Washington Post: Traffic deaths continue to soar despite cities' pledges to get them to "˜Zero' (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/traffic-deaths-continue-to-soar-despite-cities-pledges-to-get-them-to-zero/2018/03/14/36c57386-26c7-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html)
QuoteD.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser stood in the heart of Union Station on Feb. 20, 2015, and promised to lead the nation's capital into an era free of traffic fatalities.
Quote"We are taking our first step toward realizing a "˜Vision Zero' where no lives are lost on our streets or at our intersections," said a newly elected Bowser, setting a goal of zero road deaths by 2024.
QuoteInstead, the number of traffic fatalities has steadily increased since then, frustrating city officials and advocates, and seemingly putting the goal further from reach.
No surprises here. The District of Columbia has an unstated policy of only enforcing its traffic laws through automated devices, and drunk/impaired drivers seem to only get arrested if they crash into someone or something first.
And in many municipalities, Vision Zero has been hijacked by anti-highway and anti-auto ideology, which not doing anyone any good.
Yeah, I don't know how they can think they can stop all fatals, when something like driving at the posted speed limit contributes to extremely few accidents, much less fatal accidents. They need to see exactly how all fatals are occurring, and go directly after every one of those reasons.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2018, 08:45:52 AM
Yeah, I don't know how they can think they can stop all fatals, when something like driving at the posted speed limit contributes to extremely few accidents, much less fatal accidents. They need to see exactly how all fatals are occurring, and go directly after every one of those reasons.
The problem is the government goes after low-hanging fruit in this country, be it the actual cause of the problem or not, and is good at getting a gullible segment of the population to go along with it. Especially a bigger problem in cities.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2018, 08:45:52 AM
Yeah, I don't know how they can think they can stop all fatals, when something like driving at the posted speed limit contributes to extremely few accidents, much less fatal accidents. They need to see exactly how all fatals are occurring, and go directly after every one of those reasons.
Another problem is that most traffic fatalities are one of a kind events, and it is difficult to get statistically significant trends.
Drunk driving, of course, is one of those clear cut issues - but it is also aggressively addressed.
A lot of avoidable problems are due to "I didn't see" and "I didn't notice" type situations - but the way distracted driving is addressed, net result is probably going to be negative. And something like mandating reflective clothing elements for pedestrians would be a no-go with many groups (probably because it would make drug sellers more noticeable?). At least some of those issues are going to be helped with rear view cameras and all of blind spot-proximity warnings.
I hear a lot of stories that engineering measures reducing accidents elsewhere - noticeably, grade separated crosswalks - are no-go in US. Well, price is there to pay...
Let's also not forget the issue of distracted walking. It's way too easy to have one's head in a phone instead of noticing the signals and the traffic (of all kinds) around.
Quote from: SectorZ on March 15, 2018, 09:04:46 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2018, 08:45:52 AM
Yeah, I don't know how they can think they can stop all fatals, when something like driving at the posted speed limit contributes to extremely few accidents, much less fatal accidents. They need to see exactly how all fatals are occurring, and go directly after every one of those reasons.
The problem is the government goes after low-hanging fruit in this country, be it the actual cause of the problem or not, and is good at getting a gullible segment of the population to go along with it. Especially a bigger problem in cities.
Yep.
But until they start going after the actual problem rather than just what sounds good in the media, they won't resolve the issue. Even in cases involving alcohol - If a drunk hits a jaywalking pedestrian, both are at fault, but the blame is largely put on the drunk. Heck, because the article said 'alcohol', it convers that the driver was drunk. The pedestrian could've been the one drunk, and the accident was at fault of an intoxicated person...but again, it's not broken down as to who was actually the one that was drunk.
Note that actual numbers are rarely given, and actual numbers that show pedestrians are at fault are absolutely never given.
We see it on these boards also - bicyclists and pedestrians take every opportunity to shift the blame away from their actions and onto driver's actions. Reading the article, at one point someone said a pedestrian crosswalk cycle is too short. While that may or may not be true, there was nothing elsewhere within the article, or anywhere else for that matter, to say that short crossing cycle has contributed to any accidents or deaths. It's another example of shifting the blame around, and allows the actual problem to get worse, not better. They can spend billions making intersections safer for pedestrians, but if the pedestrian decides to walk midblock, the safer intersection did nothing to prevent that death.
Heh. There was a sign at a fire station that said "Be careful walking and driving."
I thought, "I can't even imagine doing both at the same time. That must take talent."
Quote from: Brandon on March 15, 2018, 09:37:14 AM
Let's also not forget the issue of distracted walking. It's way too easy to have one's head in a phone instead of noticing the signals and the traffic (of all kinds) around.
Yep, and using navigation software in unfamiliar location can make a difference between paying attention to driving and rubber-necking for street blades..
But, as long as we're on a subject, flagship accident of distracted driving saga is a perfect example of how much good some simple inspections - like enforcing breaks being checked - can do.
Quote from: kalvado on March 15, 2018, 09:32:16 AM
I hear a lot of stories that engineering measures reducing accidents elsewhere - noticeably, grade separated crosswalks - are no-go in US. Well, price is there to pay...
Las Vegas has invested significantly in overhead walkways at intersections. But you need to see the significant infrastructure they put in at every intersection not only to get people across the streets, but to prevent people from crossing the street at ground level. And I think a lot of the walkways have been paid for by the casinos, not by public funds.
So, it's the best solution, but a very expensive solution. And in older cities where there's little sidewalk room to begin with, there's no room to build the infrastructure for an overhead walkway anyway unless you incorporate it thru existing buildings, which isn't going to happen often either.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2018, 09:46:49 AM
Quote from: kalvado on March 15, 2018, 09:32:16 AM
I hear a lot of stories that engineering measures reducing accidents elsewhere - noticeably, grade separated crosswalks - are no-go in US. Well, price is there to pay...
Las Vegas has invested significantly in overhead walkways at intersections. But you need to see the significant infrastructure they put in at every intersection not only to get people across the streets, but to prevent people from crossing the street at ground level. And I think a lot of the walkways have been paid for by the casinos, not by public funds.
So, it's the best solution, but a very expensive solution. And in older cities where there's little sidewalk room to begin with, there's no room to build the infrastructure for an overhead walkway anyway unless you incorporate it thru existing buildings, which isn't going to happen often either.
For every intersection - that is too expensive, no question about that.
However there are hot spots, where accident do occur. For example: we have a crossing of a busy (40k traffic) street near the mall, and same spot works as a bus connection point. Overall a quite hot location. situation escalated as far as building a fence on median to confine pedestrians to a marked crosswalk, and police doing a "ticket a jaywalker" event. it
begs for grade separation.
I can think of 2 or 3 similar locations in the area, and that shouldn't be overly expensive...
This definitely comes as sad news to me. It is alarming that it is somewhat of an actual trend/pattern (for there to be three consecutive years of an increase in traffic deaths in Washington D.C.), and that it was not just one isolated year that was like this. This news actually reminds me of the fact that life expectancy in the United States has been on a slight decline for the second or third year in a row (especially because of the current opiate overdoses death epidemic, I had read), if I recall correctly. Unfortunately, of course, it just isn't that simple to fix overnight - it will probably take decades before we see significant progress in the decline of the massive traffic death epidemic that unfortunately exists, but we've got to start working toward it right now - and it is definitely good that some people in charge have the mindset of aiming toward "zero fatalities," which ties into a very good quote I actually saw for the first time earlier today (though it was completely unrelated to this), which said something along the lines of "Perfection is impossible, but if we aim for perfection, we might catch excellence."
Quote from: kalvado on March 15, 2018, 10:31:33 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2018, 09:46:49 AM
Quote from: kalvado on March 15, 2018, 09:32:16 AM
I hear a lot of stories that engineering measures reducing accidents elsewhere - noticeably, grade separated crosswalks - are no-go in US. Well, price is there to pay...
Las Vegas has invested significantly in overhead walkways at intersections. But you need to see the significant infrastructure they put in at every intersection not only to get people across the streets, but to prevent people from crossing the street at ground level. And I think a lot of the walkways have been paid for by the casinos, not by public funds.
So, it's the best solution, but a very expensive solution. And in older cities where there's little sidewalk room to begin with, there's no room to build the infrastructure for an overhead walkway anyway unless you incorporate it thru existing buildings, which isn't going to happen often either.
For every intersection - that is too expensive, no question about that.
However there are hot spots, where accident do occur. For example: we have a crossing of a busy (40k traffic) street near the mall, and same spot works as a bus connection point. Overall a quite hot location. situation escalated as far as building a fence on median to confine pedestrians to a marked crosswalk, and police doing a "ticket a jaywalker" event. it begs for grade separation.
I can think of 2 or 3 similar locations in the area, and that shouldn't be overly expensive...
A number of California cities, with L.A. being the most prolific in this regard, had pedestrian
tunnels under major streets in the downtown or other commercial districts. Unfortunately, most of these, built in the late '40's through the early '60's, were deployed on the cheap -- hardly wide enough for two people to pass each other, poorly lit, with no line-of-sight from the entrances, which relegated them to the role of "mugging/assault central" or linear restrooms. Eventually most of them were closed off or even filled in. But the concept wasn't at fault; simply the execution. While it would probably be difficult to retrofit safe and roomy undercrossings in dense areas, if included in neighborhood renovation plans (hopefully not full-on gentrification!) or newer developments along major arteries the concept may still be valid.
The primary cause of traffic accidents is stupidity. Stop issuing drivers licenses to stupid people, and the problem would mostly go away
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2018, 08:45:52 AM
Yeah, I don't know how they can think they can stop all fatals
This is one of those "aim for the stars so when you fail you'll fall in the clouds" things. No one is claiming zero fatalities is achievable, merely that it is a theoretical ideal we want to get as close to as possible.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 15, 2018, 08:19:03 AM
And in many municipalities, Vision Zero has been hijacked by anti-highway and anti-auto ideology, which not doing anyone any good.
Indeed, which in some ways ends up being counterproductive towards the stated goal. For example, grade separations are a great way of preventing crashes. If cities want to increase safety they should be building more of them, but the trend is instead towards removing them.
As with so many things, the fact that the effort is run by politicians rather than by people who actually know what they're doing renders it impotent.
Quote from: Brian556 on March 16, 2018, 12:51:12 AM
The primary cause of traffic accidents is stupidity. Stop issuing drivers licenses to stupid people, and the problem would mostly go away
The best answer I can give is this: lead by example and surrender your license today!
Quote from: Duke87 on March 16, 2018, 01:09:29 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2018, 08:45:52 AM
Yeah, I don't know how they can think they can stop all fatals
This is one of those "aim for the stars so when you fail you'll fall in the clouds" things. No one is claiming zero fatalities is achievable, merely that it is a theoretical ideal we want to get as close to as possible.
I dunno about that. In the link CP provided at the top of this thread, it was mentioned twice in the first 7 paragraphs by two different DC officials about not a simple reduction or a large deduction, but actually getting to 0 fatalities.
The mayor of DC wants to eliminate transportation fatalities in the district by 2024. In the first year of the Vision Zero initiative, traffic fatalities went up from 26 in 2015 to 28 in 2016. Injuries increased from 12,122 to 12,430. The silver lining is there was a 40% reduction in pedestrian fatalities. Here's the first year progress report:
https://www.scribd.com/document/343681997/Final-2016-Progress-Report-V3#from_embed
Quote from: Brandon on March 15, 2018, 09:37:14 AM
Let's also not forget the issue of distracted walking. It's way too easy to have one's head in a phone instead of noticing the signals and the traffic (of all kinds) around.
so tired of people just crossing roads wherever they want and not even looking up.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 16, 2018, 07:56:06 AM
Quote from: Brandon on March 15, 2018, 09:37:14 AM
Let's also not forget the issue of distracted walking. It's way too easy to have one's head in a phone instead of noticing the signals and the traffic (of all kinds) around.
so tired of people just crossing roads wherever they want and not even looking up.
An even more interesting aspect is the number of intoxicated pedestrians getting killed. 1/3 of all drinking age pedestrians deaths, 1/4 of 16-20 age bin.
Looks like another low hanging fruit, I would say...
Up to 30 from 28 is not "soaring". It is a normal variance from sample to sample.
This is, like all traffic enforcement, about $$$$$$$$$. First, of course, DC might want to concentrate on the 116 people who were MURDERED, the 296 people who were raped, the 1858 people who were assaulted with deadly weapons, and the 28743 people who were stolen from. Once they lick that, maybe they can move on to traffic. Start by ripping the radar gun out of every police car and destroying every red light camera, and then reform traffic laws based on SCIENCE with no regard for revenue, and then enforce them EQUALLY among all groups.
Quote from: Brian556 on March 16, 2018, 12:51:12 AM
The primary cause of traffic accidents is stupidity. Stop issuing drivers licenses to stupid people, and the problem would mostly go away
That's true, but a lot of people do well on a driving test, then start driving like fools the moment they get their license. People should also get the license taken away permanently if they're caught talking on a phone or texting while driving.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 16, 2018, 09:07:24 AM
This is, like all traffic enforcement, about $$$$$$$$$.
Which is why the "enforcement" never actually solves anything. It almost always focuses on speed, which has little effect on the collision rate and is only a factor in extreme cases. The numbers on the sign are usually arbitrary, which leads to them getting ignored, which in turn means money. It's not a "problem" they want to fix; it's a money making gambit that's completely unfair to the driving public. Once they stop their focus on speed (never going to happen), they can finally address the real issues to decrease deaths. It will never hit zero, but they can come a lot closer.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 16, 2018, 07:56:06 AM
Quote from: Brandon on March 15, 2018, 09:37:14 AM
Let's also not forget the issue of distracted walking. It's way too easy to have one's head in a phone instead of noticing the signals and the traffic (of all kinds) around.
so tired of people just crossing roads wherever they want and not even looking up.
It's the opposite problem around here. Pedestrians in a crosswalk have the right of way and drivers do not seem to understand that. That said, both drivers and pedestrians in parking lots do whatever they want, and I'm surprised there haven't been more issues.
Quote from: Super Mateo on March 16, 2018, 09:50:52 AM
It's the opposite problem around here. Pedestrians in a crosswalk have the right of way *
* They have the right of way when the light is in their favor. If they step into a crosswalk against a red light or a red 'Don't Walk' symbol, the ped don't have the right of way. Also, they are supposed to make sure that it's safe to cross. If they step into the crosswalk with a car 3 feet away, they technically don't have the right of way because it would be impossible for the car to properly see them and stop.
Quote from: Super Mateo on March 16, 2018, 09:50:52 AM
Which is why the "enforcement" never actually solves anything. It almost always focuses on speed, which has little effect on the collision rate and is only a factor in extreme cases. The numbers on the sign are usually arbitrary, which leads to them getting ignored, which in turn means money. It's not a "problem" they want to fix; it's a money making gambit that's completely unfair to the driving public. Once they stop their focus on speed (never going to happen), they can finally address the real issues to decrease deaths. It will never hit zero, but they can come a lot closer.
Exactly. Any time a politician (and high ranking police are certainly politicians) spews fourth about "good community relations" and/or "traffic safety", they are lying. If you want good relations with the community, especially visible minorities and young people (who are vastly more likely to be the victim of the corrupt system), dissolve the traffic division and understand that speed enforcement is corrupt, corrupts the police, and, by treating honest adult people like children (or worse) destroys any hope of being respected. Because respect must be earned, and ending traffic enforcement is step one down that path. And if you want traffic safety, things that CAUSE accidents, like red light camaras, must end.
But it not about safety, nor respect. It is about $$$$$$$$$.
Quote from: tradephoric on March 16, 2018, 07:37:23 AM
The mayor of DC wants to eliminate transportation fatalities in the district by 2024. In the first year of the Vision Zero initiative, traffic fatalities went up from 26 in 2015 to 28 in 2016. Injuries increased from 12,122 to 12,430. The silver lining is there was a 40% reduction in pedestrian fatalities. Here's the first year progress report:
https://www.scribd.com/document/343681997/Final-2016-Progress-Report-V3#from_embed
Similarly in Philadelphia, Mayor Kenney signed an executive order committing the city to eliminate all roadway deaths by 2030.
There's actually a
Vision Zero conference taking place tomorrow.
2018 Vision Zero for Philadelphia (http://bicyclecoalition.org/our-campaigns/vision-zero-conference-2018/#sthash.3jDRNTL2.LYPAHqLi.dpbs)
Wait a minute, DC's mayor is named Bowser?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 16, 2018, 10:04:41 AM
Quote from: Super Mateo on March 16, 2018, 09:50:52 AM
It's the opposite problem around here. Pedestrians in a crosswalk have the right of way *
* They have the right of way when the light is in their favor. If they step into a crosswalk against a red light or a red 'Don't Walk' symbol, the ped don't have the right of way. Also, they are supposed to make sure that it's safe to cross. If they step into the crosswalk with a car 3 feet away, they technically don't have the right of way because it would be impossible for the car to properly see them and stop.
Yesterday at SXSW I could turn right on red and every pedestrian sure thought they had the right to walk across on red.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 16, 2018, 11:50:56 AM
Yesterday at SXSW I could turn right on red and every pedestrian sure thought they had the right to walk across on red.
Did they have the walk signal? All-ped phases are the current trend around here.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 16, 2018, 10:04:41 AM
Quote from: Super Mateo on March 16, 2018, 09:50:52 AM
It's the opposite problem around here. Pedestrians in a crosswalk have the right of way *
* They have the right of way when the light is in their favor. If they step into a crosswalk against a red light or a red 'Don't Walk' symbol, the ped don't have the right of way. Also, they are supposed to make sure that it's safe to cross. If they step into the crosswalk with a car 3 feet away, they technically don't have the right of way because it would be impossible for the car to properly see them and stop.
What difference does it make when they do or don't have the right of way? You can't intentionally hit a pedestrian. The only real difference is deciding when to stop to let a
waiting pedestrian cross.
Quote from: vdeane on March 16, 2018, 12:50:17 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 16, 2018, 11:50:56 AM
Yesterday at SXSW I could turn right on red and every pedestrian sure thought they had the right to walk across on red.
Did they have the walk signal? All-ped phases are the current trend around here.
Nope, totally red for both of us but i can make a right turn on red. they shouldn't be crossing on red.
Quote from: SectorZ on March 16, 2018, 11:30:21 AM
Wait a minute, DC's mayor is named Bowser?
That is funny.
The vision zero cap is also in Portland and wr just reduced our speed limits from a default 25 to a default 20. This is in addition to other speed decreases (division street is down to 30 from 40) and traffic deaths also rise here. The Sherwood police department chief said: "speed is a factor in every crash." :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: So... I won't rant again here (there is a rant by me on this in the Northwest board, if you feel like getting mad) but you should get the point. As others have pointed out, its all for $$$$$ because of the effects it has proven to show on these roadways.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on March 16, 2018, 12:30:01 AM
...and it is definitely good that some people in charge have the mindset of aiming toward "zero fatalities," which ties into a very good quote I actually saw for the first time earlier today (though it was completely unrelated to this), which said something along the lines of "Perfection is impossible, but if we aim for perfection, we might catch excellence."
This is a minor tweak, but I just saw that quote again, and the exact wording of it is as goes:
"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."It is a great quote indeed, and it especially is so for this.
Quote from: SectorZ on March 16, 2018, 11:30:21 AM
Wait a minute, DC's mayor is named Bowser?
Muriel Elizabeth Bowser. Years ago, she worked down the hall from me. Nice person.
I don't always agree with her policy pronouncements, but she has done an acceptable job as mayor (I do not live in the District of Columbia). There have been others in that job that were better and there was one that was dramatically worse.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on March 16, 2018, 05:05:28 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on March 16, 2018, 12:30:01 AM
...and it is definitely good that some people in charge have the mindset of aiming toward "zero fatalities," which ties into a very good quote I actually saw for the first time earlier today (though it was completely unrelated to this), which said something along the lines of "Perfection is impossible, but if we aim for perfection, we might catch excellence."
This is a minor tweak, but I just saw that quote again, and the exact wording of it is as goes:
"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."
It is a great quote indeed, and it especially is so for this.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions and Perfect is the enemy of good.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on March 16, 2018, 04:58:38 PM
This is in addition to other speed decreases (division street is down to 30 from 40) and traffic deaths also rise here.
Coincidentally, guess where the most recent traffic-related fatality in Portland was? Right smack dab in the middle (http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/389519-280637-pedestrian-dies-after-sunday-crash) of that new 30 zone (which also has speed cameras). Apparently, compared to this time last year, fatalities are currently trending up 75% in Portland.
I don't think you'll find any reasonable person out there who doesn't want to see traffic deaths eliminated, though the simple law of averages suggests that's never going to be a reality. Vision Zero, as it's being implemented, has just been a thinly veiled excuse to implement poor engineering practices, and subsequently profiting from their failure. The fact that they seem willing (and eager) to repeat the same mistakes over and over suggests to me that they don't really care about safety at all.
Between this and the whole snow debacle last year, I'm constantly amazed at how PBOT actually manages to make ODOT look halfway competent.
Cities can pledge all day long, but the majority of fatal wrecks happens on rural or suburban roadways.
Quote from: Road Hog on March 16, 2018, 08:28:32 PM
Cities can pledge all day long, but the majority of fatal wrecks happens on rural or suburban roadways.
Washington as a state has a vision zero goal by 2030. I-90 was studied for a increase to 75 MPH but despite the average being 73 MPH, and the 85% not disclosed, they decided to keep it 70 due to vision zero.
LG-TP260
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on March 16, 2018, 10:08:39 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on March 16, 2018, 08:28:32 PM
Cities can pledge all day long, but the majority of fatal wrecks happens on rural or suburban roadways.
Washington as a state has a vision zero goal by 2030. I-90 was studied for a increase to 75 MPH but despite the average being 73 MPH, and the 85% not disclosed, they decided to keep it 70 due to vision zero.
LG-TP260
No, since every increase in SLs was followed by a decrese in fatalities, they did if for the $$$$$$$$.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 17, 2018, 01:43:58 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on March 16, 2018, 10:08:39 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on March 16, 2018, 08:28:32 PM
Cities can pledge all day long, but the majority of fatal wrecks happens on rural or suburban roadways.
Washington as a state has a vision zero goal by 2030. I-90 was studied for a increase to 75 MPH but despite the average being 73 MPH, and the 85% not disclosed, they decided to keep it 70 due to vision zero.
No, since every increase in SLs was followed by a decrese in fatalities, they did if for the $$$$$$$$.
The study indicated that an increase to 75 would result in 0.62 to 1.27 more serious or fatal collisions per year (and that being the reason the limit wasn't increased). In the press release (first link), they cite Vision Zero as a factor in not increasing the limit...
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/News/2016/05/i90nospeedincrease.htm
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/Studies/i90speedlimit/default.htm
WSP's speed enforcement is pretty lax compared to ten years ago. They mostly focus on mobile device usage and left lane camping these days, although seeing cops doing radar isn't that rare.
The second link shows that according to their estimates, decreased fuel efficiency cancels out time saved. They wouldn't do it even if there was no change in crashes (although they would if there was a decrease in crashes).
Quote from: 1 on March 17, 2018, 02:16:09 PM
The second link shows that according to their estimates, decreased fuel efficiency cancels out time saved. They wouldn't do it even if there was no change in crashes (although they would if there was a decrease in crashes).
There are other factors obviously, but safety is a bigger concern (to WSDOT at least). If the study estimated fewer deaths, I'm 99% sure they'd have increased the limit (since it would save lives).
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 02:20:11 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 17, 2018, 02:16:09 PM
The second link shows that according to their estimates, decreased fuel efficiency cancels out time saved. They wouldn't do it even if there was no change in crashes (although they would if there was a decrease in crashes).
There are other factors obviously, but safety is a bigger concern (to WSDOT at least). If the study estimated fewer deaths, I'm 99% sure they'd have increased the limit (since it would save lives).
If safety is a concern, they should recognize that the 85% rule especially on freeways makes it safer. I'd be willing to bet that this is due to the argument that speed kills and the studies on that. An average at 73 mph in a 70 would spell even to ODOT to raise the speed limit. I can't get my head around what they've said.
For fuel, I think we all can agree on what they've said here.
On enforcement: In the last 2 years, I've been on rural Washington interstates 16 times. Of those 12 times, 6 were on I-90 (only once on the entire Seattle to Spokane route though with a Wenatchee detour), 6 were on I-82, 10 were on I-5. I saw 1 cop on I-90. None on I-82 and an average of 2 each time on I-5. Don't know why the increased amount on I-5 though.
LG-TP260
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 02:11:19 PM
The study indicated that an increase to 75 would result in 0.62 to 1.27 more serious or fatal collisions per year (and that being the reason the limit wasn't increased). In the press release (first link), they cite Vision Zero as a factor in not increasing the limit...
Umm, thank you for that. The "study" is wrong. Just like every other doomsday scenario dating back to our long and eventually successful fight against the evil NMSL.
What is more amazing. That these people, wrong so often (or just lying) still speak? Or that they are taken seriously?
It is all about the $$$$$$$$$.
Quote from: SP Cook on March 18, 2018, 12:42:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 02:11:19 PM
The study indicated that an increase to 75 would result in 0.62 to 1.27 more serious or fatal collisions per year (and that being the reason the limit wasn't increased). In the press release (first link), they cite Vision Zero as a factor in not increasing the limit...
Umm, thank you for that. The "study" is wrong. Just like every other doomsday scenario dating back to our long and eventually successful fight against the evil NMSL.
What is more amazing. That these people, wrong so often (or just lying) still speak? Or that they are taken seriously?
It is all about the $$$$$$$$$.
You have the media, who hates government in general, yet always seems to side with them when they want to loosen restrictions such as speed limits. The media could easily show that since speed limits have gone up traffic deaths have gone way down, but they choose not to engage in any studies. Just get the story, get a few quotes from people that will say we will all die, and good enough.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 18, 2018, 01:43:09 PM
Just get the story, get a few quotes from people that will say we will all die, and good enough.
Worse yet, cite the IIHS.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 18, 2018, 10:57:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 18, 2018, 01:43:09 PM
Just get the story, get a few quotes from people that will say we will all die, and good enough.
Worse yet, cite the IIHS.
Or the MUTCD if it gets rid of the 85% rule (its been proposed).
LG-TP260
NYC on track to see lowest traffic fatalities since 1910 (https://ny.curbed.com/2018/12/28/18159277/nyc-traffic-fatalities-record-low-vision-zero)
- 5th consecutive year of declining fatalities
- Fatalities declined by a third since 2013
- 2018 fatalities: 196; 2017 fatalities: 222
These Vision Zero campaigns should be renamed Vision Delusional.
Survivability decreases sharply over 40 MPH. And let's be truthful: there is no real reason to speed in NYC. If you are going 40 MPH down Broadway, you are driving recklessly.
Quote from: seicer on January 09, 2019, 10:57:06 AM
Survivability decreases sharply over 40 MPH. And let's be truthful: there is no real reason to speed in NYC. If you are going 40 MPH down Broadway, you are driving recklessly.
Heh. Drive on Sixth Avenue after midnight. If you're going 40 mph, you may be the slowest person on the road.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2019, 11:03:26 AM
Quote from: seicer on January 09, 2019, 10:57:06 AM
Survivability decreases sharply over 40 MPH. And let's be truthful: there is no real reason to speed in NYC. If you are going 40 MPH down Broadway, you are driving recklessly.
Heh. Drive on Sixth Avenue after midnight. If you're going 40 mph, you may be the slowest person on the road.
Aren't the traffic lights timed for a specific speed?
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2019, 11:03:26 AM
Quote from: seicer on January 09, 2019, 10:57:06 AM
Survivability decreases sharply over 40 MPH. And let's be truthful: there is no real reason to speed in NYC. If you are going 40 MPH down Broadway, you are driving recklessly.
Heh. Drive on Sixth Avenue after midnight. If you're going 40 mph, you may be the slowest person on the road.
Wait, isn't 6th Avenue in Manhattan a one-way street? It's extremely easy to regulate the speed of a one-way street with traffic signals every city block by simply timing the lights for a specific speed limit. Short of completely blowing the red lights, the driver can't outrun the green-wave. Point being, i don't think the signals along 6th Avenue are timed for 40 mph so there would be no way to go that fast even if you wanted to (specifically once you reached the 'start' of the wave). I have a great video of this phenomenon but i won't bother posting it here because i already have several times in the past.
NYC is in a position that places like London are not. NYC has huge, wide streets that are built for speed. Places like London can have lower limits that are actually observed because the roads are best suited for lower speeds.
Hence the traffic calming measures. I know a few complained when traffic was rerouted out of the core of Times Square, but it's greatly enhanced the pedestrian and cyclist experience. And has it really been all that detrimental to automobiles? Probably not.
1st Avenue Before/After traffic calming:
(https://nacto.org/wp-content/themes/sink_nacto/views/design-guides/retrofit/urban-street-design-guide/images/downtown-1-way-street/carousel/1st-ave-ny-2010-1before.jpg)
(https://nacto.org/wp-content/themes/sink_nacto/views/design-guides/retrofit/urban-street-design-guide/images/downtown-1-way-street/carousel/1st-ave-ny-2010-2after.jpg)
I will point out the "before" picture was taken during the dead of winter, with no leaves on the trees. Just having some tree canopy would have made the "before" picture a lot more appealing.
Quote from: 1 on January 09, 2019, 11:15:35 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2019, 11:03:26 AM
Quote from: seicer on January 09, 2019, 10:57:06 AM
Survivability decreases sharply over 40 MPH. And let's be truthful: there is no real reason to speed in NYC. If you are going 40 MPH down Broadway, you are driving recklessly.
Heh. Drive on Sixth Avenue after midnight. If you're going 40 mph, you may be the slowest person on the road.
Aren't the traffic lights timed for a specific speed?
Yes, lights on avenues/major arterials in NYC are very precisely timed. You can drive nearly the entire length of Grand Concourse in the Bronx in the peak direction and not hit a single red light (you could even use cruise control if your car lets you set it slow enough) . Going 40 on one of the one-way avenues would be incredibly aggravating as you'd hit a red every third light or so. Almost the entire city has been retimed for 25 mph now, but I believe there are still a few 30 mph straggler corridors.
Quote from: tradephoric on January 09, 2019, 12:47:38 PM
1st Avenue Before/After traffic calming:
https://nacto.org/wp-content/themes/sink_nacto/views/design-guides/retrofit/urban-street-design-guide/images/downtown-1-way-street/carousel/1st-ave-ny-2010-1before.jpg
https://nacto.org/wp-content/themes/sink_nacto/views/design-guides/retrofit/urban-street-design-guide/images/downtown-1-way-street/carousel/1st-ave-ny-2010-2after.jpg
I will point out the "before" picture was taken during the dead of winter, with no leaves on the trees. Just having some tree canopy would have made the "before" picture a lot more appealing.
IMO, the before picture is definitely less inviting (five lanes one way? really?). It looks like you're crossing a freeway. The second picture is slightly more inviting, as it's clearly a multi-modal street (bus lane, bike lane with buffer) that would make sense in a city. I would have gone a step further and concreted over the rest of the chevron markings on the left side of the street (improved cycle lane protection) but this is a good step in the right direction.
As it relates to traffic control, fewer lanes can sometimes improve traffic flow. Fewer lanes invite fewer lane changes, and lane changes can sometimes induce that rubber-band braking effect. That would be especially problematic on a long, timed straightaway like this, where traffic probably reaches 35 or 40 mph. There's also a massive capacity increase resulting from that exclusive bus lane.
Quote from: seicer on January 09, 2019, 11:36:19 AM
Hence the traffic calming measures. I know a few complained when traffic was rerouted out of the core of Times Square, but it's greatly enhanced the pedestrian and cyclist experience. And has it really been all that detrimental to automobiles? Probably not.
Last time I was in Times Square (2008), I did feel quite squeezed on the sidewalk. I haven't been back to Times Square specifically since then (only other parts of NYC), but I would imagine the ped experience has improved dramatically, especially for those seeking those grand photos that look best from the center of the square.
Quote from: tradephoric on January 09, 2019, 12:47:38 PM
1st Avenue Before/After traffic calming:
It looks a lot less inviting if I need to park somewhere along there.
Quote from: tradephoric on January 09, 2019, 12:47:38 PM
1st Avenue Before/After traffic calming:
(https://nacto.org/wp-content/themes/sink_nacto/views/design-guides/retrofit/urban-street-design-guide/images/downtown-1-way-street/carousel/1st-ave-ny-2010-1before.jpg)
(https://nacto.org/wp-content/themes/sink_nacto/views/design-guides/retrofit/urban-street-design-guide/images/downtown-1-way-street/carousel/1st-ave-ny-2010-2after.jpg)
I will point out the "before" picture was taken during the dead of winter, with no leaves on the trees. Just having some tree canopy would have made the "before" picture a lot more appealing.
The second picture does indeed look more inviting. The plant life is more vibrant (though, heavily influenced by the different seasons in the different pictures), there is greater safety for a more variety of modes of transportation, and the striping is now fresher and more coherent. It looks great. The first picture still looks really cool, but the second one, of course, just looks even more inviting. I don't know when these pictures were taken, but the first picture looks more like something I would have seen when I went to New York City at the very, very beginning of 2015 (New Year's). I am glad to see some work like that being done.
Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2019, 04:55:45 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on January 09, 2019, 12:47:38 PM
1st Avenue Before/After traffic calming:
It looks a lot less inviting if I need to park somewhere along there.
There still seems to be a lot of parking. In fact, the number of spaces on the right side of street is far more than I think other cities like Seattle or Vancouver would have left (both of whom would have likely bulbed the corners, removing at least four spots on each block (two each direction)).
The best solution for the pedestrian overcrowding in Times Square is for everyone to go back where they came from.
Quote from: abefroman329 on January 09, 2019, 07:50:42 PM
The best solution for the pedestrian overcrowding in Times Square is for everyone to go back where they came from.
Long have I yearned for a streetcar line to replace Broadway in Manhattan.