Potential New Hwy Speed Limit Increases

[sacrifice333]

Originally Posted by Klazu

The new speed limits are completely proper in summer weather. But 120km/h on Coquihalla Highway in a blizzard or hard rain is just crazy. They should lower speeds for the winter time on the mountain highways, just like they do in Scandinavia. People seem to be unable to judge road conditions and many drive 130km/h even in the worst of the weather.

No need to lower speed limits, that's up to the individual driver. A speed limit by definition is the maximum legal, and in turn "safe", speed at which to drive under ideal conditions, i.e. dry, daylight, car.

If you're driving a pickup truck towing a 5th wheel trailer in the snow the speed limit is likely much beyond the capabilities of your situation on that day/time.

A great resource on speed, laws, safety, etc. is SENSE BC.

[go_leafs_go02]

Variable Speed limits on the Coquihala should be in place by next year. Same for the Sea to Sky and portions of Highway 1 near Golden.

That was announced at the same time the speed limit review came out.

[makr3trkr]

http://globalnews.ca/news/1848822/b-...d-road-trauma/

Sense BC:

"To add some context here: the current seasonal "peak" of ambulance calls is higher than only the peak in 2013.

There simply isn't enough data to draw meaningful conclusions - as these doctors are trying to do.

[The BC Medical Journal's] own disclaimer: "With only 6 months of data, we cannot be certain that our findings represent a long-term increase or will prove to be transient."

[makr3trkr]

from https://www.facebook.com/SENSEBC?fref=ts

"1) You cannot extrapolate an annual trend with 6 months of data, especially when the seasonal trend always peaks at the end of that period, as it does at the end of every winter.

2) There is no mention that speed limits were reviewed on a mere 5% of BC rural highways, yet the article seems to imply that road related trauma data was gathered throughout BC, including from the 95% of roads that weren't reviewed.

3) There is no analysis of traffic volumes to correct the data. If traffic volume is up, there would be more crashes and vice versa if down. The Ministry of Transportation has traffic loop counters, but the data online isn't up to date.

4) The current "peak" of road trauma calls is still below the peaks in 2012, 2011, 2010... Only 2013 had a "better" year. This could have been the result of a small downward trend, better weather, reduced ambulance availability, randomness, etc.. Again: the "peak" of road trauma calls is still LESS than ALL previous years with the singular exception of 2013."

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by sacrifice333

No need to lower speed limits, that's up to the individual driver. A speed limit by definition is the maximum legal, and in turn "safe", speed at which to drive under ideal conditions, i.e. dry, daylight, car.

That line of thinking leads to the argument that speed limits in general are unnecessary since drivers should be able to decide on a safe speed in any conditions. The reality is that the limit is there to protect the majority of us from the actions of a relatively few idiots, and there's no real reason why lower legal limits can't apply in adverse conditions since those same idiots are still out there.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by MIPS

I got two fresh windshield chips and two direct hits on my passenger's headlamp this winter driving over the coq and having some schmo rip past at warp 5 and kick up anything that was on the ground.

Yeah, I had the same thing happen last winter on Coquihalla Highway and it was damn near repeat this winter when we drove to Sun Peaks. Coquihalla Highway is full of potholes during winter and there are lots of lose rocks just waiting to be flung by the speeding cars. It wouldn't be such a certain chip on windshield if the speeds would be lower, but speed limit being 120km/h and people driving 130km/h is just way too fast for those road conditions. I personally try to slow down to under 100km/h whenever a car is passing by, but it is still dangerous.

Coquihalla's road surface is also such that there is a serious risk of aquaplaning in many places when it rains (and it can rain very heavily). Driving 130km/h under those conditions is pure stupidity, yet common, and can have catastrophic consequences.

Do they lower speed limits elsewhere in Canada or US in the winter time? In Nordic Countries it is country-wide practise. 100km/h becomes 80km/ during winter time. Freeways that are 120km/h in summer, become 100km/h. As a result, I have never had a rock chip my windshield back home, but here it has happened already twice!!

[SOSS]

I would like to see more education and enforcement. Educate people that maximum speeds are for ideal situations, define ideal situations, fine people for breaking these laws. I haven't heard of anyone being ticketed for doing the speed limit during non-ideal times. Does it happen? ICBC and the MoT should roll out an education program to education existing drivers and new drivers.

[sacrifice333]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That line of thinking leads to the argument that speed limits in general are unnecessary since drivers should be able to decide on a safe speed in any conditions. The reality is that the limit is there to protect the majority of us from the actions of a relatively few idiots, and there's no real reason why lower legal limits can't apply in adverse conditions since those same idiots are still out there.

However the "speed limits" that were raised were in general determined using a methodology called the 85th Percentile Speed which is "the speed at or below which 85% percent of all vehicles are observed to travel under free flowing conditions." Or put another way the speed at which "the majority of us" travel in ideal conditions.

Going back to to Driving 101, unless every human being is an idiot... [And I will admit there's reasonable evidence to suggest we are all morons.] ...there is no requirement for variable speed limits. It's a losing game and there are infinite possibilities of what the conditions / situation is and therefore what the speed limit should be. Take a drive North on I-5 into Seattle, variable speed limits posted on digital signs. Rarely does the digital sign tell you slow down before you have to slow down. The conditions, in this case traffic, normally dictate for you to slow down well in advance of the fancy signs.

And if you're driving 120km/h on the Coq in a blizzard you probably deserve to end up in the ditch.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by sacrifice333

And if you're driving 120km/h on the Coq in a blizzard you probably deserve to end up in the ditch.

<posted accidentally, see next post>

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by sacrifice333

Speed which is "the speed at or below which 85% percent of all vehicles are observed to travel under free flowing conditions." Or put another way the speed at which "the majority of us" travel in ideal conditions.

There's an 85th percentile for poor conditions too, and no reason not to base a speed limit on it.

...there is no requirement for variable speed limits. It's a losing game and there are infinite possibilities of what the conditions / situation is and therefore what the speed limit should be.

That's a fallacious argument because there's no reason to set a limit for every possible condition, in the same way that you never see speed limits of "83.6 km/h" just because that happens to be the 85th percentile for a particular stretch of road. You can improve safety simply by implementing fair- and foul-weather limits, with the latter being imposed when some combination of conditions or worse occur.

And if you're driving 120km/h on the Coq in a blizzard you probably deserve to end up in the ditch.

But the two or three vehicles you take out on your way there surely don't deserve it.

This last statement of yours, like all the others, argues in favour of no limits whatsoever because people will either drive responsibly or "get what they deserve". But some people don't drive responsibly, and even if they do get what they deserve the rest of us don't want to become their victims, thanks very much.

If you agree that speed limits are needed at all, then I can't see a consistent way to argue against one or more additional graded limits for defined conditions. You might be able to make an economic argument based on the cost of implementation, but that has nothing to do with the basic principle.

[HomeInMyShoes]

It is sad, but we need to legislate common sense.

driver flies off bridge and over snow bank from TheWeatherNetwork

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

It is sad, but we need to legislate common sense.

driver flies off bridge and over snow bank from TheWeatherNetwork

Yikes. drunk driver who also fell asleep behind the wheel. He's lucky to be alive.

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by MIPS

I got two fresh windshield chips and two direct hits on my passenger's headlamp this winter driving over the coq and having some schmo rip past at warp 5 and kick up anything that was on the ground.

They already have those signs that flip over so they can show/hide no stopping signs in avalanche areas depending on the season, why not do the same for the speed limits so it just takes a guy with a pole and one pass down the highway to change the speeds for the season?

The Coq is notorious with the gravel dumped on the road. You can almost expect a $200 cost for windshield replacement deductible. Car or truck, any windshield is susceptible to damage. I know my dad actually pulls over into the shoulder to let some idiots pass going 130 an hour so he avoids the rock chips. Turning your wipers on full blast while someone passes also helps with possibly deflecting the projectiles from hitting your windshield.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

There's an 85th percentile for poor conditions too, and no reason not to base a speed limit on it.

That's a fallacious argument because there's no reason to set a limit for every possible condition, in the same way that you never see speed limits of "83.6 km/h" just because that happens to be the 85th percentile for a particular stretch of road. You can improve safety simply by implementing fair- and foul-weather limits, with the latter being imposed when some combination of conditions or worse occur.

But the two or three vehicles you take out on your way there surely don't deserve it.

This last statement of yours, like all the others, argues in favour of no limits whatsoever because people will either drive responsibly or "get what they deserve". But some people don't drive responsibly, and even if they do get what they deserve the rest of us don't want to become their victims, thanks very much.

If you agree that speed limits are needed at all, then I can't see a consistent way to argue against one or more additional graded limits for defined conditions. You might be able to make an economic argument based on the cost of implementation, but that has nothing to do with the basic principle.

The reason the limits exist, is because people are irresponsible and would sue if they were hurt, or their vehicles damaged by driving at the top speed their car can go. By defining a maximum "safe under ideal conditions, in a properly maintained car" value, and fines for exceeding it, we set an idiot tax where it needs to be.

However your average two-wheel drive, front-engine car, during dry weather, in the middle of summer, with no wind is the only "safe, ideal" condition. There are speed warning signs at every corner, and ultimately what it takes for someone to learn how safe to take a corner is to take the corner slightly too fast and listen for the tires squealing.

What is responsible for many accidents now is not speed but distractions. I'm pretty sure you will see a higher correlation of accidents over time if you compare the adoption of cell phones, text-messaging, and smart phones prior to the rules to clamp down on their use by drivers. Many of these accidents happen at any speed.

Too much information is detrimental to not enough.

source: http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/02/1...-wdiv-michigan

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Too much information is detrimental to not enough.

You're trying to re-argue the same point. You don't need lots of limits and confusing signs. You can improve safety even if you only have a fair weather limit and a poor weather limit. And you don't need to present all the limits to the motorist - all he has to see is what the limit is right now.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

You're trying to re-argue the same point. You don't need lots of limits and confusing signs. You can improve safety even if you only have a fair weather limit and a poor weather limit. And you don't need to present all the limits to the motorist - all he has to see is what the limit is right now.

At some point I'd like to see signs that change at night, and from temperature. We can do this right now with existing technology, but the signs would likely be larger theft targets. Wireless electronic GPS tagged signs could be used for more complex situations like that school zone sign I posted earlier.

[makr3trkr]

The BC Ministry of Transportation studied crash results the last time speed limits were raised.

"A before and after with control group analysis of crashes reported on highway segments where speed limits were raised during the years 1997 and 1998 was conducted.

The paired comparison ratio method was used to estimate the overall effect of the speed limit change using a weighted average log odds ratio based upon the individual log odds ratios of the crash counts at the individual treatment segments.

Based on the analysis, it appears that raising the limit from 90 km/h to 100 km/h resulted in a 12.9 percent reduction in crashes at the sites where speed limits were raised.

The Phase II sites experienced an 8.6 percent reduction in total crashes. Both reductions are statistically significant.

Based on the crash analysis at the Phase I and Phase II sites, it is concluded that raising the speed limits from 90 km/h to 100 km/h at these locations apparently did not have an adverse effect on safety."

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

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

Based on the analysis, it appears that raising the limit from 90 km/h to 100 km/h resulted in a 12.9 percent reduction in crashes at the sites where speed limits were raised.

Let's not forget that a reduction in the total number of crashes doesn't necessarily translate to a better outcome in terms of the severity of injuries or number of deaths.

I'm not trying to push the debate one way or the other, just cautioning people not to jump to conclusions.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

The BC Ministry of Transportation studied crash results the last time speed limits were raised.

"In general in other countries, studies of the effects of raising speed limits generally indicate that vehicle speeds and crashes increase".

They go on to cite 19 other studies:
14 show increased crashes and fatalities with higher speeds
4 show no measurable change
1 shows a decline

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

"In general in other countries, studies of the effects of raising speed limits generally indicate that vehicle speeds and crashes increase".

They go on to cite 19 other studies:
14 show increased crashes and fatalities with higher speeds
4 show no measurable change
1 shows a decline

They also go on to explain why BC is different, and why they still recommend raising the limits further.

The Federal Highway Administration has multiple studies that show that for both freeways and arterial roads, raising or lowering speed limits has little effect on average speed, and does not increase accidents, for example:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications...ac/rd97002.cfm

FHWA-RD-97-002

"Speed and accident data were collected in 22 States at 100 sites before and after speed limits were altered.

The changes in accidents at the study sites are shown in figure 2. These changes were not statistically significant at the 95th percentile confidence level."