What the science says about traffic and speed.

[Slava]

^I came in here to post that exact same sentiment. I got a motorcycle this summer, and while I'm nowhere near one of "those guys" who is ripping around weaving in and out of traffic, the speed limits as compared to the actual flow of traffic are too low. Its to the point on some of these roads where its just plain not safe to be doing the speed limit on a motorcycle because people are flying past you and you are basically an obstruction.

Macleod trail between 162ave and Anderson for example (aside from the stupid intersection at Lake Fraser Gate...but I digress) is clearly 100km minimum when things are fine. Stoney Trail is a huge, wide open divided highway and if you are driving 100km on there you are woefully under-prepared. The speed limit should obviously be 110km/hr. Crowchild trail north of McMahon stadium is clearly safe at 100km/hr because basically no one drives it any slower. The list goes on and on.

I understand that the roads in the middle of the summer are different than say mid-January. The speed limits can easily reflect this.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Acey

I'm one of the biggest advocates for higher speed limits that you'll find anywhere. But my two big issues are that people aren't good enough drivers and vehicle equipment needs to be enforced far more than it is currently. Before we start cranking up speed limits, we would need to do the following, in my opinion:

• Variable speed limits for main thoroughfares like Deerfoot, Stoney, Glenmore et al., because it's winter for six months of the year in Alberta. Stoney Tr SE with no speed limit when it's covered in black ice... not good.
• Make it far more difficult to acquire a driver's license. Actually test practical knowledge during road tests, instead of the current parameters of knowing the difference between the gas and the brake and to not hit anybody. Mandate a written exam as well that include questions about how cold weather affects vehicle performance.
• Mandate winter tires from roughly Nov 15 to April 15
• Huge education campaign on "slower traffic keep right" and "keep right except to pass," and subsequent enforcement of those rules punishable by demerits
• Much stricter enforcement of inoperative turn signals, brake lights, et al., and their usage on major thoroughfares

Until people start sucking a little bit less and actually take care of their vehicles, I'm quite content with the majority of our speed limits.

In Iceland every car on the road has to be inspected yearly and receive a sticker that allows you to drive in Iceland, I find that has made a big dent in keeping cars and trucks that have no business being on the road from clogging up the roads.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Thor

In Iceland every car on the road has to be inspected yearly and receive a sticker that allows you to drive in Iceland, I find that has made a big dent in keeping cars and trucks that have no business being on the road from clogging up the roads.

Let me ask you this- in all the accidents you have witnessed and/or been involved in.... how many were caused by mechanical failure as opposed to driver error?

It's the drivers who should be tested regularly.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Let me ask you this- in all the accidents you have witnessed and/or been involved in.... how many were caused by mechanical failure as opposed to driver error?

It's the drivers who should be tested regularly.

Very true, vast majority is driver error for sure. I would say the main logic behind the yearly checks here in Iceland is our roads, road conditions are very unforgiving and per capita our rates of vehicular death is way too high, getting better the last decade though.

[ken0042]

I'm not saying we shouldn't check out vehicles. I've just seen vehicles fail because they need some front end work- with there being too much play in the steering. Meanwhile the driver is somebody who failed the road test 6 times in a row, and then just barely passed on the 7th attempt.

[troutman]

https://canadasafetycouncil.org/traf...traffic-deaths

As speed increases over 100 km/h, the fatality rate of vehicle occupants goes up exponentially. For example, the chances of being killed in a vehicle traveling at 120 km/h are four times higher than at 100 km/h. When a car crashes near 200 km/h the chances of survival are minimal.

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

http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Speed.pdf

Do Higher Speed Limits Cause Accidents, What About All The Studies From The US?
http://www.sense.bc.ca/disc/disc-09.htm

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

[Fire]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Demerits for red light cam/speed on green please.

Green text?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by bc-chris

i know i might be in the minority, but i'd add to your list the retesting for license renewal at certain intervals (maybe once every 10 years until you're 60, then every 5 years?)

i do find it interesting that you only need to 'pass the test' once in your life. my mom was a nurse and to keep her nursing license (is that what it's called?) she had to take classes and exams to stay qualified with new techniques and technologies

Usually I like to respond by telling you how much you suck.


Sadly, this time I cannot. I honestly wonder how many people could pass their test again if required (myself included).


Oh also:

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Thor

In Iceland every car on the road has to be inspected yearly and receive a sticker that allows you to drive in Iceland, I find that has made a big dent in keeping cars and trucks that have no business being on the road from clogging up the roads.

If I'm not mistaken, Singapore does something similar. However, Singapore (used to/still does?) put stickers mandating a maximum speed limit allowed for your car. (ie: Car old, POS and rickety, max speed 70 kmph allowable (lowest?). Not POS, no max limit sticker on car). That's doable in a small place like Singapore, probably wouldn't fly here.

If I recall correctly, for variable speed lanes in Asia, Rig/delivery trucks for instance, aren't allowed in the fast lane or middle lane and restricted to the slow lane.

If someone can't pass a driving test, I fear for us all. It's one thing to fail due to bad habits, it's another to be unable to pass again. Are we not signaling while driving though a stop sign then merging across 3 lanes on Deerfoot going 140 without shoulder checking?

In my opinion, if something like this was rolled out, retesting should have a lenience factor for bad habits and should give a +10 to +15 years reduced rate (the rate we pay now). Taking a valid certified driving course should give +5 years reduced rate. You cannot lose your license if you don't retest or take a driving course, but your relicensing cost and maybe insurance would be higher (similar idea to the insurance going down for the drivers ed course). Retesting also doesn't need to retest all aspects of driving (ie: Parking). Not a huge fan of the idea, but some of the level of bad drivers showing up scares me.

Honestly speaking, it would be nice to have cheap regular weekend group proactive/defensive/winter driving classes you can just drop in that people can go and take every few years as refreshers in parking lots around the city. No light posts speed bumps or curbs, use your own car if you want, winter conditions and pylons. Hell, get car/tire manufacturers to sponsor it and compare cars with and without winters.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by troutman

https://canadasafetycouncil.org/traf...traffic-deaths

As speed increases over 100 km/h, the fatality rate of vehicle occupants goes up exponentially. For example, the chances of being killed in a vehicle traveling at 120 km/h are four times higher than at 100 km/h. When a car crashes near 200 km/h the chances of survival are minimal.

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

http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Speed.pdf

Do Higher Speed Limits Cause Accidents, What About All The Studies From The US?
http://www.sense.bc.ca/disc/disc-09.htm

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

So what side do you fall on?

I didn't read all 5 cover to cover, but out of 5 studies, 3 were against faster roads, 2 were for faster roads.

To me the later two supporting faster roads used more complete science. Using overall incident & injury rates when comparing the same roads at different speed limits.

While the other ones basically said if something hits you harder it is more likely to kill you, and most people who get in accidents were speeding so speeding must of caused the accidents.