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
See them there too
By tachometer
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 4:47pm
That's a regular setup so if anything I drive only slightly above the posted 35mph there. I saw a different setup there a few weeks ago though. I was on the inbound side and saw two staties standing in the right lane on the outbound side and one had a set of binoculars but there was no radar gun being used. I'm fairly sure that the one with binoculars was looking for people texting/using their phone and the other was a safety spotter for cars in the lane they were standing in.
It's disheartening to see
By ZachAndTired
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 1:36pm
It's disheartening to see city councilors blatantly disregard the insight that experts on a subject have given them. This is asinine.
Its disheartening to see so
By Kinopio
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 1:40pm
Its disheartening to see so many Boston drivers blatantly disregard the safety of everyone else.
You're right. Laws generally
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:01pm
You're right. Laws generally whip those people right into shape.
If one person obeys, so does everyone behind him
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 1:59pm
The nice thing about speed limit laws is that if the person at the front of a platoon obeys the law, so does everyone behind them, by necessity. Does not apply to wider roads of course.
That's real cute that you think that...
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:46pm
Ever stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk in Boston/Cambridge? Cabs tailgate, honk then dangerously swerve around you the first chance they get, nearly crashing into the pedestrians in the process. You must be new here... welcome.
Yeah, works great, until some
By Scratchie
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 2:57pm
Yeah, works great, until some jackhole crosses into oncoming traffic to pass, or passes in a "right turn only" lane...
That's fine if your goal is a
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 3:03pm
That's fine if your goal is a pack of tailgating drivers. Do you have evidence to show this is a safe outcome?
Yes, because rear end
By eherot
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 8:40pm
Yes, because rear end collisions are rarely fatal, especially at 20 mph, whereas a car striking a pedestrian at 30 mph is usually fatal.
This only works on one-lane
By DTP
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 3:39pm
This only works on one-lane roads. And even then it encourages road rage.
Wait, what?
By anon
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 4:48pm
You have no right to demand that others disobey the law because you can't plan your time, or feel entitled to behave irresponsibly.
I suppose that you think that allowing women in public encourages rape.
You have no right to demand
By DTP
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 6:31pm
That is not at all what I said. What I said is that one slow driver encourages aggressive behavior from the drivers stuck behind them. Whether you feel this behavior is warranted or not, it does occur, and can create unsafe driving conditions. A car moving along freely at 45 mph is less likely to cause an accident than a car trying to aggressively pass someone at 30 mph.
Honest rephrasing is the first step
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 8:22pm
You need to rephrase this in a way that puts the cause of and responsibility for aggressive driving behavior where it really belongs.
In other words, people obeying speed limits aren't what causes aggressive driving. People driving slowly don't cause aggressive driving. That's ridiculous.
People who get worked up over being denied their supposed right to drive fast at all times on all roads in all situations cause aggressive driving.
A fundamental lack of self-control and a firm belief in being too special to obey road rules causes aggressive driving.
Assigning blame doesn't change reality
By Roman
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 11:29pm
If the goal is more safety, human psychology, aforementioned firm belief in right-to-go-fast and all, must be accounted for rather than wished away.
If the goal is to flaunt your virtue without accomplishing anything positive, then by all means, lower ALL speed limits to 20 mph an all roads statewide and put bicycle sharrow markers down on all lanes of the Mass Pike from the New York line to Logan.
If the goal is more safety,
By DTP
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 12:28pm
Exactly! It doesn't matter who is to blame, we need to acknowledge human psychology.
Ha ha ha!
By mplo
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 3:07pm
This:
is absolutely ridiculous, Roman! Lowering the speed limit is the best thing to do, in order to save and protect lives, and, as some other posters here have suggested, one or two aggressive scofflaw drivers don't have the right to even try to encourage other drivers to do likewise. If you have to be, or want to be somewhere at a certain time, just make the effort to get an earlier start, instead of being so nasty about it.
Driving way slower than you
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 12:49pm
Driving way slower than you should to intentionally block the person behind you is also a form of aggressive driving.
You are right
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 1:24pm
Driving way slower than the speed limit can be a form of aggressive driving. Driving the legal speed limit is not aggressive driving.
It can be, if the speed limit
By anon
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 11:08am
It can be, if the speed limit is way lower than it should be.
I once decided to obey the waaaaay underposted 20 mph limit on an empty rural road somewhere up near Gloucester, even though a driver behind me clearly wanted to go faster. I made a point of not pulling over to let them by. I'd say I was guilty of aggressive driving.
No, it's not.
By mplo
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 3:09pm
Driving at a 20 mph speed limit deliberately in a densely populated urban area i isn't aggressive driving at all. Driving above that posted limit is.
If someone gets themselves worked into a rage
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 7:58am
because the idea of the driver in front of them driving the speed limit is too much for them to handle, then that person has a mental deficiency. The rage wasn't "encouraged" by the law abiding citizen (or autonomous vehicle). Saying that implies that the law abiding driver might be somehow at fault, or responsible for the rage.
If someone is going way
By anon
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 11:09am
If someone is going way slower than the prevailing speed (even if that's the speed limit), and won't let someone else pass them when there's no reason not to do so, they have a social deficiency.
You do know that driving in
By Rob
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 2:24am
You do know that driving in such a manner (refusing to yield, building a platoon behind you, blocking a shoulder, weaving) as to force other drivers to "drive safely" - even if you're conforming to a posted limit - is actually unsafe, aggressive, and in certain circumstances illegal?
in what circumstances?
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 7:50am
in what circumstances is driving the posted speed limit illegal? I'm a little shocked that anyone would consider that illegal or aggressive.
The comment was only about driving the speed limit, the comment said nothing about breaking laws by weaving, etc.
No, no it isn't.
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 8:30am
Unless members of the platoon behind you have emergency lights and/or sirens on, it is decidedly not illegal to drive at the posted speed limit. It's also not unsafe. The jackhole who reacts in an aggressive manner is the one acting unsafe, not the person following the law in a predictable manner.
According to
By Sock_Puppet
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 8:58am
MGL 1. D. 10T, "the law is whatever I say it is and fuck you."
I'll spell out one example
By Rob
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 11:59am
I'll spell out one example for you:
If you're on a multilane road, AND...
If you decide the left lane best suits your needs, AND...
If you decide your speed limit (could be the posted limit, could be higher), AND...
If there's traffic behind you that wants to go faster than your limit, AND...
If you become aware that they are aggressive and maybe even unsafe - they want to go faster than you and want to pass you (whether or not they first "politely" signal* for you to pull over to the right to let them by or they skip directly to tailgating, leaning on the horn, rude gestures, and passing on the right), AND...
If you don't get out of their way (when it's safe for you to do so) and let them be their aggressive, unsafe selves...
THEN - YES! YOU are being aggressive, too (even if it's "only" passive-aggressive), and unsafe - because YOU are compounding the situation!!
You might be driving at the default statutory speed. You might be driving at a safe speed for visibility and pavement conditions. But - Insisting on YOUR speed in "YOUR" lane regardless of traffic conditions around you (including the aggressive, unsafe jerks) is aggressive, territorial behavior and a dereliction of YOUR responsibilities as a driver.
(*with a blink of the headlights from a safe distance)
Yes, that person would be a clueless jerk
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 3:41pm
Just like standing around under a tree with a mountain lion in it just because it's your right. It's not safe.
In some states, it's illegal
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 12:19pm
In some states, it's illegal to block a platoon, even if you're going the speed limit. You have to pull over and let people pass.
In most states, including here, it's illegal to block faster traffic in the left lane of a multi-lane road, even if you're going the speed limit.
How can I know the following driver wishes to break the law?
By anon
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 1:34pm
What is the legal method of signaling that one wishes to break the law and therefore others should pull off to the shoulder to allow it? Turning on the "pull over to the side of the road because I wish to break the law" signal? Hitting the bumper of the car in front of you? Three shots fired in the air at short intervals?
What about aiding and abetting? Isn't it illegal to help people break the law?
This is fascinating stuff.
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?
Pages
Add comment