Evil Bicycle Lobby Seeks To Lower Minneapolis Speed Limits! (rentals, law)

[Doctor Z]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Can't be. The top speed of an F-150 is 105 mph. The F-150 Raptor tops out at 140.

Banks twin turbo running 35 PSI boost on Cummings Dodge Diesel.

[Doctor Z]

Originally Posted by ram2

You mean you never believed that government propaganda how driving faster than 55mph would cause mass carnage on American roads?

I was around before the stupid 55mph was enacted (I hated President Carter for that, but he's been a good ex-Pres.). Back in those days Montana didn't have a speed limit, and if it weren't for those dang moose that got in the way when you were going 140mph, it would have been paradise!

[Doctor Z]

Originally Posted by laxster

I'm an avid cyclist, and think this is dumb.

1. Artificially raising or lowering speed limits doesn't cause people to change their behavior. Traffic calming measures, on the other hand, do.
2. Most people don't drive 30 down residential streets anyway!
3. I don't typically feel threatened by drivers at 30. It's when we're talking 40+ where there's an issue.
4. Expense: replacing street signs is expensive!
5. Changing speed limits in a city that doesn't enforce speed limits is asinine.

I'd be interested in knowing what "Traffic calming measures" are? I blew up at the Minnesota Department of Transportation when they told me that they were going to start using Tow-Plows during snow storms as a "Traffic calming measure."

I also sited the Minnesota Driver's Manual that gives me the RIGHT to pass snow plows when their working!

I haven't seen a Tow-Plow since.

[Doctor Z]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

I don't ride a bike very often, but am solidly in the "20 is plenty" camp. We should design our streets for the safety of our citizens, not so people can speed their way through residential streets. Want speed, take the freeway. This is really more of a pedestrian than a bike issue, anyway. You're much more likely to survive being hit by a car when it is going a lower speed. Statistics show that lowering the speed (and presumably also enforcing it) drastically reduces fatalities, while adding less than a minute to the average trip. An extremely minimal increase in travel time for the sake of saving Minneapolis lives seems a reasonable trade-off to me.

I say if you don't like the speed of the traffic on the street, don't live on it! Why should traffic have to slow down just because you want to move into the neighborhood? Furthermore, I've never been hit by a car while biking or walking, but I've had cats that have. That's why I won't live on a thru street anymore. I love my cats.

[Mplsite]

For those supporting the status quo I'd just like to know how many dead children killed by motorists is worth getting to the drive thru a minute sooner.

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by Mplsite

For those supporting the status quo I'd just like to know how many dead children killed by motorists is worth getting to the drive thru a minute sooner.

the speed limit where this happened appears to be 25 mph, reports do not indicate speeding was a factor

[EUPL]

25MPH is the average on all residential streets in CT. 45MPH is a bit much, although most travel that speed in a 25MPH zone anyway.

[ram2]

Originally Posted by Doctor Z

I was around before the stupid 55mph was enacted (I hated President Carter for that, but he's been a good ex-Pres.). Back in those days Montana didn't have a speed limit, and if it weren't for those dang moose that got in the way when you were going 140mph, it would have been paradise!

Carter did not enact the 55 limit. Nixon did.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

I don't ride a bike very often, but am solidly in the "20 is plenty" camp. We should design our streets for the safety of our citizens, not so people can speed their way through residential streets. Want speed, take the freeway. This is really more of a pedestrian than a bike issue, anyway. You're much more likely to survive being hit by a car when it is going a lower speed. Statistics show that lowering the speed (and presumably also enforcing it) drastically reduces fatalities, while adding less than a minute to the average trip. An extremely minimal increase in travel time for the sake of saving Minneapolis lives seems a reasonable trade-off to me.

I tried to drive at 20 mph for a bit on the parkway this morning, but found I was unable to do so without frequently using my brakes. 20 mph is too slow. Speed limits that are too low get ignored and only engender disrespect for traffic laws. You can see this in how bicycles ignore stop signs and red lights unless they have to stop for other traffic. I think the last thing we want is for motorists to start ignoring traffic laws like the bicyclists do.

[erin2882]

I hope it gets lowered (and it's worth noting more than just the bike coalition wants it lowered). Not just for the street I live on, but any residential street. If it's too slow for you to drive on, then take the train or the bus. Or bike. Or leave earlier. I don't bike much, but I have no problem with and in fact enjoy neighborhood streets where traffic is slow, careful, and sparse. And when I'm driving, I'm quite happy to keep my faster driving to yellow striped roads and highways.