Comments on: Speed Limit Raises Reach Their Last Stop http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/04/21/speed-limit-raises-reach-their-last-stop/ Covering Los Angeles's livable streets movement Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:06:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Neil O http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/04/21/speed-limit-raises-reach-their-last-stop/comment-page-1/#comment-5425 Neil O Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:44:12 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=2033#comment-5425 Agree with Umberto that a standard for safety ought to be established. But also -- go nack and read Krekorian's proposed legislation AB 766 closely: "...a local authority may retain a prima facie speed limit... if the local authority makes a finding, after a public hearing, that a higher speed limit is not the most appropriate for the orderly movement of traffic upon the street and does not promote a safe environment for the neighborhood or pedestrians." So in this bill, the finding has to be that a higher speed limit is: (a) not appropriate orderly movement of traffic AND (b) not safe for neighborhood or pedestrians and if both of those conditions are true then the prima facie speed limit may be retained. My issue is with the "and" connecting (a) and (b). It seems to me the bill should allow neighborhood safety to override the orderly movement of traffic. As written, the bill doesn't do that. I'd suggest the bill should read: "...a local authority may retain a prima facie speed limit... if the local authority makes a finding, after a public hearing, that a higher speed limit is not the most appropriate for the orderly movement of traffic upon the street OR does not promote a safe environment for the neighborhood or pedestrians." As far as I can see, simply changing the "and" to an "or" makes the bill far better, and especially so if a standard definition of safety is subsequently established. Agree with Umberto that a standard for safety ought to be established.

But also — go nack and read Krekorian’s proposed legislation AB 766 closely:

“…a local authority may retain a prima facie speed limit… if the local authority makes a finding, after a public hearing, that a higher speed limit is not the most appropriate for the orderly movement of traffic upon the street and does not promote a safe environment for the neighborhood or pedestrians.”

So in this bill, the finding has to be that a higher speed limit is:

(a) not appropriate orderly movement of traffic

AND

(b) not safe for neighborhood or pedestrians

and if both of those conditions are true then the prima facie speed limit may be retained.

My issue is with the “and” connecting (a) and (b). It seems to me the bill should allow neighborhood safety to override the orderly movement of traffic. As written, the bill doesn’t do that. I’d suggest the bill should read:

“…a local authority may retain a prima facie speed limit… if the local authority makes a finding, after a public hearing, that a higher speed limit is not the most appropriate for the orderly movement of traffic upon the street OR does not promote a safe environment for the neighborhood or pedestrians.”

As far as I can see, simply changing the “and” to an “or” makes the bill far better, and especially so if a standard definition of safety is subsequently established.

]]> By: Umberto Brayj http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/04/21/speed-limit-raises-reach-their-last-stop/comment-page-1/#comment-5422 Umberto Brayj Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:13:27 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=2033#comment-5422 In all of the LADOT's surveys they "took into consideration" the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians by simply stating "we took bicycle and pedestrian safety into consideration" and/or by statinf that the number of vehicle trips going by would produce an acceptable level of fatalities per million trips. Is there no standard for "pedestrian and bicycle safety" in the entire state of California, or in the entire Municipal Code for the City of Los Angeles? No standard whatsoever? The LADOT gets to just make up "pedestrian and bicycle safety" and then disregard it? Wow. That says a lot. It is ridiculous that our elected officials are such spineless ameoba when confronted with the LADOT's internal bullshit team that warns them that the LADOT is forced into raising the speed limits. Baloney, utter nonsense - and show me the case law to prove that I'm wrong. In all of the LADOT’s surveys they “took into consideration” the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians by simply stating “we took bicycle and pedestrian safety into consideration” and/or by statinf that the number of vehicle trips going by would produce an acceptable level of fatalities per million trips.

Is there no standard for “pedestrian and bicycle safety” in the entire state of California, or in the entire Municipal Code for the City of Los Angeles? No standard whatsoever? The LADOT gets to just make up “pedestrian and bicycle safety” and then disregard it?

Wow. That says a lot. It is ridiculous that our elected officials are such spineless ameoba when confronted with the LADOT’s internal bullshit team that warns them that the LADOT is forced into raising the speed limits. Baloney, utter nonsense – and show me the case law to prove that I’m wrong.

]]>