There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?
Recent Articles
- Justice for Indigenous Peoples is Long Overdueby Ryan McGreal, published June 30, 2021 in Commentary
(0 comments)
- Third-Party Election Advertising Ban About Silencing Workersby Chantal Mancini, published June 29, 2021 in Politics
(0 comments)
- Did Doug Ford Test the 'Great Barrington Declaration' on Ontarians?by Ryan McGreal, published June 29, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- An Update on Raise the Hammerby Ryan McGreal, published June 28, 2021 in Site Notes
(0 comments)
- Nestlé Selling North American Water Bottling to an Private Equity Firmby Doreen Nicoll, published February 23, 2021 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- Jolley Old Sam Lawrenceby Sean Burak, published February 19, 2021 in Special Report: Cycling
(0 comments)
- Right-Wing Extremism is a Driving Force in Modern Conservatismby Ryan McGreal, published February 18, 2021 in Special Report: Extremism
(0 comments)
- Municipalities Need to Unite against Ford's Firehose of Land Use Changesby Michelle Silverton, published February 16, 2021 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Challenging Doug Ford's Pandemic Narrativeby Ryan McGreal, published January 25, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- The Year 2020 Has Been a Wakeup Callby Michael Nabert, published December 31, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- The COVID-19 Marshmallow Experimentby Ryan McGreal, published December 22, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- All I Want for Christmas, 2020by Kevin Somers, published December 21, 2020 in Entertainment and Sports
(1 comment)
- Hamilton Shelters Remarkably COVID-19 Free Thanks to Innovative Testing Programby Jason Allen, published December 21, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- Province Rams Through Glass Factory in Stratfordby Doreen Nicoll, published December 21, 2020 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- We Can Prevent Traffic Deaths if We Make Safety a Real Priorityby Ryan McGreal, published December 08, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(5 comments)
- These Aren't 'Accidents', These Are Resultsby Tom Flood, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(1 comment)
- Conservation Conundrumby Paul Weinberg, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Defund Police Protest Threatens Fragile Ruling Classby Cameron Kroetsch, published December 03, 2020 in Special Report: Anti-Racism
(2 comments)
- Measuring the Potential of Biogas to Reduce GHG Emissionsby John Loukidelis and Thomas Cassidy, published November 23, 2020 in Special Report: Climate Change
(0 comments)
- Ontario Squanders Early Pandemic Sacrificeby Ryan McGreal, published November 18, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
Article Archives
Blog Archives
Site Tools
Feeds
By notlloyd (registered) - website | Posted May 28, 2014 at 17:25:53 in reply to Comment 101726
The 85% rule was based on scientific studies. They were not conducted by motorist associations.(It may be that motorist associations have picked it up but the initial studies were blind studies designed to determine if reducing speed limits increased safety.) What the studies found was that if you have existing infrastructure, reducing speed limits did not increase safety. It says nothing about design. What the studies found was that if you have existing infrastructure, manipulating speed limits has limited impact on the rate or volume of traffic accidents. IOW given a specific road design, reducing speed limits below the 85th percentile will not reduce collisions.
I looked at the data. It is all collisions including pedestrian and cyclist collisions. They observed every type and they are all lumped together. So you are correct, it says nothing specifically about pedestrians.
But there are many factors in road design. Time, and costs are two factors that get marginal attention as people would say just slow down to save lives. The inadequacy of that position is that it ignores the conclusion that slowing down will not reduce death rates - depending upon the specific road in question. I found one study that said that after 10mph, road death rates are not impacted by velocity limits at all. (I will find that study.)
Studies show that danger to any specific pedestrian decreases substantially under 50kmph. So if you take a model human and hit him at 50kph, the model is more likely to die than if you struck him at 30 kph. But an important factor is the Rate. While it appears to be common sense that you should drive more slowly, the fact that higher speeds kill more efficiently says nothing about the rate. So, you need to find out how many pedestrians are killed by drivers driving over 30 kph. Most pedestrians are killed at intersections where driver inattention or pedestrian error are the cause, and not the velocity of the vehicle per se.
If you want to design streets to a maximum speed, say in high density residential areas so that vehicles will not exceed some specific velocity deemed harmful to pedestrians, then you might be correct that the right answer is to design the street so that drivers are uncomfortable driving above that limit.
However, there is no point slowing everyone down if it will not save lives. You can do it for other reasons for sure. But to simply argue that it is to save lives is a bit disingenuous.
A good example is flying in an aircraft. In any individual air crash of a large airliner, the morbidity is likely 100%. It is super dangerous to be in an air crash. But flying is way safer than driving a car based on rates - traveler miles per death. I wager that impairment, driver inattention, distracted driving, jaywalking, dimentia, old age, etc. are far more significant factors in pedestrian fatalities than velocity.
Comment edited by notlloyd on 2014-05-28 17:40:01
Permalink | Context