OT: Sens Lounge -The four seasons edition

[Micklebot]

The law specifies some requirements, true:

...but it says nothing of context. I've seen signs placed very close to the spot, to the point where a reasonable driver wouldn't have time to interpret it and adjust accordingly. I've seen them facing traffic, but hidden behind trees. The legislatory requirement is good, don't get me wrong, but those are often played to the letter and not necessarily the intent.

I haven't come across any "hidden" signage, but let's be clear, the signage that really matter is the posted limit, if you're only adjusting your speed because you see the Sig about the camera, you are the problem, not the signage, but beyond that, there are seperate regulations that dictate how signage is placed under the HTA, and require signs to be visible. All signage should be visible from 60 meters, if a tree is obstructing it you can report it and the city should deal with the obstruction.

 

[Stylizer1]

So...put the cameras in plain sight. Stop with the yo yo speed changes all over and be more consistent with speeds in the city, fix the mass transit (hello, LRT) and extend it asap, and everyone take a step back and breathe.

And it wouldn't be a bad idea for the feds to move some of their offices out of the downtown core. Having some government buildings spread out around the city to redistribute traffic a bit might help. The city has more than doubled in population in the last 50 years...and they sure didn't think to make sure there was room for more roads to accommodate it all, so now they'll have to be a bit more creative in their solutions.

It really is too bad this area isn't that good for making a lot of tunnels (the limestone, I guess?). Having a real subway system here would've worked quite well considering the mainly east-west and north-south fingerprints of the city.

Or a ring road. Hunt Club could have been that to direct traffic off of the queensway.

 

[Stylizer1]

They suck, because their actions make driving less safe for everyone around them, just like the idiots speeding through school zones then complaining about the photo radar tickets they got.

Yeah because speed is the only thing that creates bad drivers. Not being on your phone going under the speed limit, putting on make up, just being a bad driver.......

 

[ACLEVERNAME]

Speed cameras are bullshit only because they've been dressed up as "community safety zones" BS since the beginning. Introduce it as 'saving the children' and 'schools' and 'community centres' and all that sweet stuff - couple years later they're installing more and more every quarter. Read the CTV articles and they're even bragging about it at this point. Language matters - intent matters. 5-10× speeding tickets on a particular stretch of road while cutting down on actual uniformed Police officers matter.

Just another way to drag more $$$ out of average 'Joe' tax payer.

 

[Micklebot]

Yeah because speed is the only thing that creates bad drivers. Not being on your phone going under the speed limit, putting on make up, just being a bad driver.......

Right, because whataboutism really strengthens your position...

 

[Micklebot]

Speed cameras are bullshit only because they've been dressed up as "community safety zones" BS since the beginning. Introduce it as 'saving the children' and 'schools' and 'community centres' and all that sweet stuff - couple years later they're installing more and more every quarter. Read the CTV articles and they're even bragging about it at this point. Language matters - intent matters. 5-10× speeding tickets on a particular stretch of road while cutting down on actual uniformed Police officers matter.

Just another way to drag more $$$ out of average 'Joe' tax payer.

So, speed cameras would be fine if they just put them everywhere from the start?

They are putting them in more places because they have shown to be effective at reducing speeding where installed.

If your concern is it being a cash grab, there is an easy solution, just slow down. The city won't get a dollar out of you.

 

[Stylizer1]

Right, because whataboutism really strengthens your position...

Good come back.

 

[Micklebot]

Good come back.

I know right?

We probably should solve world piece too, that's a much bigger deal than speeding.

 

[Stylizer1]

I know right?

We probably should solve world piece too, that's a much bigger deal than speeding.

If everyone could get a piece that would be nice.

 

[jbeck5]

Speed limits on residential city roads have been 30-40 km/h for a while, though most are still 40, 30 isn't all that uncommon. It just depends on the road. If you're going 70 down some of the roads in my area losing control would be a very real possibility, as they are pretty windy, particularly if you're coming up to oncoming traffic around a bend with cars parked on the side of the road or if a kid steps out into the the road to grab an errant ball.

The relationship between speed and serious injuries or fatalities to pedestrians is well documented, 10 km absolutely makes a difference,

I don't get people complaining about a 10km/h difference on residential streets. The difference between going 40 and 30 km/h on the maybe 2-3km you likely travel down the residential roads of a given trip maybe adds a min to your travel. People need to get over themselves and realize the aren't more important than everybody else.

Most are actually 50km/h. Only the ones that are posted at 40 with a sign are 40. All the unmarked roads are 50km/h in urban, and 80km/h rural.

I don't know why everyone assumes the default is 40.

I'm of the opinion that side streets (the ones where 90° corners are common, should have a speed limit of 30km/h...or even 25km/h. No reason you can't just cruise at the low end of second gear until you get onto more of a main street.

But then on the other side of the spectrum, there are through roads that are way too slow.

For example, why is des epinettes(in Orleans) a 40 and not a 50? If ever you go like 38 or something, you feel like your crawling, and cars will stack up behind you. It's got such wide lanes, huge site lines, and no tight corners. Everyone and their grandma goes 50 on it.

Why is mer blue a 60 when you're driving through fields with nothing in sight...and then the one lane Brian Coburn feeding all the new developments is a 70. Shouldn't it be a 60 with mer blue being an 80?

Also, why is King Edward's section that is built like a highway a 30? And even going out over the bridge it's only a 50...but it's literally a highway with onramps. Goes to 70 on the Quebec side...but again, why only 70? It looks like a major highway. Atleast make it 90.


It's not that speeds are too low or too high...it's that they're way out of wack in both directions in certain places.

Lower all side streets to 30, but up main through roads from 40 to 50, and boulevards that are 50 up to 60. And boulevards that go through fields with nothing to 80.

And the highway to 110. Everyone already does it anyway. We have some of the lowest highway speeds in North America. Raising it to anywhere between 100-120 doesnt create some death trap, evident by those other places.

 

[Micklebot]

If everyone could get a piece that would be nice.

You found a typo, good one. Maybe next you can find a valid argument instead of deflection and whataboutisms

 

[Stylizer1]

You found a typo, good one. Maybe next you can find a valid argument instead of deflection and whataboutisms

Stings.

 

[jbeck5]

Speed limits are for safety. The are derived by evidence based best practices. Traffic cameras are a means to enforce the limits, and encourage people to actually follow the limits. Again, the use of which is driven by evidence that supports the efficacy. "Really their sole purpose is to generate profits" is speculative nonsense. Ridiculous is complaining about getting fined for exceeding the posted limit when you have only your own actions to blame.

They could punish you in ways that don't generate revenue, but they don't. So thats a bit of evidence right there.

They would rather fine you then have your car impounded and you pay the tow truck company $65 or whatever. It would give you a lesson, because you would have to pay for an Uber to go to the car lot, pay $65, take an hour or two out of your evening...be stuck without a car for like 24 hours or whatever...but the city would rather give you a $200 ticket or something.

There's definitely a money grab angle, and it's undeniable.

Why not have you do 8 hours of community service like cleaning up a park on a couple Saturdays? Nah...give me $200.

All I'm hearing is waa waa I want to drive faster.

You make a lot of claims like speeding was never an issue, and most accidents are bikes not pedestrians, Ottawa has poor bike infrastructure or this is just a money grab, but no evidence.

It's all based on feeling for you it seems. You feel it's not needed, or that it's a money grab, just comes off as whining though.

Huh? How did you get crying. He made a very specific point that you conveniently ignored. You normally argue honestly but right here, I'm not so sure.

 

[jbeck5]

Yeah let's blame the jaywalkers and not the people in giant mechanical tanks who can't keep their foot off the gas pedal

I mean, you should only J walk if your comfortable enough to run through and not make it a close call. Otherwise use the crosswalk.

I hate when drivers slow down because they see I want to jaywalk...I'm waiting for them to speed by so I can go after them before the next car that's way back. You do you. Let me, the j walker who is agile make the adjustments and go when safe.

 

[Micklebot]

Most are actually 50km/h. Only the ones that are posted at 40 with a sign are 40. All the unmarked roads are 50km/h in urban, and 80km/h rural.

I don't know why everyone assumes the default is 40.

I'm of the opinion that side streets (the ones where 90° corners are common, should have a speed limit of 30km/h...or even 25km/h. No reason you can't just cruise at the low end of second gear until you get onto more of a main street.

But then on the other side of the spectrum, there are through roads that are way too slow.

For example, why is des epinettes(in Orleans) a 40 and not a 50? If ever you go like 38 or something, you feel like your crawling, and cars will stack up behind you. It's got such wide lanes, huge site lines, and no tight corners. Everyone and their grandma goes 50 on it.

Why is mer blue a 60 when you're driving through fields with nothing in sight...and then the one lane Brian Coburn feeding all the new developments is a 70. Shouldn't it be a 60 with mer blue being an 80?

Also, why is King Edward's section that is built like a highway a 30? And even going out over the bridge it's only a 50...but it's literally a highway with onramps. Goes to 70 on the Quebec side...but again, why only 70? It looks like a major highway. Atleast make it 90.


It's not that speeds are too low or too high...it's that they're way out of wack in both directions in certain places.

Lower all side streets to 30, but up main through roads from 40 to 50, and boulevards that are 50 up to 60. And boulevards that go through fields with nothing to 80.

And the highway to 110. Everyone already does it anyway. We have some of the lowest highway speeds in North America. Raising it to anywhere between 100-120 doesnt create some death trap, evident by those other places.

People probably assume 40 because most streets they drive down have signage indicating 40, and if they don't, well they default to what they've seen,

As for limits that are too high or too low, that's certainly a valid question. There are guidelines to how they set limits, but theres always some discretion taken. That said, you last point about highways and everyone already going 110 doesn't work imo. If you raise the limit to 110, everyone will just start going 120, people tend to push the limit. Then the argument becomes just make the limit 120 since everyone already does 120. I think it's better to set posted limits based on what the conditions dictate are safe rather than the average Joe's behavior.

 

[jbeck5]

I'm in favor of more biking lanes in general...but higher density and cutting down roads simply don't mix.

I think biking lanes are amazing in new development and places where there is a lot of room to retrofit them, but not the downtown core. Unless WWIII happens and flattens half the city or the Andromeda strain takes out half the population, it's simply too difficult to try and squeeze in bike lanes for a small number of people.

Don't get me started about taking lanes away from cars creating congestion...

Going up Kent Street in the morning is a breeze. The whole thing takes like 2 mins from the Queensway to parliament. 3 lanes. Each set of lights goes green 10 seconds after the previous, so you can cruise going 50 and every light turns green ahead of you. PURE BLISS. The 3 lanes means if anyone is turning left or right and has to wait for a pedestrian, the middle lane keeps going. Traffic keeps flowing. No congestion.

Going down O'Connor in the evening is a nightmare. Only 2 lanes because they wanted to have this huge bike lane instead of a third car lane. To go from parliament to the queenways takes like 25 minutes because anytime a car wants to turn right or left and has to wait for a pedestrian to cross, ALL cars are stuck behind, and traffic comes to a standstill.

It's so black and white the difference 2 vs 3 lanes on a 1 way makes.

O'Connor needs that middle lane that doesn't get blocked by people making turns+pedestrian. Even a monkey could tell the difference.

 

[Stylizer1]

People probably assume 40 because most streets they drive down have signage indicating 40, and if they don't, well they default to what they've seen,

As for limits that are too high or too low, that's certainly a valid question. There are guidelines to how they set limits, but theres always some discretion taken. That said, you last point about highways and everyone already going 110 doesn't work imo. If you raise the limit to 110, everyone will just start going 120, people tend to push the limit. Then the argument becomes just make the limit 120 since everyone already does 120. I think it's better to set posted limits based on what the conditions dictate are safe rather than the average Joe's behavior.

Have you ever driven 105kmh on the queensway?

The average joe's behaviour is 110-130 on highways. 130kmh is a noticeable difference in the city but not on the open road

 

[jbeck5]

People probably assume 40 because most streets they drive down have signage indicating 40, and if they don't, well they default to what they've seen,

As for limits that are too high or too low, that's certainly a valid question. There are guidelines to how they set limits, but theres always some discretion taken. That said, you last point about highways and everyone already going 110 doesn't work imo. If you raise the limit to 110, everyone will just start going 120, people tend to push the limit. Then the argument becomes just make the limit 120 since everyone already does 120. I think it's better to set posted limits based on what the conditions dictate are safe rather than the average Joe's behavior.

I know what you're saying, but that's only to an extent. Keep raising it and people will start to go based on what they feel is safe, rather than what the limit is.

Ever been in the backroads with a sportscar when you were younger? Sure, your car might have a governed top speed of 260km/h or something, but most won't actually push their car to the governed top speed...theyll go until they feel it's unsafe and then will start to brake...

If you go to the autobahn, not everyone is driving to their cars limit. They're driving what they feel comfortable in their specific car in those current specific conditions. If that means 130 in a civic, or 180 in a Porsche, than so be it...but people aren't pushing their cars to the limit just because it's legal.

I'm a big proponent of designing the roads for the speed you want. Don't make a wide open straight road with no kids around and no turns or elevations and give it an artificially slow limit. People will obviously speed.

Put indents...crosswalks...speed bumps...narrow roads...tight turns...people will drive the speed they're comfortable.

That's why even though I know my street is a 50, I never go over 35. I know kids or pets could jump out and I can't see behind parks cars, etc.

But then you go on a big multi lane road and it's only 10km/h higher than my side streets where toddlers are playing? Makes no sense.


They need to design the areas and make them look "busier" so that no one will want to go fast speeds. This model is used in Europe a lot. When you approach a town, they don't just lower the speed from 80 to 50 while otherwise keeping it looking the exact same. They narrow the roads, put road parking. Put trees right by the road. Put crosswalks and intersections, etc. then you wouldn't feel right going 80 still. So you would naturally slow down to 50 even if you didn't see a sign.

 

[Micklebot]

They could punish you in ways that don't generate revenue, but they don't. So thats a bit of evidence right there.

You'd rather you get demerit points and have insurance premiums go up? Or lose your licence? Be sent on mandatory drivers Ed courses? What's your non cash grab solution here? The status quo has shown to get the desired results (reduction in speeding and collisions where cameras are installed),

They would rather fine you then have your car impounded and you pay the tow truck company $65 or whatever. It would give you a lesson, because you would have to pay for an Uber to go to the car lot, pay $65, take an hour or two out of your evening...be stuck without a car for like 24 hours or whatever...but the city would rather give you a $200 ticket or something.

Wtf 200 tolicket, how fast are you going??? You have to be going 30+ km over the limit to get a 200$ ticket

There's definitely a money grab angle, and it's undeniable.

So it's a money grab because you thought up less reasonable options that piss people off more?

Why not have you do 8 hours of community service like cleaning up a park on a couple Saturdays? Nah...give me $200.

This is such a stupid argument because fines are already the way speeding is and has always been enforced. Your asking to completely change the existing system because... It's enforce via a camera instead of an officer pulling you over? And it's only a money grab because it's done with a camera?

Huh? How did you get crying. He made a very specific point that you conveniently ignored. You normally argue honestly but right here, I'm not so sure.

It was a dishonest point to begin with, the argument was any type of fine is just a money grab and this not actually intended to curb undesirable behaviour, the reality is financial penalties have a proven track record of influencing behavior which is why they are used everywhere. The only difference here is that instead of a police officer pulling you over and giving you a ticket, now it's a camera, suddenly that makes it a money grab... No, it's just consistent enforcement of the rule of the road causing some people to complain, why? Because now they aren't getting away with it.

 

[jbeck5]

Have you ever driven 105kmh on the queensway?

The average joe's behaviour is 110-130 on highways. 130kmh is a noticeable difference in the city but not on the open road

Exactly...I would be all for making the limit 120, but enforcing people who speed. Right now, they don't bother with people going 10 over...but if they raise it, and then enforced a hard 120 limit, I'd be happy.

You'd rather you get demerit points and have insurance premiums go up? Or lose your licence? Be sent on mandatory drivers Ed courses? What's your non cash grab solution here? The status quo has shown to get the desired results (reduction in speeding and collisions where cameras are installed),


Wtf 200 tolicket, how fast are you going??? You have to be going 30+ km over the limit to get a 200$ ticket

So it's a money grab because you thought up less reasonable options that piss people off more?

This is such a stupid argument because fines are already the way speeding is and has always been enforced. Your asking to completely change the existing system because... It's enforce via a camera instead of an officer pulling you over? And it's only a money grab because it's done with a camera?


It was a dishonest point to begin with, the argument was any type of fine is just a money grab and this not actually intended to curb undesirable behaviour, the reality is financial penalties have a proven track record of influencing behavior which is why they are used everywhere. The only difference here is that instead of a police officer pulling you over and giving you a ticket, now it's a camera, suddenly that makes it a money grab... No, it's just consistent enforcement of the rule of the road causing some people to complain, why? Because now they aren't getting away with it.

My point wasn't about what I want. It's about what the government wants, which is revenue. You clearly missed the point if you're asking what I want.

I just made up a random number. Sounds like the ticket they give people going down the 80 highway and the cop is hiding behind the tree at the edge of town and gets you doing 80 on a 50 as you're already slowing down. I'm sure you've heard of that.

No, it's a money grab because the punishment they go with is literally grabbing your money.

It's a stupid argument because they've always been money grabbing? Lol not as strong a point as you think it is.

I didn't differentiate anything between a cop pulling you over or a camera being used. YOU'RE making that distinction and putting it on me. That's on you.

It has nothing to do with me being upset at not being able to speed or not being able to get away with anything. I'm clearly making my argument about the punishments they choose. They are revenue based... So the evidence of money grabs is in the pudding. They could charge you some time in hours, but would rather have your money. I'm sure many people would rather go work off their fine in community service to the tune of $20 an hour. So instead of a $100 fine and a demerit point, go do 5 hours of community service over the next month. I'm sure the city wouldn't go for it because they would lose out on revenue, even if the city looked cleaner than ever.

 

[Micklebot]

Have you ever driven 105kmh on the queensway?

The average joe's behaviour is 110-130 on highways. 130kmh is a noticeable difference in the city but not on the open road

I've driven pretty much every speed on the Queensway (within reason), rush hour is a pain, I almost never get up to the posted limit on my way to work. Going 30 over the limit might save me 5 mins getting to work with zero traffic, and that's with a 35-40km commute, It's such a negligible difference but the difference if I get into an accident at 130 vs 100 is not negligible at all.

Limits are set based on best practices that are mostly data driven. It's a balance between safety and convenience, if anything we lean more towards convenience imo, but it's not that far out of whack.

 

[Micklebot]

Exactly...I would be all for making the limit 120, but enforcing people who speed. Right now, they don't bother with people going 10 over...but if they raise it, and then enforced a hard 120 limit, I'd be happy.


My point wasn't about what I want. It's about what the government wants, which is revenue. You clearly missed the point if you're asking what I want.

I just made up a random number. Sounds like the ticket they give people going down the 80 highway and the cop is hiding behind the tree at the edge of town and gets you doing 80 on a 50 as you're already slowing down. I'm sure you've heard of that.

No, it's a money grab because the punishment they go with is literally grabbing your money.

It's a stupid argument because they've always been money grabbing? Lol not as strong a point as you think it is.

I didn't differentiate anything between a cop pulling you over or a camera being used. YOU'RE making that distinction and putting it on me. That's on you.

It has nothing to do with me being upset at not being able to speed or not being able to get away with anything. I'm clearly making my argument about the punishments they choose. They are revenue based... So the evidence of money grabs is in the pudding. They could charge you some time in hours, but would rather have your money. I'm sure many people would rather go work off their fine in community service to the tune of $20 an hour. So instead of a $100 fine and a demerit point, go do 5 hours of community service over the next month. I'm sure the city wouldn't go for it because they would lose out on revenue, even if the city looked cleaner than ever.

Money grab implies the stated reason (road safety) are a false pretense. Otherwise anything involving money is just a money grab, which frankly is a wildly dishonest characterization.

And yes, I made the distinction about a cop pulling you over vs a speed camera because that was the context of the discussion the argument was speed camera are a money grab, not speeding tickets writ large, speed cameras replace one means of enforcement with an automated one. We could place a maned speed trap at all these locations instead of cameras and it changes nothing but the mechanism by which a person is caught.

 

[jbeck5]

I've driven pretty much every speed on the Queensway (within reason), rush hour is a pain, I almost never get up to the posted limit on my way to work. Going 30 over the limit might save me 5 mins getting to work with zero traffic, and that's with a 35-40km commute, It's such a negligible difference but the difference if I get into an accident at 130 vs 100 is not negligible at all.

Limits are set based on best practices that are mostly data driven. It's a balance between safety and convenience, if anything we lean more towards convenience imo, but it's not that far out of whack.

Makes you wonder how different areas get very different speed limits.

Like why does Ontario have 100km/h limits (finally increased to 110) while BC has 120km highway?

Then in the US you have lots with 60-65 limits...but some are as high as 80...that's pretty much 130. So how is the evidence so different?

I'd lean towards making limits higher, but making driving tests also harder. I feel the limits are there for the worst drivers on the road. So if we can eliminate the bottom 10-20% of drivers who lack the skill or ability, we could safely increase speed limits by a certain percentage and not see any negatives in the stats.

 

[Stylizer1]

I've driven pretty much every speed on the Queensway (within reason), rush hour is a pain, I almost never get up to the posted limit on my way to work. Going 30 over the limit might save me 5 mins getting to work with zero traffic, and that's with a 35-40km commute, It's such a negligible difference but the difference if I get into an accident at 130 vs 100 is not negligible at all.

Limits are set based on best practices that are mostly data driven. It's a balance between safety and convenience, if anything we lean more towards convenience imo, but it's not that far out of whack.

define within reason.

 

[Micklebot]

Makes you wonder how different areas get very different speed limits.

Like why does Ontario have 100km/h limits (finally increased to 110) while BC has 120km highway?

Then in the US you have lots with 60-65 limits...but some are as high as 80...that's pretty much 130. So how is the evidence so different?

Because it's a balance between convenience and safety. Each jurisdiction will weigh one over the other and make a choice, but the data helps determine the relative speed from one set of circumstances to another

I'd lean towards making limits higher, but making driving tests also harder. I feel the limits are there for the worst drivers on the road. So if we can eliminate the bottom 10-20% of drivers who lack the skill or ability, we could safely increase speed limits by a certain percentage and not see any negatives in the stats.

Limits have to be set for most conditions, so whether it's raining, or dry, that same speed limit is going to apply. In perfect conditions, may 80 is fine, but at night with lower visibility and on a rainy day, maybe 70 is more appropriate,

While I'd love to remove the bottom 20% of drivers I don't think that's realistic. I'd also suggest that the vast majority of people believe they are above average drivers, which is a statistical impossibility. You'd be pissing off a lot more people that traffic cameras do imo, lol


All that said, I think periodic testing would be a good option to improve road safety, but people would just call it a cash grab