Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, February 28, 2012
Olympia A Final Push for the "Slow the Fuck Down on Neighborhood Streets" Bill
Posted by Eli Sanders on Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:00 AM
Not all the bills we've been tracking are dead.
For example, this one:
HB 1217: Slow the fuck down on neighborhood streets
Turns out the state makes it very expensive to lower a speed limit—who knew?—and this bill, technically, just makes it a lot cheaper to do so. But HB 1217's broader impact could be huge for cyclists and pedestrians, says Craig Benjamin, director of policy and government affairs for the Cascade Bicycle Club, because "lots of cities would love to lower their speed limits on nonarterial streets, but right now they have to do a costly state-approved engineering and traffic study first." By eliminating that study requirement, this bill would help spur cash-strapped cities (like Seattle) to build more bicycle-friendly greenways.
Craig Benjamin, of the Cascade Bicycle Club, tells me this bill passed the house 96 to zero not too long ago. After that, he said, "we had a great hearing in the senate transportation committee"—which last week sent it onward, toward the senate floor.
“It’s definitely alive and thriving," Benjamin said.
The question, however, is this: Will it get a vote on the senate floor?
“Nothing is certain in the legislature," Bejamin said. "We are working to make sure that it does.”
Want to make sure this bill gets a vote? Write to Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown and tell her to put it on the schedule.
1
There's a good reason that it's difficult to reduce speed limits and why it requires a study - historically many jurisdictions arbitrarily reduced speed limits for revenue enhancement purposes. If a lower speed limit is truly warranted in a particular location, then a study would confirm this.
2
i wonder how many of the people who want the speed limit lowered actually drive :/ im not sure about the west coast but speed limit lowering wouldnt do anything over here in nyc. the people who are the dangerous drivers are the ones who drive double the speed limit anyways. best way to solve the problem is to enforce the current speed limits, not further punish people who actually DO follow the speed limit.
3
Done. Senator Brown represents my district. I know she's in favor of this, so hopefully she'll get it on the schedule.
6
This bill is less "slow the fuck down" and more "let's make changes that have no bearing on the speed people will travel and support it with over the top 'for the children' rhetoric." I commute by bicycle and car (Sammamish - Redmond = 11 miles with uphill on both ends), and this bill does nothing but convince car-only commuters that bicycle commuters are trying to take over the road. Why support greater connectivity of paved trails when we've already made it so the roads are (legally) molasses slow? Not that anybody will pay attention if they don't think there's a cop watching - they'll drive a speed which they think is safe and sane on the road.
Rather than focusing on meaningless efforts like this, I'd rather Cascade spend its time increasing commuter awareness and working towards things that get us off the road entirely. E.g. speed up paving the east lake sammamish rail so a person can take the burke-gilman and stay on a paved trail all the way to Issaquah and back out to Seattle.
Rather than focusing on meaningless efforts like this, I'd rather Cascade spend its time increasing commuter awareness and working towards things that get us off the road entirely. E.g. speed up paving the east lake sammamish rail so a person can take the burke-gilman and stay on a paved trail all the way to Issaquah and back out to Seattle.
7
Now if only we can get fewer cyclists running flagrant red lights, which is a problem that nobody seems to carry about until a dozen cyclists are killed. I dont see pedestrians getting anything out of it, its just a way for cyclists to say "See, its not all about us!".
9
@1 This!!
I really love going from 55 to 25 in random towns that consist of one gas station and a dilapidated dairy queen. Also the 25 mph limit only applies to out of towners.
I really love going from 55 to 25 in random towns that consist of one gas station and a dilapidated dairy queen. Also the 25 mph limit only applies to out of towners.
10
@7
Seven cyclists have been killed killed in Seattle because they ran red lights? Link please.
And you don't see how pedestrians could benefit from this? That just means you're a bit dense.
Seven cyclists have been killed killed in Seattle because they ran red lights? Link please.
And you don't see how pedestrians could benefit from this? That just means you're a bit dense.
11
You know what else would save cyclists' lives? Helmets. I'm pro-cyclist and have commuted by bike, but... shouldn't your brain take priority over your hair? It's pretty hard to look cool when you're hooked up to a respirator marinating in your own shit...
12
Hey, not sure where I got seven from. Sorry. "dozens". My mistake did make your post less totally ridiculous, though.
13
You know what would make more sense? Strictly enforcing the existing speed limits instead of letting everyone go 10 over.
The number of new laws proposed to resolve problems that are better solved by enforcement of existing laws is ridiculous.
The number of new laws proposed to resolve problems that are better solved by enforcement of existing laws is ridiculous.
14
I like how the post advocating for a change in auto laws in order to improve cyclist safety features a picture or a cyclist not wearing a helmet.
I'm for this law though. I say pass the "slow the fuck down on roads" BUT include an amendment that requires bike riders to wear a fucking helmet.
I'm for this law though. I say pass the "slow the fuck down on roads" BUT include an amendment that requires bike riders to wear a fucking helmet.
15
@10 "Seven cyclists have been killed killed in Seattle because they ran red lights? Link please"
Never said that they were. Im suggesting that nobody pays attention to cyclists running red lights, unless they are killed by an oncoming car (who had the right of way).
Never said that they were. Im suggesting that nobody pays attention to cyclists running red lights, unless they are killed by an oncoming car (who had the right of way).
16
The place I'd really like to see lower speed limits is on certain stretches of shared-use trail (e.g. Burke-Gilman, Greenlake, Alki). A speed limit of 10mph or so on the higher-use sections of these trails (no, cyclocentrists, they are not "bike paths") would make them a lot safer for pedestrians, skateboarders, kids in strollers, etc.
17
Robotslave: I'd like to see joggers not running two or three abreast at just the width that there's no good way around with headphones making them oblivious to people behind them, or people with strollers not walking side by side and acting all startled when you want to pass them. Further, I'd like to see people with dogs not have them on one side of the trail while the human is on the other, a leash between them.
And why set such a ridiculously low limit, when there are many times during the day that the trail is almost empty. The arbitrary limit doesn't help safety - enforcement against reckless riding behavior does.
And why set such a ridiculously low limit, when there are many times during the day that the trail is almost empty. The arbitrary limit doesn't help safety - enforcement against reckless riding behavior does.
19
18: What are you doing in my office? Though it's more of a burgundy, don't you think? Isn't that closer to purple?
20
I'd like to see joggers not running two or three abreast at just the width that there's no good way around with headphones making them oblivious to people behind them, or people with strollers not walking side by side and acting all startled when you want to pass them. Further, I'd like to see people with dogs not have them on one side of the trail while the human is on the other, a leash between them.
So would I, definitely. Can you think of any way to accomplish all of these things through legislation, so that cyclists, who presumably will also be barred from riding abreast or diverting their attention, can keep using the trails at 15+ mph?
And why set such a ridiculously low limit, when there are many times during the day that the trail is almost empty. The arbitrary limit doesn't help safety - enforcement against reckless riding behavior does.
I take it you oppose arbitrarily low speed limits on city streets for precisely this reason, of course?
So would I, definitely. Can you think of any way to accomplish all of these things through legislation, so that cyclists, who presumably will also be barred from riding abreast or diverting their attention, can keep using the trails at 15+ mph?
And why set such a ridiculously low limit, when there are many times during the day that the trail is almost empty. The arbitrary limit doesn't help safety - enforcement against reckless riding behavior does.
I take it you oppose arbitrarily low speed limits on city streets for precisely this reason, of course?
21
@20, "you oppose arbitrarily low speed limits on city streets for precisely this reason" - indeed, look at post 6 :)
I don't have a problem with people or cyclists walking abreast. It's the oblivious-while-blocking-the-trail people that bug me. Same thing applies to people on bikes with headphones who aren't staying fully right. It's pretty easy to say what is or is not reckless behavior, though. For example, in Redmond the Sammamish River Trail will be practically empty at 8:30am, then an hour later be packed. You can safely fly through at 20mph early in the day, but can't safely get above 15 later. Sometimes 6-10 is the safe limit. That's entirely contingent on crowding and number of unpredictable factors (aka "little kids") that might decide to run across the trail unexpectedly.
An arbitrary limit doesn't solve that, enforcement against recklessness does. Yes, it's a soft standard, but so are other things such as "reckless endangerment" or "assault" (and not as it's incorrectly defined in this state, where it includes "battery" in the definition).
I don't have a problem with people or cyclists walking abreast. It's the oblivious-while-blocking-the-trail people that bug me. Same thing applies to people on bikes with headphones who aren't staying fully right. It's pretty easy to say what is or is not reckless behavior, though. For example, in Redmond the Sammamish River Trail will be practically empty at 8:30am, then an hour later be packed. You can safely fly through at 20mph early in the day, but can't safely get above 15 later. Sometimes 6-10 is the safe limit. That's entirely contingent on crowding and number of unpredictable factors (aka "little kids") that might decide to run across the trail unexpectedly.
An arbitrary limit doesn't solve that, enforcement against recklessness does. Yes, it's a soft standard, but so are other things such as "reckless endangerment" or "assault" (and not as it's incorrectly defined in this state, where it includes "battery" in the definition).
22
@16, the bike speed limit around Green Lake is already 10 MPH. It's 15 on the Burke-Gilman, and I know people who have been ticketed for exceeding it.
I still haven't heard a good explanation for why everyone supports reducing speed limits on non-arterials down from 25 when they are already at 20 MPH. In particular, the roads (not streets) mentioned @1, @6, and @9 are arterials and would not be affected.
I propose an additional law that requires stopping at stop signs and maybe one that requires headlights at night (not that bicyclists care about either one).
I still haven't heard a good explanation for why everyone supports reducing speed limits on non-arterials down from 25 when they are already at 20 MPH. In particular, the roads (not streets) mentioned @1, @6, and @9 are arterials and would not be affected.
I propose an additional law that requires stopping at stop signs and maybe one that requires headlights at night (not that bicyclists care about either one).
23
@22
"stopping at stop signs and maybe one that requires headlights at night"
I assume you know that for cyclists, these are both already required by law in Seattle:
"stopping at stop signs and maybe one that requires headlights at night"
I assume you know that for cyclists, these are both already required by law in Seattle:
Section 11.44.160 LAMPS AND REFLECTORS ON BICYCLES. Every bicycle, when in use during the hours of darkness, shall be equipped with a lamp on the front, which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front...
24
I'm just wondering how the idea caught on that excessive speed is somehow the primary threat to bicyclist's safety. As far as I can remember almost every cyclist killed last year was killed by a motorist turning into them, that is someone who was not paying enough attention, not someone who was going too fast.
25
@24
The reduced speed limit advocacy is based on two things:
1) A study that concluded there was a 5% risk of death to pedestrians in collisions with cars travelling at 20mph, and 45% at 30mph.
2) An assumption that average speeds, and thus fatality rates, will be reduced in proportion to reductions in posted speed limits.
There are problems with both, of course. The biggest problem with #1 is that there are naturally quite a few other studies of the issue, and not all of them find nearly as much of a jump between 20mph and 30mph, or find a similar jump but at higher speeds. e.g. GES+FARS data for 1994-1996 shows a 1.8% risk of death in a collision where the speed limit is 25mph (Seattle's limit on residential streets) and 5.4% for 30mph. Note that these percentages are not rigorously controlled for statistical significance, and don't correct for road conditions, type of accident (e.g. turning, backing up) or situational factors— they just map fatality rates to legal speed limits.
For #2, studies show that reducing speed limits cuts average actual speeds by around 25% of the limit reduction. And as we all know from experience, many if not most drivers will happily ignore legal speed limits when they don't see a cop car around (or other enforcement cue).
There is a basic underlying idea that isn't in any serious dispute: higher vehicle speeds are more dangerous to pedestrians. Nor is it much disputed that the relation forms a roughly S-shaped curve when risk of fatality or serious injury is plotted against speed.
These fun facts come from a 1999 NHTSA literature review, which is rather excellent, if you're into this sort of stuff.
More...
The reduced speed limit advocacy is based on two things:
1) A study that concluded there was a 5% risk of death to pedestrians in collisions with cars travelling at 20mph, and 45% at 30mph.
2) An assumption that average speeds, and thus fatality rates, will be reduced in proportion to reductions in posted speed limits.
There are problems with both, of course. The biggest problem with #1 is that there are naturally quite a few other studies of the issue, and not all of them find nearly as much of a jump between 20mph and 30mph, or find a similar jump but at higher speeds. e.g. GES+FARS data for 1994-1996 shows a 1.8% risk of death in a collision where the speed limit is 25mph (Seattle's limit on residential streets) and 5.4% for 30mph. Note that these percentages are not rigorously controlled for statistical significance, and don't correct for road conditions, type of accident (e.g. turning, backing up) or situational factors— they just map fatality rates to legal speed limits.
For #2, studies show that reducing speed limits cuts average actual speeds by around 25% of the limit reduction. And as we all know from experience, many if not most drivers will happily ignore legal speed limits when they don't see a cop car around (or other enforcement cue).
There is a basic underlying idea that isn't in any serious dispute: higher vehicle speeds are more dangerous to pedestrians. Nor is it much disputed that the relation forms a roughly S-shaped curve when risk of fatality or serious injury is plotted against speed.
These fun facts come from a 1999 NHTSA literature review, which is rather excellent, if you're into this sort of stuff.
26
@23, that was my point. Specifically, as to yours, @25, your "study" shows a much lower risk of death at 20 MPH than at 30 MPH, BUT THE SPEED LIMIT FOR NON-ARTERIALS ALREADY IS 20 MPH. Not 30. That's my point.
27
@26
I figured. And it's 25mph for non-arterials, no?
And it's not "my" study, I'm not even sure which study those particular numbers come from, or if they're just passed around as folk wisdom, or what. There's piles and piles of studies, with varying results. Which is why I linked to a review of the literature, not to a study.
I figured. And it's 25mph for non-arterials, no?
And it's not "my" study, I'm not even sure which study those particular numbers come from, or if they're just passed around as folk wisdom, or what. There's piles and piles of studies, with varying results. Which is why I linked to a review of the literature, not to a study.
28
@27, I stand corrected. Not only that, I'm pretty sure I've been corrected on this point before, but it obviously didn't take.
30
As far as the collision impact is concerned, an increase in the speed from 20 to 30 increases the speed by 50%, but the force of the impact by 125%. Doubling the speed from 20 to 40 increases the speed by 100%, but the force of the impact by 300%.
the figures for 50mph are 150% and 525% respectively.
This non-linear increase in the impact force accounts for the non-linear increas in the death rate as the speed goes up
the figures for 50mph are 150% and 525% respectively.
This non-linear increase in the impact force accounts for the non-linear increas in the death rate as the speed goes up
31
As far as the collision impact is concerned, an increase in the speed from 20 to 30 increases the speed by 50%, but the force of the impact by 125%. Doubling the speed from 20 to 40 increases the speed by 100%, but the force of the impact by 300%.
The figures for 50mph are 150% and 525% respectively.
This non-linear increase in the impact force accounts for the non-linear increase in the death rate as the speed goes up
The figures for 50mph are 150% and 525% respectively.
This non-linear increase in the impact force accounts for the non-linear increase in the death rate as the speed goes up
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
GOP Congressman: We Have to Ban Abortion Because Fetuses Are Masturbating In There by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
The Wednesday Morning News by Goldy
-
Jobs-Killing Socialism Drives Seattle's Unemployment Rate Down to 4.7 Percent by Goldy
-
So I've Got This Baby Bird... by Brendan Kiley
-
Less Than a Quarter of Americans Have Confidence in Newspapers by Eli Sanders
-
War Reporter Michael Hastings, Dead at 33 by Ansel Herz
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (31) RSS