Potential New Hwy Speed Limit Increases

[tybuilding]

>Highway drivers should have the same rule apply for passing cyclists as they would passing emergency vehicles, move over, slow to 70km/hr. Here is a good ad campaign:
Once again I am lost for words. This is a horrible proposition. I fail to understand the reason for this? Why? Are people being hit left right and center? No.

A horrible proposition? If the road does not have adequate shoulders to provide separation then drivers should slow down, and pass with caution. What is wrong with this logic? Vehicles should have at least 1 m to pass cyclists, more with increasing speed. Thankfully not too many cyclists are hit but it does happen. There have been serious accidents and deaths on the highways where the motorist drove too close. I happens more often than you think:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/07/24/t...highway-crash/

“It’s a pretty flat, single highway with traffic going both ways,” said McGuire. “Cyclists only have a narrow, about 18-inch piece of highway to ride on.”

Weather conditions were not a factor at the time, police said.

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/162607776.html

16 ave lacks proper shoulders. So passing vehicles should slow down, and pass with caution.

>For in town we need to keep on emphasizing separated bike facilities. Higher speed roads with bike facilities will need to be separated more
I am all for separated bike infrastructure, when implemented properly. A speed limit of 100 and bikes is fine. If you get to 130 then bikes should not use that roadway unless there are wide shoulders or separation, if this is not in place then bikes should NOT be allowed on that road way / highway.[/QUOTE]

Only some highways are possible to excludes bikes. The ones with alternative routes. People are rooting for higher speeds on the Coquilhalla. Right now the Trans Canada trail is incomplete and when done will still be no substitute for touring cyclists without surface improvements on the current sections. The current shoulder is about 5' wide on the Hope to the summit section, I should know as I have cycled it. Thus if the speed limit is raised the road will then be even worse for cycling with no alternative. The shoulders should be widened on all highways if speed limits are raised further.

Check out page 18: https://bikehub.ca/sites/default/fil...guidelines.pdf

Highways do not have good separation. I don't know what you consider good separation but an 18" shoulder doesn't count as good separation but we have highways with 100 km/h speed limits with them. Highway 16 between Prince George and Vanderhoof is one of them. As I posted earlier I have noticed many highways with inadequate shoulders especially when there is a passing lane or a barrier the shoulders often disappear.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

>Highway drivers should have the same rule apply for passing cyclists as they would passing emergency vehicles, move over, slow to 70km/hr. Here is a good ad campaign:
Once again I am lost for words. This is a horrible proposition. I fail to understand the reason for this? Why? Are people being hit left right and center? No.

A horrible proposition? If the road does not have adequate shoulders to provide separation then drivers should slow down, and pass with caution. What is wrong with this logic? Vehicles should have at least 1 m to pass cyclists, more with increasing speed. Thankfully not too many cyclists are hit but it does happen. There have been serious accidents and deaths on the highways where the motorist drove too close. I happens more often than you think:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/07/24/t...highway-crash/

“It’s a pretty flat, single highway with traffic going both ways,” said McGuire. “Cyclists only have a narrow, about 18-inch piece of highway to ride on.”

Weather conditions were not a factor at the time, police said.

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/162607776.html

16 ave lacks proper shoulders. So passing vehicles should slow down, and pass with caution.

>For in town we need to keep on emphasizing separated bike facilities. Higher speed roads with bike facilities will need to be separated more
I am all for separated bike infrastructure, when implemented properly. A speed limit of 100 and bikes is fine. If you get to 130 then bikes should not use that roadway unless there are wide shoulders or separation, if this is not in place then bikes should NOT be allowed on that road way / highway.

Only some highways are possible to excludes bikes. The ones with alternative routes. People are rooting for higher speeds on the Coquilhalla. Right now the Trans Canada trail is incomplete and when done will still be no substitute for touring cyclists without surface improvements on the current sections. The current shoulder is about 5' wide on the Hope to the summit section, I should know as I have cycled it. Thus if the speed limit is raised the road will then be even worse for cycling with no alternative. The shoulders should be widened on all highways if speed limits are raised further.

Check out page 18: https://bikehub.ca/sites/default/fil...guidelines.pdf

Highways do not have good separation. I don't know what you consider good separation but an 18" shoulder doesn't count as good separation but we have highways with 100 km/h speed limits with them. Highway 16 between Prince George and Vanderhoof is one of them. As I posted earlier I have noticed many highways with inadequate shoulders especially when there is a passing lane or a barrier the shoulders often disappear.

A) People die all the time and people will always die, there certainly is a acceptable fatality rate with anything and everything. Of course we should always try to keep it as low as possible, within reason though and certainly not at all costs. Life has a price as well, its certainly not priceless in our world. Sad but true, and I am pretty freakin liberal, in most ways.

B) If it is not safe for bikes on interior highways then bikes should not be allowed on them, period. Get a greyhound bus ticket. Personally though I think they are safe enough for those who those who are adventurous and want to bike a few days through the province. If you feel like its not safe, well then you're obviously not adventurous enough. 100 and 18" on a interior highway seems fine for me as well, have good lighting, don't bike at night, wear a reflective west and helmet, be aware of your surroundings, etc. As for Coquihala, personally I say there should be no bikes allowed there, period, use number 3 or buy a bus ticket, or get a car or get a ride. Its a highway, not a bike touristy route. Coquihala makes no sense to allow bikes on, same with number one all the way to Hope.

C) Lets be efficient and rational.

D) I doubt me and you will ever agree.

my two cents

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cornholio

100 and 18" on a interior highway seems fine for me as well, have good lighting, don't bike at night, wear a reflective west and helmet, be aware of your surroundings, etc.

Aren't "Don't bike at night" and "wear a reflective vest and helmet" somewhat contradictory?

18" on a highway rated at 100km/h is unacceptable. You seem to think that every driver has a nice, unobstructed clear view of the road ahead, but that's not always true. Most of accidents them occur either because of driver inattention (in which case the unobstructed view is irrelevant) or because a following driver can't see the cyclist because of something like semi-truck ahead of them.

Drivers cross over the shoulder line all the time - that's why they're grooved. 18" means zero safety margin. That's definitely not OK in my book.

It's the 18" shoulder that I'd be much more concerned about than the speed limit, but of course it's a lot more expensive to correct.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Aren't "Don't bike at night" and "wear a reflective vest and helmet" somewhat contradictory?

Are DRLs (Daytime-running-lights) contradictory?

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by cornholio

A) People die all the time and people will always die, there certainly is a acceptable fatality rate with anything and everything. Of course we should always try to keep it as low as possible, within reason though and certainly not at all costs. Life has a price as well, its certainly not priceless in our world. Sad but true, and I am pretty freakin liberal, in most ways.

B) If it is not safe for bikes on interior highways then bikes should not be allowed on them, period. Get a greyhound bus ticket. Personally though I think they are safe enough for those who those who are adventurous and want to bike a few days through the province. If you feel like its not safe, well then you're obviously not adventurous enough. 100 and 18" on a interior highway seems fine for me as well, have good lighting, don't bike at night, wear a reflective west and helmet, be aware of your surroundings, etc. As for Coquihala, personally I say there should be no bikes allowed there, period, use number 3 or buy a bus ticket, or get a car or get a ride. Its a highway, not a bike touristy route. Coquihala makes no sense to allow bikes on, same with number one all the way to Hope.

C) Lets be efficient and rational.

D) I doubt me and you will ever agree.

my two cents

If you want to give your actual two cents about the Coquilhalla being closed for cycling by all means, donate to the Trans Canada Trail: http://tctrail.ca/donate/

But for now it is a bike route. Until that time that an alternative route is made for the TCT the speed limit should remain 110 between Coldwater Road and Hope.

As for being adventurous have you actually tried to bike on a highway like I am describing? Have you ever biked on the Coquilhalla? Probably not. I have biked on the Coquilhalla because I wanted to ride the TCT as much as I could. It was scary with trucks passing at 110+ with the spray of the rain. I also rode the bike lane from the Tsawassen Ferry on highway 17 and was literally sucked along in truck wash between the no-post barriers and the trucks, it was not that fun and there even is a 5' bike lane. Sorry if you think I was not adventurous enough. I just wanted to bike the Galloping Goose in Victoria, stay overnight, eat out and enjoy myself as a tourist there without my vehicle. But I guess I have to pass the "Are you adventurous enough for bike tourism first because our cycling infrastructure sucks and has missing gaps" test.

BC needs to seriously spend some money on upgrading cycling infrastructure all around the province. Spending as little as they are isn't doing much for it now.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Aren't "Don't bike at night" and "wear a reflective vest and helmet" somewhat contradictory?

18" on a highway rated at 100km/h is unacceptable. You seem to think that every driver has a nice, unobstructed clear view of the road ahead, but that's not always true. Most of accidents them occur either because of driver inattention (in which case the unobstructed view is irrelevant) or because a following driver can't see the cyclist because of something like semi-truck ahead of them.

Drivers cross over the shoulder line all the time - that's why they're grooved. 18" means zero safety margin. That's definitely not OK in my book.

It's the 18" shoulder that I'd be much more concerned about than the speed limit, but of course it's a lot more expensive to correct.

Want to bet that the Dump truck driver in Surrey didn't even notice the cyclist? Just lucky she was only seriously injured. The road was only 60 km/h road with inadequate shoulders.

I agree the government needs to address shoulders around BC. It needs to look to Quebec for inspiration. It's not like it is a money waster. Not only are there safety benefits but there are economic benefits. Just look at Route Verte. "

"Quebec’s Route Verte Attracts Significant
Economic Benefits
Route Verte is Quebec’s provincial cycling network. It extends
more than 4,000 kilometres and includes sections of the Trans
Canada Trail. Vélo Quebec announced the project around the time
the province adopted the 1995 Bicycle Policy, which provided
for the development of cycling routes on approximately 40
per cent of the roads under the responsibility of the ministry
of transportation. Work on this network involved a number
of regional municipalities and organizations. It is featured
prominently in the marketing of Quebec as a cycling destination.
– Quebec ministry of transportation, Bicycle Policy (May 2008)15
“The economic benefi ts associated with the Route Verte are
significant:
• In 2000, Route Verte cyclists spent $95.4 million. This
corresponds to approximately 2,000 jobs (per person, per year)
and revenues of $15.1 million for the government of Quebec
and $11.9 million for the Government of Canada.
• People who live near the Route Verte spend over $24.5 million
on route-related activities.”

And my point earlier is the inconsistency of the highway shoulders. Some places 6' wide some 18" all on the same stretch of highway. The modern highway paving seems to be installing the wider shoulders but there are many old sections still that will likely be the same for 20 years. Maybe when they are finally fully repaved and widened then the speed limit can increase. Otherwise it should stay the same. And vehicles should slow down until they can pass a cyclist safely otherwise they will hit them. They should move over to pass on sections where cyclists are sharing lanes obviously. That is why I propose that the same 70km/hr emergency vehicle rule also apply to passing cyclists in areas with inadequate shoulders.

[go_leafs_go02]

40 km/h statutory speed limit motion has been defeated.

[jlousa]

I wouldn't be against the 40km/h on side streets within city limits, but I agree that it was the right decision as it should be up to individual cities to choose what's right for them instead of a blanket policy.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

40 km/h statutory speed limit motion has been defeated.

That is too bad, it will be difficult for cities to go it alone. All residential local streets should be 40. With curves, parked cars and kids playing 50 is too much.

I thought of these lyrics from Bush:

"The People That We Love (Speed Kills)"

Speed kills coming down the mountain
Speed kills coming down the street
Speed kills with presence of mind and
Speed kills if you know what I mean

I thought it was appropriate for this conversation.

[theKB]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

That is too bad, it will be difficult for cities to go it alone. All residential local streets should be 40. With curves, parked cars and kids playing 50 is too much.

You may be right, but frankly you are trying to fix a problem that doesn't really exist. Unless it is a very wide side street (something like hudson between 41/49 or something of that nature I rarely see people getting over 40 and as that video pointed out, the speed limit is the maximum speed you should go under ideal conditions and there aren't very many side streets where a lot of cars even get the chance to get up to 50 with stop signs/roundabouts and whatnot and only having enough space for one car to pass through.

This whole motion was simple politicking and nothing else. It's very easy for some politician to hop on the "speed kills" bandwagon but I think this is becoming less and less the cause du jour as people start to realize how stupid our laws regarding speeding are.

The penalties for "speeding" are more harsh than activities that are actually dangerous, for instance distracted driving.

Just remember, going 120 on highway one (roughly 10kph faster than the flow of traffic generally) will net you thousands and costs and a week in the impound where texting which is arguably far more dangerous will get you $138 fine.

Speed is not a problem on our roads and especially our highways, hasn't been for a long time.

This motion was political grandstanding at its best, got a few headlines albeit not many positive ones and frankly wasted the UBCM's time.

[Stingray2004]

Make sure to make your submissions everyone!

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release
2013TRAN0064-001513
Oct. 4, 2013
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

Public to have say in B.C. highway speed-limit review

KAMLOOPS – The government of B.C. is reviewing speed limits on longer stretches of provincial highways between communities, and will be seeking public input starting this November as part of the process.

Public input, along with information gathered through a technical review of provincial highways, will be considered to identify areas where speed-limit changes would be appropriate.

The initial technical review is already underway. This work includes an evaluation of the latest research from around the world, as well as specific characteristics of B.C. highways, such as travel speed, safety history and the volume and mix of traffic.

Public engagement is an important part of the speed-limit review, and British Columbians will be able to have their say on rural highway speed limits at public forums in communities around the province, as well as through social media and online feedback. Forums will be held in Kamloops, Chilliwack, Nanaimo, Prince George, Dawson Creek, Vancouver, Kelowna and Cranbrook starting in November, with additional communities added as necessary.

At the same time, government will be seeking public input as it reviews how to reduce the risk of wildlife-related crashes on rural provincial highways, and reviews how to best ensure the safe movement of slower vehicles.

The ministry will also be seeking input from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, ICBC, police and other key stakeholders. Practical recommendations from this review and a strategy for implementation will be ready in early spring 2014.

Quote:

Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Todd Stone –

“This review will build on the good work done on speed limits over the years by involving the public in the discussion. We want to ensure those travelling on our highways can do so as safely and efficiently as possible, and we’re interested in what British Columbians have to say as our review of speed limits and other important safety issues moves forward.”

A backgrounder follows.

BACKGROUNDER

Public input sought on highway safety issues

Starting this November, British Columbians will have a say on various highway safety issues. The outcome of the review will be recommendations for speed-limit adjustments to longer sections of rural highway between communities, as well as recommendations related to improving vehicle flow and preventing wildlife-related collisions.

Initial technical work is underway. The public input component of the review will happen starting this November, with technical work completed through the winter and recommendations due in spring 2014.

Speed-Limit Review:
· Public input will be sought on which highway corridors should be considered.
· The technical review includes an assessment of current travel speeds, safety history, highway alignment and traffic volume and mix.
· The review will also consider the feasibility of speed-management strategies such as seasonal speed limits and speed limits by vehicle type.

Slower Vehicles Review:
· Vehicles impeding other vehicles, (e.g. in the left lane, recreational vehicles, when towing, etc.) reduce the efficiency of the highway system and can cause driver frustration.
· Public input will be sought on what is considered a slow vehicle and corridors of concern.
· The review will examine various means of ensuring the safety of slower drivers while improving the efficiency of the highway. Best practices in signing, public education, enforcement and availability of pull-out facilities will be reviewed.

Wildlife-Corridor Review:
· Wildlife on the highway can pose a serious hazard to motorists in British Columbia.
· Public input will be sought on corridors of concern and areas where warnings could be enhanced.
· The review will identify practices that could be implemented to reduce wildlife collisions, and on which highway segments. Examples of key areas for examination include: advisory signs, wildlife-advisory speeds and the use of advanced technologies to detect and deter wildlife.

This review will build on the work done during the last review in 2003. Since 2003, the ministry has used the principles outlined in the report to make modifications to speed limits around the province including some increases on major highways such as Highway 1.

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_rele...064-001513.htm

[GeeCee]

I hope they increase the speed limit on the Mary Hill Bypass. In good conditions, 70km on the part closer to United Boulevard is pretty damn slow.

Edit: bah, this is for 'rural' highways. Boring..

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

I hope they increase the speed limit on the Mary Hill Bypass. In good conditions, 70km on the part closer to United Boulevard is pretty damn slow.

Edit: bah, this is for 'rural' highways. Boring..

I think the Vancouver one will hear from people talking about the Mary Hill Bypass and the SFPR quite a bit....

They hopefully will reconsider, and review all segments of highway under their jurisdiction.

[makr3trkr]

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/safetyandspeedreview/

"The Province is conducting province-wide consultation and engagement to seek input about safety and speed limits on B.C.’s rural highways as part of the Rural Highway Safety and Speed Review. ICBC, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, is partnering with Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to support this Rural Highway Safety and Speed Review and ongoing safety improvements for B.C. drivers.

Feedback is sought regarding safety on B.C.’s rural highways with respect to speed limits, slower-moving vehicles, wildlife hazards and the use of winter tires."



They aren't seeking input on any highway corridors in metro Vancouver. Not surprising, but still disappointing.

So Highway 99 to Lilloet is up for review, for example (a winding, climbing, narrow, undivided road).

But I can't ask why the speed limit on Highway 91 isn't 100km/hr (when that was the design speed, as stated by the engineers themselves):

"The geometric design standards used in the design of the Annacis Highway System are typical of an urban expressway with a design speed of ... 100 km/h (60 mph)."
http://www.ite.org/membersonly/itejo...f/JGA88A21.pdf

And, in the 2003 speed limit review report, Highway 91 was named as a "candidate road segment for 100 km/h speed limit"
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications...iew_Report.pdf

Nor can I suggest that, on the new three and four lane segments of Highway 1 from Langley to Vancouver, trucks be prohibited from using the left lane (as in Seattle).

So, colour me underwhelmed. This feels like more of a PR move than anything else.

[wrenegade]

Thank you for that link. I will be leaving lots and lots of feedback. If others find the time to fill out the survey, please mention cat's eyes/centreline reflectors on undivided sections of highways. So many of our highways are much more dangerous at night/in the rain because of lack of reflectors.

[Stingray2004]

Insights West released a public opinion poll today on the proposed speed limit increases. Suffice to say, a gender gap does indeed exist:



Source: Insights West

[makr3trkr]

People will tend to drive at safe and prudent speeds for the conditions, whether the limit is 10 or 20km/hr higher or lower.

The government is not going to raise limits across the board, they are looking at both raising and lowering, as appropriate.

Increasing the speed limit on a road where it is set too low is not going to make everyone suddenly drive inordinately faster, it simply means people will no longer be criminalized for driving at the 85th percentile.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Insights West released a public opinion poll today on the proposed speed limit increases.

Interesting poll. I'm surprised to see that there isn't any group where a majority supports increased speed limits - the greatest support comes from "Men" but even there opinion is split evenly down the middle.

For the record, I'm in the "55+" category and think the limits are just fine for the most part. But something seems fishy because my experience is that the vast majority of drivers drive faster than the speed limit.

[WarrenC12]

I'd like to see more dynamic limits.

There's such a huge difference in road condition and visibility on a sunny afternoon vs. night time when it's pouring rain with wind.

[theKB]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'd like to see more dynamic limits.

There's such a huge difference in road condition and visibility on a sunny afternoon vs. night time when it's pouring rain with wind.

The coquihalla is a prime spot for this. Bump it up to 130kph in the summer months and then move it around when the weather is inclement. Even south of the fraser on the No. 1 could be that way. Traffic vs. no traffic etc. They already have the timing equipment in there to show travel times, i'm sure its a software tweak and some new signage to start changing the speed limits.

My typical observation is that when there is a moderate amount of traffic on most highways traffic tends to flow at around 120-130 and that is enough to tell me that there is something wrong with the limits.

Also if you read the question for that survey it is extremely strange and poorly worded.