Jump to content

      



























Photo

Proposal to reduce municipal speed limit to 40 km/h


  • Please log in to reply
1454 replies to this topic

#61 phx

phx
  • Member
  • 1,854 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:46 PM

Depends if you stop or just keep going after impact ;)


I can't be expected to notice I've hit a pedestrian, so I'll be keeping going.

#62 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:16 PM

I can't be expected to notice I've hit a pedestrian, so I'll be keeping going.


If I hit a pedestrian it's the damn speed limit's fault anyway, so why the hell should I inconvenience my day by stopping? It's not like I'll be able to exchange insurance information with the pedestrian!

#63 pherthyl

pherthyl
  • Member
  • 2,209 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 08:14 AM

The difference in time over a 25 K journey between 50 kph and 40 kph is less than 8 minutes. If that's a huge difference in your mind, you seriously need to slow down your life, man!


This is such a bizarro argument. We have technology to be more efficient and move ourselves at a speed that wastes much less time in travel than 100 years ago. Why in the world would you want to go backwards and reduce our efficiency for no reason. Basically every country in the world does 50kph in the cities. We know it works and isn't particularly dangerous.

#64 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 08:59 AM

Isn't this all about TIME MANAGEMENT?

Are the people who speed, who tailgate, and who give you the finger just running late for their job, their appointment, or catching the next ferry? Are the pedestrians that run out into the crosswalk, or jaywalk 15 feet from the crosswalk just "running late"?

And if you are "running late" while driving, and you are trying to text or call someone to tell them you are running late, then safety will be compromised no matter how much we try to regulate the streets.

#65 eseedhouse

eseedhouse
  • Member
  • 1,288 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:39 AM

If you slow traffic down so much that any brain dead half wit can drive in his sleep


Calling people "brain dead half wit" doesn't make them into that.

you're bound to see a significant jump in the number of people who allow themselves to become distracted with phones, music, make-up, etc...


Um, got any actual evidence? As far as I can see this post is simply a rant.

#66 RoadBikie

RoadBikie
  • Member
  • 13 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:43 AM

Back to basics: three words...driver reaction time

What I'm reading here is a lot of deflection from the core issue. Physics, self driving cars and tinfoil hats but no real explanation of how a 50kph limit comes with a greater risk of a pedestrian being hit than 40kph does.

eseedhouse repeatedly states if a car hits a pedestrian, they stand a better chance if that car is travelling at 40kph than 50kph. I won't argue with that, but I am still unclear as to how the increased limit equates to a greater risk of the car hitting the pedestrian in the first place.

I know I keep asking that question, but let's move beyond the physics that take place once a car has left the road and is on a collision course with a pedestrian and instead focus on what causes the situation in the first place.


RoadBikie

#67 eseedhouse

eseedhouse
  • Member
  • 1,288 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:44 AM

[quote name='pherthyl']This is such a bizarro argument. We have technology to be more efficient and move ourselves at a speed that wastes much less time in travel than 100 years ago.[quote]

And yet one man dies every four hours on the roads in Canada, while for women it's one every eight. And it is second only to suicides among the violent deaths.

Yeah man, our cars are so safe...

#68 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 21,503 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:18 AM

Back to basics: three words...driver reaction time


Back to the basics: three words...right of way

If everyone's paying attention and yielding the right of way properly, you don't have crashes.

All I hear is chanting... slow the cars down, slow the cars down, slow the cars down. Yet strangely there are no calls for pedestrians and cyclists to take responsibility for their own actions.

Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


#69 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:26 AM

Eseed it appears you have a hate-on for anything with 4 wheels and an internal combustion engine and are grasping at anything to support your arguments.

Please cite your sources when providing stats such as your last statement and also causes of said deaths and how reducing the posted municipal speed limit to 40 will have an effect on the stats and the related study.

i.e.

B.C. Coroners Service report titled Analysis of Pedestrian Deaths 2009-2012 (YTD) that was sent to Commission members via email on December 6, 2012. Of the 221 traffic related pedestrian deaths, speed and alcohol were not big factors. Many of the crashes were at low speed, and involved turning drivers, poor pedestrian visibility, especially when dark, and/or distraction from both drivers and pedestrians.


http://www.pssg.gov....2012-120928.pdf

#70 pherthyl

pherthyl
  • Member
  • 2,209 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:16 AM

This is such a bizarro argument. We have technology to be more efficient and move ourselves at a speed that wastes much less time in travel than 100 years ago.


And yet one man dies every four hours on the roads in Canada, while for women it's one every eight. And it is second only to suicides among the violent deaths.

Yeah man, our cars are so safe...


And? Living implies risk. Your line of argument has no end. Right now you're saying 40 is safer than 50. Once that is in place you will argue that 30 is safer than 40. Why do we even have cars? We could certainly avoid many deaths by banning all personal vehicles and leaving the roads open to only public transport, pedestrians, and emergency vehicles.

The reason we don't go down this crazy road is because there is a tradeoff here. Clearly it is not as simple that if something saves a life it is always the correct course of action. The benefit needs to be weighed against the cost. Nevermind that it is completely unproven that a 40kph limit will save lives, but even if it did, does that make it worth the cost? You need to get over the idea that saving lives trumps everything else. It is always more complex than that.

#71 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:23 AM

Back to the basics: three words...right of way

If everyone's paying attention and yielding the right of way properly, you don't have crashes.


Yep, thats pretty much by definition. That doesn't really advance your argument that slowing down traffic will not help reduce crashes.

#72 pherthyl

pherthyl
  • Member
  • 2,209 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:41 AM

And yet one man dies every four hours on the roads in Canada, while for women it's one every eight. And it is second only to suicides among the violent deaths.

Yeah man, our cars are so safe...


Road fatalities have been decreasing for 30 years. Not to say they can't be improved further, but removing the benefits of cars is not the answer. Maybe we can mandate everyone wear a full crash helmet in their car? Sure would save a lot of lives and reduce brain injuries.....



Source: http://www.statcan.g...e/10648-eng.pdf

#73 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 21,503 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:44 AM

Yep, thats pretty much by definition. That doesn't really advance your argument that slowing down traffic will not help reduce crashes.


And as rjag just quoted:

Edmonton's pilot project found driver speed was reduced by two to three km/h and did not lead to any statistically significant changes in the total number of collisions or severe collisions.


And then there's this from the BC's speed limit review:

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 8 for the Phase I sites and in Table 9 for the Phase II sites. Based on the analysis, it appears that raising the limit from 90 km/h to 100 km/h resulted in a 12.9 percent reduction in crashes at the sites where speed limits were raised. The Phase II sites experienced an 8.6 percent reduction in total crashes. Both reductions are
statistically significant.


Page 23 of this PDF


VMP in Langford is a 60kph zone between the TCH and Sooke Road, with many cars travelling at 80kph between Kelly and Sooke roads. According to the ICBC crash maps this road sees relatively few crashes compared to other roads with lower posted limits.

Just like higher limits do not automatically equate to more crashes, lower limits don't necessarily reduce crashes simply because people are supposed to be driving slower.

Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


#74 eseedhouse

eseedhouse
  • Member
  • 1,288 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:02 PM

The reason we don't go down this crazy road


I think that your calling something you disagree with "crazy" doesn't make it crazy, and that your apparent need to use such adjectives suggest you really aren't so sure about your beliefs as you make out.

#75 eseedhouse

eseedhouse
  • Member
  • 1,288 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:12 PM

Eseed it appears you have a hate-on for anything with 4 wheels and an internal combustion engine and are grasping at anything to support your arguments.


I think that your use of such inflammatory language suggest that, of the two of us, you have likely misunderstood where the "hate on" is located.

But even if you were right, which as it happens you aren't, what would have to do with the validity or non validity of my argument? Why, of course, precisely nothing whatsoever.

Please cite your sources when providing stats such as your last statement and also causes of said deaths

Ah, well, I assumed that people reading this thread would be able to figure out the very simple google inquiry that lead me to this document. Apparently you chose not to do that.

and how reducing the posted municipal speed limit to 40 will have an effect on the stats and the related study.

Strangely perhaps,I feel no need to justify a claim I never made.

#76 pherthyl

pherthyl
  • Member
  • 2,209 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:22 AM

I think that your calling something you disagree with "crazy" doesn't make it crazy, and that your apparent need to use such adjectives suggest you really aren't so sure about your beliefs as you make out.


So instead of responding to any of the points you just avoid the argument entirely...

#77 eseedhouse

eseedhouse
  • Member
  • 1,288 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 08:33 AM

So instead of responding to any of the points you just avoid the argument entirely...


Well, if you could make your points without having to insult people who happen to disagree with you I might be interested. But yeah, sorry, I don't feel like talking much to people who can't seem to write a civil message.

Of course I will admit it would be better for me to simply ignore you entirely. Alas, I still have many character failings.

#78 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:18 AM

But yeah, sorry, I don't feel like talking much to people who can't seem to write a civil message.



May I advise you to slow down and get yourself a life?


:thumbsup::wave::thumbsup:

pot....kettle....black

#79 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:20 AM

Well, if you could make your points without having to insult people who happen to disagree with you I might be interested. But yeah, sorry, I don't feel like talking much to people who can't seem to write a civil message.

Of course I will admit it would be better for me to simply ignore you entirely. Alas, I still have many character failings.


I see no evidence whatsoever that phertyl insulted anyone at any point in this thread. On the other hand you are sidestepping requests for clarification and source material for the facts you are presenting.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#80 pherthyl

pherthyl
  • Member
  • 2,209 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:08 PM

Well, if you could make your points without having to insult people who happen to disagree with you I might be interested. But yeah, sorry, I don't feel like talking much to people who can't seem to write a civil message.


I didn't mean to imply that you were crazy, and I apologize if you took it that way. What I meant is that I believe your line of argument leads down a clearly impractical road of further and further reducing the benefits of our modern technology just because there are some risks involved.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users