Potential New Hwy Speed Limit Increases

[GMasterAres]

Here is a stats compare per capita between some states in the US. Obviously you can't just direct compare because they have different speeds, driving conditions, etc., but I thought it would be interesting.

Stats from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the US: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departm...53_WA_2012.htm

Washington:
Traffic Fatalities 2012: 444
Fatailities per 100 million vehicle miles driven: 0.8
Speed related fatalities: 161 (36%)

Oregon:
Traffic Fatalities 2012: 336
Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven: 0.99
Speed related fatalities: 102 (30%)

And a few others:

New York:
Traffic Fatalities 2012: 1168
Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven: 0.92
Speed related fatalities: 360 (31%)

Wyoming:
Traffic Fatalities 2012: 123
Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven: 1.46
Speed related fatalities: 41 (33%)

Montana:
Traffic Fatalities 2012: 205
Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven: 1.79
Speed related fatalities: 88 (43%)

Texas:
Traffic Fatalities 2012: 3398
Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven: 1.29
Speed related fatalities: 1247 (37%)

From the above, I'd have to conclude that the speed factor isn't actually that huge. 30% at the lowest, 43% at the highest just looking at 6 states. *shrug*

Now here is an interesting chart:



So the worse area is in red. Guess what? That area is Seattle, where the speed limits are the lowest in the entire state. All the areas in blue where most of the driving is on the highway, and at 75mph on highways or higher rural speeds? Negligable fatalities.

I don't know. Based on my experience driving and using my eyes and brains witnessing quite a few accidents, I think speed is far less a factor than many other things and that simply dropping speed limits does virtually nothing to change accident or fatalities rates.

Bad drivers are the problem.

[GMasterAres]

Another interesting set of facts from Washington State Patrol:

http://www.wtsc.wa.gov/wp-content/up...speeding09.pdf

Over half of speeding-related deaths occurred in rural areas (663 of 1,166; 56.9%). Urban and rural county roads accounted for 40.6% (473 of 1,166) of all speeding-related deaths.

The second largest number of speeding-related deaths was on US/State Highways with 26.5% (309 of 1,166). Interstates had the fewest speeding-related deaths (101 of 1,166, 8.7%).

Interstates: 8.7% total
US/State Highways: 26.5% total
Country Roads: 40.6% total
City Streets: 21.3%
Other/Unknown: 3%

And of that days of the week between 2004 and 2008 inclusive:

Sunday: 255 (21.9%)
Monday: 116 (9.9%)
Tuesday: 112 (9.6%)
Wednesday: 132 (11.3%)
Thursday: 149 (12.8%)
Friday: 239 (20.5%)

Total weekend (2 days): 42.4%
Total weekdays (5 days): 57.6%

Half (50.2%) of all speeding related deaths also happened between 6:00PM Friday and 6AM Monday.

This entire discussion is about speed limits on our highways and or freeways (Interstates in the US). The numbers seem to indicate that at least in Washington State, most fatal accidents are on regular roads (61.9%) on the weekend (50.2% weekend hours).

They also then state that 3 out of 5 (63%) of fatalities in that period were single vehicle related aka the vehicle with the fatality was alone with no other vehicles involved in the crash. So in essence they killed themselves, something we shouldn't really be concerned about. If someone drives like an idiot and kills themselves, that doesn't affect others. Yes it is sad, but really what we're concerned about is people hurting other people through bad behavior.

Also of all the fatalities, 44% were not wearing a seat belt which was deemed a contributing factor leading to their death in addition to speed.

Ultimately I think the truth is +- 10kph here or there, or even 20 on a few major highways, will not make a major statistical difference. We can't legislate bad drivers just like you can't legislate criminals.

I got into a debate about firearms licenses with a few people who said we need even more laws to prevent "gun violence" but they ignored the 2 main points of 1) there are more knife deaths in Canada than gun deaths, but we're not passing laws requiring you to get a license and register that butcher or steak knife you buy from The Bay and 2) criminals break laws... that is what makes them criminals... so more laws won't stop criminals!

Same deal here. Reducing speed limits more and more or just making them stupid doesn't reduce road fatality rates in the grand scheme of things as there are a lot of other contributing factors the major of which is how we train and license drivers in the first place.

I'm a lot less scared of a speeder on the road than people that go through red lights or blow through stop signs trust me. They are far more dangerous.

All the above though is assuming that speed limits are set to keep people safe.

That's the #1 illusion we have. Speed limits are set so that Police can write speeding tickets. Trust me that's why. Drive any highway and wherever they put an arbitrarily low speed limit on any major highway, and guess what you'll on the side, a police pull out. SFPR is a prime example. ONLY police pull out for 15km is at the 50kph speed trap section. Only one. It's not to keep us safe, it's to provide revenue.

If you're in the "speed kills" camp or the "speed should be lower" I suggest you take a read through http://www.sense.bc.ca/research.htm.

They are obviously an advocate group for the other camp but it is always good to get all statistics from all sources then form your own opinions. Truth is, stats back the conclusion that standard speed limits are set simply for revenue purposes in most cases. Not all cases obviously, would never argue that 30kph in school zones, or slower construction speed zone limits should be in place. That's just a no brainer, though I'd argue when they finish construction and the construction speed zone limits stay up 3 months AFTER which happens on rural highways all the time (not a construction vehicle in sight, only police sitting on the side of the road double fining everyone), they are milking a "no brainer" for some extra cash.

[GMasterAres]

Finally last post on this topic for a little while:

To anyone that says it isn't for revenue purposes, this is directly from the government's mouth:

Since 2004, the provincial government has divvied up revenue from traffic fines to municipalities, to put toward policing and public safety initiatives in their community.

The funds go into general revenue to put toward the department’s operating budget, said VicPD spokesman Const. Mike Russell. The traffic fines revenue pays about six per cent of VicPD’s $40-million annual budget.

I have had several people tell me "No the Police don't get the money, it goes to general revenue!"

Wrong.

It goes into general revenue OF THE POLICE so the short answer is, yes, the Police get revenue from all the speeding tickets (and any other traffic fine) they issue.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Interstates had the fewest speeding-related deaths (101 of 1,166, 8.7%).

Almost none of the rural highways in BC come anywhere near Interstate standards.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jhausner

"Physics" doesn't ultimately matter in the real world when it comes to the consequences of an accident which is exactly why people that say "Well drive slower and less people will die" don't live in the real world. My own experience has proven to me that an accident at 80kph vs 100kph based on what typically causes said accident, very rarely results in a different 'consequence.'

Just a quick high school physics reminder: The force of impact goes up with the square of the speed. That means there is more than 50% more force for an impact at 80km/h than at 100km/h. The difference is even greater if you allow for the possibility that the vehicles may have had some time to brake - if both example cars had managed to shed 40km of speed before impact then you'd be comparing 40km/h to 60km/h and the difference in force is now 225%. And that doesn't even include the additional ameliorating fact that the slower car would have had more stopping time (other factors being equal) and therefore been able to slow down even more.

Whether or not the impact is a scraping one against a side barrier or into a stationery object, you can't argue that the 20km/hr difference is irrelevant. It is very real.

Again, I'm not arguing that driving faster is a major cause of accidents, but it is an important factor in the severity of the consequences. And while the majority of the accidents don't result in fatalities or serious injuries, for those that do that 20km/hr could have made a big difference.

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I'd say about 90% of the drivers out there pick a pretty reasonable speed to drive based on what the risks are at any given time. The other 10% say, well I better just do what the sign says.

I'd argue that aside from factors like inattention and weather, its the difference in speeds between various drivers that are the biggest cause of accidents. And the problem is that without enforcement, everyone essentially chooses their own speed. I'd far rather see faster speed limits with strict enforcement than the current free-for-all.

Originally Posted by jhausner

From the above, I'd have to conclude that the speed factor isn't actually that huge. 30% at the lowest, 43% at the highest just looking at 6 states. *shrug*

30% means 10,000 speed-related deaths a year (in the US). Is that much carnage really worth no more than a "shrug" from you?

Originally Posted by jhausner

So the worse area is in red. Guess what? That area is Seattle, where the speed limits are the lowest in the entire state.

And the most vehicle miles driven by a huge, huge amount. Cherry-picking and misinterpreting stats doesn't change basic truths.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I'd argue that aside from factors like inattention and weather, its the difference in speeds between various drivers that are the biggest cause of accidents. And the problem is that without enforcement, everyone essentially chooses their own speed. I'd far rather see faster speed limits with strict enforcement than the current free-for-all.

This is very much the point of why these limits cause harm in the first place.

The variance in speeds grows considerably more when people consider the limit irrational. If the speed limit was actually a reasonable number for most people, most of the time then you wouldn't have nearly as much variation between traffic speeds. People's chosen speeds tend to follow a bell curve. Most people tend to clump in a pretty close distribution with a few outliers on either end.

The controversy is what to do when the limit is obviously too low most of the time. Speed and drive what you believe to be a rational speed, or trust the laws more than personal experience and comfort. There's where your variation comes from.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I agree. And since we already have a big sign telling everyone what speed to go, why shouldn't that be the one speed? Why is it that every driver has to add his or her own individual premium to that speed?

Because the speed limits are often unrealistically low.

If speed limits are sensibly applied and suitable to the road, people are more likely to obey and respect them. But when we have random sections of freeway posted at 100 for no reason between sections of 110, of course people are going to ignore the speed limits, and then in turn are more likely to maybe ignore genuinely neccesary speed limits elsewhere.

If we want to improve safety I would suggest a good place to start would be to introduce mandatory annual inspections (I only have experience of driving in Alberta so I don't know if this is the case in BC). It won't be popular, but I have seen a huge number of vehicles which clearly are not road worthy. It will have the added bonus of reducing used car prices.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

The variance in speeds grows considerably more when people consider the limit irrational.

The problem is that there are a fairly high percentage of drivers for whom the issue isn't driving at the "right" speed or the "posted" speed, but rather a psychological need to feel like they're getting ahead of everyone else. You know, the queue jumpers. No speed limit is going to ensure consistent speeds without pretty aggressive enforcement.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

No speed limit is going to ensure consistent speeds without pretty aggressive enforcement.

So set it at the maximum limit that the majority of people feel is safe, and enforce the hell out of it. Most people go 120kph-130kph on the Coq and other similar highways, which is what I and many other members on here are advocating would make an excellent maximum speed.

Then most people wouldn't feel the need to speed, and those that do can be handled accordingly.

[Porfiry]

...and the results are in:

Actions to improve safety on B.C.’s rural highways
http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2014/0...-highways.html
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications..._technical.pdf

[Zassk]

Some great nuggets in there:

Highway 1 Whatcom Road (Exit 95) to junction with Highway 3 (74 km)
New speed limit: 110 (in effect today)
Previous speed limit: 100

Sea to Sky:

Highway 99 Eagle Ridge Interchange, Horseshoe Bay to south of the Stawamus River Bridge near Squamish (35 km)
Current speed limit: 80
New speed limit: 90

Highway 99 North of Depot Road, Squamish to Function Junction, Whistler (45 km)
Current speed limit: 80, 90
New speed limit: 100

Highway 19 Parksville to south of Willis Road, Campbell River (114 km)
Current speed limit: 110
New speed limit: 120

Highway 5 Hope (Exit 177) to Othello Road (4 km)
New speed limit: 110 (in effect today)
Previous speed limit: 100

Highway 5 Othello Road, near Hope to Highway 1 junction, near Kamloops (200 km)
New speed limit: 120 (in effect today)
Previous speed limit: 110

Highway 97C Aspen Grove to Drought Hill Interchange, Peachland (78 km)
New speed limit:120 (in effect today)
Previous speed limit:110

[jlenko]

So... still less than what 85% of drivers are doing out there. Nice.

[wrenegade]

I'll take whatever I can get. Good news.

[adrianroam95]

Too bad they've decided not to change any speed limits within Metro Vancouver. There's a number of places that they could raise the speed limits:

There's a stretch of the Mary Hill Bypass between Broadway St and the Pitt River Bridge that has an absurdly low speed limit of 60 km/h. It should be at least 70 km/h, or even 80 km/h. I've seen police camped out there on more than one occasion taking advantage of this.

The Queensborough Connector is also signed at 60 km/h, which I guarantee 99% of drivers do not follow at all. It should be at least 70 km/h.

[go_leafs_go02]

I think they started off with rural highways to see what support there was. Remember there was an Open House in Vancouver as part of the review. They probably wanted to get the "easy wins" to rise speed limits on rural highways, and based on how it works, they may start focusing on more urban freeways and highways.

Still, didn't think this would happen, even 6 months ago. Kudos to the MOTI and Todd Stone!

[cabotp]

I'm actually more happy about the new variable speed limits that will be put in place for the Coquihalla, Trans Canada, and the Sea to Sky Hwy. This way the speed limit will be lowered based on road conditions.

Also the MVA will be changed to give police better tooling to enforce the "slower vehicles keep right rule." As well thre is a pilot program on Hwy 4 that will warn drivers visibly if they are driving in the left lane and more than 5 vehicles are following. This to me is far more important than any increase in speed because too many people get into the left lane and just don't really pass anyone. Or pass at a very slow rate.

[makr3trkr]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tranbc/14557796134/

"We are working to increase awareness of the safety risks associated with slower-moving vehicles. Motorists will see updated signage emphasizing that drivers should keep right to let others pass. We're also updating passing/climbing lane markings to direct drivers to the right lane. These changes are the result of the Rural Highway Safety and Speed Review."

[makr3trkr]

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications..._technical.pdf

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications..._technical.pdf

I gotta ask this question: if the speed limits are being set based on 85th percentile numbers (in other words, if the ministry thinks driver's behaviours are a better gauge of reasonable speeds than the engineers), then why do we have speed limits at all? Why don't we just have a law that prohibits driving more than x km/h faster than prevailing traffic?

[spm2013]

From the document:

Because drivers choose different speeds, a range of operating
speeds results. Where drivers are unsure of an appropriate
speed, large speed variations or “speed differentials” can
develop. This in turn results in less consistent traffic flow,
increased driver uncertainty and/or frustration and increased
crash risk.

Speed limits should be set so that they include the behaviour
of the majority of drivers and provide an appropriate
maximum speed. The normally careful and competent actions
of reasonable drivers should be considered legal. This means
that travelling at the speed limit should feel that it is truly a
maximum or it’s not an effective limit. Setting appropriate
speed limits increases speed limit compliance and reduces
speed differential, resulting in reduced crash risk.

A common misconception with changes to speed limits is
that if the speed limit is increased, speeds will increase as
well. However, findings from past changes within B.C. as
well as other jurisdictions have found that speed increases
are minimal, but instead what happens is that the speed
differential are reduced (i.e. there is less range in the
speeds chosen by drivers). In 1996 and 1997, the Province
undertook a review of provincial highway speed limits and
made a number of changes. Before and after comparisons
of speeds on the corridors that were changed showed that
speeds increased by approximately ¼ of the change in speed
limit. In other words, if the speed limit was increased from
90 km/h to 100 km/h, the increase in driver speeds would be
about 2–3 km/h.

It is good practice to periodically review speed limits. Over
time, changes to vehicle technology, improvements to the
highway, or development can result in speed limits that are
out of step with driver behaviour. The focus of this speed
limit review is to examine the appropriateness of speed limits
on sections of rural highway between communities. Existing
reduced speed zones in cities, towns and villages are not
included in this review.