Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />48 <br /> <br />Another factor examined in the speed limit deliberations was the overall pedestrian <br />accident experience (as opposed to strictly the survivability element of crashes). As <br />discussed in Section 2.5 of this report, the data examined within the scope of this <br />Task Force effort did not yield clear results indicating that a particular speed, 25 or <br />3D, was inherently safer for pedestrians. This is an item that may-warrant further, <br />more thol'oughanalysis; but it was not practical to do SQ as part of this effort. For the <br />purposes of the current study, it was concluded that the Task Force did not have a <br />safety reason to recommend a change to the currept statutory speed limit. <br /> <br />Also weighing heavily in the determination of a possible change in the recommended <br />speed limit is_the enforcement component. The general position in the .enforcement <br />community is that witn current resources, it is difficult to enforce the present 30 IvfPH <br />statutory speed limit. There was great reluctance to be tasked with enforcing an even <br />lower limit. <br /> <br />With the realistic view that enforcement strength for a lower speed limit would be <br />lacking, the Task Force explored the question of what would likely happen if the <br />statutory limit wc::re to change to 25, knowing that enforcement might be "weak." <br />The view in the committee was that changing the speed limit alone would not have <br />the desired effect. Without substantial compliance on the 25 IvfPH limit, there would <br />likely be more differential in speeds and more vehicles weaving, leading to a greater <br />potential for collisions. The. speed disparity could cause a more dangel.'ouscondition. <br /> <br />The Task Force acknowledged the citizen-level support for a change to a 25 :MPH <br />statutory limit. Task Force members understand that both local officials (such as <br />council members) and state legislators receive significant feedback from their <br />. constituents about speed. Further, the Task Force acknowledged that - based on <br />some measures of safety/survivability - a lower speed limit could be justified. <br />Rea.sons like this do provide some rationale towards a change in the speed limit to 25 <br />:MPH. Since enforcement plays such a large role in the viability of a speed limit, the <br />group concluded that if support for enforcement of 25 NfPH wants to be obtained, <br />fIrst the enforcement community would need to be shown that support can be <br />provided to them for enforcement ottbe current 30 NlPH limit. If that can be <br />accomplished over a period of years, it might be possible inthe.future to revisit the <br />speed limit issue and expect that enforcement would support a new limit.. The main <br />methods to provide support to enforcement are through vigorous funding and support <br />of education efforts focused on teaching drivers to obey all speed limits. The <br />education efforts need to teach our citizens the dangers of speeding. Successful <br />education models do exist and have proven to modify driver behavior. Mn/DOT and <br />other road authority agencies should explore opportunities to promote education. <br />This could be through, for example, public service announcements or support for <br />speed enforcement saturation at the local level. . <br /> <br />The Task Force also considered the prospective cost to communities of the need to <br />post signs as one aspect of educating the public regarding a new statutory speed limit. <br /> <br />Page 21 <br />