Oh how I wish our speed limits on our Orange County stroads was only 35 or 45 mph! 55 mph is much more common, and the roads are designed to make it feel safe when you drive 65 mph. And then they paint a thin while line to demarcate a so-called bike lane that of course disappears to almost nothingness whenever they need space for a turn lane—and expect us to ride bikes there, rather than on the 10’ wide side walks where no-one walks and which would be perfect for biking!
This is an interesting counter point in the argument:
"There’s no reason to tolerate high speeds in areas with population clusters like cities and the suburbs. Interstate highways are an altogether different story, and those systems should be treated differently. People aren’t turning in and out of driveways on the interstate, and they certainly aren’t walking or bicycling."
It makes sense that highways are totally different modes of traffic than a residential area and yet casual onlookers perceive laws governing these roads as the same. I consistently drive 5 miles over the speed limit no matter where-- and this isn't right, and I need to drive slower. Because the roads have different interweaving traffic patterns, there is more risk in increasing speed in neighborhood driving than on interstates.
But here's a question prompted by the coincidence of having read your article ten minutes after paying a speeding ticket for driving at 24mph on an arterial road in Central London where the speed limit was 20mph.
As I read it, your article is acknowledging that, if you build a road that is designed for higher speeds then preople will perceive that and drive at the speed which feels safe (even if it isn't). The consequence is that, if you take an old road designed for a higher speed and do nothing but reduce the limit, then people will continue to drive at the speed that seems appropriate to the road. Unless you do a lot of enforcement (hence my fine). But enforcement annoys people and erodes support for reducing speeds.
So the obvious answer, when reducing the speed of existing roads would be to add passive calming measures. And, on residential streets, few would disagree.
The question is what measures exist to passively lower speeds on arterial roads and major bus routes without causing blockages and traffic jams.
Oh how I wish our speed limits on our Orange County stroads was only 35 or 45 mph! 55 mph is much more common, and the roads are designed to make it feel safe when you drive 65 mph. And then they paint a thin while line to demarcate a so-called bike lane that of course disappears to almost nothingness whenever they need space for a turn lane—and expect us to ride bikes there, rather than on the 10’ wide side walks where no-one walks and which would be perfect for biking!
It's terrifying out there!
This is an interesting counter point in the argument:
"There’s no reason to tolerate high speeds in areas with population clusters like cities and the suburbs. Interstate highways are an altogether different story, and those systems should be treated differently. People aren’t turning in and out of driveways on the interstate, and they certainly aren’t walking or bicycling."
It makes sense that highways are totally different modes of traffic than a residential area and yet casual onlookers perceive laws governing these roads as the same. I consistently drive 5 miles over the speed limit no matter where-- and this isn't right, and I need to drive slower. Because the roads have different interweaving traffic patterns, there is more risk in increasing speed in neighborhood driving than on interstates.
Thanks for the insight.
Great piece.
But here's a question prompted by the coincidence of having read your article ten minutes after paying a speeding ticket for driving at 24mph on an arterial road in Central London where the speed limit was 20mph.
As I read it, your article is acknowledging that, if you build a road that is designed for higher speeds then preople will perceive that and drive at the speed which feels safe (even if it isn't). The consequence is that, if you take an old road designed for a higher speed and do nothing but reduce the limit, then people will continue to drive at the speed that seems appropriate to the road. Unless you do a lot of enforcement (hence my fine). But enforcement annoys people and erodes support for reducing speeds.
So the obvious answer, when reducing the speed of existing roads would be to add passive calming measures. And, on residential streets, few would disagree.
The question is what measures exist to passively lower speeds on arterial roads and major bus routes without causing blockages and traffic jams.