By adamg on Wed., 4/27/2016 - 1:18 pm
The City Council today unanimously approved a proposal to reduce the default city speed limit on most roads to 20 m.p.h. and 15 m.p.h. in school zones.
The measure, which councilors said should make Boston a safer city for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians, now goes to the mayor. If he approves, it then goes to the state legislature for action.
Topics:
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
He pulls up behind you and
By Scratchie
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 2:08pm
He pulls up behind you and flashes his high beams, in the universal signal for "I wish to pass you." You're welcome.
The states that have such a
By DTP
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 2:23pm
The states that have such a requirement word it very deliberately, to say that if there is a queue behind you of greater than X number of cars, you must pull over and let them pass at the next safe opportunity.
Wrong
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 2:58pm
You are not required to pull over if you are keeping to a minimum speed.
That minimum speed: usually 5 or 10 to the limit.
In no state are you ever required to pull over if you are doing the speed limit. Ever.
Remember kids: speed limits are MAXIMUM SPEEDS not MINIMUM.
Aaaaannnndd.....
By Scratchie
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 3:38pm
You're completely wrong.
http://jalopnik.com/5501615/left-lane-passing-laws...
It's OK to be ignorant, but don't revel in it.
I don't think DTP was talking about multiple lanes
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 7:06pm
I think DTP was talking about laws like Oregon has that require slow vehicles to use turnouts on two lane roadways.
Under Oregon law, if you have five or more vehicles behind you on a two-lane roadway, you are required to use a turnout. However, at no time are you required to use those turnouts if you are going the posted speed limit.
In other words, if you are on a two lane section of Highway 101 and a camper ahead of you is going the posted 45 or 50 mph speed limit, the driver does not have to pull over and let traffic pass. If going 40 in a 45, the driver does have to pull over once there are five cars behind.
That's what the poster was talking about. The four lane example is entirely different (and, yes, you'd have to pull into the right lane in that case).
"As used in this section, a
By anon
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 11:17am
"As used in this section, a slow-moving vehicle is one that is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place."
"Less than the normal flow of traffic", not "less than the posted speed limit".
Yep, that's exactly what I
By DTP
Sat, 04/30/2016 - 2:40pm
Yep, that's exactly what I was referencing. Thank you for the explanation, Swirly!
I wonder what the purpose of that law is.
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 3:37pm
I guess it's because it's important that people be allowed to break the law, drive unsafely, and endanger my life. If I don't let people drive unsafely, shame on me, I should be punished with a ticket. Maybe it's because by driving the posted speed limit, I am depriving the police of the opportunity to cite the people who want to break the law and endanger the lives of others.
Wouldn't it make more sense to give me a medal for saving lives by keeping traffic moving at a safe rate of speed?Oh I forgot! People get churned into a rage if someone in front of them drives the speed limit. Shame on the law abiding citizen for causing others to drive recklessly and aggressively tailgate.
You're making some unfounded
By anon
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 11:15am
You're making some unfounded assumptions here:
1) That making other drivers go the speed limit improves safety
2) That letting people pass you endangers your life more than having them tailgate you
2) That it's illegal to drive any faster than the speed limit. (It's not. Going an unsafe speed is illegal, and going faster than the speed limit can be used as evidence that you were going at an unsafe speed. But going 1 mph over the limit in good conditions isn't illegal.)
If you'd like the ability to enforce the law
By MattyC
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 11:27am
.. then hit the academy and get a badge. Otherwise you're just an arrogant ass.
You do know that
By lbb
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 9:19am
You do know that the poster you're responding to didn't suggest doing any of those things that you're saying? Weaving? Failing to yield right of way? So much for honest discourse.
They were talking about
By Rob
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 6:01pm
They were talking about holding a driver holding a platoon behind them to a speed limit (whether incidentally or deliberately) as a practice that increases safety.
If it was "incidentally", it's unsafe as a result of neglecting to remain aware of traffic around them.
If it was "deliberately", that's unsafe too.
The other things I mentioned were examples of other types of aggressive behavior by people "in the right" against people "in the wrong" that can actually make situations worse. I never claimed or implied that the poster was talking about all of the situations I cited.
I can't drive 55!
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:07pm
I can't drive 55!
You need to get your tires
By Rob
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 8:12pm
You need to get your tires rebalanced, then.
I know you were being facetious, but something like that actually happened to me. I had just had a couple of tires replaced or remounted. I soon encountered an interesting problem. Driving on a divided state highway at anywhere around the posted limit of 50 MPH, my car would start to shake violently. I had to gun it from a stable but unsafe (in that traffic) 35, through the turbulent zone, to a stable 60. Real pain, especially as the lights were synchronized at 53 MPH. It turned out the guy had screwed up balancing the tires, and the harmonics were brutal.
In my 12 years in Boston
By Rozziehotrod
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:09pm
I've seen exactly 1 speed trap. It's at the intersection of Centre Street & Weld Street on the W Rox/Roslindale border. You are hereby notified.
My point is, the police don't much care about speeding in Boston. I doubt a new unenforced law will change that.
What the actual fuck?
By Scratchie
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:15pm
If they're not going to enforce it, they might as well drop it to 5mph, and 0mph in school zones.
Magical Thinking
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 3:03pm
There is already a speed limit. It's not enforced, so it's not obeyed. Why on earth would the city council believe that a new, lower speed limit will be obeyed without any additional enforcement?
Yes, bike people, I get it, slower cars means fewer crashes and less-serious injuries, but speed limits don't slow drivers. Visible police and the substantiated fear of being ticketed do.
Seriously, this is like those kooks who think the "male" and "female" signs are magical barriers keeping trans people out of the restrooms of their choice.
Well then,
By mplo
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 3:14pm
Maybe there should be more police out there enforcing the law(s).
This will not be enforced.
By John
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:46pm
This will not be enforced. Even the current speed limit is not really enforced. Given that, I can't understand the protests. It feels as if a few car owners in Boston feel the need to tell us "look at me, I got a car". At rush hour, my bus #1 goes at the same speed with your 500-dollar-a-month center cost anyways, so you should know by now that the rest of us are not impressed. Why don't you buy a Ferrari if you must awe us. It will work better than wingeing anonymously on the web "look at me, I got a car ... in one of the worst places in America to have a car".
Absolute nonsense. Of course,
By NancyG
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:55pm
Absolute nonsense. Of course, getting hit at a slower speed means you've got a better chance of surviving. But does that mean that lowering the speed limit is the most effective way of reducing pedestrian injury and death? Of course not! Distracted or impaired driving is the highest predictor of pedestrian injury, but no one wants to address that because it is a more complex issue that requires some real thought to resolve it, and it is less likely to increase revenue. As is all too typical in public policy in Boston, rather than really addressing the issue and targeting a solution, they impose a blanket solution.
Okay, then
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 8:15pm
Many others have offered substantial research saying that lower speeds means fewer deaths and injuries.
Feel free to provide your own citations supporting your contention, for the sake of a proper discussion.
Here's just one - http://www
By NancyG
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 10:54am
Here's just one - http://www.popcenter.org/problems/pedestrian_injur...
This clearly shows that while speed is a major contributor to pedestrian deaths, it is only a part. Moreover, it shows that speed is contained within other issues that a speed limit won't address.
I disagree with you, NancyG.
By mplo
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 3:55pm
Lowering the speed limit does save lives, regardless of what you and many other posters here think.
In any case, there's no excuse for a driver being either distracted or impaired in some way or other, but that doesn't okay speeding through the city streets at 30, 40, of 50 miles per hour or more and really endangering pedestrians. At least if a distracted or impaired individual driving at a lower speed limit hits another car, s/he and other people in the car s/he hit will have a better chance off surviving.
Yet, most vehicular accidents, whether they're with other motor vehicles, or with pedestrians occur due to driving at too great a speed for existing conditions and therefore losing control of the car.
20 mph makes sense on narrow
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 3:06pm
20 mph makes sense on narrow residential streets. But most people already go about 20 on those streets. A few go faster, and they deserve tickets.
30 is fine on wide through roads.
I could deal with cruising along at 20 if it meant I'd hit all the green lights. But Boston's lights are so badly timed that often the only way to catch the next green is to speed.
That's not true at all. Most
By Wanderson
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 3:34pm
That's not true at all. Most of them are timed so that if you follow the speed limit, you won't be hitting all reds. And some are even timed that for full stretches of the road it should be entirely green if you're not over the speed limit.
Ok, what roads are you
By anon
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 11:03am
Ok, what roads are you thinking of?
During my recent trips on Comm Ave from BU to Charlesgate, the Greenway northbound from South Station to Charlestown, and the entire length of Mass Ave, I don't think I caught a single green.
Get'm while thier hot
By SFPD12
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 3:26pm
I support my B.P.D window stickers.
Stickers here!!!!!!!! get'm while their hot
This city has so many cameras
By Wanderson
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 3:30pm
This city has so many cameras on street lights, why can't they use them (or new ones) and automate tickets for speeders and those who run red lights? I live in Back Bay on Beacon St. and especially in the hours before and after the work day, even if you have the pedestrian sign to walk, it's pretty dangerous to cross at many of the intersections. I bet if they did that there would be enough to wipe out the T's debt!
Those cameras are very simple
By J
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 5:55pm
Those cameras are very simple and only count if the space is filled or empty.
1) Those cameras are
By DTP
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 6:35pm
1) Those cameras are completely different from any cameras capable of reading license plates and interfacing with a computer to generate a ticket. Completely different cameras designed for a completely different purpose.
2) Automated traffic enforcement is against Massachusetts state law.
3) Red light cameras have actually been shown to, on average, INCREASE the number of collisions at intersections where they are installed, because paranoid drivers will slam on the brakes the second the light turns yellow, resulting in a rear-end collision.
You are technically right on
By eherot
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 8:44pm
You are technically right on #3, but what you're missing is that it does reduce the number of fatalities because rear end collisions are much less likely to be fatal than the t-boning and pedestrian fatalities that tend to happen when people run red lights.
Red light camera companies
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 12:16pm
Red light camera companies justify the cameras by looking at several different categories of accidents at an intersection, and highlighting the one that happened to decrease after the cameras were installed.
If total crashes decrease, they're all set.
If they increase, like they usually do, they look at t-bone crashes.
If those increase, they look at left-turn-cross crashes.
If those increase, they look at pedestrian crashes.
If those increase, they look at crashes that cause injuries to car occupants, or major injuries, or property damage above $x, or,.. you get the point.
If you have enough data, there's going to be random fluctuations, and at least one category of accident will decrease even if the cameras make things worse or make no difference overall.
If we're going by the only
By eherot
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 11:06pm
If we're going by the only statistic that really matters (number of fatalities) it seems like red light cameras are indeed quite effective: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/camera-e...
If, on the other hand, a person who rear-ends another car
By mplo
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 3:21pm
If, on the other hand, a driver who ends up rear-ending the car of the driver in front of him or her is going at too great a speed, a rear-end collision, like any collision, can be fatal.
To put it another way, even a rear-end collision can be fatal if the speed at which the offender is driving is great enough, like upward of 30-40 miles an hour.
I challenge you to dig up
By eherot
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 11:07pm
I challenge you to dig up some statistics on this because I suspect this is among the least fatal types of crashes that occur between two cars.
Please
By Bill
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 7:17pm
What a pathetic joke. This is done for 1 reason, and 1 reason only. REVENUES. They need to pay the ridiculous contracts they gave the police and fire unions. Cops set up speed traps aka cash registers, as it's an easy revenue producer that has ZERO effect on safety, meanwhile, the infractions that actually cause accidents and injury, Tailgating, Lane violations, texting and calling while driving, failure to signal are ignored because the lazy police have to actually do a little WORK to enforce those. Disgusting and pathetic
Reminds me of an old Bloom
By Section77
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 7:39pm
Reminds me of an old Bloom County strip, except that was aware of the absurdity of the arguments here:
.Milo vs Opus
(Bloom County Meadow, candidates on stools before podiums. Sign which reads "toDay: Practice Debate")
Milo: I understand that my opponent supports the 55 M.P.H. speed limit.
Opus: Saves 500 lives a year! I fully support saving lives.
Milo: Then he'd support the saving of another 10,000 lives by lowering the limit to 40 M.P.H.
Opus: 40?
Milo: Or to 20 ... Saving 30,000 lives a year.
Opus: Gee... 20 is pretty slow.
Milo: Apparently my opponent would send 30,000 men, women, and children to fiery, mangled deaths just so he can zoom along to his manicurist at 55.
Opus: I DON'T HAVE A MANICURIST!
Milo: He probably doesn't. Most mass murderers don't. Hitler didn't.
Opus: stop it! Stop It! STOP IT! (bangs on podium)
Milo: Rebuttal?
Opus: (frazzled) What?
Milo: Give your rebuttal.
Opus: Uh... Bush is a wimp.
(Opus' washroom, opus in tub in technicolor rub-a-dub hair shield)
Narrator: The candidate retires to the tub...comforted in the knowledge that even "The Gipper" never really sounded totally sober without note cards, either.
But this will cause a 30 pct
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 9:52pm
But this will cause a 30 pct increase in fuel consumption as cars will never get to their higher gears. What happened to all the concerns for the environment?
Now in 5 years we'll need a few million dollar studies to figure out why we all have lung cancer. Slow death, quick death hmmm. Noone thinks anything through.
Your car is in a "higher gear" at 30 mph?
By lbb
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 9:22am
Your car is in a "higher gear" at 30 mph?
You need a new car.
You use the top gear at 20?
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 12:08pm
You use the top gear at 20? Or the same gear at 20 as at 30?
Some of the confusion may come from the idea
By GoSoxGo
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 11:16pm
that ALL roads in Boston will be 20mph. This will not be the case. While I believe that a 20mph limit is perfectly reasonable for Milk St., W. 5th St in Southie, ParkVale Ave. in Allston/Brighton or Liverpool St. in Eastie, the same may not be the case for portions of American Legion Highway, Cummins Highway, Washington Street, Haul Road, etc.
The bottom line is one size does not fit all. Some streets and highways (especially under DCR jurisdiction) will be signed at higher limits. Road design and density should be the main factors.
Yeah, I'm sure Boston will
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 12:08pm
Yeah, I'm sure Boston will drop everything and start raising limits above the default 20 on major roads all over the city. Complete with rigorous engineering studies, and well-designed, standards-compliant signs.
And I think 20 is a perfectly
By anon
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 11:00am
And I think 20 is a perfectly reasonable limit on narrow residential streets.
But if you look at the data, most drivers don't go much faster than that. And the existing laws allow cops to ticket the ones who do.
Cambridge cares about transparency, and has posted the results of all of their speed studies: http://www.cambridgema.gov/traffic/engineeringplan...
Keep in mind that:
1) These are 85th percentile speeds, not averages. So most drivers are going slower than these speeds.
2) These speed studies were done in the places where residents complained about speeding.
Most narrow streets have 85th percentile speeds around 25 mph.
Can we just have self driving cars already?
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 8:05am
Based on so many ridiculous comments, I'm not sure there's enough caring people, training, public awareness campaigns, or traffic calming measures to pull off vision zero goals.
Self driving cars could kill thousands of people a year in this country and it would still be a vast improvement over the carnage people have created.
Speed limits and car races in Boston
By Dave-from-Boston
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 9:12am
Am I missing something here…lowering speed limits while plans are underway for high speed Indy style racing in the city.
It won't be done with speed limits alone
By anon
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 9:28pm
when the streets still look like highways.
http://www.citylab.com/design/2015/11/some-20-mph-...
Cars do need to be slowed down, but many streets will need to be redesigned.
Pages
Add comment