bronco71

Zero traffic deaths is an impossible goal. We shouldn't set goals that cannot remotely be achieved its counterproductive.

daihard 

"Always set your goals higher than you could ever possibly reach. That way, when you barely fall short, you're still better than everybody else.” - Carson V Heady

bronco71

Goals should be realistic and measurable. - Friel

daihard 

Haha so it's now who can come up with a better quote.

Seriously, though, I'd doubt we could reach "zero" traffic deaths, but I do believe we can get pretty close. Lowering speed limits, enforcing them, redesigning roads to discourage speeding, and yes, driver education, are all feasible in my opinion. I remember walking on some "pedestrian-friendly" streets in Utrecht a few years ago. You really couldn't drive any faster than 10 MPH there.

mconlonx

OP is moot if enforcement is lax. Would lowering speed limits make people drive slower?

When I drive, I drive at speed limit +5mph. When I ride my bicycle, I try my hardest to break the speed limit, but rarely succeed.

daihard 

Exactly. That's why I've been emphasizing the importance of enforcement and street design that discourage speeding.

When I drive on the freeway, I tend to drive at or a bit above the speed limit as well. When I drive on the residential street, I rarely drive above 25 MPH, if ever.

B. Carfree

Portland, OR answered that one for you. The Portland Police refuse to enforce traffic laws, except when they do a stop-sign enforcement for bikes. The Portland Bureau of Transportation got special permission from the state to lower the speed limits on their so-called bike greenways from 25 mph to 20 mph, but didn't get any police buy in. The not-so-surprising result is that almost all of these streets have a significant speeding problem with the 85th percentile speed being well above the speed limit.

Speeding is common on most neighborhood greenways in Portland, study finds - BikePortland.org

CrankyOne

More driver training will help a little and we should certainly do it but the benefits will be marginal. The problem we have is one of design. U.S. traffic engineers have focused on speed and LOS (Level Of Service) and not safety. This has resulted in overly wide travel lanes, wide radius turns (including at junctions), right-on-red, and over use of traffic lights — all things that lead to greater speed. More skill as a driver will do very little if the road design encourages high speeds in places where high speeds are dangerous which is mostly anywhere but a motorway.

bronco71

Driver skill applies to any road, any speed, particularly situational awareness.

Designing roads for traffic load is necessary to avoid overtaxing infrastructure. Moving vehicle from a to b quickly is a part of that.

daihard 

That's important for arterial roads, including interstate freeways. That's why it is absolutely necessary to build separate, protected bike infrastructure on such arterial roads. Much less so for non-arterial, residential streets, where low enough speed limits should be enforced.

bronco71

Google map Oracle Road in Oro Valley, AZ. That is a 50-60 mph arterial with a bike lane. It works without separate infrastructure.

daihard 

I don't know how you define "works," but if it does, then building better, protected bike infra on the road would encourage even more people to come out and ride there, don't you think?

bronco71

There is an adjacent MUP that is hardly used. The roads are great and there is a vibrant cycling community. The MUP was a waste.

daihard 

That doesn't mean safe, protected bike infrastructure is not necessary for road safety on high-speed, arterial roads... does it?

bronco71

Wtf, in the case I noted "protected" infrastructure isn't necessary or wanted. It works fine for a large quantity of cyclists every day. The speed limit is irrelevant. The design works well.

daihard 

You're just talking about one street. I can show you many arterial roads in Seattle that have "feel-good" bike lanes and are very dangerous to ride on (and naturally see few people riding on). I don't doubt there are exceptions, but as a general rule, I firmly believe arterial roads that carry a large volume of high-speed traffic must have protected bike lanes in order to encourage people to ride on them. Please note that I'm not just talking about competent and/or confident road cyclists but moms on cargo bikes, children, commuters, etc.

[ADD] And speed does matter here. Since cars are expected to be able to maintain relatively high velocity on arterial roads, protected bike facilities will help prevent people on bikes from being hit by cars at such high speeds.

bronco71

If the taxpayers of the DPRoW want to fund special lanes for you, more power to you. The bike lanes here work fine for us. I'm done with the Captain Tangent routine.

kickstart

??? I haven't ridden them all, but I've found Seattle's bike lanes easy to use, and reasonably safe in relative terms. That is, maybe not much safer than nothing at all, but they still improve the cycling experience because they significantly reduce the time and effort expended on constantly competing for space.

Its a start, and a step in the right direction.

daihard 

A good example is NE 125th between Roosevelt and Lake City Way. It is a mere 2-foot-wide painted lane that's so close to the edge of the road, you can't ride safely in it. Another one is College Way North (in front of North Seattle College). The pavement was horrible and again, it was a narrow, painted bike lane. The SDOT just recently upgraded the south half of College Way North to protected/buffered bike lanes and redid the pavement. Seattle Bike Blog has an article about it. You will see a lot of posters say (including myself) how they hated the old lanes and how much better the new ones are.

kickstart

Well as I said I haven't ridden them all, and infrastructure of any type or quality in the Kent-Covington area is rather limited, so my perspective is a little different.

daihard 

That's fair. Likewise, I can't talk about the Kent-Covington area as I've never ridden there.

Looigi

FWIW: Speed limits are just numbers painted on a sign. What's relevant for safety are the conditions, circumstances, and the speeds of the vehicles, irrespective of any posted speed limit. Around here, the speeds posted seem to be 10-15 mph less than those deemed reasonable by the large majority of motorists. I am among that large majority.

atbman

Breaking the speede limit seems to go with a sense of entitlement, along the lines of "I don't see why I should go that slow, because I'm a good, safe driver". Hence the outrage when they're done for speeding and get points on their licence - "Why don't they go after real criminals? I'm sick and tired of the war on motorists!", etc., et bleedin' cetera. Hence, also, the utterly hypocritical, apparent hatred of cyclists who break the law (while rarely putting the lives of other road users at risk).

And, as the figures given by Cranky One show, the force of the impact goes up exponentially, not linearly, with the increase in speed

molten

And Before All That: Those That Had Underestimated The PAYMENT ABILITY --- Who Bought (esp new of) A Car.
Before playing with their skills & speeding.

genec

And yet 1/3 of all automobile collisions are speed related... so much for that majority thinking...