News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.5K     0 

@jason403 It's not a fact of life, it's a choice we've made. Traffic fatalities are not a force of nature, they are of human making. They are a result of our choices to prioritize vehicle speeds over safety and livability of our cities.

We can choose otherwise.

If someone you know was killed in a preventable traffic fatality, but still fell within what you might consider an "acceptable" number, is that still acceptable to you?
 
Time = Distance / Speed. I like to take the Whitemud as an example; so many people think it is too slow as an 80km/h speed limit. Whitemud is about 28km long so at 80km/h it would take 21 mins, if my arithmetic is right, to drive from one end to the other. If you raised the limit to 90km/h you would shave off about 2.5 minutes. Not worth it if you ask me and not many people drive the whole length so realistically time savings would be much lower.
So for residential I reckon a good guess for the average length of drive on a residential street might be say 1 km once you leave a collector or main route. Over that 1 km the extra time at 40 km/h from 50 km/h is 18 seconds. Not sure who really rates 18 seconds over the safety benefits.
 
If you are going to drive at 30 km/h, why bother using a car? In dense asian cities the car is king and every pedestrian know that yet they still cross the busy streets like playing the video game Frogger where you avoid the cars instead of jumping on top of them.
Here we are, lowering the speed limits because we are too lazy to teach our children the rules of the road and focusing on our smartphones instead of the surroundings while walking.

Some people on this forum like the idea of lowering speed limits yet don't have a car themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a step in their grand plan of forcing drivers to give up their cars. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Ironically there is no talk of lowering the LRT speed limits in spite of having accidents with pedestrians where in every single case the pedestrian was at fault.
 
@itom987 How about I rephrase that for you:

"If you are going to drive at 50 on a quiet residential street, why bother driving there at all? In most other dense cities around the world there are way more accommodations made for pedestrians and transit, and drivers know that yet some still choose to drive recklessly and further add to massive congestions on streets not designed for high volumes of traffic.

Here we are, bringing the new speed limit into law because some drivers are too impatient to slow down themselves and pay close attention to what's going on around them (which in turn makes the entire area much safer) and would rather shave off a couple minutes by zooming past people getting in and out of their cars, people trying to cross the street or children playing with a ball in the vicinity.

Some people on this forum like the idea of keeping the 50k speed limit yet have never had to be a transit user, active transport user or even daily pedestrian themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a step in their grand plan of maintaining the status quo of car-culture and keeping people in a box where they must acquire a car to have the ability to do basically anything (like get a decent job, see family regularly, get to appointments on time, go out with friends, etc.), no matter how much debt they need to take on or the condition of the car they purchase. And if you literally just can't get a car or drive, then I guess you're stuck where you are and have to somehow figure out how to use whatever's left at your disposal or fall through the cracks to the bottom of the societal ladder.

:rolleyes:"
 
Last edited:
@itom987 My argument isn't 100% correct, and neither is yours, but I'm just simply showing how much the argument can be flipped depending on your perspective. I don't hate driving, and I'm planning to get my class 5 restricted license this upcoming spring, but I will not be purchasing and financing my own car until I'm finished university and have a job at least, and even then I probably won't use it every day.

Also about the LRT, there will always be the threat of those kinds of incidents on an at-grade system (and I do agree that it's almost never the train's fault), and if it does become a more prevalent issue in the future it's on the city to educate people about following the rules around trains and enforcing harsher punishments on those who break them, not to punish the many more people who rely on transit by making it less convenient.🙃
 
If you are going to drive at 30 km/h, why bother using a car? In dense asian cities the car is king and every pedestrian know that yet they still cross the busy streets like playing the video game Frogger where you avoid the cars instead of jumping on top of them.
Here we are, lowering the speed limits because we are too lazy to teach our children the rules of the road and focusing on our smartphones instead of the surroundings while walking.

Some people on this forum like the idea of lowering speed limits yet don't have a car themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a step in their grand plan of forcing drivers to give up their cars. :rolleyes:
Accidents can still happen even when you are paying attention whether you are a driver or pedestrian. As someone that has been in a bad car accident due to poor road conditions and hit another car head on, things can happen even when you are driving to conditions, and you end up still putting others at risk. Luckily, the section of highway I was on had a lower speed limit, otherwise I would likely be dead along with multiple people in the car full of 4 people that I hit. Driving is not a god given right. Speed increases the forces upon the human body in the event of an accident and as Dave has pointed out through data, it is much worse for pedestrians past a certain threshold of speed. You can't outrun a car when you are a pedestrian - lowering the speed limits at least gives pedestrians a chance of surviving. It is deeply concerning and selfish that some people value their own convenience of driving a certain speed more than human life.

Oh, and yes, I still own a car and agree with speed limits being lower.
 
I don't think this is a war on cars, and it's been shown in the research and data council used to make the decision that the travel time increases will be minimal. I think the biggest boon will be having the rules back up good behaviour. most drivers already drive reasonably in these areas, but now the 15-20% that treat people's front streets like freeways will be held to speed limits that prevent this. the arterial roads where speeds are being reduced (which i think is only Whyte Ave, Jasper, and a couple other places if i remember correctly, just a couple places) are already urban areas where you rarely hit 50 anyways. Short of reconstructing every single street in the city to modern safety standards, which would take decades, i think this works for now.
 
Platinum 107, I agree that we both are not 100% correct in our arguments and the truth might be somewhere in the middle. I am sorry to hear that you aren't planning on getting a car for yourself until you have graduated from university and have a job. Back in the '90s I got my first motorized transportation while in high school, I paid for it myself from working at McDonalds. The motorbike was over 10 years old and died within the first year of using it (engine overheated due to lack of oil circulation). I paired up with my brother, and bought a car to share for the remainder of my high school years. Insurance was a little more expensive than a motorbike but still affordable. When learning how to drive my instructor mentioned that all unlaned residential streets had a speed limit of 50 km/h, if the street had a lane the limit was 60km/h. Those rules had been around for decades and they weren't the #1 cause of accidents. The #1 cause of accidents was drunk driving and there was a large nation wide campaign to do something about it. Insurance rates were jacked up for young drivers, and fines were increased significantly for anyone caught drunk driving. The campaign targeted young drivers because of their lack of experience and their tendency to drive drunk. This is why you are having such a hard time getting a car. In spite of that there are still people that drive drunk and inexperienced drivers making mistakes. Fast forward to today and we see speed limits going down, some drivers drive over the speed limit but the truth goes the opposite way as well. So lets say you are driving on a road with a speed limit of 30 km/h but unfortunately there is a driver in front of you that drives 20 km/h, you see someone on a bicycle passing you. The lower speed limits will cause road rage canceling out any projected gains in safety. Lets get back to insurance, the rates are still increasing above the rate of inflation. Did anybody ask if insurance rates would go down? I guarantee you the insurance companies will say something like "the rates won't change until we see fewer collisions". Don't be surprised if accidents go down and the companies will still keep them high. The government will have to be the one to bring them down. There will always be accidents now matter how safe we try to make things. Transportation safety and vision ZERO is not a realistic goal. In case you are wondering, I have never been in an accident but like everyone else, I did have close calls.

If you want to get a car earlier, get a motorbike (not a crotch rocket) the insurance is only a fraction of what car insurance costs, you will get driving experience bringing the insurance rate down allowing you to afford a car in the future.
 
@itom987 Thanks for responding! I maybe should've made this more clear in my last post but, I'm making the active choice to not get my own car until then :). If I really wanted to, I could start saving most of my money from work and maybe be able to buy or make a down payment on an "alright" quality car before I finish high school (I'm 16 in Grade 11), but I'm choosing not to for various reasons. A: Believe it or not, I actually like and enjoy using public transit to get where I need to go, and I will sometimes take transit even if I could've been driven. It may sound like I'm speaking a different language right now to you, so I'll phrase it like this: Taking transit gives me a sense of freedom and ease comparable to what you got from driving your first motorbike or car. In my mind, the concept of paying $3.50 for a ticket to go anywhere I want in the whole city is amazing! Not to mention ticket books and bus passes. I'll feel the sense of freedom from a car someday, but for now I'm perfectly fine with what I have at my disposal B: During the warmer months (Late April to Mid October), my bike and I are inseparable and I'll ride for dozens of kilometers on end over the week, either to actually get somewhere to to just have fun. C: I don't feel like taking on insurance payments and/or a loan now of all ages. D: I will usually be able to use my parent's or uncle's car if I really need to drive somewhere (telling them ahead of time).
 
If you are going to drive at 30 km/h, why bother using a car? In dense asian cities the car is king and every pedestrian know that yet they still cross the busy streets like playing the video game Frogger where you avoid the cars instead of jumping on top of them.
Here we are, lowering the speed limits because we are too lazy to teach our children the rules of the road and focusing on our smartphones instead of the surroundings while walking.

Some people on this forum like the idea of lowering speed limits yet don't have a car themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a step in their grand plan of forcing drivers to give up their cars. :rolleyes:
I think you may have hit on a storyline for the next James Bond film - Spectre's grand plan is to force all drivers to give up their cars by changing all the speed limit signs on the entire planet. Grand plan to make everyone give up their cars? Come on! Just drive slower in residential areas.....it's not a dastardly plan of an evil organization haha.
 
This entire argument will be moot within the next five years when inexpensive, 2-passenger electric commuter vehicles that are self-driving come into play in a major way. I am already working with one company -- Eli Zero -- https://www.eli.world/ to provide complementary vehicles (to the tenants) for a cohousing project in Ventura California. The assembly plant will be in Long Beach, California; head office NA in San Francisco. Maximum speed = 40 kph; 25% longer than a standard bicycle and about twice the width allotment. The price that I have negotiated for our project is about $8,000.00 USD per vehicle (mass purchase). These will be owned by the development Las Casitas Verde and free to use by anyone living in the development. The cars will have an MPGe rating of 350 and a range of 70 miles on a single charge -- adequate for most daily commutes, able to be plugged into a standard 120v convenience outlet. These will be on site when the development is completed in the fall of 2021.
 
City releases 2021 Vision Zero Annual report; crash-caused fatalities down 50 per cent since 2015​

May 17, 2022

Today, the City of Edmonton released the 2021 Vision Zero Annual Report onedmonton.ca/VisionZero.

The report highlights Edmonton’s progress toward Vision Zero, the goal of zero crash-caused fatalities and serious injuries by 2032. Since adopting Vision Zero in 2015, fatalities have decreased by 50 per cent, serious injuries by 32 per cent, and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries by 27 per cent.

Featured in the report are two significant 2021 milestones: a safer speed limit on residential and downtown streets and the launch of three new programs for Edmontonians to get involved in safe and livable streets.

The new 40 km/h default speed limit was implemented August 6, 2021, and after four months of implementation, automated enforcement data showed that the percentage of drivers in compliance rose steadily until it reached 88 per cent in December. The vast majority of people are complying with the new, safer speed limit on residential, downtown and high pedestrian activity streets.

Through the new community activation programs, five Vision Zero Street Labs were imagined and installed, 3,541 community signs were delivered, 315 requests for portable driver feedback signs were fulfilled, and 31 schools participated in activities to creatively learn and talk about safe streets.

“The support and interest in these new programs show how much Edmontonians truly care about safe streets,” said Jessica Lamarre, Director of Safe Mobility for the City of Edmonton. “We all want vibrant and healthy communities where streets are for everyone.”

Alongside the Annual Report, the City of Edmonton is releasing the Safe Streets Map, a new tool for Edmontonians to explore projects and programs making our streets safer. Navigate planned and completed safe crossing improvements, community-led Vision Zero Street Labs, speed and red light enforcement sites, high injury intersections and more.

“While the 2021 Vision Zero Annual Report celebrates many accomplishments, 16 people lost their lives and 259 were seriously injured on Edmonton’s streets last year,” said Lamarre. “We have much more work ahead to reach our goal of Vision Zero. Together, we can make sure that everyone gets to where they are going safely.”

The City of Edmonton would like to thank Edmontonians, community groups, and businesses who have been working hard to make our streets safer and more livable.

Visit edmonton.ca/VisionZero to read the 2021 Vision Zero Annual Report and explore the new Safe Streets map.​

For more information:
edmonton.ca/VisionZero

Media contact:
Sarah Giourmetakis
Communications Advisor
Communications and Engagement​
 

Back
Top