Topic: Thoughts on Statistics versus Reality (Speed limits)

[johngenx]

We have long stretches of 30 zones in Edmonton, and it's really slow. But, they're all in heavy residential areas near schools and playgrounds, so I respect the limits carefully. But few people do. I'm frequently passed (illegal) by people doing at least 50, if not more.

The majority of the people weaving through traffic in those zones are soccer mommies in minivans.

[mlin32]

In Europe, purely residential areas have a 30 limit and often a lot of traffic calming features. Speed tables, chicanes, plants in the middle, pedestrian islands......no way you can pilot a car much faster than 30.

Urban thoroughfares inside agglomerations are 50.

But that's different from the wide open rural roads, where 90 is a happy medium and 80 is.....well, set the speed limiter on the car or risk getting flashed.

[dkaz]

We have long stretches of 30 zones in Edmonton, and it's really slow. But, they're all in heavy residential areas near schools and playgrounds, so I respect the limits carefully. But few people do. I'm frequently passed (illegal) by people doing at least 50, if not more.

The majority of the people weaving through traffic in those zones are soccer mommies in minivans.

Save our kids! Except me, I know what I’m doing.

The 30 zones don’t bother me for the most part. The city admitted about 10% of the 30 zones weren’t needed.

[ChaosphereIX]

Speed limits are crazy in this country, totally out of touch with reality most of the time. I am an ass and speed, IMO safely, nearly everywhere. Mostly 10 over, sometimes 20. Most streets I find infuriatingly strangled by hilarious speed limits. major streets...60km/h are you kidding me? Roads that might as well be a highway with nothing but forest and field around them...80km/h. Next time you go out driving, try going under 40km/h. Just try. There are some long residential streets that are 40km/h, with not much but fields turnoffs to subdivisions to break up the monotony. 40km/h is very....very slow. Now, school zones etc. of course should be slow, but those schools should not be on major roads either - THAT is terrible urban planning IMO.

Now, speeding like an idiot in a residential area is obviously quite stupid and dangerous, but don't think for a second that lowering a speed limit of a road is going to magically make it sooooo safe.

[mlin32]

Speed limits are crazy in this country, totally out of touch with reality most of the time. I am an ass and speed, IMO safely, nearly everywhere. Mostly 10 over, sometimes 20. Most streets I find infuriatingly strangled by hilarious speed limits. major streets...60km/h are you kidding me? Roads that might as well be a highway with nothing but forest and field around them...80km/h. Next time you go out driving, try going under 40km/h. Just try. There are some long residential streets that are 40km/h, with not much but fields turnoffs to subdivisions to break up the monotony. 40km/h is very....very slow. Now, school zones etc. of course should be slow, but those schools should not be on major roads either - THAT is terrible urban planning IMO.

Now, speeding like an idiot in a residential area is obviously quite stupid and dangerous, but don't think for a second that lowering a speed limit of a road is going to magically make it sooooo safe.

I see nothing wrong with schools on a main road.

Here's how we do traffic calming crossing a university campus. Contrôle radar @50 a couple hundred metres back, squeeze traffic, and put a series of 2 speed tables.

https://goo.gl/maps/yowFkDc7vxy

[OliverD]

Now, school zones etc. of course should be slow, but those schools should not be on major roads either - THAT is terrible urban planning IMO.

It absolutely isn't terrible urban planning. Schools should be centralized and accessible. If a school isn't on a major road, all you're doing is shifting all of that school's traffic to residential streets.

[ChaosphereIX]

Now, school zones etc. of course should be slow, but those schools should not be on major roads either - THAT is terrible urban planning IMO.

It absolutely isn't terrible urban planning. Schools should be centralized and accessible. If a school isn't on a major road, all you're doing is shifting all of that school's traffic to residential streets.

Good. Because school traffic does not belong on major streets. Make them centralized and accessible, sure. But not on major roads.

[Ex-airbalancer]

Now, school zones etc. of course should be slow, but those schools should not be on major roads either - THAT is terrible urban planning IMO.

It absolutely isn't terrible urban planning. Schools should be centralized and accessible. If a school isn't on a major road, all you're doing is shifting all of that school's traffic to residential streets.

Good. Because school traffic does not belong on major streets. Make them centralized and accessible, sure. But not on major roads.

Should just let Blueprint answer that question

[johngenx]

It's a tough spot for design. Planners put schools deep into residential areas which makes a lot of sense, because people need the school close to houses. But they didn't anticipate that people would drive their kids to school even if they live within easy walking distance. That's meant that schools are now on roads not designed to handle that kind of stop/go traffic.

Stupid people thinking that kids need to be driven 200M to school.

[ChaosphereIX]

^ I agree with that too. Not a parent so can't judge on that, but I walked to school every day, even in winter.

[dkaz]

Every parent thinks their child is going to be kidnapped these days.

[johngenx]

Every parent thinks their child is going to be kidnapped these days.

Which is a complete fallacy!