You're misreading the sentiment in that post. It was more related to the global issue of what autonomous vehicles can eventually do to help solve a societal public safety problem (which is what I had talked about in the previous post).
Don't you think it would be far better (and cheaper) to educate the people behind the wheel? As for self driving cars I'm curious why you think they will completely solve auto accidents, how? The only way it might be possible is if there are no human drivers at all is that what you'd like to see?
The Following User Says Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
Just followed a Calgary Transit bus who seemed to believe the speed had already been reduced. Very annoying.
This is one thing I don't get about the suggestion that reducing the speed limit will significantly alter bus schedules. In my experience, the amount of time a bus is able to travel at 50 km/h on main arteries (let alone inside residential neighbourhoods) doesn't seem to be that much to begin with.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
Don't you think it would be far better (and cheaper) to educate the people behind the wheel? As for self driving cars I'm curious why you think they will completely solve auto accidents, how? The only way it might be possible is if there are no human drivers at all is that what you'd like to see?
Nothing is 100%, obviously, but could the technology reduce collisions 90%? I think, probably. That would be with almost universal adoption. I could see a day (how long into the future, I don’t know), where human operation could all but be deemed completely illegal - except as a recreational endeavour on tracks and maybe in the the most remote locations.
The upside would be massive improvement in public safety, huge reduction in cost to emergency services and healthcare. The downside would be a huge impact on employment related to driving, which is a lot.
I could see a day (how long into the future, I don’t know), where human operation could all but be deemed completely illegal - except as a recreational endeavour on tracks and maybe in the the most remote locations.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ironhorse For This Useful Post:
I've been thinking about this proposal while driving around the city recently.
This is totally for show. Nobody drives 50 km/h, even on more main streets. People go 40 even when conditions and roads are good for 50 (or in a lot of cases, 60). And the research backs up the claim that people are going to go what they're going to go, especially those speeding.
There are a lot of roads I feel comfortable going above 50 in neighborhoods if there are decently streets, good visibility/conditions, and if I cover the brake near cross walks and intersections. And some of those will be reduced.
An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TheSutterDynasty For This Useful Post:
Speaking as a developer - I'd love to see further changes in the residential (and especially collector) road standards for new neighbourhoods. Narrower carriageway is cheaper to build. Or at least I can put the spending into space that actually creates value for the community such as street trees instead of excessively wide pavement that encourages people to speed through the neighbourhood. There's a good reason why homes on collectors are less valuable than those on quieter and lower speed streets.
Wait a minute, would the changes give you more work? Why are you so staunchly for this change when no evidence has been brought up supporting it?
An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.
Wait a minute, would the changes give you more work? Why are you so staunchly for this change when no evidence has been brought up supporting it?
Not sure I follow...
But anyway, we talked earlier about how the City did present evidence that when speed limits drop, there is a reduction of average speed regardless of design. When combined with design changes so that “design speed” matches posted speed there are further drops in speed and improved safety outcome. This is the very basis of the vision zero philosophy, that has proven out pretty dramatic decreases in collisions where it’s been implemented. The motion includes direction that if posted speed is reduced, this will inform changes in the requirements for his streets are built in new communities. I was pointing out that I think this would be a positive change from the selfish point of view that it would be cheaper to build and provide better qualities and amenities that residents value. That of course is quite aside from the implementation on existing streets.
Tough to speed as it is in any community when there are so many playground and school zones in every neighbourhood. Not really an issue and already doing it.
But anyway, we talked earlier about how the City did present evidence that when speed limits drop, there is a reduction of average speed regardless of design. When combined with design changes so that “design speed” matches posted speed there are further drops in speed and improved safety outcome. This is the very basis of the vision zero philosophy, that has proven out pretty dramatic decreases in collisions where it’s been implemented. The motion includes direction that if posted speed is reduced, this will inform changes in the requirements for his streets are built in new communities. I was pointing out that I think this would be a positive change from the selfish point of view that it would be cheaper to build and provide better qualities and amenities that residents value. That of course is quite aside from the implementation on existing streets.
I mean in your role as a developer does this proposal create more work for you to implement or change infrastructure? I'm just curious as to why you're vehemently defending the legislation.
I still haven't had a chance to find the speech, but I can't help but think the CP science crowd would have found any evidence that exists by this point. Everything you mention from improved safety outcomes to decreases in collisions has basically been disproven in this thread.
Why does this need to be implemented to inform new road design? Seems to me it would be much cheaper to skip the part without any statistical or evidence backing and implement the cheap potential solution alone.
The onus of proof is on council. I haven't seen or heard any evidence that:
1. There is a large issue of pedestrian deaths and injuries in Calgary neighborhoods that are pimarily as a result of speed >40km per hour or
2. Reducing posted speed limits reduces actual average speed by a significant amount resulting in
3. Less pedestrian deaths and injuries in urban neighborhoods due to said reduced posted speed limits.
For this to be a reasonable proposal these all have to be met.
An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.
I mean in your role as a developer does this proposal create more work for you to implement or change infrastructure? I'm just curious as to why you're vehemently defending the legislation.
I still haven't had a chance to find the speech, but I can't help but think the CP science crowd would have found any evidence that exists by this point. Everything you mention from improved safety outcomes to decreases in collisions has basically been disproven in this thread.
Why does this need to be implemented to inform new road design? Seems to me it would be much cheaper to skip the part without any statistical or evidence backing and implement the cheap potential solution alone.
The onus of proof is on council. I haven't seen or heard any evidence that:
1. There is a large issue of pedestrian deaths and injuries in Calgary neighborhoods that are pimarily as a result of speed >40km per hour or
2. Reducing posted speed limits reduces actual average speed by a significant amount resulting in
3. Less pedestrian deaths and injuries in urban neighborhoods due to said reduced posted speed limits.
For this to be a reasonable proposal these all have to be met.
Ah. No, is it not something that would generate work for what we do.
Disproven? Disputed, maybe.
I’d also clarify that I support a 40 limit, mich more than a 30 limit.
The reason that posted limit matters with respect to design is that it is unusual (perhaps off-side with the Traffic Safety Act) to design street standards that are for below posted speeds. What the charter allows is the City, not the Province to set a lower default limit (meaning no signage), which enables different street standards to (at minimum more easily than they otherwise would be) to be implemented. At least that’s what I gathered from the discussion.
The presentation, once it’s posted would be a nice place to start - on Calgary specific data. Once again, the proposal does not ONLY look at speed limit. The Notice of Motion has an unusual level of detail. This is also not into implementation - Administration was asked to make their best recommendations, including answering these types of questions (that Councillors also asked). Also, more generally, read up on New York, or Sweden’s Vision Zero work. Lots of interesting stuff there. Other good reads on the topic are Jeff Speck or Janette Sadik Khan.
__________________
Trust the snake.
Last edited by Bunk; 09-26-2018 at 10:47 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
Tough to speed as it is in any community when there are so many playground and school zones in every neighbourhood. Not really an issue and already doing it.
And yet I’m passed in the playground zone in mine at least once a week. I lived with 30 km/h in Cochrane so this change doesn’t bother me at all. The extra 1 min will be worth it for peace of mind knowing my hellian kids will be riding their bikes all over the community for years to come while us drivers continue to be more and more distracted
Ah. No, is it not something that would generate work for what we do.
Disproven? Disputed, maybe.
I’d also clarify that I support a 40 limit, mich more than a 30 limit.
The reason that posted limit matters with respect to design is that it is unusual (perhaps off-side with the Traffic Safety Act) to design street standards that are for below posted speeds. What the charter allows is the City, not the Province to set a lower default limit (meaning no signage), which enables different street standards to (at minimum more easily than they otherwise would be) to be implemented. At least that’s what I gathered from the discussion.
The presentation, once it’s posted would be a nice place to start - on Calgary specific data. Once again, the proposal does not ONLY look at speed limit. The Notice of Motion has an unusual level of detail. This is also not into implementation - Administration was asked to make their best recommendations, including answering these types of questions (that Councillors also asked). Also, more generally, read up on New York, or Sweden’s Vision Zero work. Lots of interesting stuff there. Other good reads on the topic are Jeff Speck or Janette Sadik Khan.
Thanks for more information.
Apparently Sweden has gone from 541 overall traffic fatalities in 1997 to 253 in 2017 despite traffic volume increases.
An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.
The Following User Says Thank You to TheSutterDynasty For This Useful Post:
I don't quite understand why the focus is on posted speed limits rather than the other seemingly much more important changes to infrastructure.
Good questions. Vision Zero is not about just pedestrian collisions. It's about traffic collisions generally. I do think the motion should talk about all collision types, and also a wider array of road types - but maybe a low hanging fruit approach in their minds. I don't know.
Again, the motion does not just talk about posted speed limits - it absolutely talks about infrastructure and design too. The coverage has certainly focused on the speed limit, so maybe that's why this has left that impression. I think this has been stated about 50 times. I've stated about 5 times I think design is more important and self enforcing than speed limits alone - especially when the roadways are big. As above, speed limits have utility on local roads, however limited on their own. They are also a means to an end to more easily enable design standard changes.
__________________
Trust the snake.
Last edited by Bunk; 09-26-2018 at 11:46 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
I think the case against pedestrian collisions isn't really where the City should be trying to win favour in this. It should be considered in the overall scheme of things, but I think you'd get more buy in by framing this as fewer collisions means less congestion and traffic issues. For example, there was an accident just off one of the little entrances to our neighbourhood. Beccause of that, traffic trying to get into that neighbourhood turns into a traffic jam that bleeds out onto a main road like, Beddington Tr and then onto Stoney Tr., etc. If this was a collision at 30kph instead of 50kph, its entirely possible the cars could just drive off to exchange info, etc. somewhere that isn't effecting some major roads.
If this was a collision at 30kph instead of 50kph, its entirely possible the cars could just drive off to exchange info, etc. somewhere that isn't effecting some major roads.
The interesting thing here is it did not reduce 85th percentile speed but did reduce Peak speeds. So implementing the speed limit reduction in Boston cost no one who was currently doing the speed limit any time, and provided a decrease in speeders who we would like to target.
Actual harm reduction hasn't been looked at yet though.
Quote:
In Boston, the 85th percentile speed remained unchanged at 31 mph before and after the reduced default speed limit took effect.
The interesting thing here is it did not reduce 85th percentile speed but did reduce Peak speeds. So implementing the speed limit reduction in Boston cost no one who was currently doing the speed limit any time, and provided a decrease in speeders who we would like to target.
Actual harm reduction hasn't been looked at yet though.
Decrease in speeders... except for the fact that everyone doing the 85th percentile speed is now a speeder and can be ticketed for it.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
The Following User Says Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
