Rossland Slows Down

Now the City of Rossland PD have a way to get simple tickets. Do you know how hard it is going to be for motorists to slow down and keep it under that speed. They'll have to put 2x4's under their pedals when they go through a school zone! 

That's just crazy, somebody going 40km/hr will get a speeding ticket now and if they are doing 55 km/hr they will get an excessive speeding ticket, and possible stunting charges??? 

Well one more reason I will never visit or live in that town!!!

I see some people complaining that lower speed limits are a bad idea.  Where are the facts to support their contention?  If one takes the time to read through the documentation cited in the links at the end of the article, one would discover scientific evidence to support and even encourage the lowering of speed limits.  All too often the initial reaction to an idea like this, is "How is this going to make my life more difficult?" or "I have a right to go at a speed of my choosing in order to get there on time."

Missing from the conversation is what about other people's right to be able to use the streets safely without undue risk?  What about other people's right to live in a peaceful residential neighbourhood?  The narrator in the 20 is Plenty film summed it up nicely -- "Speed is greed."

The biggest objection to lower speed limits is usually that 30 k/hr will cause traffic gridlock.  The studies linked in the article show that the opposite is true.  In urban settings lower speed limits actually encourage a smoother, more efficient traffic flow.  Counterintuitive, but true. 

Now the challenge is, will you accept scientificly proven facts, or will you stick with outmoded perceptions created by decades of advertising that speed is good?

@Baxter

I am glad to hear you live in a peaceful neighbourhood.  Does that mean that those who do not have that luxury should be forced to put up with the noise, pollution, and lack of safety in order to accomodate those who are unwilling to share the road with other users?

Your quick reply indicates that you didn't bother to actually read the documentation Tim provided.  Perhaps when you find the time to do so, we could continue the debate based on the facts, rather than knee jerk reactions.

It seems odd that many countries, and scores of municipalities around the world have adopted 30 k/hr if it was such a stupid idea.  The facts are that lowered speed limits have far too many benefits to list here.  If you research the subject and get the facts perhaps you will see the advantages.

Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything. -- G.B. Shaw

"I wonder if in fact there is any science to Rossland's decision, or did someone just make a decision on their "opinion" rather than "fact"."

I don't know what Rossland based their decision on, but the science to support it does exist, in multiple studies done in the last 25 years.  A couple of those studies were listed by Tim at the bottom of his article.  Many more studies are listed in the bibliographies of the two studies cited.

You asked about graphs:  There are some in the papers mentioned above.  There is also a formula developed by some Norwegian traffic engineers that allows one to calculate the difference in accident rate compared to a difference in speed.  Some time ago Tim posted a chart with those numbers on this site, but I am not sure where to find it.  For instance, if a pedestrian is hit at 50 k/hr there is an 80% chance it will be fatal.  When the speed is 30 k/hr the chance of fatality drops to 5%.  Do a search on "The Power Model of the relationship between speed and road safety".

Reducing the speed to 30 k/hr adds less than a minute to the average urban journey.  This has more to do with other factors than it does with the change in speed.  What is so hard to believe is that a lot of people would rather sacrifice a life than sacrifice a minute.  The narrator in the 20 is Plenty video summed it up as "Speed is Greed."

On your last point, yes, there was a study done in the 60's by the US Department of Transportation.  That is where the oft quoted 85 percentile figure comes from.  And yes, on a divided multilane highway big speed differentials do add significantly to the risk.  But that study is often misapplied, by municipal engineers in particular, to inappropriate circumstances.  Do a search for "The 85th Percentile Folly" to get a different view on that subject.

I don't run any group.

“Facts are stubborn things. Whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

"Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine

You see, I have been reading studies and have been following this debate for quite some time now; and really it seems that it always comes down to the fabled chart of effects on pedestrians in a collision at 30km/h vs 50km/h.

The problem with that chart is - it really doesn't at all tie-in to "lower speed = less accidents". What it actually stands for is "lower speed = less severe injuries".

So when this "evidence" is brought up in a discussion of "lower the speed-limits to decrease the amount of accidents" - I start gaging a little.

So lets set the limits aside for engineers but make all the cars spongy and soft! I don't think that there would be any argument against getting hit by a sponge rather than a metal object at high speed - so why are all the cars so hard and deadly to humans? Lets make cars out of soft and cushy sponges!

A chart of my theory:

Object drop test from 50ft and hitting a human:

Sponge: 0% chance of injury to human

Anvil: 100% chance of death in a direct hit scenario (200% critical strike bonus for hitting with the sharp end)

Has anyone seen any statistics on this?

One thing I'll note is that in many areas of the Lower Mainland (particularly within Vancouver City) many residential neighbourhoods have had a 30 km/h limit imposed on them over the last few years - and it seems to work quite reasonably. It also indicates more intelligent planning than arbitrarily imposing this 40% reduction from the 'normal' maximum.

Meanwhile: 

It will be interesting to revisit this decision in a years time to see if the citizens of Rossland keep this as their residential speed and to ask ICBC about it's effect on collision rates.

It's nigh on four years, and surely by now there must be statistical evidence as to whether collision rates have been affected - or not - by the Rossland rules.

I provide traffic control in construction zones. When workers are within 1-2m of moving traffic, I try to reduce the speed to 30km/hr. Many drivers ignore the speed reduction, but when traffic is heavy, you only have to convince one driver to drive 30, and the others are forced to follow.

One problem I have noticed is the moment there is a slow down in traffic, drivers reach for their phone. (either that, or they were always on their phone).

There consequences of distracted driving and speeding in our work zones are similar, you are more likely to react incorrectly when you are driving too fast, the same way you might if you are driving distracted.

For example, we recently stopped traffic on highway 1 near Salmon Arm in order for the stringing some wires across, for some power lines and to support the poles. With traffic stopped, these "professional" drivers crossed a double solid line, contrary to the multiple signs that communicated that the work zone was also a no passing zone, they drove through barrels, set up to prevent traffic from entering the lanes of oncoming traffic. After crossing over into the lanes meant for oncoming traffic, they stayed on the wrong side of the road for over one kilometer before entering our work zone, crossing back over and continuing about their day.

This could have easily turned into a scene like the scene on Vancouver Island where the drunk woman drove around stopped traffic, into the single lane traffic control area and hit a paver, who was days away from retiring, killing him, and hit the flagger, who was attempting to prevent the errant vehicle from entering the area where even more workers were at risk. She survived, but was pretty banged up.

I see speeders flying thru school zones; when parents are dropping off children, when children are riding their bikes or crossing the road at a poorly marked crosswalk.

The same problem exists in all of these scenarios. Whether drunk, speeding or distracted; disobedient drivers increase the risk to the rest of us, whether we are drivers, pedestrians or roadside workers.

Good drivers, drive sober. Good drivers, obey traffic signs and traffic laws. Good drivers do not put others at risk. It is that simple. We wouldn't need traffic control, speed limits or traffic laws if only we had intelligent, careful, cautious drivers who reacted appropriately to changes in the road.

My proposed law: