Brooklyn activist group installs their own signs to lower the speed limit

[Duke87]

"20 is plenty"

Speed limit signs are not particularly common on streets in New York City but city ordinance stipulates the limit is 30 unless otherwise posted. Some people think it should be lower.

Safe streets activists with the group Right of Way installed the signs on Saturday night around 10pm. Organizer Keegan Stephan says the group was motivated by recent pedestrian deaths -- and statistics showing a lower speed limit save lives.

"A pedestrian hit by a car going 20 mph has a 95% chance of survival," he said, who added that a WNYC map showed the city could lower the speed limit to 20 miles per hour across two-thirds of city under current state law. "We don't understand why they're not, (so) we took it upon ourselves."

[hotdogPi]

With traffic, it's usually below 20 anyway.

[Zeffy]

So the 'SPEED' is in the FHWA font. Then we have... Clearview '20' and 'IS ENOUGH'? Yuuuuuck. I will give them +1 for actually making signs that don't use Arialveticavertesk.

[NE2]

If they had been in Comic Sans and said 'my daddy walks here' they'd still be up.

[Big John]

Ninja signing gone bad.

[Dr Frankenstein]

So, people die after getting hit by cars. There are two solutions:

The kuldgy, hackish, short-term solution: Lower the speed limit, so there's a lesser chance of dying if someone gets hit by a vehicle.

The sensible solution, in NYC's case: Fine jaywalkers, and fine motorists who ride yellows into the red phase. Make sure people actually obey the f'ing signals, and there will be less hits in the first place.

[Duke87]

Elaborating on a comment I made earlier today on Facebook...

New York City does have a high rate of pedestrian and cyclist collisions. In part this is due to New York City having a high rate of pedestrians and cyclists simply being present and having a high population density (the more likely two objects are to cross paths, the more likely they are to collide).
In terms of avoiding those collisions, though, speed isn't really the issue. The issue is that everyone in New York, be they a driver, a cyclist, or a pedestrian, tends to be aggressive when they travel and behaviors which would be seen as dangerous and reckless elsewhere are common and ordinary here. Drivers run through lights several seconds after they turn red, speed around double parked vehicles, and cut other drivers off. Pedestrians run across the street in the middle of the block and walk between cars in stopped traffic, regardless of who has a green light or a walk signal. Cyclists go the wrong way down one way streets and blow through stop signs without even looking. All of this is culturally ingrained because everyone is in a hurry to get everywhere but congestion constantly slows everyone down. So it's either be aggressive or take all day to get where you're going.

What I see as a major thing at the root of this problem: aside from Manhattan avenues, traffic signal coordination in New York City is virtually nonexistent. Try driving around anywhere in any of the outer boroughs and you will find that you will hit a lot of red lights, sometimes in ways that just make you wonder "who the hell programmed this shit?". Too many times I have started moving when a light turns green only to find the next light turn red as I get to it. You want to know why so many people in New York run red lights? THIS IS WHY! >.<
If NYCDOT got their shit together and timed their traffic signals to be better coordinated, it could do a lot to make drivers less aggressive, and in turn, increase safety. We don't need stricter enforcement. We don't need stricter rules. What we need is for the system to be set up in a way that's more sensible - driver obedience of traffic laws is directly proportional to their sensibility.

But the idea that people will follow the rules if you just make them more fair doesn't fit the nanny state mentality that's taking over this city, nor does it fit the narrative among the neo-yuppies who are too cool to own cars that reckless drivers make the city dangerous and need to be punished for their behavior. Retiming signals takes a lot of effort. Lowering speed limits is easy. Typical government being lazy and reactionary.

EDIT TO ADD:

Fine jaywalkers

You forget that it is a New Yorker's God-given right to cross the street whenever and wherever he damn well pleases. This is as non-starter of an idea as speed limits on the autobahn. 

I will also point out that while pedestrians do sometimes get reckless, crossing the street against the light is sometimes completely safe to do. Especially when crossing Manhattan streets: the block very often clears out before the light turns red. And very often traffic attempting to turn blocks traffic that wants to go straight and creates a long clear window on the downstream side of the intersection. The streets are also narrow (usually only one lane of traffic, occasionally two) and can easily be crossed in only a few seconds. So why not cross if there are 100% visibly no cars coming?

[Zeffy]

If they had been in Comic Sans and said 'my daddy walks here' they'd still be up.

Now available at your local Alanland sign shops.



Having driven in NYC, the traffic there is a mess -  but I don't think the speed limits need to drop to 20. They just need to make it so the flow of traffic isn't so damn erratic.

[Brian556]

driver obedience of traffic laws is directly proportional to their sensibility.

Best quote I've seen in a long time.

[NE2]

Prospect Park West does not have a light at every intersection. No such thing as jaywalking.

driver obedience of traffic laws is directly proportional to their perceived sensibility behind car-colored lenses.

Best fixed quote I've seen in a long time.

[dgolub]

You forget that it is a New Yorker's God-given right to cross the street whenever and wherever he damn well pleases. This is as non-starter of an idea as speed limits on the autobahn. 

Exactly.  In Manhattan, the pedestrian is always right.  Always.  That's why it's one of the hardest places in the world to drive.

I will also point out that while pedestrians do sometimes get reckless, crossing the street against the light is sometimes completely safe to do. Especially when crossing Manhattan streets: the block very often clears out before the light turns red. And very often traffic attempting to turn blocks traffic that wants to go straight and creates a long clear window on the downstream side of the intersection. The streets are also narrow (usually only one lane of traffic, occasionally two) and can easily be crossed in only a few seconds. So why not cross if there are 100% visibly no cars coming?

In many areas, this is true.  Up in Morningside Heights where I live and nearby on the Upper West Side, you can walk down Broadway or an avenue and most of the streets you'll cross are little one-lane one-way streets.  The majority of the time, there's no one coming and it's perfectly safe to cross even if the light's red.

[froggie]

I'm not sure where this particular group is targeting, but based on what the City Council is considering (mentioned in a newer thread), plus what I've seen elsewhere for 20 MPH proposals, the type of street targeted for a 20 MPH speed limit is the type of street that would typically NOT have traffic signals along it.  While a lot of the traffic signal discussion in this thread is valid, it's not really related to the 20 MPH speed limit proposal.

[mc78andrew]

I there really any enforcement of the current 30 MPH?

[Duke87]

I'm not sure where this particular group is targeting, but based on what the City Council is considering (mentioned in a newer thread), plus what I've seen elsewhere for 20 MPH proposals, the type of street targeted for a 20 MPH speed limit is the type of street that would typically NOT have traffic signals along it.  While a lot of the traffic signal discussion in this thread is valid, it's not really related to the 20 MPH speed limit proposal.

My reading was that the group wanted the limit lowered from 30 to 20 everywhere. If you do it just to narrow streets within residential neighborhoods as the city council proposes, Prospect Park West would not be one of them since A) it's at the edge of the neighborhood, not within it, and B) it has multiple lanes of traffic, and thus is not "narrow".

I there really any enforcement of the current 30 MPH?

Not really, and that is a major complaint that groups like the people putting up these signs have. NYPD has a lot of cops but very few radar guns. Most speed enforcement is on expressways and parkways, rarely on city streets.

The most common offenses that NYPD gave drivers tickets for in 2012 are:
1) using your cellphone while driving (141,816 summonses)
2) not wearing your seatbelt (131,049 summonses)
3) disobeying a sign (129,926 summonses)
4) windows excessively tinted (95,866 summonses)
5) speeding (71,305 summonses)
6) driving without a valid license (57,250 summonses)
7) improper turn (56,586 summonses)
8) driving an uninsured vehicle (56,108 summonses)
9) red light running (37,945 summonses) - does not include tickets generated by cameras
10) defective or improper brake lights (30,283 summonses)

Source - look at December 2012, and look at the YTD column. Individual documents have the numbers by precinct but you can look at "citysum" for an overall total.

[Alps]

I'm not sure where this particular group is targeting, but based on what the City Council is considering (mentioned in a newer thread), plus what I've seen elsewhere for 20 MPH proposals, the type of street targeted for a 20 MPH speed limit is the type of street that would typically NOT have traffic signals along it.  While a lot of the traffic signal discussion in this thread is valid, it's not really related to the 20 MPH speed limit proposal.

My reading was that the group wanted the limit lowered from 30 to 20 everywhere. If you do it just to narrow streets within residential neighborhoods as the city council proposes, Prospect Park West would not be one of them since A) it's at the edge of the neighborhood, not within it, and B) it has multiple lanes of traffic, and thus is not "narrow".

I there really any enforcement of the current 30 MPH?

Not really, and that is a major complaint that groups like the people putting up these signs have. NYPD has a lot of cops but very few radar guns. Most speed enforcement is on expressways and parkways, rarely on city streets.

The most common offenses that NYPD gave drivers tickets for in 2012 are:
1) using your cellphone while driving (141,816 summonses)
2) not wearing your seatbelt (131,049 summonses)
3) disobeying a sign (129,926 summonses)
4) windows excessively tinted (95,866 summonses)
5) speeding (71,305 summonses)
6) driving without a valid license (57,250 summonses)
7) improper turn (56,586 summonses)
8) driving an uninsured vehicle (56,108 summonses)
9) red light running (37,945 summonses) - does not include tickets generated by cameras
10) defective or improper brake lights (30,283 summonses)

Source - look at December 2012, and look at the YTD column. Individual documents have the numbers by precinct but you can look at "citysum" for an overall total.

I have never gone above 40 mph on a city avenue. Even without traffic, there are cross streets every block, random pedestrians, taxis, and buses, bumps in the pavement, potholes, lane closures, etc.

[mc78andrew]

Yes.  Very tough to get it above 40. If you do, you risk real damage to your car.  Not sure about the outer boroughs though.  Enforcing 30 at speeds above 40 seems doable and reasonable.

In residential areas outside of manhattan, they should be pushing for traffic calming measures such as raised crosswalks mid block etc.  such measures would be effective 24/7 whereas police enforcement of the speed limited is sporadic at best. 

[Duke87]

I have never gone above 40 mph on a city avenue. Even without traffic, there are cross streets every block, random pedestrians, taxis, and buses, bumps in the pavement, potholes, lane closures, etc.

For what it's worth, this debate about speed isn't particularly focused on city avenues or even necessarily on Manhattan, which is a ballgame unto itself. The issue is more about medium-density residential neighborhoods where you don't have hordes of pedestrians but you do have kids playing and whatnot. This latest flare-up was sparked by a 12 year old boy who got hit by a car and killed after he slipped and fell while crossing the street. The way the story is told, the light changed between the boy slipping and him getting hit, so neither party disobeyed the signal. Hence the concern instead about speed.

But again, I say... speed itself isn't the issue, it's aggression. If I am driving up to an intersection and I see someone crossing the street, I am going to make damn sure I adjust my speed as necessary to avoid hitting them, including being prepared to slam on my brakes if the pedestrian trips. It sounds in this case like the driver just kept barreling forward assuming the boy would be out of the crosswalk by the time the van entered it (which I suppose he would have been - if he hadn't tripped).

In other words: nothing wrong with going 30 normally, but if you see a potential hazard, slow down as appropriate until you've cleared it. The failure of idiot drivers to do this does not mean everyone should be forced to drive at reduced speed even when no hazard is present.

[dgolub]

Yes.  Very tough to get it above 40. If you do, you risk real damage to your car.  Not sure about the outer boroughs though.  Enforcing 30 at speeds above 40 seems doable and reasonable.

In residential areas outside of manhattan, they should be pushing for traffic calming measures such as raised crosswalks mid block etc.  such measures would be effective 24/7 whereas police enforcement of the speed limited is sporadic at best.

I once had a taxi driver who was going 45 MPH on Broadway in Manhattan.  This was during the day when it was pretty busy. If he keeps driving like that, sooner or later he's going to kill someone.

[hbelkins]

The failure of idiot drivers to do this does not mean everyone should be forced to drive at reduced speed even when no hazard is present.

That's my position about the lowest common denominator in general. I hate living in a dumbed-down society that dictates that everyone live by the limitations of the less-abled or less-intelligent among us.

[roadman]

This happens in Massachusetts ocassionally - local cities and towns will install black on white speed limit sign on their own roads without MassDOT approval.  Here's the rub - under Massachusetts law, unless there is a valid special speed regulation in place, the sign is unenforcable - even if the speed limit on the sign matches the prima-facia speed for the street or road.

I'm not familiar with New York state law concerning the posting of speed limits, but would something like this be a potential issue for the recent Brooklyn installations?

[empirestate]

This happens in Massachusetts ocassionally - local cities and towns will install black on white speed limit sign on their own roads without MassDOT approval.  Here's the rub - under Massachusetts law, unless there is a valid special speed regulation in place, the sign is unenforcable - even if the speed limit on the sign matches the prima-facia speed for the street or road.

I'm not familiar with New York state law concerning the posting of speed limits, but would something like this be a potential issue for the recent Brooklyn installations?

NYS law does set a lower limit on areal speed limits, I believe. However, a) this proposal seems to be for specific locations, not city- or area-wide, and b) NYC might be exempt from this law (along with all of the other cities above 1 million population).

[Duke87]

According to another article on the same website, state law allows any municipality to reduce a speed limit to 20 mph at any location within 1/4 mile of a school or day care center. NYC rarely posts school zones but "within 1/4 mile of a school" describes about 2/3rds of the city.