A new report released by the Toronto's chief medical officer shows how cycling and walking are both good for our health and save it's money. The report, “Road to Health: Improving Walking and Cycling in Toronto,” also demonstrates how reducing motor vehicle speeds reduces the number of people being killed annually, recommending that Toronto lower speed limits to 30 on residential streets and 40 on arterials. The latter will prove to have a hard time getting traction in Toronto, despite the fact that many Toronto residential neighbourhoods already have 30 zones with traffic calming measures (though many also do not). And despite the fact that other cities have proven how successful it can be on making other cities more liveable, literally.
Studies are quite clear that deaths and serious injuries increase dramatically with higher speeds. There is a “greatly increased probability of death or serious injury when hit by a vehicle travelling 50 km/h compared with 40 km/h.” One of the studies found that 85 per cent of people struck at 50 km/h are likely to die, versus only 25 per cent at 40 km/hour.
Toronto politicians aren't ready to push for this and a majority of drivers are bound to think the proposal goes too far, except when it comes to their own neighbourhood. Currently the City requires communities to individually apply for lower speed limits, asking traffic engineers who feel their job is to keep cars going fast for exemptions to the rule. The rule is that they first need to get speed humps and they can only get those if traffic engineers measure that the average speed on the street is above the posted limit. The City has made it exceptionally difficult for neighbourhoods to get safe streets. This proposal would flip out around by saying we should be going slower everywhere except for those roads where we make an exception. From the Star:
Dylan Reid, former co-chair of the city’s pedestrian committee, argued that residents have already demonstrated that they prefer slower speeds on local streets.
“Most of Toronto’s residential areas are designed to slow cars down, and people want them slow. . . . I think this is frankly just catching up to reality in a lot of ways,” Reid said.
“Where there is a wide road that is suited for a faster speed, it’s easy to simply post that speed where appropriate. But it doesn’t make any sense for the default speed to be 50 km/h.”
If I may make a bold claim, Torontonians want lower speed limits where they and their children live but not where the drive. They deserve safe streets, they feel, but elsewhere speed should trump safety. Cycling and walking advocates (and maybe a campaign like 20 is Plenty for Us can take advantage of this dichotomy and start helping local communities to fight city hall for the right to safety where they live. We now have an official report to back it up. Just don't rely on councillors to take the lead since our love for speed is ingrained.
The report has another proposal that has been overlooked but that could prove to be powerful. It recommends the City to set targets for reducing injuries and deaths. Imagine getting a yearly report that showed how we missed our goal to reduce deaths. It would bring media attention to the fact that city inaction has a direct result on more people dying. What politician would want to get behind that story? New York City is doing something similar with their Pedestrian Safety Study and Action Plan, where the city is now required to produce a report to show what, if anything, they've done to reduce pedestrian injuries and deaths. Building political traction can be difficult, but this would help keep politicians' feet to the fire.
Even if the City might not yet be ready to do something rational to save lives by lowering speed limits, the report has a number of strategic measures that it recommends to improve Torontonians' health by getting us walking and cycling more and doing it with less risk of injury or death. And already the press coverage of the controversial recommendation for lower speed limits will help jolt people out of their complacency. At least we now can't deny the trade-off: if you want to go faster you know you're risking greater injury and death.
Comments
simplicius2wheels
I saw it in the papers:
Thu, 04/26/2012 - 11:32I saw it in the papers: naturally the Sun made it look like the report recommended that one wouldn't be able to drive faster that 40 (you know how that fans the flames of the suburban driver), but I was shocked to see the Star's first article was pretty much piping on the same tune. Shame on that writer - we are used to better reporting from that corner of the press. The report really said that the default speed for all city roads should be lowered from 50 to 40 - and what's now 40 in the residential areas should be 30. It didn't say what should happen on the arterials, except further down it points at the need for increased investments in cycling infrastructure that promotes safety. I.e. why not a posted 60km/hr when there are good bike tracks along it.
I like the report. It also has recommendations for Provincial and Federal jurisdictions, and it points out the health inequality between downtown and East York on one side and Scarberia, Etobicoke, North York and York on the other side. Because of the lesser support for walking and cycling - and at the same time being the home for the majority of the lower income folks - , the burbs are deemed to be disadvantaged.
Random cyclist (not verified)
Even drivers that are paying
Mon, 07/09/2012 - 08:37Even drivers that are paying attention will miss a bicyclists right in their field of vision.
Toronto My Way (not verified)
Yes, statistics indicate that
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 13:12Yes, statistics indicate that death or serious injury goes up with speed, but that is in part a natural function of physics, and does not necessarily indicate whether or, to what degree, incidents of collisions go up with speed. Reducing collisions is a better goal than simply reducing death or serious injury when a collision occurs, because the latter still assumes collisions must be accepted, and we can reduce collisions.
To that end, I argue that the most important factor in reducing incidents of collision has nothing to do with laws or limits - it's all about attention http://torontomyway.blogspot.ca/2011/07/pay-attention.html
Any campaign to reduce death, serious injury and, most importantly, collisions, must include educating all who enter traffic - drivers, riders, cyclers, bladers, skateboarders, joggers and pedestrians - to actively engage their surroundings and communicate with others (so, music in cars and headphones on joggers ought not to drown out the sounds of traffic, as an example).
Ben
So Rob Ford said this study
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 16:57So Rob Ford said this study is nuts. Must mean it's a great idea.
herb
8-80 Cities is also
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 22:498-80 Cities is also advocating for "slow zones" like 20 is Plenty for Us:
simplicius2wheels
I like the concept of
Sat, 04/28/2012 - 14:35I like the concept of "8-80".
The "8" is pretty dear to me as I've got grandchildren in that age. I would like to see them riding safely in our city: getting to their schools or visiting friends etc, all without them being chauffeured at great expense to society and parents.
And the "80" is close enough to my own age that I start thinking how I will stay mobile and independent once I get there.
I can't agree completely with the post before that:
Why is one more important than the other? Sure, I would like to see "no collisions" as part of city travel. I also think it that the prevalent cavalier attitude to "driver attention" is the main culprit and believe law makers and police should act. Driver attention is hard to enforce if there is no immediate consequence like a run-over pedestrian. I think we could address the bad habit of inattention by mandating road re-tests every five years. (It would have the additional benefit that we could ensure aging drivers will not drive any longer once their skills are no longer adequate.) I think it would also make sure all drivers are up-to-date with their knowledge of the current traffic laws.
And still, humans are making decisions on the road and thus there will be errors. These mistakes will result in collisions and we need to do more. Like, we can drastically lessen the consequences of collisions by lowering the speed limits. As has been proposed.
Toronto My Way (not verified)
I didn't say reducing
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 15:26I didn't say reducing collisions was "more important" than the other. I said reducing collisions is a better goal, since a non-collision precludes the need to worry about serious injury or death.
On another tangent, I did not highlight "driver attention" above the attention required from others who use the road. I see plenty of cyclists, joggers and pedestrians not paying attention the way they should, all the time. At the end of the day, in a collision with a vehicle, all these will lose, so it's in their own best interest to pay more attention to their surroundings.
People who walk right out into a crosswalk the instant the light changes, without looking to see if the on-coming vehicle is stopping, are putting themselves in harm's way. Sure, the car attempting to make a quick right turn before the traffic to the left comes through should be stopping, but in the event they are not stopping, attention from people on the curb can still prevent a collision.
Everyone must accept responsibility for traffic safety - dumping all the responsibility on "drivers" perpetuates the problem and fails to proactively become a part of the solution.
Brandon
Why does it take so long for
Tue, 05/01/2012 - 04:10Why does it take so long for officials to produce a report that shows what most bikers/runners/walkers and the medical experts have known for decades? This is a great story. Thank you for sharing.
It is interesting how people don't recognize how good something is for you until an "official" says that it is but at least it is finally done.
W. K. Lis
Don't forget that Rob Ford
Tue, 05/01/2012 - 14:02Don't forget that Rob Ford said, "Roads are for cars." According to him, roads are not for bicyclists nor pedestrians. His latest reaction on speed limit changes shows he has not changed his mind.
Seymore Bikes
I live on a street that has a
Tue, 05/01/2012 - 21:09I live on a street that has a 40 kmh speed limit, and I think it should be 30 kmh.
The street that adjoins it has a posted speed limit of 30 kmh, and people often do 40-50 kmh . Our undeniable tendency to permit people to exceed the speed limit by +10-20 kmh obviously has to change first if we are to seriously consider applying such unilateral restrictions, even for safety's sake.
I'm OK with any residential street being limited to 30kmh, on the condition that the level (or rate) of enforcement be at least quadrupled. Where is the technological overhaul of how we manage traffic enforcement? It is applied to virtually every other aspect of daily life. If I can get billed automatically for using the 407, why can't I get a ticket for speeding or running a red light?
And why can't we make hands-free cell phone technology standard in Canadian cars? Is it that we readily accept the fact that a significant percentage of road users (bikes, peds, autos) flaunt traffic laws?
There is no easy fix to the senseless death on our roadways except that people need to be held more accountable, both legally and ethically. You can mark that achievement when our politicians don't publicly ridicule safety initiatives over a perceived threat to convenience.