Raise the Hammer

This could be a regular feature. "Dangerously High Vehicle Speeds Recorded on [Pick a street in Hamilton]."

Thank you very much for this, for your efforts in getting this information from the municipal government and presenting it here. It's nice to know for certain that it is not our imagination that people are driving this way.

Perhaps we can crowdsource a community-owned trailer for that exact purpose. Or maybe a ward 1 or 2 participatory budget item? There is political power in this data, which is why city hall is so reluctant to release it.

no surprise whatsoever.

Another great street design by staff in a school zone with a blind corner. Bravo

Honestly, this would be my preferred approach to speeding enforcement - it's 2015, we could make these devices powerful-enough to photograph the driver of the vehicle. Save a bunch of money on traffic enforcement and just make deployable carts that photograph speeders for HPS. Let cops do real work that can't be automated.

Completely automated photo radar is absolutely standard in many places like the UK and France and various forms are starting to be used in Canada, in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchew...

But it is unpopular because many motorists see nothing wrong with speeding and actually complain bitterly about the unfairness of being ticketed for breaking the law. It doesn't help that the posted speed limits on controlled access highways (e.g. 400-series) bear no relation to the actual "informal" speed limit, that seems to be something like 125km/h. This leads motorists to think that the speed limit is just a suggestion, a minimum or that the real limit is +10 or 20 km/h.

The Canadian Safety Council claims the public actually supports photo radar:

https://canadasafetycouncil.org/traffic-...

But in a dense urban area it makes sense to start rigorously enforce speed limits until and unless the streets can be re-engineered. And some sort of portable photo radar system is the only thing that will work since the police don't have the resources (and shouldn't) spend their time trying to enforce speed limits on urban streets.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-06-11 10:06:54

Exactly. Raise the expressway speed limits up by 10 or 20 k, drop the urban speed limits on local/residential roads similarly, and then let robots handle the enforcement.

I agree entirely: set appropriate speed limits (say 120 km/h or 130 km/h on freeways, 30km/h in dense urban areas and 50 km/h on major urban arterials) and then enforce rigorously. That's what most other countries do (e.g. Australia).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_speed_...

Australia actually does point-to-point (mean value theorem) enforcement on freeways and tickets those whose average speed exceeds the limit. This is better accepted by motorists because it removes the problem of momentary lapses in regulating speed and speed "traps".

http://www.itsinternational.com/categori...

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-06-11 10:45:04

Photo radar was one of the issues that brought down Bob Rae's government in the 90's. It is a shame but I think introducing this kind of enforcement has become a form of political suicide. A government that implements it will suffer the wrath of voters and one that promises to remove it has a good chance for victory at the polls. It will be very hard to get anyone to commit to this political toxin. It may be more palatable for a politician to support a kind of physical modification to the street design that would not invoke cries of 'cash grab' etc.

Red light cameras I think are a different animal. Even the most ardent street speeder usually detests a red light runner so there is less push back from voters on that issue.

"Photo radar was one of the issues that brought down Bob Rae's government in the 90's."

I guess strictly-speaking that's true, but it suggests that it played a major role. That's not the case. There were many reasons why Rae was so unpopular, many no fault of his own. Opponents of something often characterize it as political suicide, and baselessly insinuate that no voters are in favour of it. It's just received wisdom at this point that speed cameras are intolerable to voters, but do we know if it's actually a fact? kevlahan's link above suggests that a majority of Canadians might support cameras.

As police budgets become more burdensome, speed cameras seem like a no-brainer. It doesn't make sense for a Sunshine Lister to hide behind a pole with a radar gun hoping to give out a couple speeding tickets an hour. Not when a machine can do it with complete accuracy and negligible cost. Nor is it effective.

I don't understand why there has been no serious grass-roots movement to get the speed limits on the 400 series highways increased. It's astounding to drive on it and realize that 95% of motorists using them are in fact breaking the law. Maybe now that B.C. has managed to do it, Ontario will be next. I agree with kevlahan and pxtl that speed limits should be set for what is safe (higher than now on highways; and lower than now on our city streets), and effective and cost-effective enforcement of them.

Comment edited by StephenBarath on 2015-06-11 11:55:12

Just to be clear I'm not an opponent of photo radar per se but I do think it is only a semi-permanent fix in that governments can use it to sway voters (promise to remove/replace/increase or decrease penalties whatever). A modified street design removes the perceived 'attack' on the public (speeding ticket) and is certainly harder to remove than a camera on a pole.

Sorry if I suggested a position you didn't have; I didn't mean to say that you were opponent, just that opponents have been very successful with the message that speed cameras have minimal support amongst the public.

I agree with you about proper street design; obviously it makes a great deal more sense than enforcement of rules which people are practically encouraged to break.

You need to see the area. 50K up a blind curving rise topped by a school zone is too fast. Try it and ask yourself if your child was crossing there would you sacrifice their safety to shave a few seconds off of someones drive. Your "high" speed comment says it all along with your questioning of the school hours vs speed. Not relevant as schools are community institutions often offering the only recreational and other facilities in the area outside of school hours. Clearly you are opposed to a 40K limit outside basic school hours and skeptical about the need for any reduction at all. What is most surprising is your moniker "Durander" which I take to mean you live in the Durand neighborhood. How is it you don't know the area in question if you are a Durander? Why not change it to something more appropriate to a sociopathic belief that "my time is more valuable than your life? "Solipsist" for example. It would also be helpful if pedestrians and cyclists could quickly become aware of your priorities and just how self important you are. I suggest a pair of steer horns mounted on the hood of your car along with a 140db air horn to blast those pesky tikes out the way.

I'm not familiar with the area

then you may want to consider changing your screen-name

I fail to see how one could call 50% of drivers exceeding 40km/h "outliers"!

I think someone going between 41-45 km/h would not be considered an outlier. I'm talking those greater than 50 km/h or so....which looks to be about 7%.

the speed limit is 40.

For a pedestrian, the difference between getting hit at 40 kph and 49 kph may be the difference between limping away and being carried away on a stretcher. Or between being hospitalized and being killed. Your cavalier attitude towards people going up to 10 kph over the speed limit past a school, daycare and seniors center tells us what you really care about.

You're absolutely right, however, there are tolerances built into the equipment that is used to measure speed; both in the speedometers in the cars traveling this road as well as the equipment used to monitor and record it. Respecting that, we should fairly discard those traveling within the margin of error.

Taken from: http://drivesmartbc.ca/equipment/how-acc...

"Manufacturers are guided by a standard set by the Society of Automotive Engineers known as J1226 Electric Speedometer Specification. At speeds above about 90 km/h the allowable range for speed is 4% of the highest reading shown on the speedometer."

Now consider that the radar machine has an accuracy of 2% (for arguments sake only, I couldn't find actual values), and your potential inaccuracy is now 6%. That means your indicated 40kmh could be as high as 42.4km/h actual. It's not a lot, but it's enough to put you from a perfectly law abiding citizen to one of those "50% of drivers exceeding 40km/h" through no real fault of your own.

Discarding the people who were between 40-45km/hr reduces the number of people disobeying the speed limit to 23.99% of the population. Considering the systematic disregard for speed limits as mentioned earlier in the comments, sure there's room for improvement, but it's not too bad of a place to start.

That is a good point, which is why I would have preferred to see that actual raw data (i.e. all counts with time and registered speed).

In any case the error would be +/-2% with a mean error of zero which means there should not be any systematic over estimation of speeding (just as many speeders would have their speed incorrectly lowered). In any case, we don't know how accurate the mobile radar are, but I would expect to within 1 km/h or so (they correspond very closely to my speedometer).

Remember, also, that the whole point of visible speed indicators to slow traffic by embarrassing speeders (people are generally more law abiding if their infractions are seen publicly). It is likely that the true speeds are significantly higher. And if the maximum is 40km/h you really need to drive a few km/h under to avoid speeding (it is hard to control your speed super precisely).

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-06-11 17:48:40

No: the speed limit is 40km/h at all times and has been for many years. The school zone flashers and school zone sign were added only recently as an additional attempt to get motorists to slow down. I hope you don't drive on that street since you seem to have no idea what the speed limit is.

See this Google street view with two 40km/h signs just past James St:

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Hunter+St,+Dundas,+ON+L9H/@43.253567,-79.870437,3a,37.5y,297.29h,90.15t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCdHbWfYbvU0yXbpsVmTJAg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x882c849ebc2576a5:0x191daa3edd16b39d

Half the drivers exceeded the posted speed limit! The speed limit is the maximum speed allowed, not the suggested average speed, despite what some people think!

I'm not sure what you are referring to as "punishment": I'm only suggesting that the actual speed limit be enforced and the road be designed appropriate to the posted speed. How is that unfair to drivers who are already driving below the speed limit?

As I wrote in the article: "Maximum speeds in excess of 70 km/h were observed during every time period" (i.e. during every one hour period). We were not given the data for the actual times, but this is what traffic staff told us. And, again, what part of "next to a primary school, daycare and seniors centre with a blind curve" do you not understand to keep claiming that 70km/h and half of all motorists speeding is not a problem in this location!

You should be ashamed to call yourself a Durander!

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-06-11 10:58:40

Note that the 40km/h zone starts just past James, about 250m from the school: these signs have nothing to do with a school zone (which, in any case, can only extend a maximum of 150m from the edge of the school in each direction).

And, of course, the 40 km/h + school zone sign does not include the "when flashing" sign (like the one on Bay St S) confirming the speed limit is always 40km/h as shown by the signs at James St.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-06-11 11:31:44

when the green lights are lined up down hunter people just fly down, it's a dangerous road to cross and adding the pedestrian controlled crossing made a huge positive difference. having an additional crossing at the apex of the hill would be useful.

This is our neighbourhood and my youngest goes to school at Central. We've been walking across Hunter at Park since my oldest was a newborn and yes, I can attest that it is a dangerous cross with children or solo. Many folks are heading to or returning from the Farmer's Market and carrying small buggies with them. The stairs at the back of City Hall encourage people to cross at that spot and my rambunctious boys have loved to go through the area.

The corner on the south side at Park St is also problematic with many small children with or without parents, cross either at the corner or within 100 metres of the corner where the school side entrance is. Cars turning from Hunter to Park do not slow down much and continue to drive very quickly through that turn without consideration that it is now a school area and a residential area with very high pedestrian traffic.

I'm very much in favour of converting the street to 2-way and putting in a pedestriant controlled light at Park and Hunter. Those two things would calm the street right down.

Now, do we have this data on Bay St between Charlton and Hunter because people are worse through that stretch?

only problem I see with the 2-way conversion idea is that it's not possible to go 2-way east or west of here without losing the bike lanes and/or parking, and we know which of the two would survive. Seems to me we should extend the bike lanes past the GO Station as has been suggested over and over to city staff by having only one through car lane. Volumes are far low enough to warrant one lane. West of James the centre lane can continue for auto use with the right curb lane becoming a 24-7 parking lane with bumpouts at MacNab and Park. Barely east of Bay the right curb parking can end and become a right turn lane. Then parking resumes west of Bay.... Basically I'm proposing the same design that Hunter has from Wellington to Catharine be extended all the way through to Bay Street.
I'm sure the city's cycling staff will need 11 years to consider such a wild idea.

Not to mention the skewing effect of the cars turning off MacNab which would be just beginning accelerating as they passed the radar.

I am all for speed humps, that you can go over safely at 40kms an hour, not speed humps that you have to nearly stop at to go over...which is unsafe in itself, However, I think we are missing a big issue here with Hunter. If you are coming north on James and want to head west, where do you turn? Stop sign filled and congested Charlton? If you do not turn there you turn on Hunter...which miraculously got an advanced green a summer or two ago, a godsend...and if you do not turn down Hunter than what? No left on a one way street (MAIN) no left on KING (a one way street WEST no doubt) and then you have to go all the way down past Jackson Square and try to turn left (one car at a time, usually at the end of the light) on Cannon (no advanced green). People are speeding because Hunter is the most direct way allowable west, a left turn lane with advanced green on Cannon is part of the solution.

Stop sign filled and congested Charlton?

Charlton is a freeway, and has no stop signs until well past Queen. Have a look since you've clearly never driven on it:

https://goo.gl/W7dEGT

Feel free to save your posts full of mis-information for the Spec letter pages.

Comment edited by jason on 2015-06-12 14:42:24

the commenter wrote about heading west from James and encountering all kinds of stop signs and slow traffic. Both are wrong. It's a freeway until Queen. Anyone wishing it to remain a freeway even west of there through quiet residential streets of Kirkendall doesn't deserve the time of day.

Jason, you're clearly out of your element. Come ride down Charlton at varying times of the day. It's hardly a freeway, and there are regular stoplights and stop signs. What do you want? It looks to me like you want it to be 2-way and won't be happy till it's just that. Sour grapes, take your ball and go home.

Wow, great handle and website! It reminds me of the petulant cries of Argos suck and "Disco sucks".

The 400 series highways are restricted to motor vehicle access only and engineered for high speeds. It is absolutely inappropriate to translate the 401 mentality to streets that are shared with people.

There is an enforcement grace to account for errors in the car's speedometer and the police's radar equipment. That doesn't mean you should drive at the upper limit of the grace.

Going over the speed limit anywhere other than a controlled access freeway is dangerous, inappropriate, and completely unnecessary.

I hope you aren't a driver and that's why you don't understand it's illegal to drive faster than the legal limit. Especially when you're driving past lots of children and seniors that are most likely to get killed if they get hit. And I hope you haven't taken high school science yet and that's why you don't know that a car going 45-50 is alot more likely to kill someone than a car going 40.

One reason I finally created an account here is to give stronger voice to Hamiltonians who do not just walk and pedal bikes through the streets and bash the one way street system....everyone speeds to some degree, changing street structure because of 10 km an hour over is hilarious. I think maybe we should find a percentage for people who did over 10kms/hr over just because they want to see how high they get the digital readout on the machine...anything over 50km/hr is only 7% of the crowd...I bet a large % of that 7% is just blowing through to see their readout and definitely represents the very tiny minority

should have joined RTH Stinks. He'd love to gain his 3rd follower

I am sure you are doing the poor beleaguered drivers of Hamilton a great service by representing them.

I can just see you consoling the poor driver crying by the side of the road after striking a child. "I was only doing 50km in a 40km zone uphill with a blind curve." Drive it before you put your mouth in gear pal.

Sadly a car is about the only transportation I can use know so I am not someone driven by an anti-car agenda. I also find it very hard to believe you would accept those kind of speeds in your residential neighborhood. Hypocrisy among many drivers knows no bounds.

haha... I can imagine those side of the road convos: Sobbing driver: "I actually hit a red light. A RED LIGHT! How is that even possible in a 20-minute city??"

What's hilarious is that you criticize people for "bashing the one way street system" even though your other comment is a perfect case study in what's wrong with the one way street system.

do some research on the impacts of someone being hit by a driver going 10km faster than allowed and then come back here and tell everyone how 'hilarious' it is. Not sure your account is really needed. Your job is being done by hundreds of people at city hall - prioritizing drivers over everyone else, even if means the odd person being severed in half trying to cross King St.

Comment edited by jason on 2015-06-12 14:43:02

Non-visible speed measurements for the 2002 Durand Traffic Study showed similar results: 40% of traffic on the minor arterials (Charlton/Herkimer) exceeded the 50km/h speed limit and that 200 vehicles per day exceeded 65 km/h (the speed at which a pedestrian has over 85% of being killed if struck).

To claim that this is not a problem because "only" a small percentage of motorists drive at speeds dangerous to other street users is like claiming that a test showing that 7% of Hamilton's water samples are poisonous is not a problem because 93% of the samples were okay. Would you have no problem with 1% of drivers exceeding 120 km/h on the street you live on (say 50 per day)?

Don't forget that studies have also shown that Hamilton is the second most dangerous places in Ontario to be a pedestrian https://raisethehammer.org/blog/2805/ham...

Maybe you don't care about seniors, kindergarten children, school children and their parents who have to put up with these risks on this short section of street. But most of the community actually does. The Durand Neighbourhood Association has been advocating for calmer complete streets for everyone for the past 40 years; it is not some imaginary problem dreamt up by RTH.

And these changes would make the streets safer for motorists as well! The idea that people who support safer complete streets in a dense urban neighbourhood like the Durand somehow never drive is ridiculous.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-06-12 14:44:49

Everyone conveniently ignores my Cannon St. comment however. And maybe I do drive the speed limit on Charlton. Seeing how its kinda 3 lanes, and you can only drive in the middle lane as this street seems to pinch you off and on all the way down from parked cars narrow lanes and people swerving all over the place. Another point is a hit to the head or leg or wherever in a car doing 40 opposed to someone doing 60 inflicts the same damage. Broken leg, head trauma or worse. People fall off bicycles and die. People fall down stairs and die. Its a car vs human. Human does not win. If you want to argue that driving over a posted limit is a problem then you have more than Hunter to complain about. You have every street ever made to complain about it. This study just pointed the obvious. People generally do the speed limit within 10km. And excessive speeding which is the issue on any street is like I said, the minority, and occurs on every street. So apparently your version of Charlton is as skewed as mine, as half is a freeway, and half is full of stop signs...to which I do not complain about... just point to as a east to west option for drivers. And another point, seems like everyone in here would rather ignore the fact I said I have no problem with traffic calming in the area..I am a defensive driver and recognize hazards as well as potential hazards and "what ifs" like children, seniors, cyclists...this is plain common sense and my duty as a responsible driver...and would rather jump on me for overall statements on speeds above the limit in general. Glad to see we all came to argue, which is not the most enjoyable thing to do when I would rather listen to reason, like I did through these posts, the only thing I complained about was the reaction to the small percent of excessive speeders, like I will say again, occurs on every street everywhere, and speed humps are a good option. WOW

If you want to argue that driving over a posted limit is a problem then you have more than Hunter to complain about. You have every street ever made to complain about it.

Exactly! And we'll continue to do so until city hall takes lives and safety seriously.

Comment edited by DowntownInHamilton on 2015-06-13 07:15:00

Yes! As Ryan has pointed out numerous times RTH advocates for safer complete streets throughout the city. You probably read his recent article about the problems on Stonechurch.

Please write an article about the streets in your neighbourhood you are particularly concerned about, pointing out specific design problems and how they might be remedied. It might be best to start with the worst or streets where there is specific data (as I did here).

If you explain how your campaign is being organized and how people can help I'm sure you can recruit a lot of supporters here.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-06-13 09:04:45

Oh, but that's not the attitude of this site. It's OK to pile on, but only when you agree with the site's agenda (and please, don't frame it as if you are the minority by liking our one-ways, etc. If it were the majority view we'd see something done about it already).

Once we've got it fleshed out more, I'm sure we'll be looking for local outlets to post our ideas. We won't have more of an idea until after our AGM, which in August. We've just been looking at some of the data collected by McMaster from 2012-2014 on issues in our neighbourhood, some photo essays done by kids who live and learn in the area, and our NAP's gut-feel on stuff.

"Safe streets for me, but not for thee." Got it.

Prove it. Show some empathy for once and stop trying to sabotage the efforts of people who are trying to make their neighbourhood streets safer and more functional for all - something you clearly value for your own neighbourhood.

Comment edited by highwater on 2015-06-16 10:00:39

Your lack of empathy is matched only by your lack of self awareness. The only community you have demonstrated any real concern for (as opposed to concern trolling) is your own. Sorry, but you don't get to marginalize the voices of other communities and attempt to dictate what they ought to prioritize, and what makes sense for them, while patting yourself on the back for 'caring' about them. It doesn't work that way.

It is clear from the entirety of your commentary that your 'caring' is limited to your ability to drive through other people's neighbourhoods as quickly and conveniently as possible, the residents be damned.

Comment edited by highwater on 2015-06-17 14:41:06

I'm not the one who's presuming to speak for other people's neighbourhoods, you are. Neighbourhoods like the DNA have been overwhelmingly and consistently clear about what they would like to see in their own communities, and you have consistently attempted to dismiss their arguments and marginalize them, which is sociopathic enough, but then you turn around and demand safe streets for your own neighbourhood. Amazing chutzpah.

I really do have to hand it to you though. Your commentary neatly exposes the sociopathy that underpins the increasingly desperate defences of the status quo in this city: safe streets for me, but not for thee.

"(and please, don't frame it as if you are the minority by liking our one-ways, etc. If it were the majority view we'd see something done about it already)."

AND

"So, in conclusion. I am in support of safer streets when implemented the way the neighbourhood would like them implemented, and where it makes sense (prioritization)."

But wouldn't a neighbourhood always be in the minority within the city at Large?

You mean like Durand?

And almost exclusively one way streets. You're right. That neighbourhood would be a good place to start.

The DNA is over 40 years old: it is one of the oldest neighbourhood associations in Ontario. It is, as far as I know, the only organized voice of Durand (and has been for at least the past 17 years) and is recognized as such by our Councillor who regularly meets with the six neighbourhood associations in Ward 2. It is the only ward 2 neighbourhood association that has survived continuously, without breaks, splits or reconstitution.

The DNA has also been remarkably consistent in its support for two-way reversion and street calming for the past 40 years (read the Durand Chronicle which gives the history of the DNA for examples). This shows very consistent and strong support for these policies by the community given the annual change in membership of the board and membership at large. Remember that any resident can join the DNA for a few dollars: you do not have to own property.

With hundreds of members, a long history, and a depth of expertise on these issues stemming from its personal and institutional memory, it is just irresponsible and disrespectful to brush off the DNA as "not the only voice"!

It IS the only organized voice, has been for 40 years, and the message the DNA has heard from the vast majority of the community is that the streets of Durand need calming. That was the message from the public meetings around the 2002 Traffic Study and that is the message today. Of course, not every single resident agrees, but the vast majority who take the time to make their views known do!

In fact, even those who opposed the two-way reversion of Bold and Duke did not do so because "There's no need to fix what's broken" or because they wanted to drive fast. They opposed it because they felt traffic conditions were already dangerous and they were concerned two-way might make it worse (mistakenly I believe). They did want something to be done, but they were fearful about two-ways since they couldn't visualize how traffic would move.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-06-17 09:36:13

"and no, the DNA is not the only voice of the neighbourhood"

But according to you they needn't be the voice of the neighbourhood; just the majority, which I am sure they are.

Comment edited by DowntownInHamilton on 2015-06-17 22:24:25

Wait a minute ... there's something I don't get here.

I was just reading the comments to the Stonechurch article and all of your very first comment aimed to minimize the problem and claim it's a non-issue.

You don't support calmer, complete streets downtown. You don't seem to support them on suburban edge of the Mountain.

Are you actually concerned about safer streets throughout Hamilton, or only in your own immediate neighbourhood? Do you even care about them there? If so, what are you trying to do about it?

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-06-13 09:10:26

I agree with it in places where it makes sense. Areas with multi-lane roadways and little to no housing right there - not a priority. Places where there are destinations like schools where there will be a lot of foot traffic, those are more important. Big box shopping centres - designed for vehicles - are not places to start, there places to go after once you've finished the priority places. Also, the neighbourhoods there (are there even neighbourhoods?) - looking at http://map.hamilton.ca/Static/PDFs/Gener... seems to show that most of the east mountain is just known as "east mountain area". Perhaps you'd be better served asking the residents what they want, rather than telling them what you think they should want. What if they were OK with the roads? What if they felt the priority was things like loss of green space or the rural feeling? What if it was about the cost of living skyrocketing due to the massive amounts of low density housing being built?

So, in conclusion. I am in support of safer streets when implemented the way the neighbourhood would like them implemented, and where it makes sense (prioritization). Thanks.

Comment edited by DowntownInHamilton on 2015-06-14 20:17:56

bingo

100% with you. This is a city-wide problem. Residents have been calling for this for YEARS, but their councillor values expressways like Garth/ Fennel/ Limeridge over safe streets for all users. Limeridge kills me. Talk about a perfect street to accommodate all users with more greenery, protected bike lanes etc.... Yet we leave a 4-lane cross section for barely any traffic.

hokely smokely, no wonder I keeps gettin run down & over when I tries to cross there. Usain Bolt

And the efforts of the DNA and RTH and other neighbourhood groups have been backed up by an academic study at McMaster, based on a study of 37 complete street implementations in the USA.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/567487...

"From this, there are many who fear that excess traffic congestion will be an unfortunate by-product of these measures," reads the report.

"In practice, the worst fears with regard to traffic congestion rarely materialize."

While one-way corridors are suitable in some cases, overall, Hamilton would benefit with fewer of them, the study concludes.

All things we've been saying here for ten years ... and the DNA has been saying for 40 years!

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-06-13 09:13:40

but some guy in his basement disagrees, so there. Lol