Increase Ontario 400-series Highway Speed Limit

[fastar1]

Until something is empirically proved, it remains unproved. Until limits are actually reduced, you can't know if it will actually have the desired effect. We're talking about more than just physics here. Statistical analysis and random chance figure into it also. As physics is the only easily grasped factor, however, I threw in "but let's go with it."

...and behavioural analysis, which I think would have the biggest effect on the outcome.

[caboose483]

I read it for what it is, that a bunch of doctors show that crashs at 40 are way more survivable at 50, its not about investigating ways to reduce crashes, thats not their job.

I think that reducing accidents as well as making them more survivable are 2 distinct goals that really should be done together. Whether speed limits being reduced to 40 in the city ( and by city i really just mean like .. south of bloor between Spadina and Church. ) would help? I dunno, that isn't my area either =D

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

If a pedestrian is hit and they had the right of way, odds are that the vehicle was turning and thus already going much less than 40km/hr. The survivability rates of 40km/hr versus 50km/hr are meaningless and changing the speed limit likely will have no effect on whether or not a driver turns right on a red without stopping and runs over a pedestrian. How does one fix this type of driving? I'm not sure but decreasing the speed limit won't accomplish anything.

If a pedestrian is hit away from an intersection by a car moving 40km/hr of faster I'd be willing to bet that they did not have the right of way. If they choose to cross a road in such a location then they do so at their own peril. The onus is on them to cross safely.

If a driver runs a red light and hits someone at 40 versus 50.. that's worth considering, but what percentage of pedestrian collisions at intersections are due to this?

[EngineerJoe]

That report did say that a crash at 50 resulted in like a 85 % chance of death while at 40 its much less (30 something? i dont' remember).

the assumption of the study is that accidents are unavoidable, so lets focus on surviving something that can't be eliminated. Its a fair point, I am not saying its conclusive on changing the speed limit, but its not a baseless view.

Physics supports the argument that reducing the speed will reduce the severity of a collision. BUT you have to look at WHY people are looking at dropping the speed limit. Do they want to reduce the severity of a collision, the likelihood of a collision, or both? Once we understand what the goal is, you'll also have to show that

1. Reducing the speed limit will reduce the likelihood of a vehicle-pedestrian collision?
2. Reducing the speed limit will reduce the speed at which vehicles drive.

As I'm sure you're aware, reducing the speed and reducing the speed limit are two different things.

[V-Tom]

Regarding reducing speed limits in the city; some questions need to be asked:

Does reducing limits to even lower than current cause drivers to pay less attention to driving and more to texting, etc?

Does making potential crashes potentially more survivable encourage pedestrians to pay even less attention to where they walk than they do now?

Does reducing limits to incredibly low levels cause even higher apathy for driving laws?

Does reducing limits cause school zones to have higher pedestrian crash rates since the especially low speed limits that were once limited to school zones are no longer unique?

Is higher amount of road rage likely due to high driver frustration?

Does higher driver frustration result in more crashes overall?

Is pollution increased due to higher levels of congestion?


..Tom

[OpenGambit]

But don't you think that the best way to improve survivability, overall, would be to reduce the number of such incidents in the first place? If a doctor recommends a policy change, then he has come to a conclusion about how our roads operate. He should have stuck with the idea that it's more likely for a pedestrian to survive a collision at 40 Kmh, than at 50 Kmh, at which point he would have been able to take the money and run by publishing a foregone conclusion.

By the way, the publication in question is well in line with the former Mayor's 'war on the car' philosophy. Its purpose is to outline why walking and cycling are good and healthy things to do, that should be encouraged and increased, and so those activities are prioritized. When you prioritize an activity, in a shared environment, others must needs suffer.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2...file-46520.pdf

well I don't think the actually statistics about surviability rates of 50 vs 40 are foregone conclusions, to me, that part was informative.

I also don't disagree with the idea that walking and cycling should be encouraged, especially in the core. <--- that is key, I am not talking about mt pleasant.

I have lived in a number of cities and always near the applicable downtown core, I find that cars are the thing that is most out of place there. The trend in the downtown is to make it more pedestrian friendly and cycling friendly - bixi bikes, the diagonal crosswalks.. etc.

[OpenGambit]

Physics supports the argument that reducing the speed will reduce the severity of a collision. BUT you have to look at WHY people are looking at dropping the speed limit. Do they want to reduce the severity of a collision, the likelihood of a collision, or both? Once we understand what the goal is, you'll also have to show that

1. Reducing the speed limit will reduce the likelihood of a vehicle-pedestrian collision?
2. Reducing the speed limit will reduce the speed at which vehicles drive.

As I'm sure you're aware, reducing the speed and reducing the speed limit are two different things.

Sounds to me like they are looking at the severity for the most part, and I don't think its a contentious point to say that a speed limit decrease combined with enforcement would lower speeds. I also don't think that as doctors, they should have to "show" an actual reduction in speed, its an assumption and not a unreasonable one.

[Rob MacLennan]

well I don't think the actually statistics about surviability rates of 50 vs 40 are foregone conclusions, to me, that part was informative.

I also don't disagree with the idea that walking and cycling should be encouraged, especially in the core. <--- that is key, I am not talking about mt pleasant.

I have lived in a number of cities and always near the applicable downtown core, I find that cars are the thing that is most out of place there. The trend in the downtown is to make it more pedestrian friendly and cycling friendly - bixi bikes, the diagonal crosswalks.. etc.

Then I guess I may have read a bit more on that subject, as there wasn't much new to me in it.

The fact remains he made a conclusion about something that, as stated by caboose483, isn't fact. You can reduce the amount of injury incurred by reducing the nominal speed limit by 10 Kmh. Will that have a real and fundamental effect on the number of such injuries in Toronto? Unknown, as he has no findings regarding the type of incidents that are experienced. I could as easily state that putting an alarm in your cottage could reduce your exposure to theft but if it's on an island where people rarely go, and there's no one around to hear the alarm anyway, I'd be talking out of my butt.

[OpenGambit]

I kinda take the view that the type of information you are looking for is the expertise of a different professional.

If doctors said that banning cigarettes would make people healthier, i don't think anyone would expect them to also have information about how people would continue to get cigarettes dispite a ban.

Its just a piece of the puzzle, not a complete answer.

[Rob MacLennan]

I kinda take the view that the type of information you are looking for is the expertise of a different professional.

If doctors said that banning cigarettes would make people healthier, i don't think anyone would expect them to also have information about how people would continue to get cigarettes dispite a ban.

Its just a piece of the puzzle, not a complete answer.

Unfortunately, in our current political climate, it will likely be latched onto as the salvation of the pedestrian, at least by a few politicians.

[OpenGambit]

Well, I guess I don't disagree with that.

at least our crazys in AB didn't win.

[invictus43]

Well, I guess I don't disagree with that.

at least our crazys in AB didn't win.

That reminded me a lot of the election a few years back..where some of the candidates were slipping up when speaking..and a lot of people said "WTF are these people??" I think it was the Reform Party.. Talk about hoof in mouth disease.. Gays will spend eternity burning in lakes of fire in hell?? Seriously??

[invictus43]

The fact remains he made a conclusion about something that, as stated by caboose483, isn't fact. You can reduce the amount of injury incurred by reducing the nominal speed limit by 10 Kmh. Will that have a real and fundamental effect on the number of such injuries in Toronto? Unknown, as he has no findings regarding the type of incidents that are experienced. I could as easily state that putting an alarm in your cottage could reduce your exposure to theft but if it's on an island where people rarely go, and there's no one around to hear the alarm anyway, I'd be talking out of my butt.

I think you're stretching a bit with the alarm analogy..

[EngineerJoe]

Sounds to me like they are looking at the severity for the most part, and I don't think its a contentious point to say that a speed limit decrease combined with enforcement would lower speeds. I also don't think that as doctors, they should have to "show" an actual reduction in speed, its an assumption and not a unreasonable one.

I can agree to the point in bold, but it may not address speed issues in a collision in all situations (i.e. when a vehicle is turning). Although I don't think the severity of a collision in those situations is primarily a function of speed, so it very well may be a moot point.

I don't think doctors should be recommending changes in speed. I think they should present the facts as they find them and leave it to those experienced with traffic flow and enforcement to determine a reasonable lower speed. There are MANY other factors to consider when changing speed, vehicle-pedestrian interaction is only one factor.

[OpenGambit]

I can agree to the point in bold, but it may not address speed issues in a collision in all situations (i.e. when a vehicle is turning). Although I don't think the severity of a collision in those situations is primarily a function of speed, so it very well may be a moot point.

I don't think doctors should be recommending changes in speed. I think they should present the facts as they find them and leave it to those experienced with traffic flow and enforcement to determine a reasonable lower speed. There are MANY other factors to consider when changing speed, vehicle-pedestrian interaction is only one factor.

requiring that that any one action that is only part of a solution to address "all" situations is unrealistic in my view.

I don't see why doctors can't recommend a change in speed, the same way they can recommend that a substance be banned or restricted, surely you don't believe that their responsibility only starts at the operating table. Its not like they are the final word.

[EngineerJoe]

requiring that that any one action that is only part of a solution to address "all" situations is unrealistic in my view.

I don't see why doctors can't recommend a change in speed, the same way they can recommend that a substance be banned or restricted, surely you don't believe that their responsibility only starts at the operating table. Its not like they are the final word.

Agreed... although there was a point I was going to add but it slipped my mind... office distraction. You might find a reply to this in a couple hours or a couple weeks.

Doctors are well respected in the community. The issue I have with doctors making recommendations outside their area of expertise is because their opinion carries a lot of weight. Perhaps limit their recommendation to re-evaluate speed limits given the new findings.

[Rob MacLennan]

I think you're stretching a bit with the alarm analogy..

Far less so than the average politician, by orders of magnitude.

[viper84737]

Ok so WTF.

I went riding into downtown Toronto today for the first time in a while, just cause I was in the area. Some retard pedestrian steps out from between two cars jay walking across the street and I have to swerve to miss him. What speed was I doing? I don't remember, I was trying not to get my bike damaged by the bones of some moron. Fine, I put two fingers to my eyes telling him to watch where he's going, and life goes on.

Later on, I'm reflecting on that incident momentarily. This is at least one solid hour later. At this time, coincidentally, some oblivious lady darts out in the same manner, jay walking across the street from my left. She's looking TO HER LEFT. Lady, you won't want to be looking at the cars that aren't going to hit you, look to your right, cause you almost stained my motorbike with your obliviousness. What speed was I going? Whatever the hell speed I was comfortable going, given the conditions.

Stop freaking stepping out in traffic towards my bike, stupid Torontonians.

[caboose483]

I think you're stretching a bit with the alarm analogy..

A bit, but only a tiny little bit.

Please consider.

There are some older offramps around that are tricky. Most offramps don't require heavy braking and you can easily navigate them at 60-70km/hr with gentle braking. There are however, a handful of older ones that for whatever reason require significant reduction in speed. If a driver or rider is not paying attention it's fairly easy to get in trouble on these such offramps. Once upon a time I actually hurled my ZX-7R like a frisbee off a double apex 270 degree offramp. I admit that it was 100% my fault but that offramp was somewhat known for unscheduled offroad adventures.

The fundamental cause of those rabbit chasing excursions is a combination of two things. Drivers not paying attention, and the fact that the offramp is a lot tighter than most. Would it be better to re-design the offramp to eliminate the problem? Or would it be better to drop the speed limit on that section of the 401 to 70km/hr so drivers are less likely to blow the corner?

Fix the problem. Don't put your bubble gum in a crack in the dam to stop the leak. The problem isn't speed. The problem is inattentive/selfish drivers and oblivious pedestrians. Dropping the speed limit to increase pedestrian safety might have unintended consequences. Given an increased (and false) sense of security it's certainly possible that the decreased speed limits might result in EVEN MORE stupid pedestrians assuming they have the right of way all the time, no matter what.