Living Car Free - 15 mph speed limit

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/24/nroads124.xml

Here's a good article about how some new developments in the UK are planning on bulding new towns with 15 mph speed limit. The objective is to get people out of cars and promote cycling and public transportation. Actually, it's being created to cut back emissions for global warming.

Regardless, I would love to live in a town where ALL the streets had a 15 mph speed limit. I'm sick of the 25 mph speed limit because the motorist know they can travel up to 37 mph without any fear of getting a speeding ticket. I don't consider it a global waming issue at all but a quality of life issue.

I suspect that a 15 mph speed limit will mean the cars will finally travel at 25
mph.

Don't forget to read the pro-motoring comments below the article.

15 mph? Cyclists would get as many speeding tickets as motorists if the speed limit is actually enforced. :rolleyes:

That would take all the fun out of breaking the speed limit. At 30 it's a challenge. At 15 it's a recovery ride.

As I recall, Britain used to have laws requiring a person to walk in front of the car with a red lantern. I suspect that a 25 mph limit will have as much traction. If you want to discourage carfree living, don't toady around with such halfway measures. They would be better off studying Copenhagen.

I thought that most of the reader comments were pretty illuminating, if somewhat depressing. It was as if a bunch of alcoholics had just been informed that they would only be allowed a single drink a day, but only in certain areas. The comments made me realize, also, that this idea will probably die long before it ever becomes reality. Personally, I'd love to live in such a community, but I agree with Artkansas that Copenhagen is probably a more realistic model.

another thought crossed my mind while reading this: If all cars were required to go no faster than 15mph, except on major freeways, you could make the engines smaller, and therefore much more efficient, thereby making them cheaper to operate and creating a lot less greenhouse gases. Cars would be more viable much longer into the future, and everyone, or at least most people, would probably be happier in the long run. Plus, almost no one would die in auto accidents.

In most places all it would take would be substantial enforcement of existing traffic laws with low tolerance for speeders. When I first started driving IRIC we were "allowed" 5mph over the posted or you would get a ticket...now it appears to be much more than that!

Aaron:)

This reminds me of the episode of Mr show where old folks take over the world.

"...There would be bowls of hard candy at every corner, and whether you walked or drove, you'd get to your destination at the same time..."

In all seriousness, this is a great idea for people who are interested and would probably force some kind of revolution/revolt if it was forced on those who can't (won't) comprehend life without a car.

Personally, I would love to live in such a city.

Interesting how all the brits are using MPH instead of KM/H. Or maybe they always did that and I just never noticed.

In regards to the story, you could see this coming from a mile away. Why? The government is dictating to people how they should act. People around the world, including very socialized countries in europe hate unnecessary govn't intrusion.

If a large private developer had done this same thing, i.e. developed communities/towns that put cars way down on the transportation list, there would be nary a peep by the motor drivers, except to say, "well I'm sure not going to live there".

It's interesting to see the push back by the british populace over a lot of the intrusive government mandates, unfortunately they all seem to revolve around the automobile (the other story was about britians vandalizing speed cameras).

Interesting to me is the comment section...they are the same the world over. In my local area, they have done (yet another) study on the feasibility of increased mass transit with a completion date of 2035...:rolleyes: And of course the comments are all pretty much the same: "make it pay for itself, no public subsidy", "add more lanes to I-xxx", "we don't need no stinkin' toll roads", "all it is, is a goverment tax scheme/money grab"...ad nauseum.:p

My understanding is that these are PLANNED villages, no one is suggesting that ALL living areas be affected (yet;) ) If given an opportunity I think I would much prefer to live in a place where cars were to be reduced second class citizens.:D

Aaron:)

I've been talking about cities like that forever! All the comments I read against the article only looked at one point or another, never more than one at a time. It seemed like no one paid attention to the fact that this would be implemented in PLANNED CITIES. Most of the arguements had to do with people just not wanting to get out of their cars or couldn't think of a city with a different layout than what they are used to. The comments on this article just introduced me to a new bias. Brits are idiots.

Well, actually there were some good comments, and I like the eco city idea alot. So They're not all bad. I wish they would build a city like that in the US.

The world would be better off if there were more cars this size than the large ones. Actually it would be classified as a motorcycle in the USA since it has only three wheels.

Watch this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jgIV9ZCMnY4

When these are available all around the USA I intend to get one. I would probably opt for the hybrid model.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=p2Ke1VWhZJA

Interesting how all the brits are using MPH instead of KM/H.

But why? It is afterall a British unit of measurement.

The United States couldn't quite manage to completely shake off the shackles of occupation :rolleyes:

And why the smaller pints over here? Is that a blue law?

In an urban neigbhorhood designed for pedestrians, it should be difficult for cars to travel faster than 15MPH even if the speed limit allows it.

If you make the distances between lights and stop-signs shorter; and increase the surface area devoted to bus/bike lanes, sidewalks, crosswalks, medians, plazas, etc. the cars won't have an opportunity to go much faster. Whether it's a large city or a small town, it ought to be a pain to drive. This encourages people to park their cars and walk. It also encourages public transportation and bicycling.

There are parts of our downtown that are very pedestrian-friendly, and cars generally have to stop at a light every block. Our urban residential neighborhood is also very pedestrian-friendly, but there aren't enough stop signs to keep cars from travelling fast. Our street is long as straight. Even though the speed limit is 25, cars regularly travel 40MPH or faster... despite the fact that there is an elementary school in the neighborhood. We are considering a petition for more stop signs, or perhaps some speed humps.

15 mph? Cyclists would get as many speeding tickets as motorists if the speed limit is actually enforced. :rolleyes:

Very true and easier to aim spike strips at too :(

countersTrike

The world would be better off if there were more cars this size than the large ones. Actually it would be classified as a motorcycle in the USA since it has only three wheels.

Watch this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jgIV9ZCMnY4

When these are available all around the USA I intend to get one. I would probably opt for the hybrid model.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=p2Ke1VWhZJA

That Aptera car was actually pretty impressive. A hybrid that gets 300 mpg and has a top speed of 90 mph is something that deserves a hard second look...

The world would be better off if there were more cars this size than the large ones. Actually it would be classified as a motorcycle in the USA since it has only three wheels.

Watch this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jgIV9ZCMnY4

When these are available all around the USA I intend to get one. I would probably opt for the hybrid model.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=p2Ke1VWhZJA

Yea..... I feel safer on my bike instead. At least it's easier to bail out when shiet happens.

It's always been my belief that if you lower speeds, you reduce traffic congestion.

In an urban neigbhorhood designed for pedestrians, it should be difficult for cars to travel faster than 15MPH even if the speed limit allows it.

If you make the distances between lights and stop-signs shorter; and increase the surface area devoted to bus/bike lanes, sidewalks, crosswalks, medians, plazas, etc. the cars won't have an opportunity to go much faster. Whether it's a large city or a small town, it ought to be a pain to drive. This encourages people to park their cars and walk. It also encourages public transportation and bicycling.

There are parts of our downtown that are very pedestrian-friendly, and cars generally have to stop at a light every block. Our urban residential neighborhood is also very pedestrian-friendly, but there aren't enough stop signs to keep cars from travelling fast. Our street is long as straight. Even though the speed limit is 25, cars regularly travel 40MPH or faster... despite the fact that there is an elementary school in the neighborhood. We are considering a petition for more stop signs, or perhaps some speed humps.

Depends on the area...in our small town they did just this and people just went somewhere else to shop. Larger town just south of me did the pedestrian mall thing and downtown completely died. Now after 25 years it is starting to make a come back.

Aaron:)

If you make it unpleasant for people to get around, of *course* they'll go elsewhere.

If Madison planned to put in speed bumps and medians to slow traffic downtown, I'd get very upset. Those things are a *real* hazard on a bike, especially if you've got a heavy load or it's wet out. I'm much safer on a smooth, well maintained road! It would be much more useful to do things like swap parking meter posts from a single car, single bike design to a 1 car 2 bike design. Coming up with a way to keep motor scooters out of bike racks would also be nice. Sweeping public parking for abandoned vehicles would also help - cars get checked regularly since they pay, but sometimes a bike rack may be clogged with abandoned bikes.

At 15mph, many sorts of cars get very poor gas mileage. Their engines and fuel injection systems tend to hit optimum function at about 45mph. Most of Madison's downtown is posted at 25 (2 lanes) or 35 mph (4 lanes + turn lane). Trying to keep car speeds lower would drop air quality and would not improve matters for anyone. I *would* like to see some more speed enforcement on the higher speed routes. I've done enough driving to know that the 35mph routes are mostly driven at 40-55mph. Good for air quality, and very bad for stopping distance. The speeding habit makes it harder on the city bus drivers, so that's another reason to not be a fan.

Depends on the area...in our small town they did just this and people just went somewhere else to shop. Larger town just south of me did the pedestrian mall thing and downtown completely died. Now after 25 years it is starting to make a come back.

Aaron:)

I guess that is a risk :(
I guess I should never underestimate how lazy people can be. If the shopping/business district is designed well enough, and offers an attractive place for walking and the shops/resturants/services people are willing to be a bit inconvenienced for it often works. I've seen a number of areas like this and the most successful ones had a giant ugly parking garage! I guess that's what it takes to get people to park their cars and walk... even if they drove 15 miles to get to a place where they are only going to walk a few blocks.

When I lived in Washington, DC I would sometimes talk to people outside of DC who would say stuff like, "I went there once and hated it. I've never been anywhere that was so difficult and confusing to drive around." Whenever someone asked us for advice before visiting DC we would tell them to ditch their car in a garage or lot somewhere (or don't rent one if they are arriving by plane or train) and then take the Metro into town.

Sean

If you make it unpleasant for people to get around, of *course* they'll go elsewhere.

That isn't really the goal. The goal is to make it easier and safer to get around without a car, which sometimes means making it less convenient to drive all the way through the business district. If you make it easy to walk, easy to bicycle, and easy to ride public transportation it can actually draw people in. Of course big cities have enough attractions to draw people in so that they are willing to put up with some inconveniences, but I've seen small towns, small cities, and pedestrian-friendly shopping centers do this as well. The trick seems to be that you have to make it a pain to drive to every destination, while offering easy parking at the perimeter (or even at key places inside the pedestrian heavy zone). On the downside this can result in large ugly parking lots and structures. Another goal is that you want these areas to be where many people live... not just destinations for shoppers. Every city and town I have ever lived in has had these neigborhoods... real neighborhoods where people live that offer some of the best dining and shopping in the area. Yes there will be some people who never visit these places because they want to be able to park right in front of their destination, but they can go to the mall :p


If Madison planned to put in speed bumps and medians to slow traffic downtown, I'd get very upset. Those things are a *real* hazard on a bike, especially if you've got a heavy load or it's wet out.

There are many better alternatives to traditional speed bumps. Speed humps are easy for bicycles to ride over, but the painted ones can still be slippery when wet. Frequent stop signs and lights are better, and give pedestrians more places to cross the roads. These aren't areas where bicycles are supposed to go fast either, so the bicycles will be a little inconvenienced as well. That's why bicycles are often just as fast as cars (if not faster) in areas like these.

One thing to note: Most places I'm thinking of that have low speed zones (or even zones where cars aren't allowed) also have a few major streets with higher speeds close by. These arteries provide faster routes for busses, bicycles, and cars. Many such places also have multi-use paths where bicycles can cruise without so many stop signs.

The real goal here is mixed zoning so neighborhoods can provide residents and visitors with basic services. One of the reasons we are so addicted to cars is because American cities and towns became too segmented into homogenous zoning areas. Houses are one direction, businesses are another direction, schools are way over there, and hospitals are out that other way. In neighborhoods that offer residents more services close by, car trips are reduced because other options exist. Often these neigbhorhoods become less car-friendly because the focus is more on pedestrians, bicycles, and public transportation.

Sean

My general observation on the pedestrianization of any given town is based on the existing population and their willingness to adapt. I know that some of it is socioeconomic and suspect the rest to be cultural. Too many people are hung up on going to a chain store/restaurant/coffee shop/whatever that advertises heavily, if you don't have those it is going to be an uphill battle for the most part. I am working in a decent sized metro area and stay in a hotel in one of the smaller outlying "bedroom" communities. On more than one occasion we decided to go out to eat, all of the big name chains were packed and had wait times, drove right by those to the local owned restaurant downtown, it was much calmer, no wait and the food was excellent. I make a it a point to frequent local owned businesses as much as possible.

Aaron:)

If you make it unpleasant for people to get around, of *course* they'll go elsewhere.

If Madison planned to put in speed bumps and medians to slow traffic downtown, I'd get very upset. Those things are a *real* hazard on a bike, especially if you've got a heavy load or it's wet out. I'm much safer on a smooth, well maintained road!


I have not had that experience with the speed bumps we have on our 'traffic calmed' streets. As a matter of fact, they are quite driveable at 30 km/h (about 14 mph) in a car or on a bicycle.

I have done these with heavy loads, in rain, in snow and ice (though generally slower), and they have not been a problem.

These speed bumps are actually reffered to as 'speed humps', and I would be happy to see more of them - especially if we could replace some 4 way stops with 2 way stops with speed humps on the through streets.

There were alot of naive comments. Global warming not something that is human caused but the opposite is true? Whatever, dude. I think there is a matter of natural occurrences of the warming/cooling cycle, but since the industrial revolution, there's not a doubt that Earth has warmed.

I personally think that everyone should have their cars taken away, be hit on the head with a roll of quarters and be given a bike...because people are lazy!

I don't really think that, but the US especially, overall, has the wrong attitude and needs to change...but I don't forsee it happening. Cars aren't going away, I'm afraid. It's especially mind boggling when people choose to work or live a long ways away from where they work/live. WHY?!

Oh well, I'm just laughing at everyone who is car reliant right now because they're throwing away their money on gas.

15mph? That is way too low.

15mph? That is way too low.

Why? we're talking about big cities, where the average car trip is probably less than 5 miles. If they can't slow down that much, the hell with them. They'll just have to learn!

I have advocated for 15 and 25 mph speed limits for all roads, except for limited access interstate highways, for years. Cars are too dangerous to drive faster than that around houses, buisnesses, and other people.
With extremely strict enforcement, fines, and license suspensions.

15mph? That is way too low.

Exactly. This law is going to make it just as difficult for cyclists as drivers, and it's one of the reasons I don't use "bikepaths"/MUPs now. In any case, I can't see this being enough to encourage cycling. Most people will still probably think it's "too dangerous" or "too uncool" or "too much effort". And what happens when someone wants and/or needs to ride outside that little neighbourhood? You're better off training people in safe cycling while they're at school.

Oops, sorry, that's the sort of thing that has long term benefits, and therefore won't appeal to the short-term gratification mentality of cycling "advocates".

Why? we're talking about big cities, where the average car trip is probably less than 5 miles. If they can't slow down that much, the hell with them. They'll just have to learn!

Because if I can break the speed limit on my bicycle without even trying it's too low. What does average car trip has to do with speed limits anyway? At some point you need too look past your own insecurities and fears, and realize what you are proposing is pointless.

I just find it hard to believe that lower speed limits will really slow anyone down. People drive as fast as they feel is safe (which can be quite fast and unsafe.) All this will lead to is more speeding tickets, which might be nice for city municipalities, but won't have the effect of slowing traffic.
Although in this manner you could look at as another car tax, which might do some good. Constant parking tickets helped me ditch my four wheeled ride, after they discouraged me from biking for a bit (can't get a parking ticket if it's at the office lot.)

All this will lead to is more speeding tickets, which might be nice for city municipalities, but won't have the effect of slowing traffic.
.)

Maybe so, since speeding fines are meaninglessly low now.

My system would slow people down alot.

1st ticket any speed over the limit- 1 year suspension $3000 fine.
2nd ticket any speed over the limit-5 year suspension $7000 fine.
3rd ticket any speed over the limit- lifetime ban, seizure of automobile
DUI/driving without a license-seizure of automobile, automatic 6 month home incarceration.
multiple DUI/driving without a license-seizure of automobile, 12 month incarceration.

That would slow people down, and probably save alot of the 43,000 people that are killed on the roads now.

Me thinks some may want to reread the article:p...I can break the 15mph speed limit on my bike too. But if I understand what the concept is...a 15mph speed limit is only going to be in the town centre. If you have a high pedestrian count 15mph would be plenty fast enough even on a bike. It also appears that they are planning a lot of MUP's (not the best choice IMHO) For casual/utility riding in town 15mph is reasonable.

Aaron:)

More UK boll*cks. FIFTEEN MPH? For GLOBAL WARMING?

Besides people wont ride their bikes due to all the R-A-I-N.

BTW did a bit more digging and courtesy of our friends in Copenhagen...The Green Wave (http://www.copenhagenize.com/2007/10/green-wave.html) times the lights for an average speed of 20kph (12.5mph) well within the 15mph proposed speed limit. I think many cyclists in autocentric countries forget that someone that is cycling for transportation is not going to be riding all out. FWIW on my road bike 25mph speeds are the norm on my Raleigh Suprebe or one of my grocery getters, half that. We are riding to the corner bar or grocery store, not to qualify for the TDF. This also verified by our friends in Copenhagen as to the average speed of bicycles in the city being 15.3kph (9mph) for comparison: Buses 14kph (8.7mph) Cars 28kph (17.4mph).

And for rain there are many solutions. I actually don't mind riding in the rain as long as it isn't a deluge. Also from what I gather from the article they are going to build these towns not convert existing ones.

Aaron:)

I can break the 15mph speed limit on my bike too.

This is all downhill riding, yes?? I can barely top 8mph on a flat surface, maybe 13 when I'm riding downhill.

What kind of bikes are you people riding that get such speeds?

Me thinks some may want to reread the article:p...I can break the 15mph speed limit on my bike too. But if I understand what the concept is...a 15mph speed limit is only going to be in the town centre. If you have a high pedestrian count 15mph would be plenty fast enough even on a bike. It also appears that they are planning a lot of MUP's (not the best choice IMHO) For casual/utility riding in town 15mph is reasonable.

Aaron:)

Exactly. 15 mph is reasonable for both bikes and cars in a busy city center. 25 is good for city streets outside the business district. 45 mph for cars is reasonable for urban and suburban limited access highways, and let's go back to 55 for interurban superhighways.

The longer term goal should be to eliminate high speed automobile trips in favor of fast trains. I love cross-country driving, but it's not feasible in today's world.

This is all downhill riding, yes?? I can barely top 8mph on a flat surface, maybe 13 when I'm riding downhill.

What kind of bikes are you people riding that get such speeds?

On my mountain bike, urban street speed is an average of about 11 mph, including traffic congestion and stop lights. Typical cruising speed is about 16 mph in the city and 18 mph in the country. I don't consider that to be fast at all. Most people on BF probably do a lot faster than me.

I've read that the actual average speed for cars in city driving is about 14 mph.

I've read that the actual average speed for cars in city driving is about 14 mph.

It varies on the city, time of day, and other variables. But that is certainly believable in many of our congested cities.

Aaron:)

I've read that the actual average speed for cars in city driving is about 14 mph.

So in other words, this law won't impact on drivers, but will effectively take away any advantage a cyclist might have (assuming it's enforced). And this is supposed to encourage cycling?

Sounds like more "policy" from some motoring lobby agents dressing themsevles up as "cycling advocates" to me.

So in other words, this law won't impact on drivers, but will effectively take away any advantage a cyclist might have (assuming it's enforced). And this is supposed to encourage cycling?

Sounds like more "policy" from some motoring lobby agents dressing themsevles up as "cycling advocates" to me.

If you are riding "vehicularly" you will be traffic so the imposed speed limit shouldn't be an issue. IMO you have a couple of choices; you can slow traffic down to reasonable speeds for cyclists or you can provide separate facilities. I consider myself to be an accomplished cyclist (over 30,000 miles so far in my lifetime) There are many traffic situations where cycling is not possible and I don't mean interstate/limited access freeways. If a bit more attention was paid to design of roadways and access as well as a general slowing of vehicle traffic, pedestrians and cyclists might actually increase:eek: I am currently staying at a hotel in N.Charleston, SC. within a 3/4 mile radius of my hotel there is everything anyone could ask for in terms of shopping, eating or drinking establishments. However NONE of them are readily accessible by cycle or pedstrian means without having to dodge automotive traffic. There are no sidewalks, no cross walks, the mall is fed by merging lanes off of multi-lane highway where incoming traffic has the right of way. There are a few sidewalks along the main road, but they don't go anywhere and stop abruptly at drain culverts and cross streets.

From the article it appears that what they are trying to do is GIVE people an alternative to using the car for everything. And it is only going to be in some locales not on a national level.

Aaron:)

Not to mention, if I read the article correctly, these "eco-towns" they speak of are individually quite small (as has been said before, these are essentially developments/planned-communities). I wonder how well something like this would work in the US, by nature a far larger, more spread-out area.

In my opinion it would be far better to incentivize cycling and walking, rather than penalizing driving. That might involve building higher density housing closer to commercial districts and public transit, as well as improving the infrastructure to facilitate walking and cycling. What it says for the US's current zoning practices I don't know...

Not to mention, if I read the article correctly, these "eco-towns" they speak of are individually quite small (as has been said before, these are essentially developments/planned-communities). I wonder how well something like this would work in the US, by nature a far larger, more spread-out area.

In my opinion it would be far better to incentivize cycling and walking, rather than penalizing driving. That might involve building higher density housing closer to commercial districts and public transit, as well as improving the infrastructure to facilitate walking and cycling. What it says for the US's current zoning practices I don't know...

It has been tried in some locales with mixed results. They attempted to build such an area near where I live and it failed miserably. The people that bought houses in the local area did not frequent the shops and restaurants that were at the center of the development. They drove past them on their way to the big box stores and national chain restaurants that were 10-15 miles away. The developer couldn't convince the national chains to move into his commercial area (not that I blame them, because their profits depend on volume and a large part of their business is based on people making a spur of the moment stop). At least in America it is going to take a shift in people's attitudes and shopping habits to allow the small stores and walkable business/residential areas to make a come back. BTW I am all for it.

Aaron:)

I've seen smaller "walking malls" start springing up in some suburbs. They are quite popular. Requires much less travel to get to compared to the giant indoor only mega malls that have pretty much dominated the retail scene for the last thirty years.

Of course these smaller regional malls are surrounded by acres of parking lots and garages, and there's no lower speed limits around them but if you choose to walk or ride a bike, getting to it is much much easier than trying to get to a mega mall.

So I think we (americans) are starting to evolve, a little at a time. It's all about trends and it's all cyclical. I think the super box stores and mega malls are nearing the end of their cycle of dominance. It may take a while to get rid of them completely, but I think we'll eventually get there.

Putting a side the whole VC thing (thats another can of warms). Seems to me the general problem is not the speed limit, but poorly designed roads. I think instead of imposing limits on drivers there should be a push to make other transportation alternatives more convenient. Better public transportation, bike lanes, separate paths, sidewalks, better designed turn signals, lights timed for cyclists, etc. There is no one magic bullet that will convince people to drive less, It will be a gradual change.



If you are riding "vehicularly" you will be traffic so the imposed speed limit shouldn't be an issue. IMO you have a couple of choices; you can slow traffic down to reasonable speeds for cyclists or you can provide separate facilities. I consider myself to be an accomplished cyclist (over 30,000 miles so far in my lifetime) There are many traffic situations where cycling is not possible and I don't mean interstate/limited access freeways. If a bit more attention was paid to design of roadways and access as well as a general slowing of vehicle traffic, pedestrians and cyclists might actually increase:eek: I am currently staying at a hotel in N.Charleston, SC. within a 3/4 mile radius of my hotel there is everything anyone could ask for in terms of shopping, eating or drinking establishments. However NONE of them are readily accessible by cycle or pedstrian means without having to dodge automotive traffic. There are no sidewalks, no cross walks, the mall is fed by merging lanes off of multi-lane highway where incoming traffic has the right of way. There are a few sidewalks along the main road, but they don't go anywhere and stop abruptly at drain culverts and cross streets.

From the article it appears that what they are trying to do is GIVE people an alternative to using the car for everything. And it is only going to be in some locales not on a national level.

Aaron:)

So in other words, this law won't impact on drivers, but will effectively take away any advantage a cyclist might have (assuming it's enforced). And this is supposed to encourage cycling?

Sounds like more "policy" from some motoring lobby agents dressing themsevles up as "cycling advocates" to me.

Don't forget that, aside from this forum, most people who are carfree are pedestrians, not cyclists. Also most transit cyclists ride around 15 mph or less, anyway, again aside from this forum. I'm trying to think about the greatest good for the greatest number, and that might be lower speed limits.

I'd at least like to see some trials and demonstrations of lower limits in a few cities, and see what impact they have on different transit modes.

If you are riding "vehicularly" you will be traffic so the imposed speed limit shouldn't be an issue.

How do you figure this out? Overtaking is a normal, "vehicular" function of traffic. It happens everyday. It doesn't suddenly become any less so simply because the person overtaking happens to be riding a bicycle.



IMO you have a couple of choices; you can slow traffic down to reasonable speeds for cyclists or you can provide separate facilities. I consider myself to be an accomplished cyclist (over 30,000 miles so far in my lifetime) There are many traffic situations where cycling is not possible and I don't mean interstate/limited access freeways.

I have over 150,000km of riding in the last decade alone, and still haven't found such a situation where cycling is "impossible", except for those situations where the distance/time equation rules it out. I don't see how slowing cyclists down is going to help that one bit.



However NONE of them are readily accessible by cycle or pedstrian means without having to dodge automotive traffic. There are no sidewalks, no cross walks, the mall is fed by merging lanes off of multi-lane highway where incoming traffic has the right of way. There are a few sidewalks along the main road, but they don't go anywhere and stop abruptly at drain culverts and cross streets.

There's your biggest problem right there in the first sentence of that paragraph. When I ride, I work with auto traffic. I don't "fight" with it, or "dodge" it. By reducing the speed a cyclist can travel at, all you're doing is reducing the number of options the cyclist has when using the roadway. Now if you were talking about slowing traffic down to something reasonable, like 25mph for example, it might work, but this speed is ridiculously low.



From the article it appears that what they are trying to do is GIVE people an alternative to using the car for everything. And it is only going to be in some locales not on a national level.

Sounds to me more like they're trying to take it away. The alternative was and is already there, restricting what it can do won't make it any more available.

Don't forget that, aside from this forum, most people who are carfree are pedestrians, not cyclists. Also most transit cyclists ride around 15 mph or less, anyway, again aside from this forum. I'm trying to think about the greatest good for the greatest number, and that might be lower speed limits.

I don't see too many pedestrians walking down the middle of the road. Most of them are on the sidewalk, where the speed of drivers on the road just isn't an issue. Frankly, if someone's too stupid to look both ways before they walk across the road, it's their problem, not that of those who are using the road.

Chris if I could afford it I would be more than happy to provide you with a round trip ticket to demonstrate how the hell you cycle on an 8 lane wide road with both right and left merges (remember we drive on the right hand side of the road) occurring within a few hundred yards of each other, it also has entering side streets, dedicated left turn and right turn lanes and traffic is moving at 45-50mph+ with cars dodging in and out of the various traffic lanes in a vain attempt to get ahead of everyone else, or make last minute merges. The "local" traffic has to veer left, the ride veer enters a high speed merge with and interstate. I drive a full sized crew cab pickup (7,000# range) thru this area on a daily basis, it has been sideswiped twice in the past year, once from each side by motorists that "didn't see it" BTW it is RED. If they can't see a friggin' truck that size they damn sure aren't going to see a cyclist. Also this is the ONLY route thru this area, all of the side streets have been cut off and channeled to either this road or the interstate 1/2 a mile a way.

The original article was talking about trying to make a community less accessible to cars by using the very low speed limits to discourage driving. It should do just that. People that are just generally riding a bicycle to get somewhere, dressed in street clothes seldom exceed 15mph, I know I don't. I think what they are attempting to do is "normalize" other forms of transit other than the single occupant automobile. Yes there are many cyclists that can ride and maintain a speed above 15mph, but I contend that in this situation they would be the exception rather than the rule.

Aaron:)

There is actually a small town here where no-one owns a car.

Yeah...I would like to live there.