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.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Good
By Michael
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 1:21pm
I hope this is more vigorously enforced than "no texting or Instagramming while driving" and "when the light is red you have to stop"
And, if this somehow manages to become law
By roadman
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 1:26pm
my hope is that enough drivers who are stopped for this appeal their tickets on the basis that the new speed limit, by being totally arbitrary and having no basis in engineering study, is an unrealistic measure.
Hopefully this nonsense will never pass the Legislature for exactly that reason.
The nonsense of saving
By Kinopio
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 1:36pm
The nonsense of saving innocent lives? If a pedestrian is hit at 20MPH they have a 95% chance of surviving. If they are hit at 30MPH they only have a 55% chance of not being brutally killed. That is the only study that matters because peoples lives are more important than drivers missing the first few minutes of an episode of The Big Bang Theory.
and...
By bosguy22
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 1:41pm
if they're hit at 5mph, what's the survival rate? What about 1mph?
I got hit at 5MPH. Meaning
By Omri
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 1:59pm
I got hit at 5MPH. Meaning the driver was probably going a little faster, but was down to like 5MPH when he hit me. I walked away.
It's really nice not to have to care about who to blame or who to insult because the guy was kind enough to be driving a newly washed car and even my clothes came out okay from the collision.
Why stop there?
By erik g
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:31pm
As long as we're reducing a useful conversation into a series of arguments ad absurdum, why stop there? What happens if you hit a pedestrian at NEGATIVE 10 miles an hour? Stands to reason they'd be even safer than at 1 MPH. Thus, the City Council should decree that we all drive our cars backwards at all times. (We'll have to change all the signs to say "Velocity Limit" instead of "Speed Limit," though, to account for vectors rather than scalars)
Lovely attempt
By tachometer
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 4:37pm
That is a nice try at reductio ad absurdum but but it utterly fails. Do you really not think that it is a useful exercise to seek a balance between public safety and personal transportation needs?
Safety takes priority
By Kevin Love
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 4:56pm
Try taking that argument to airline, rail, marine or any other safety area regulated by the federal government. You will find that there is no balance. Safety takes priority. End of story.
I'm curious. How many of the recent pedestrian crashes
By roadman
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:20pm
in Boston involved vehicles traveling at or below 30 mph? How many of those crashes could have been prevented with better enforcement of EXISTING traffic laws? How much of that behavior could be discouraged in the future with appropriate punishments?
Well, we don't want to deal with those issues, do we. So we'll pass a law that sets an unrealistically low speed limit for all our streets instead.
But if you're so convinced this measure will magically eliminate all pedestrian accidents in the City Of Boston, then why don't we pass a law requiring that traffic signals be placed at every intersection in the City as well. Really show those evil drivers who's in charge. And I'm sure you wouldn't mind having to stop ever 100 feet or so for a red light.
This proposal is just more classic reactionary 'feel good' politics in play. And it's shameful that people are so willing to accept such ploys so readily.
I'm clearly just howling into
By erik g
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:51pm
I'm clearly just howling into the abyss here since you don't intend on engaging with this in good faith, but:
I dunno, man. Maybe you should go dig up some statistics, rather than shaking your fist angrily at the internet for not doing your research for you. Some folks in this (and the previous) thread have have helpfully provided the traffic studies that show that the fatality rate at 20MPH is around half of what it is at 30MPH That sounds pretty compelling to me, given that a non-zero number of pedestrians are run over and killed here every year.
Yes. We are convinced with absolute certainty. For any law ever passed must instantly reduce the incidence of a bad thing from 100% to 0%. To do anything else would be foolhardy, and we should let the perfect be the enemy of the good in all legislative matters.
The legislature is in charge. So they might drop the speed limit. Because cars are not the sole occupants of roads, but are the ones creating 100% of the traffic fatalities on them. They can also install traffic lights at every intersection in town, if they want. On net, I'm not sure it would be an improvement, but if they think it will stop drivers from habitually acting like maniacs and killing people with multi-ton bludgeoning weapons, then they should go for it.
It might make the drive a little longer, yeah. I drive to work most days, so I'd have to leave five minutes earlier. That would indeed be an inconvenience. However, I would probably stop short of pitching a fit about it on a public forum, because that would probably make most people think I was the sort of sociopath who thought the road was built only for him, and who values small amounts of his own time more than he does the lives of pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers.
Maybe the abyss is whistling back
By Roman
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 8:17pm
The question asked was what percentage of actual existing fatalities were caused by drivers obeying the 30mph speed limit. NOT whether an accident at a magically-obeyed-by-everyone-at-all-times 20mph limit is more survivable than an accident at a magically-obeyed-by-everyone-at-all-times 30mph limit.
The other question that was asked and whizzed over you head was whether the enforcement mechanism for the 20mph limit will be such that actual vehicle speeds on the streets will be lowered or not. NOT whether 20mph is slower than 30mph.
"Because cars are not the
By Rob
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 2:42am
ummm....
Wow.
Well, yes - the physical characteristics that govern collisions once they've happened mean that cars >>>>>>>> bikes >>> pedestrians.
However, to say that cars (and, presumably, their drivers) create 100% of traffic fatalities - therefore implying errors, stupidity, and aggression by bicyclists and pedestrians create none is willful ignorance.
I STOPPED HERE
By Anthony
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 7:10pm
I stopped at this comment because it best expressed my opinion.
WELL SAID AND SAY NO MORE
If Preventing the Mere Possibility of Death
By Cliff
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 4:48pm
was the top priority, then they should ban cars entirely. They are heavy and capable of going fast.
The fact that there are roads and cars allowed shows that there is a societal need for cars and speed (beyond catching episodes of a sitcom).
A functioning world requires some measure of danger. And while its obviously good to mitigate danger where possible, simply using the fact that a change reduces danger can't be the only justification, otherwise it invites slippery slope arguments. It has to be balanced by context.
In the previous thread, you said it was "unenforceable"
By spin_o_rama
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 1:39pm
Now its simply arbitrary with no basis in engineering.
You also seem to think that there is enough volume of road users that would be ticketed for this violation and that would result in a high volume of appeals.
So which talking point is it?
Show me the engineering studies
By roadman
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:13pm
the City has done to justify establishing a city-wide 20 mph speed limit. I'm willing to bet they don't exist because they haven't been done. That makes the proposal arbitrary with no basis in engineering.
And any speed limit that has been set well below what drivers can safely travel the street or road at without the benefit of an engineering study is clearly arbitrary.
State law already makes provisions for cities and towns to set speed limits for specific locations, provided those speed limits can be justified based on engineering practices.
As for traffic tickets, the knee-jerk reaction of nearly everyone I've encountered who's gotten one is universally "how can I fight this?" Once word gets out that speed limits have been lowered not because an engineering study said it was the proper thing to do, but just some politicians could say "look, we're solving the safety problem", rest assured that many people who get those citations will be fighting them in court.
JFGI
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:42pm
JFGI.
Plenty of evidence out there. You are the one asserting that the people using that evidence to implement policy are all wrong.
Burden's on you, dude.
you keep on this belief that
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:50pm
you keep on this belief that this is about ticketing drivers.
this is based on the opposite of your tirades.
when the default speed limit is 30 mph, the city cannot design a road to engineering standards for 20 mph.
Once the default is 20 mph, they can design roads to engineering standards for 20 mph...
Nothing can ever change according to your view; if we followed that, we might still have people walking down the street in front of cars warning everyone they were coming.
Says who? There are existing
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 12:10pm
Says who? There are existing mechanisms for posting a speed limit lower than the default, when conditions warrant it.
Where are the engineering
By anonyrat
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 4:25pm
Where are the engineering studies justifying at 30 mph citywide speed limit? Are there any? My assumption has been that there aren't but I'd love to be proven wrong on this, and to look at the actual methodology justifying the status quo, other than the fact that that's how it's always been.
You're the one making the bold claims, you present the research
By spin_o_rama
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 5:04pm
Maybe the people you've encountered shouldn't be thinking about how to fight a ticket they deserved and should instead find a way to fight the urge to speed and drive dangerously.
Roadman you should know this......
By Pete Nice
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 7:04pm
And I've seen people win appeals in court if the city is unable to provide a study in conformance with state/federal standards with speed limits and signage. I even thought that the actual signage for enforcement had a mi I mum or am I thinking of the current state law and not MUTCD?
Per MGL Chapter 85, Section 2, any traffic control devices
By roadman
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 1:14pm
Per MGL Chapter 85, Section 2, any traffic control devices that a city or town installs must conform to the "department's (i.e. MassDOT Highway Division) current manual on uniform traffic control devices. MassDOT has adopted the Federal MUTCD with Massachusetts-specific amendments. With certain exceptions (principally speed limits and Heavy Commercial Vehicle - HCVE - exclusions), cities and towns do not require MassDOT approval to install traffic controls on their streets and roads.
With speed limits, posted regulatory (i.e. white on black) speed limit signs can only be installed in support of a special speed regulation (SSR) for that section of roadway. Such a regulation, which is jointly approved by MassDOT and the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, establishes the legal speed limit for the section of roadway in question. At present, regulatory signs cannot be posted in support of prima-facie speed limits.
AFAIK, there is currently no legal requirement in either the MUTCD or state law regarding the minimum number of signs to be provided within a posted speed zone. However, accepted practice is to post signs after each intersection and entrance ramp. Much of it comes back to "would a reasonable person be informed of the regulation in a manner that they could comply with it
While the MUTCD allows some discretion in placement of traffic control devices, there are requirements that must be met (usually stated as "shall" or "shall not" conditions). If a ticket was written for disobeying a traffic control device that was in violation of these conditions, or a traffic control device that was not discernible or properly functioning due to any one of several factors, then a person might have grounds for an appeal.
As for speed limits, typically a person might have grounds to appeal a ticket if a regulatory sign was put up without an accompanying SSR, or if the sign was not placed at the proper location denoting the start of the regulation.
Lastly, what Boston is attempting to do here is to get the Legislature to grant them a special prima-facie speed limit for the entire City. While there may or may not be merit to this idea, I have yet to see any hard evidence justifying that this change will be beneficial for ALL road users. However, I have serious problems with the idea of granting special "blanket' laws and exceptions to individual cites and towns that contradict similar laws within the rest of the state.
It's not arbitrary
By Felicity
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 1:39pm
If you must steer your car into a human being, the very least you could do is not kill us.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC112757...
Aren't all speed limits kind of arbitrary?
By Michael
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 1:41pm
If I feel safe roaring down Beacon Street at 80 mph because I think I've got all the green (or at least "only been red for a few seconds") lights timed, who are some fancy scientists or fat-cat city councilors to tell me my judgement is wrong?
Darn!
By scott
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:06pm
Darn those scientists and their facts!
No, the scientific method
By Marco
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:17pm
is to get REALLY high (stoned) and drive on a particular road. Drive at a speed in which you feel safe, now look at the speedometer. Almost without fail you are going the posted speed limit.
This method is unofficial at this time, but try it out and you'll see I am correct.
Yeah engineers are perfect
By J
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:07pm
Yeah engineers are perfect and always worried about safety. Thats why so many 6 lane roads with 14 foot lanes built in the 1960s with all that engineering knowledge are so much safer than roads built 100 years earlier with 2 lanes at 9 feet each .
Oh wait.
With respect, I'd rather trust a speed study
By roadman
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:18pm
prepared by qualified engineers than a law crafted by politicians who still believe the old fable that "if you lower the speed limit without changing the nature of the roadway, drivers will automatically slow down."
Sadly, the City Council proposal smacks of the latter.
Honestly
By bosguy22
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:24pm
I'd trust just about anyone more than I would the band of misfit toys we have as a City Council.
Again, being a qualified
By J
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:28pm
Again, being a qualified engineer does not mean being an expert at safety in an urban environment.
For an engineer, there is nothing safer than a divided roadway with 14 foot lanes, 20 foot shoulders and clearance zones (aka no trees) in the surrounding area.
In an urban context, that is pure garbage.
As an engineer, this is very
By DTP
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 3:37pm
As an engineer, this is very far from the truth, and frankly insulting. We go to school for 4 or more years specifically studying road safety in all environments. Who, may I ask, do you think would be more qualified than someone with a degree and a professional license?
I said it when this proposal first came up and I'll say it again: lowering speed limits does nothing. If you want people to drive slower, change the roadway geometry. The first thing we're taught as engineers is not to rely on signs.
Pssh
By bosguy22
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 3:48pm
A bunch of B level career politicians know WAY more than someone trained in this subject.
Read it and stfu
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 4:55pm
Maybe politicians don't, but MDPH and MAPC do.
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/10/10269
(note that the people who authored this went to school for a hell of a lot longer than you did)
Right on!
By chaosjake
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 3:57pm
As has been pointed out many times in previous UHub comment threads, drivers will go as fast as feels safe. For me personally, there are 20mph zones where I do 45 and 55mph zones where I go 35. If you want to improve pedestrian safety, add bump outs at corners, pedestrian refuges in the middle of wide roads, narrow the crossing distance at 4 way stops, and all the other calming techniques that DTP would know better than me. If you just plunk down a Speed Limit 20mph sign in the middle of Washington Street in West Roxbury, with wide lanes, long, straight sightlines, and a broad median, I and other drivers are just going to laugh and keep going 45mph. Make the roadway conditions fit the conditions of the neighborhood.
Catch-22
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 8:19pm
You can't do this to a 20mph standard if the default limit is 30mph.
By lowering the default speed, you can make the design changes where appropriate.
Heh, I found a great example
By eherot
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 8:34pm
Heh, I found a great example of this in Portsmouth, RI last weekend:
https://goo.gl/jdztPY (It's a Google Street View link)
I'm sure there's at least one driver that occasionally actually goes 25 miles per hour on that road.
Yeah
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 7:39am
Someone who's one ticket away from losing their license.
This is the most asinine thing I've heard yet on this subject.
By mplo
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 3:50pm
Do you honestly think that going 30, 45 and 55 mph in such a densely populate urban area where, first of all, the roads and streets aren't cut out for those kinds of speeds, and secondly, one never knows when a pedestrian will cross the street, no matter what hour of the day or night, won't endanger pedestrians, and possibly your own life, if you lose control of your car and either hit another car, a light pole, or a pedestrian? You've got other work cut out for you, chaosjake! Here's recommending that you think again.
Oh yeah? Well...
By chaosjake
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 5:12pm
Your response here is the most asinine thing I've ever heard on this subject, and it makes me seriously question your reading comprehension and familiarity with local geography. Before I respond, let me quote the phrase that I think you're reacting to with "Do you honestly think that going 30, 45 and 55 mph... won't endanger pedestrians?"
I think you must have interpreted that as me stating that I drive 35, 45, and 55mph in all 20mph zones.
Now, to the point. Not every street in Boston is Acorn Street on Beacon Hill or Rutland Street in the South End. On streets like Washington Street in West Roxbury (which is what I cited), many of the DCR
freewaysparkways, or roads like Morrissey, the streets absolutely ARE "cut out for those kind of speeds."They're constructed like highways, with long, straight sightlines, broad lanes, and infrequent stops. Because they're built to support 45mph, that's how fast people drive, and adding a lower speed limit sign will do nothing to change that.
You have to construct safer streets by changing the geometry, like DTP stated. Narrowing lanes, adding raised crosswalks and bumpouts, and adding street trees all reduce the perceived safe speed on a street. When you make drivers feel like they should drive slower, they will, no matter what the signs say.
That being said, I don't think 20mph across the board is a good idea. It doesn't differentiate between neighborhood streets and arteries, and its just a big middle finger to all the taxpayers who live, work, and drive in this city.
Who, may I ask, do you think
By J
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 5:54pm
Easy, someone who is actually able to look at the guidance with a critical mind and not do things because the book says to do things.
You acknowledge that you were taught that removing all trees and posts in the area surrounding the roadway is safer right?
Can you also see why that encourages faster speeds and thus is probably a really bad idea in an urban context?
You acknowledge that you were
By DTP
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 6:26pm
Actually, no. Thinking back to my very first Highway Engineering class, yes, we were taught that trees close to the road present hazards. However, we were not taught that removing them was always the solution. We were taught that there are a variety of treatments that are suitable for various environments. On an interstate highway, yes, you need a clear zone. But on urban roads a curb or if necessary a guardrail does the job just fine.
You don't want a "speed study"
By lbb
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 9:12am
You don't want a "speed study", you just want the whole thing to go away. Calling for a "speed study" is just a disingenuous stalling tactic on your part.
What I actually want is for people
By roadman
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 11:59am
to acknowledge here is that there is a proper procedure in place to effect speed limit changes, that that procedure is in place for very good and rational reasons, and to simply follow that procedure. Instead, the City has decided to use political pull to short circuit the process because they find it to be too inconvenient. Why, because they are looking for quick popularity and are so ill-informed on the issue at hand that they believe myths like "You post a lower speed limit, and drivers will automatically slow down."
Following established rules and guidelines that have been in place in decades - largely because they've been proven to actually be effective - is hardly a "stalling tactic." Rather, it's just plain common sense. Don't like the rules, then demonstrate why the rules should be changed FOR EVERYONE affected by the rule (i.e. all cities and towns in the state, not just Boston). But demonstrate that with actual facts, and not just theoretical statistics.
And for the record, although I work in Boston, I hardly drive here. Actually, a good part of my daily commute involves walking. So, to you and others, please lose the "Roadman is automatically against anything that's anti-car" rants - as they're totally inaccurate.
There was plenty of study
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 12:36pm
Health study. Not engineering study. Google it.
Facts don't just come from roadway engineers. They come from doctors, public health officials, planning agencies, etc.
Engineers have zero lock on reality. Engineering data is limited to the physical roadway. It does not address health.
That said, please show us the scientific and engineering studies used to set the 30 mile per hour default speed limits. We are waiting.
Roadmap, as some other posters here have acknowledged,
By mplo
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 2:12pm
public safety for everybody takes priority. That's why it's a good idea for the speed limit to be lowered to 20 mph. Boston, like all cities, is a very densely populated area, which is why the speed limit makes sense, as well as the way the streets and roads here are, as well.
Moreover, the vast majority of automobile crashes and pedestrian crashes, too, result from driving too at too great a speed (inotherwords, too fast.) for existing conditions.
I hope this does become a law which is really enforced, and I hope they really enforce the no-Texting law, too.
No basis in engineering study?
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 3:18pm
Oh, wait - we're moving cars and trucks here.
People don't exist in your engineering universe.
Getting pretty sick of the "only metal boxes matter, count or exist" engineering studies. People matter and count more than mode.
No basis in reality
By Roman
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 11:20pm
All people do is exist in your universe.
No one has to do things, no one has to get places.
The amazon delivery magically gets to your house the same day without any cars or trucks having to make the trip from point A to point B.
Food gets put on the table and the lights stay on without anyone having to travel for any reason by any motorized conveyance with any kind of deadline.
Everyone's livin' la dolce vida with not a care or concern.
Loon
By lbb
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 9:14am
What ARE you babbling about?
p.s. it's "la dolce vita", or more properly, "la vita dolce".
Awesome!!
By spin_o_rama
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 1:29pm
Now can we make cellphone usage illegal too? These two measures coupled together will greatly reduce dangerous and reckless driving, if the police choose to enforce it of course.
While we're at it, let's
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:42pm
While we're at it, let's making looking at those stupid GPS screens suction-cupped to windshields illegal as well. Watch the road and that's it!
Replace them with Dashcams
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 4:08pm
Since drivers cause untold thousands more deaths than police officers each year, they should be required to use dashboard cameras every time they operate their vehicles DRIVING IS A RIGHT NOT A PRIVILEGE
AND
By bosguy22
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 4:21pm
Ban radios in cars, remove cupholders (fiddling with cupholders is just as distracting has texting!), and there should absolutely be soundproof plexiglass between the driver and all passengers.
Or, we could enforce current laws/speed limits, and penalize those that don't follow the rules or drive while distracted.
What a waste
By Waste of time
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 1:32pm
Why even have a vote on something that will not be enforced at all? Does the council really think they will enforce this when they have not enforced the current speed limit? How much money are they going to waste on resigning all of the roads?
How much money is spent on
By Kinopio
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 1:58pm
How much money is spent on replacing signs that dangerous drivers plow into? Drivers on my road can't go a week without knocking down the Yeild To Pedestrians In Crosswalk sign. Its hit more often than Clay Bucholz.
If it makes you feel any better...
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 1:58pm
The signs will have salvage value, as any other municipality in Massachusetts will be willing to buy them at a slight discount...
It is a great idea but I have
By Kinopio
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 1:32pm
It is a great idea but I have two concerns: First, that suburban state legislators won't allow it because they care more about being able to drive fast everywhere they go than they care about the people who live in the city. And second is enforcement. I've never seen someone get a speeding ticket in Boston. West Bridgewater cracked down and gave tickets to over 100 people for texting while driving in just a 4 hour period. Where are these crackdowns on dangerous drivers in Boston?
I got a ticket in Boston
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 1:57pm
I was on Comm Ave between Harvard and Packard's Corner. It's a divided highway at that point with few driveways/streets, and I was in the left lane. I got pinged for 43 in a 30.
At 9:45am on a Sunday with nobody on the road, it didn't feel too fast. But, in hindsight, it was.
So I regret that I sped, I regret that I got a ticket, and I'm here to report that this ped/cyclist advocate screwed up behind the wheel and did, in fact, get a speeding ticket in Boston issued by a BPD officer who was spending his morning writing speeding tickets at that location.
Regrets
By ins-scam
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:15pm
Wait till you feel the regret from your insurance increase for 5 years!! You'll regret not having thousands of dollars.
Too fast for what?
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 3:01pm
Too fast for what?
Did you realize after you drove past that there were places a pedestrian could have stepped out from, where you wouldn't have been able to stop in time at that speed? Probably not, since it sounds like you were on the inner roadway between two medians.
You know that this section of
By eherot
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 8:38pm
You know that this section of road has crosswalks and transit stops on it, right?
Sorta...
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 8:17am
There is one crosswalk, but since I turned from Harvard there is no way I was doing 30+ by the time I got to Fordham Road (extended). And while the Packard's Corner B Line stop is along the road, it's on the other side of a jersey barrier and 3+ lanes of traffic going the other direction, so I don't think that's a big factor either.
But, to answer the question, the problem with speeding there isn't a specific issue like a crosswalk or blind corner. The problem is general havoc. Cities are tight spaces, and folks do things which can be unexpected all the time. 43 mph is simply too fast to stop/swerve/avoid something unexpected in that area. Had I been doing 30 (for example), it would have taken me an additional 14.5 seconds to travel that stretch of road. I fart around on universal hub for a hell of a lot more time than that each day, so surely I could have afforded to invest the 14.5 seconds in increased safety for me and for others.
Comm Ave is a wide open space
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 12:45pm
Comm Ave is a wide open space. And if there isn't heavy traffic, there's not that much unexpected stuff to expect.
On a road like this, the time savings isn't the 14.5 seconds. It's the 65 seconds per red light, and the lights are often timed so you have to speed to avoid getting stuck at every red.
So what if one does get stuck at every traffic light?
By mplo
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 2:16pm
This is unbelievable! I mean...seriously; Do lots of posters here care so little about and have so little regard for human lives that you're willing to speed through the city of Boston just to presumable avoid being stuck at "every single light"?
This is crazy!
Funny, that timing
By lbb
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 9:16am
Boston cops loooove to camp out in certain locations and hand out the tickets on Sunday mornings. They can't be arsed to do it anytime when it might actually have a positive influence on public safety.
Of course they do.
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 12:47pm
Of course they do.
More people speed when the road is very empty, because it's safe to do so. (I'm talking about going 43 on Comm Ave, not 63.)
And it's easier to pull people over when you don't have to chase them through heavy traffic, and cause a major jam when you stop in a travel lane.
" First, that suburban state
By Patricia
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:32pm
" First, that suburban state legislators won't allow it because they care more about being able to drive fast everywhere they go than they care about the people who live in the city."
Can you back that up with anything, or do you just make stuff up about people?
Old Colony Ave is a hotspot
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 3:42pm
Old Colony Ave is a hotspot suburbanites cutting to South Shore bypassing 93. I have seen reckless drivers during rush hour almost hit people and not yield to pedestrians even in the clearly marked crosswalk.
And hopefully Old Colony will
By DTP
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 6:29pm
And hopefully Old Colony will be fixed soon. The city and state are both well aware of the problems with it, and are actively pursuing design solutions.
I've seen it.
By tape
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 3:17pm
The state police regularly set up a speed trap on Morrissey Blvd. at Malibu Beach. However, since it's a DCR road, that's the staties, not BPD.
Pages
Add comment