Originally Posted by Helmet Head
The justification for the higher speeds is increased traffic throughput to all the new housing up there.
Yeah, right... the speed limits were established well before any of that housing existed... and in the housing areas it is 45MPH, except near the school on Carmel Mountain Road, where the speed limit has actually been recently LOWERED to 40MPH. So "to support housing density..." Wrong Guess... try again.
As for the speed deltas, we're probably going 15-20 up that hill in a group, maybe closer to 12-15 when I'm solo.
But the group is more visible than slow contruction vehicle would be there, and we're usually oozing out of the bike lane into half of the rightmost traffic lane (big deal, there are two more same-dir lanes).
When I'm solo I monitor for traffic to the rear as always and move aside into the bike lane as they approach.
Closing speed and not noticing is not an issue.
Is there any evidence for correlation between speed limits and crash incidence and/or severity? That is, is there any basis for the claim that lower posted speed limits make things safer?
I find it very hard to believe you ascend that hill at 15MPH or even close to 20... but that is your claim so I let it lie.
Are there any claims for less crash severity at lower speeds... OK, simple test. Let me crash my bike into you at 5MPH and then again at 20MPH (the latter is still not even the speed delta you claim for your 20MPH climb with 50MPH traffic) and let's see if you notice any difference in the severity of the impact.
