Home · Maps · About
Home > BusChat
 

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread | Next in Thread ]

 

view flat

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Feb 6 23:02:55 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Fri Feb 3 13:15:30 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
You are getting totally ridiculous. You still insist you are correct. You do that by making hypothetical statements which have no basis in reality. For example, you state:

You: “Yes, if the signals were timed for 30 MPH, reducing the speed limit would likely reduce the average speed. If they are already timed for 25 MPH or lower, lowering the speed limit would do nothing."

The entire point of progressive timing is to program the changing of signals according to the speed limit. SO THERE WOULDN’T BE ANY INSTANCES OF TIMING THE SIGNALS LOWER THAN THE SPEED LIMIT. Therefore your other statement “Lowering the speed limit does not necessarily lower the average speed” is not true since when the speed limit is lowered, the signal timing also is changed to reflect the lower speed.

You: "Speed is simply one variable. If you lengthen the cycle or the proportion of the cycle for which the road in question has a green signal, that can easily not be the case."

Another ridiculous hypothetical example. You wouldn't lengthen the cycle because of the further negative effects on the cross streets.

You: "If you assume that they were previously timed for the higher speed, and you assume that the cycles otherwise remain the same, then yes. But now we are requiring many assumptions for what you claimed was a universal truth."

The signal timing was previously timed for the higher speed. That was not an assumption. It would have been ridiculous to have a 30 mph speed limit with signals timed to 25 mph. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WAS MAKING RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTIONS. The only assumptions I made was that traffic was free flowing and road conditions were good. That was the only time I claimed the statement was true that lowering the speed limit lowers the average speed. So quit trying to play dumb by claiming to not understand what I meant. IT IS OBVIOUS IF YOU CAN TRAVEL NO FASTER THAN 15 MPH DUE TO TRAFFIC, THAT LOWERING THE SPEED LIMIT TO ANYTHING HIGHER THAN 15 MPH WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT."

You: "But who said anything about 5 MPH? I am certain there are places where lowered speed limits does reduce the number of accidents by 80%."

Playing dumb again? This entire discussion is about lowering the speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph. That is a 5 mph difference. QUIT TRYING TO CHANGE THE PARAMETERS TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE.

Me: The numbers are probably not more than a couple of percentage points.

You: "In general, that is almost certainly true."

Then your point about fewer accidents resulting in less gridlock is irrelevant since the affect on not lowering the average speed due to less gridlock would not be significant.

You: It is amazing how many times you try to change what we are talking about to make it into a discussion in which your statement is right. And you call me stubborn???

You are accusing me of exactly what you have been doing. I repeat:

The only assumptions I made was that traffic was free flowing and road conditions were good. That was the only time I claimed the statement was true that lowering the speed limit lowers the average speed. And we were only talking about lowering the speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph (or from 35 to 30 on some streets or 40 to 35 on a few as was done under Vision Zero.)

You were the one who brought traffic and road conditions and changing other speed limits into the discussion and lengthening traffic cycles, etc just to confuse what was being discussed.


Responses

 Thread is locked Responses disabled

[ Return to the Message Index ]