20 is Plenty - Roads in MoCo now only 20 miles per hour

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the theory behind Woodglen and Executive Blvd that it connects the trolley trail to Whole Foods and the Aquatic Center? That makes some sense, although I think there's already a bike lane with the white plastic blockers there, isn't there?

I don’t know what the rationale is, but I cannot believe how atrocious the drivers are on Woodglen and the cross streets. Running or rolling through stop signs, turning in front of pedestrians in the crosswalk, crazy U turns in the middle of the street to get a metered spot, illegal parking and standing everywhere.

That’s what happens when you build a large apartment complex and shopping district without requiring that sufficient parking is provided. You can blame that on Hans Riemer. Reducing parking requirements is one of his signature issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the theory behind Woodglen and Executive Blvd that it connects the trolley trail to Whole Foods and the Aquatic Center? That makes some sense, although I think there's already a bike lane with the white plastic blockers there, isn't there?

I don’t know what the rationale is, but I cannot believe how atrocious the drivers are on Woodglen and the cross streets. Running or rolling through stop signs, turning in front of pedestrians in the crosswalk, crazy U turns in the middle of the street to get a metered spot, illegal parking and standing everywhere.

That’s what happens when you build a large apartment complex and shopping district without requiring that sufficient parking is provided. You can blame that on Hans Riemer. Reducing parking requirements is one of his signature issues.

People roll through stop signs because they don’t have a place to park at their apartment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, I don't support reducing vehicle speeds on big arterials. I support pedestrians using their heads and obeying laws, so that they don't get hurt.

And please, with your logic above about extra time (1/3). MoCo has made it their goal, all over the County, to add as many impediments to drivers as possible. Yes, spending an extra 30 minutes a day navigating traffic is life-sucking. It has all kinds of public health implications. Should pedestrians be able to walk on safe sidewalks and cross intersections without fearing for their life? Yes. Should the entire suburban infrastructure be re-made to prioritize pedestrians? No. There are urban landscapes where you can achieve this. Most people who buy in MoCo want to live in the suburbs, not in the city, despite the efforts of the Planning Commission and the transportation bureaucrats.

Yeah, you're saying that your time is worth more than someone's life.

Then in that case, why not make the speed limit 10 mph? Or 5 mph?

If it saves just one life, it’s worth it, right?

Now go ahead and argue that that’s unreasonable. Then you’re the one who doesn’t care about lives.

If you want to, go ahead! However, it turns out that 20 mph is basically the dividing line. When you're driving, and you hit someone at less than 20 mph, chances are that they'll escape serious injury. In contrast, the chances of serious injury and death increase a lot, the faster you go over 20 mph.

I was just biking on Executive Blvd this morning, where the new speed limit is 20. Even without the new speed limit signs, it would be irresponsible to drive faster than 20 there, due to the number of people walking, walking dogs, biking, parking their vehicles, etc.

The data does not back this up.

What data are you referring to, specifically?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the theory behind Woodglen and Executive Blvd that it connects the trolley trail to Whole Foods and the Aquatic Center? That makes some sense, although I think there's already a bike lane with the white plastic blockers there, isn't there?

I don’t know what the rationale is, but I cannot believe how atrocious the drivers are on Woodglen and the cross streets. Running or rolling through stop signs, turning in front of pedestrians in the crosswalk, crazy U turns in the middle of the street to get a metered spot, illegal parking and standing everywhere.

That’s what happens when you build a large apartment complex and shopping district without requiring that sufficient parking is provided. You can blame that on Hans Riemer. Reducing parking requirements is one of his signature issues.

What's your explanation for the atrocious driving in the rest of the county?

[Anonymous]

I’m Not familiar with these streets. Do they have sidewalks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. The speed limit county-wide should be 10mph on all roads with a adjacent sidewalk or a bike lane.

“20 is plenty, but 10 is safer.”

Great idea. Cannot wait for cyclists to start getting ticketed for speeding.

I would live with a 10mph speed limit just for this alone. It would make it all worth it.

[Anonymous]

You all are completely missing the point:

Drivers already speed in these areas.
They are not going to enforce the new speed limit.

Changing a sign from 30 (or 35?) to 20 is not going to make drivers slow down.

Traffic theater.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, I don't support reducing vehicle speeds on big arterials. I support pedestrians using their heads and obeying laws, so that they don't get hurt.

And please, with your logic above about extra time (1/3). MoCo has made it their goal, all over the County, to add as many impediments to drivers as possible. Yes, spending an extra 30 minutes a day navigating traffic is life-sucking. It has all kinds of public health implications. Should pedestrians be able to walk on safe sidewalks and cross intersections without fearing for their life? Yes. Should the entire suburban infrastructure be re-made to prioritize pedestrians? No. There are urban landscapes where you can achieve this. Most people who buy in MoCo want to live in the suburbs, not in the city, despite the efforts of the Planning Commission and the transportation bureaucrats.

Yeah, you're saying that your time is worth more than someone's life.

Then in that case, why not make the speed limit 10 mph? Or 5 mph?

If it saves just one life, it’s worth it, right?

Now go ahead and argue that that’s unreasonable. Then you’re the one who doesn’t care about lives.

If you want to, go ahead! However, it turns out that 20 mph is basically the dividing line. When you're driving, and you hit someone at less than 20 mph, chances are that they'll escape serious injury. In contrast, the chances of serious injury and death increase a lot, the faster you go over 20 mph.

I was just biking on Executive Blvd this morning, where the new speed limit is 20. Even without the new speed limit signs, it would be irresponsible to drive faster than 20 there, due to the number of people walking, walking dogs, biking, parking their vehicles, etc.

The data does not back this up.

What data are you referring to, specifically?

There is no data that demonstrates what you say, that 20MPH represents a specific threshold or “dividing line”. That’s not how modeling works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There is no data that demonstrates what you say, that 20MPH represents a specific threshold or “dividing line”. That’s not how modeling works.

AAA says you're wrong.

https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-severe-injury-death/

But if you'd rather set the safe speed limits at 15 mph instead of 20 mph, I don't have any problem with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is no data that demonstrates what you say, that 20MPH represents a specific threshold or “dividing line”. That’s not how modeling works.

AAA says you're wrong.

https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-severe-injury-death/

But if you'd rather set the safe speed limits at 15 mph instead of 20 mph, I don't have any problem with that.

Are you so stupid that you are incapable of even reading what you post? 20 MPH is not mentioned and as I pointed out already, there is no “dividing line” or threshold as you claim because that’s not how modeling works. You cyclists want to be respected? Stop being lying whiners.

Results show that the average risk of severe injury for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle reaches 10% at an impact speed of 16 mph, 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 mph, and 90% at 46 mph. The average risk of death for a pedestrian reaches 10% at an impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph, 75% at 50 mph, and 90% at 58 mph. Risks vary significantly by age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. The speed limit county-wide should be 10mph on all roads with a adjacent sidewalk or a bike lane.

“20 is plenty, but 10 is safer.”

Great idea. Cannot wait for cyclists to start getting ticketed for speeding.

I would live with a 10mph speed limit just for this alone. It would make it all worth it.

For some roadies getting ticketed for speeding is a dream.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. The speed limit county-wide should be 10mph on all roads with a adjacent sidewalk or a bike lane.

“20 is plenty, but 10 is safer.”

Great idea. Cannot wait for cyclists to start getting ticketed for speeding.

I would live with a 10mph speed limit just for this alone. It would make it all worth it.

For some roadies getting ticketed for speeding is a dream.

What about tickets for pedaling through red lights and stop signs? Do they dream about that, too? Or is that too mundane?

[Anonymous]

Getting ticketed for riding a bike over 10 MPH is not a major feat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is no data that demonstrates what you say, that 20MPH represents a specific threshold or “dividing line”. That’s not how modeling works.

AAA says you're wrong.

https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-severe-injury-death/

But if you'd rather set the safe speed limits at 15 mph instead of 20 mph, I don't have any problem with that.

Are you so stupid that you are incapable of even reading what you post? 20 MPH is not mentioned and as I pointed out already, there is no “dividing line” or threshold as you claim because that’s not how modeling works. You cyclists want to be respected? Stop being lying whiners.

Results show that the average risk of severe injury for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle reaches 10% at an impact speed of 16 mph, 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 mph, and 90% at 46 mph. The average risk of death for a pedestrian reaches 10% at an impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph, 75% at 50 mph, and 90% at 58 mph. Risks vary significantly by age.

Posted speed limits must be numbers divisible by 5. Did you know that?

Also, which part is whining? The higher the speed, the greater the danger. That's just physics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. The speed limit county-wide should be 10mph on all roads with a adjacent sidewalk or a bike lane.

“20 is plenty, but 10 is safer.”

Great idea. Cannot wait for cyclists to start getting ticketed for speeding.

I would live with a 10mph speed limit just for this alone. It would make it all worth it.

For some roadies getting ticketed for speeding is a dream.

What about tickets for pedaling through red lights and stop signs? Do they dream about that, too? Or is that too mundane?

I think that some people don't even notice how routinely drivers run red lights, turn right on red as though it were green, and roll through stop signs as though they were yield signs.

If you would prefer to me to come to a complete stop at stop signs, with both feet on the ground, while I'm biking, you can say so. However, I'm pretty sure that you won't like it that I do this when you're driving behind me.