drivers will automatically slow down, just as increasing the speed limit doesn't mean the majority will automatically speed up to "make up for it". Setting an arbitrary and unrealistic speed just means people will disregard it, which makes the road unsafe, not better.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by darklord700

I support a 24 hour playground and school zone, it's much safer that way.

How unsafe is it currently?

I cant remember the last time I heard of anyone being hit in a school or playground zone let alone incidents egregious enough to warrant a change like this.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Considering that research has pointed to exactly the opposite of what you're saying,

[citation needed]

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by normtwofinger

If we can remember to set our clocks back and forward for daylight savings, we can remember a change in playground zone times. What would be even less confusing is to keep it 1 hour after sunset.

Sunset here in the winter is early, after sunset kids are still out playing

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

[citation needed]

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications...iew_Report.pdf - Page 13

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/studies

http://www.simcoe.ca/dpt/trs/about/s...m#.U8_nN_ldW4I

I'm not trying to argue that lower speed limits don't make sense from a safety perspective, as lower speeds lowers the chance for serious injury in a collision. I'm arguing that lowering them in places where it doesn't make sense won't affect driver behavior.

[Antithesis]

I don't understand why this is such a big deal.

Even assuming a lengthy 1km school zone, travelling at 50km/h gets you through the zone in 1 minute, 12 seconds. Travelling 30km/h gets you through it in 2 minutes. That's a difference of 48 seconds. Is it that big of a deal?

I fully admit I'm just pulling school zone length numbers out of the air here, but I can't imagine the average school/playground zone is that long ... if even half that long.

Just seems like such a minor issue to be angry about.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Is the reason for disliking this anything more than " I like to drive fast" or "I don't get the point"?

Low limits within city limits have been found to be very beneficial, and the only negative associated with a limit as low as 30 has been a minor increase in individual travel time.

If it takes you an extra 30 seconds to get where you're going because you hit 3 playground zones at 8PM, isn't that worth the benefits of higher safety, more conscious drivers, better mileage (though at a block or two that benefit is more applicable to other residential areas), and the possible improvements to traffic flow?

I can see why people don't like it, I don't agree, but personally, I'd rather they all just be "SLOW" zones and have them run 24/7 to avoid some of the semantics.

Where are these documented benefits? I've always heard of the benefits of road restrictions improving safety, but I've never seen a study.

I have seen two studies, one Germany used to justify reducing traffic controls to improve safety, and one on Vehicle mortality rate jump after Montana re-instated speed limits, that both say reducing restrictions is safer.

Seems to me slower is safer is hear-say.

To be clear I'm not against people going ~30 - 50 Km on small roads with houses on them. I'm Advocating reasonable is safer, and in general there is no consistent and reason logic behind our speed limits or playground zones.
If they don't reasonably allow people to use roads to efficiently get around nobody will have any respect for the rules.

And I didn't really understand what you were saying in the bold part, but as I said before, short and rapid changes in speed are actually hard on vehicles and worse on mileage.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by fotze

I think it's disgusting that it is 30 kph. If we really cared about children it should be 5 kph. 30 kph is 6 times more dangerous to children than 5 kph.

This is not correct. 30km/h is not some arbitrary number that was chosen but rather it actually reflects data collected and analyzed. From what I could find the risk of severe injury or fatality to a pedestrian at an impact speed of 30km/h is about 10% and it does not really change below 30km/h. At 50km/h the risk of severe injury or fatality becomes 75%.

In terms of safety, from an injury from impact perspective, there is little to no benefit in reducing the speed below 30km/h. There might be a benefit in terms of crash/impact avoidance though.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by Locke

How unsafe is it currently?

I cant remember the last time I heard of anyone being hit in a school or playground zone let alone incidents egregious enough to warrant a change like this.

That has been my question. You'd think that if we are making a change like this that there should be some data to back it up. I want proof that this is an actual problem rather than a theoretical one. Most jurisdictions don't even have playground zones and their school zones are often around 40km/h.

I'd rather us increase photo radar to get people to slow down with the existing rules.

[normtwofinger]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Sunset here in the winter is early, after sunset kids are still out playing

I doubt kids are playing for 4 hours after sunset in the winter.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Considering that research has pointed to exactly the opposite of what you're saying, I'd love to see where you read that it was "very beneficial".

Originally Posted by #-3

Where are these documented benefits?

Here are a few, a mix of direct studies and fact sheets with citations:

http://www.ctrf.ca/conferences/2009V...harjee&Tay.pdf
http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/resear...s/muarc276.pdf
http://www.transportenvironment.org/.../11-01-T30.pdf

Again, I get why people don't like it. But any and all benefits pretty obviously outweigh the fact that your journey takes a little bit longer.

We could easily negate the problem of people speeding up after a playground zone by having it progress from 30, to 40 for a block or two, to 50. This too would be beneficial for traffic flow and safety I'm sure.

[Chill Cosby]

And to add: I've seen it mentioned that "BC got it right" and "Restrictions can be hazardous." As far as I know both of those are applicable to highway and major road driving.

I don't think urban areas where a maximum of 50 is never surpassed anyways is an applicable comparison.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by normtwofinger

I doubt kids are playing for 4 hours after sunset in the winter.

Doubt all you want, but there are 2 parents in this thread who's kids are out after dark.

As I have posted below my kids are often out (weather permitting) till 8,8:30 or 9:00.

It is winter for 8 god damn month out of the year, you can't expect them to stay inside.


To be clear after dinner they get their gear on and are outside.

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Every night, no. But yes my 10yr old and 8yr old are out with the other kids. They play at the park, of build forts in the field behind the park (soccer fields). Hell my daughter has bee out on the ice rink the town puts on the fields till 9 before.

Most parks have ambient light from the street.

Not all parents are helicopter parents.

Originally Posted by ernie

Yes



Yes



Games? Maybe they are skating on the rink that is set up in the park during the winter? Maybe they are sitting on playground equipment doing nothing but talking? Who knows but there are kids up and outside at those times in the winter and the summer.

But honestly normalizing the two things makes complete sense (especially with the numerous after school activities that run late nowadays). Argue about 9 being too late but it's a heck of a lot better than having to know when the sun went down to know if you can go faster or not. One time frame, all year makes the most sense.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by normtwofinger

If we can remember to set our clocks back and forward for daylight savings, we can remember a change in playground zone times. What would be even less confusing is to keep it 1 hour after sunset.

What time is the sun going to set today?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

This is not correct. 30km/h is not some arbitrary number that was chosen but rather it actually reflects data collected and analyzed. From what I could find the risk of severe injury or fatality to a pedestrian at an impact speed of 30km/h is about 10% and it does not really change below 30km/h. At 50km/h the risk of severe injury or fatality becomes 75%.

In terms of safety, from an injury from impact perspective, there is little to no benefit in reducing the speed below 30km/h. There might be a benefit in terms of crash/impact avoidance though.

It would also be prudent to mention stopping distance.



12m stopping distance (in ideal road conditions) is a huge difference from 23m stopping distance.

[burn_this_city]

Some of those stopping distances, I mean the actually braking portion must be a 70s Chrysler Cordoba on bald bias ply tires. 180 feet from 60mph is 75 feet more than my car, which is sporty but no super car.