Road design, safety and Vision Zero

[robdrimmie]

Never trust anecdotes.

Please provide a source.

[ijmorlan]

Just in case anyone is bored...

Hamilton Police are looking for a minivan, that they feel has committed a crime.  I thought they might want the driver, but the Hamilton Spectator is very specific here.

Um, I think they’re hoping that identification of the vehicle will lead to identification of the driver.

Your point about de-personalization of damage caused by driver behaviour is underappreciated in general, but with respect to this specific request by the police I think you’re missing the mark.

[danbrotherston]

Just in case anyone is bored...

Hamilton Police are looking for a minivan, that they feel has committed a crime.  I thought they might want the driver, but the Hamilton Spectator is very specific here.

Um, I think they’re hoping that identification of the vehicle will lead to identification of the driver.

Your point about de-personalization of damage caused by driver behaviour is underappreciated in general, but with respect to this specific request by the police I think you’re missing the mark.

I don't know...

I mean, the police want to identify the driver...I don't think anyone is going to identify a personal vehicle (i.e., not a business vehicle) independent of the driver.

I certainly don't think it's unreasonable to say driver, but you could perhaps argue that it is less egregious than usual.

[danbrotherston]

[danbrotherston]

[tomh009]

Only (selected) school zones. At least for now. Has there been discussion about deployment in other areas where speeding is a significant issue?

[danbrotherston]

Only (selected) school zones. At least for now. Has there been discussion about deployment in other areas where speeding is a significant issue?

Only among advocates, no statement from pols.

[ijmorlan]

Of course, we must put signs up 90 days in advance to notify people...of what you might ask. Of the fact that the speed limit that was already set will be enforced...the exception which proves the rule? What rule? That speed limits aren't a rule.

I’m more interested in knowing what limit will be enforced.

Right now, the de facto speed limit is at least 10km/h greater than posted on regular streets, and 20km/h greater on highways. Changing this, in my opinion, requires a publicity campaign: if we change policy on the 401 so that speeds of 101km/h and up will be ticketed, we need to tell everybody the policy is changing before it changes.

If the limit that will be enforced automatically is one that would cause a typical police officer on patrol to pull over the vehicle, then no warning signage should be required. But if 40 means 40 now then that is a material change in the de facto rules.

We’ve got ourselves into a bad situation where the numbers on speed limit signs don’t mean themselves at all. As automatic enforcement ramps up the discrepancy between the de jure and de facto rules is going to cause increasing problems. If it was just a few scofflaws I wouldn’t care but normal driving speed is not directly related to the posted limit.

This discussion is both a matter of ethics and of practicality. Any automatic enforcement regime that starts ticketing substantially everybody who drives somewhere will likely come under unstoppable political pressure.

[tomh009]

I believe that our red-light cameras are near zero-tolerance. But, as you say, that is not the expected "limit" when the sign says "50".

In Europe, I think it's fairly typical for the cameras to trigger on any speed more than 5 km/h over the speed limit, which seems reasonable: that allows for the lack of (visible) precision in speedometre displays and variations in human right-foot pressure.

[danbrotherston]

I believe that our red-light cameras are near zero-tolerance. But, as you say, that is not the expected "limit" when the sign says "50".

In Europe, I think it's fairly typical for the cameras to trigger on any speed more than 5 km/h over the speed limit, which seems reasonable: that allows for the lack of (visible) precision in speedometre displays and variations in human right-foot pressure.

Well red light cameras trigger if you enter the intersection after the signal turns red. There is already a grace period of the amber light which is technically still an infraction but I'd bet money has never ever had a ticket issued on it.

There is no equivalently publicly displayed speed limit equivalent. 

I wonder if speed limits would be more effective if they gave a range. And I don't mean Quebec's silly 60km/h minimum speed on the freeway. I mean on Fischer Halman Rd having a sign saying speed 50-60km/h

[Rainrider22]

In Brampton and Mississauga the trigger is greater than 10 Km/h.... An you cant believe how much money the cities are generating from these.....

[ijmorlan]

I wonder if speed limits would be more effective if they gave a range. And I don't mean Quebec's silly 60km/h minimum speed on the freeway. I mean on Fischer Halman Rd having a sign saying speed 50-60km/h

Interesting. I’ve often thought that different speeds for different lanes on the 401 might even make sense, although there are probably so many practical problems it’s not really worth doing.

On a related note, I have a question about the left lane of expressways. Clearly, slower traffic should not be using those lanes; and generally, they are for passing slower traffic. That being said, how fast do I have to be going before I have no obligation to move over for those moving faster? In principle, with the de facto speed limit being the de jure speed limit, as long as I’m going at the speed limit, I don’t see how I can have an obligation to move over — it doesn’t make sense to say that I have to actively accommodate those who are breaking the law.

In the actual situation, I recall seeing TV news items in which the police themselves clearly indicated they think people have an obligation to move over. But up to what speed does that apply? What if I’m going fast enough to pay a $25 fine? A $75 fine and 3 demerits? A $180 fine and 4 demerits? Be subject to roadside vehicle impoundment? I mean at some point the faster (illegally fast) driver simply has no entitlement at all to be accommodated by others, even under our vague socially determined limit system.

[tomh009]

On a related note, I have a question about the left lane of expressways. Clearly, slower traffic should not be using those lanes; and generally, they are for passing slower traffic. That being said, how fast do I have to be going before I have no obligation to move over for those moving faster? In principle, with the de facto speed limit being the de jure speed limit, as long as I’m going at the speed limit, I don’t see how I can have an obligation to move over — it doesn’t make sense to say that I have to actively accommodate those who are breaking the law.

In the actual situation, I recall seeing TV news items in which the police themselves clearly indicated they think people have an obligation to move over. But up to what speed does that apply? What if I’m going fast enough to pay a $25 fine? A $75 fine and 3 demerits? A $180 fine and 4 demerits? Be subject to roadside vehicle impoundment? I mean at some point the faster (illegally fast) driver simply has no entitlement at all to be accommodated by others, even under our vague socially determined limit system.

Well, technically, you should drive on the right side if you are slower than the rest of the traffic, regardless of the speed limit. HTA says:

Slow vehicles to travel on right side

147 (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway.

In reality, you would be highly unlikely to get a ticket. Or for that ticket to stand up in court.

But having the faster traffic on the left and slower on the right tends to be more orderly (rather than having faster cars weave through traffic) and thus safer. So, I tend to drive in one of the lanes towards the right side of the 401 as I am rarely one of the faster cars on the highway. To me, increased safety will trump my annoyance at someone else driving too fast.

[danbrotherston]

On a related note, I have a question about the left lane of expressways. Clearly, slower traffic should not be using those lanes; and generally, they are for passing slower traffic. That being said, how fast do I have to be going before I have no obligation to move over for those moving faster? In principle, with the de facto speed limit being the de jure speed limit, as long as I’m going at the speed limit, I don’t see how I can have an obligation to move over — it doesn’t make sense to say that I have to actively accommodate those who are breaking the law.

In the actual situation, I recall seeing TV news items in which the police themselves clearly indicated they think people have an obligation to move over. But up to what speed does that apply? What if I’m going fast enough to pay a $25 fine? A $75 fine and 3 demerits? A $180 fine and 4 demerits? Be subject to roadside vehicle impoundment? I mean at some point the faster (illegally fast) driver simply has no entitlement at all to be accommodated by others, even under our vague socially determined limit system.

Well, technically, you should drive on the right side if you are slower than the rest of the traffic, regardless of the speed limit. HTA says:

Slow vehicles to travel on right side

147 (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway.

In reality, you would be highly unlikely to get a ticket. Or for that ticket to stand up in court.

But having the faster traffic on the left and slower on the right tends to be more orderly (rather than having faster cars weave through traffic) and thus safer. So, I tend to drive in one of the lanes towards the right side of the 401 as I am rarely one of the faster cars on the highway. To me, increased safety will trump my annoyance at someone else driving too fast.

I don't really have time to read the law, but I don't believe it is about speed, it is about overtaking. You must keep right, except to overtake other vehicles. So as long as you are moving past a vehicle to your right, you are in the right. Of course, the asshole in the BMW behind you might not agree.

In practice, nobody does this, most cruise in the middle lane, but in theory (and often on two lane roads) you keep right, regardless of speed until you need to move left to overtake. In practice there are other challenges as well, drivers do not maintain a constant speed, I've had numerous drivers speed up when I move to overtake.

In theory, this should improve safety because it reduces the types of conflicts you can encounter. In practice, it doesn't matter because few follow these guidelines.

[tomh009]

People's behaviour tends to be better on four-lane highways (such as highway 6 going toward Hamilton) and worse on six-lane ones (401, where slower people gravitate to the centre lane).

In Germany, where people follow this rule religiously, it's really good because you won't get surprised by people passing on the wrong side or weaving. But on the autobahn you do need to keep your eyes on your mirrors if you do pull into the left lane to make a pass!

Anyway, back to the 401, you might be OK from a ticket point of view driving 100 in the left lane. But you'll aggravate people who want to drive faster, who will then drive even worse than usual and potentially increase accident risks. Not worth it for me.