|Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. (322628)|
|Home > BusChat|
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.
Posted by R30A on Tue Feb 7 10:32:44 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Feb 6 23:02:55 2017.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.
Who says that is the point?
SO THERE WOULDN’T BE ANY INSTANCES OF TIMING THE SIGNALS LOWER THAN THE SPEED LIMIT.
Proof? Where is your source that all are timed for 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.
Where is your proof that this is universally true? I have certainly heard complaints from people about how the timing of certain signals is keeping them below the speed limit.
Another ridiculous hypothetical example. You wouldn't lengthen the cycle because of the further negative effects on the cross streets.
Proof? There is no reason to assume that they would not change them.
The signal timing was previously timed for the higher speed. That was not an assumption.
It certainly is 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.
Actually, timing signals to 25 MPH is a great way to restrict speeds should an appropriate speed limit be politically untenable. Furthermore, I am making no assumptions here.
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."
I am not playing dumb. I perfectly understand what you meant. It just happens to be wrong. Traffic is far from the only thing which restricts speed.
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.
30 to 25 is just one of an infinite number of potential speed changes. The specific number cited has nothing to do with the discussion.
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.
Who said anything about significance? Where did I make any universal claim?
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.
You might not have been talking about other things, but that does not mean other things aren't relevant. Your statement was false because of those other things. Furthermore, we were NEVER only talking about only 5 MPH reductions.
(There are no responses to this message.)