General Road and Highway Discussion

[tomh009]

I'm not arguing the conclusions, but I do want to point out a disclaimer from the study, as mentioned in the article:

B.C. roads are 'particularly hazardous'

The huge spike in traffic deaths is much larger than in other areas where speed limits have been increased, according to the study, but the authors suggest that difference might be related to B.C.'s unique geography and weather. "Travel in rural B.C. is particularly hazardous because of a harsh winter climate, mountainous terrain causing curvilinear alignments, fewer roundabouts (which reduce risk of side impact collisions), and the fact that large regions of the province are remote, with limited access to post-crash trauma care," the paper says.

[danbrotherston]

I'm not arguing the conclusions, but I do want to point out a disclaimer from the study, as mentioned in the article:

B.C. roads are 'particularly hazardous'

The huge spike in traffic deaths is much larger than in other areas where speed limits have been increased, according to the study, but the authors suggest that difference might be related to B.C.'s unique geography and weather. "Travel in rural B.C. is particularly hazardous because of a harsh winter climate, mountainous terrain causing curvilinear alignments, fewer roundabouts (which reduce risk of side impact collisions), and the fact that large regions of the province are remote, with limited access to post-crash trauma care," the paper says.

We too have hazardous winter weather, few roundabouts, although our roads are less mountainous.

[tomh009]

I'm not arguing the conclusions, but I do want to point out a disclaimer from the study, as mentioned in the article:

We too have hazardous winter weather, few roundabouts, although our roads are less mountainous.

Yes.

On the other hand, BC increased the limit (from 110 km/h) to 120 km/h on all the multi-lane divided highways. Given the BC geography, few of them are as straight and clear as the 401 (or 407).

[SammyOES]

It has been tried in other places with substantial harm as a result:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...-1.4857985

As for "generally increased convenience" being acceptable for decreased safety, where do you draw the line? Should we undersize bridges and risk them collapsing? Should we reduce water testing? These are all things that would make life easier for us, but we do not accept.  I have no idea why roads are the one area that it's okay to kill people to make life more convenient.

Are those other places equivalent to the 400-series highways and their current traffic patterns?

As for where we draw the line, we should first realize that we always draw the line somewhere. Roads aren’t the only place we do it. We literally do it everywhere because resources are always limited. So any sort of slippery slope argument is just silly.

[danbrotherston]

It has been tried in other places with substantial harm as a result:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...-1.4857985

As for "generally increased convenience" being acceptable for decreased safety, where do you draw the line? Should we undersize bridges and risk them collapsing? Should we reduce water testing? These are all things that would make life easier for us, but we do not accept.  I have no idea why roads are the one area that it's okay to kill people to make life more convenient.

Are those other places equivalent to the 400-series highways and their current traffic patterns?

As for where we draw the line, we should first realize that we always draw the line somewhere.  Roads aren’t the only place we do it.  We literally do it everywhere because resources are always limited.   So any sort of slippery slope argument is just silly.

See the examples I gave, for water testing, we do not accept any tainted water ever, when it does happen, we stop, and fix it.  We don't accept any bridges falling ever, when we do, we investigate and fix it.  Would you argue it's a slipper slope to say no bridge should ever collapse?

It doesn't take infinite cost to consider tainted water and collapsing bridges unacceptable in our society, neither would it be an infinite cost to consider traffic deaths unacceptable in our society.

[SammyOES]

Your analogies are wrong.  I hate to break it to you but we do accept tainted water in the same way we accept car accidents.  And we accept people dying in fires and people dying from lack of healthcare intervention.  And we even accept bridges collapsing.  Of course all of this is if you use ‘accept’ to mean we know these things are going to happen because guaranteeing their prevention isn’t practical or possible.

 So we set rules for driving that are a trade off between safety and cost/convenience/etc.  And we set rules for inspecting water that is a trade off between safety and cost/convenience/etc.  And we set building codes that are a trade off between safety and cost/convenience/etc.  And we set rules around how healthcare is delivered and what procedures are covered for people that is a trade off between safety and cost/convenience/etc.

And in all cases we know the rules will fail us some percentage of the time.

Edit: I mean, I’d just love to hear how you think our transportation systems should work where don’t have to accept that people will die. Hell, even the LRT is almost certainly going to kill someone at some point. What rules do you think we should have for the 401? Should it be closed and driving outlawed? What speed limits will our trains have (since faster trains mean more people will die too)? Like how do you think our society could even function without rules that are going to kill some people?

[tomh009]

See the examples I gave, for water testing, we do not accept any tainted water ever, when it does happen, we stop, and fix it.

Ah, no. Here, too, there is a limit, under which it's legal and above which it's illegal.
https://www.paracellabs.com/media/homeow...140515.pdf

Lowering the limit would be safer but cost more. Raising the limit would save money but be more risky.

Life is all about gray areas and compromises.

[danbrotherston]

See the examples I gave, for water testing, we do not accept any tainted water ever, when it does happen, we stop, and fix it.

Ah, no. Here, too, there is a limit, under which it's legal and above which it's illegal.
https://www.paracellabs.com/media/homeow...140515.pdf

Lowering the limit would be safer but cost more. Raising the limit would save money but be more risky.

Life is all about gray areas and compromises.

There is no evidence that lower would be safer...

And in fact, when water rises above the level which is considered safe, we stop and fix it.  If we determined that the level was actually unsafe, we would lower the limit.  And when our reporting system breaks down and we realize we aren't testing water sufficiently, we stop and fix that too.

[Spokes]

Like others have said, people will drive X over whatever the speed limit is. So if the justification is that people already do 120, that's fine raise it. But then actually enforce it as a LIMIT

[ijmorlan]

Like others have said, people will drive X over whatever the speed limit is. So if the justification is that people already do 120, that's fine raise it.  But then actually enforce it as a LIMIT

Essentially just legalize the current behaviour of most people. If this got rid of the people who zip back and forth, squeezing through small gaps to maintain a speed 20km/h faster than the rest of the traffic, it should be a significant safety increase. Of course the question is how to do the enforcement…

Unfortunately I agree with others that this government probably isn’t interested in enforcement. The one thing I do like about the current “everybody is guilty” mode of operating is that somebody who goes even 10km/h faster than the rest of traffic (so 130 instead of 120) is liable to a massive speeding penalty, so whenever the police nail a dangerous driver they have the option of using 30km/h over as the basis for the ticket.

[SammyOES]

Yeah, one easy option (that won’t be used) is to say the speed limit is 120 but all penalties are based on if the speed limit is 100 (for speeds over 120 or 125). So you could have the exact same enforcement you have now and still end up with a much more uniform traffic pattern.

Most importantly imo is keeping the pretty hard cap at 150.

[danbrotherston]

Yeah, one easy option (that won’t be used) is to say the speed limit is 120 but all penalties are based on if the speed limit is 100 (for speeds over 120 or 125).  So you could have the exact same enforcement you have now and still end up with a much more uniform traffic pattern.

Most importantly imo is keeping the pretty hard cap at 150.

This would require a rewriting of the HTA.  Also, you're talking about implementing substantial and pervasive enforcement, that either requires photo radar or a massive increase in the police budget.  I don't think either will fly in Ontario.

[danbrotherston]

Dan, I also love how you avoided my edit.  How should things run?  Do you want a full commercial aircraft level investigation and report for every fatality or major accident?  You seem to think that an increase in the speed limit is an unacceptable decrease in safety, is the status quo ok?  What changes should be made?

How do you make this work?

I didn't "avoid" your edit, my comment was already long enough, and the answer to your edit is very simple: Do exactly what the Swedish government has done for the past 20 years in their Vision Zero program, it's not complicated, their policies have been incredibly effective, they've halved their injury rate on their roads.  Their country is very similar to ours, a few dense cities, but also substantial rural areas with many two lane roads.  Most of their interventions have been design interventions...for example, their two lane roads almost all now have a crash barrier in the middle to prevent crossing the line collisions.  Yes, it's more inconvenient because now you must largely travel at the speed of the slowest car...so inconvenient. And yet that eliminated one of the largest sources of deaths on their roads.

The point is, this isn't new or untested.

The reason it has come up on the 401 is because a change is proposed that will kill more people (don't for a second believe that there is going to be more enforcement, that will not happen).

[SammyOES]

We’re talking about changes the Provincial Government is making.  They can change the HTA.

My change above is explicitly NOT introducing any new forms of enforcement.

[danbrotherston]

Accidents and traffic deaths are investigated.  All the time. And studies are done (you linked one!).  And improvements to cars and roads and regulations are constantly made.  But it’s entirely obvious that the model for bridge investigations or plane crashes is prohibitively expensive for individual car accidents.

It’s the same thing with healthcare.  We don’t investigate every death or mistake made in healthcare.  That would be an insane waste of resources with very fast diminishing returns.

Tainted water isn’t always prevented or investigated either.  It’s not just about limits of contaminants but about things like how often water systems need to be inspected.  Rules around private wells.  When boil water advisories are needed. Etc.

Aircraft accidents are still the same.  It’s much easier to investigate individual commercial plane crashes because there are way fewer of them than car crashes and the cost per crash is significantly higher. But the recommendations that come out are just more trade offs.  Never does anyone think their report is the one that will stop people from dying ever again.

And you still seem to think that there’s way more certainty in these things than there actually is.  If you really believe that a bridge collapse results in that type of failure never happening again, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

Traffic collisions (as they are collisions not accidents) are NOT investigated in this way.  The police investigate with only one purpose, to assign fault under the law for the purposes of adjusting insurance claims.  There is no investigation what factors led to a collision or how it may be prevented in the future.  There is ONLY what the law says about insurance fault and nothing more.  Don't for a second believe the police or anyone is concerned with anything more than that.

Now there are other agencies that occasionally investigate collisions in aggregate, safety agencies in the US have investigated unsafe cars, but they concern themselves exclusively with the car, and no other aspect of our roads.  Our region investigates collisions but only when those collisions (and resulting injuries) are in excess of the "expected" number of deaths for that intersection.

Suggesting that investigating every crash as we do for an airplane (not what I suggested) is prohibitively expensive is kind of proving my point. There used to be many more plane crashes too, are you saying that we should have given up then as too expensive and not tried to make flying safer?

You claim there are trade offs, no, there aren't, yes, when we investigate a crash, the investigators and engineers must decide what they feel will make it safe to fly and that answer isn't "never fly a plane again"...that doesn't mean it isn't a trade off.  This absolutist view that the only way to be safe is to never fly isn't true. Sure, it's the only way to be sure you will not crash in an unforeseeable crash, but it doesn't mean that's the only way to avoid foreseeable and seen crashes.

No investigator or engineer will fly a plane that they think "ahh, we know it will crash an average of once a year"...that. never. happens.  Except in traffic engineering--that is literally the actual excepted standards--x people will die in crashes per year....it's fine...we designed ti that way.  Would you get in a plane that is designed to crash x times per year.