Agenda - Council - 05/12/2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Another factor examined in the speed limit deliberations was the overall pedestrian accident experience (as opposed to strictly the survivability element of crashes). As discussed in Section 2.5 of this report, the data examined within the scope of this Task Force effort did not yield clear results indicating that a particular speed, 25 or 30, was inherently safer fox pedestrians. This is an item that may warrant further, more thorough analysis; but it was not practical to. do so as part of this effort. For the .purposes of the current study, it was concluded that the Task Force did. not have a safety reason to recommend a change to t11e current statutory speed limit. Also weighing heavily in the determination of a possible o ~on in he enforcementd speed limit is the enforcement component. The „eneral p community is that with current resources, it is difficult to enforce the present 30 MPH statutory speed limit. Thexe was great reluctance to be tasked with enforcing an even ' lower limit. With the realistic view that enforcement strength for a lower speed limit would be lacking, the Task Force explored the question of what would likely happen if the statutory limit were to change to 25, knowing that enforcement might be "weak." The view in the committee was that changing the speed limit alone would not have - the desired effect. Without substantial compliance on the 25 MPH limit, there wou-ld . - -- - likely be more differential in speeds and more v ldlcause a more~dangerous condition. potential for collisions. The. speed disparity cou The Task Force acknowledged the citizen-level suppoiQtfho local officials (such ash statutory limit. Task Force iraembers understand that b council members) and state legislators receive significant feedback from their constituents about speed. Further, the Task Force acknowledgedthat --based on some measures of safety/survivability - a lower speed limit could be justified. Reasons like this do provide some rationale. towards a change in the speed limit to 25 MPH. Since enforcement plays such a large rolein the viability of a speed limit, the group concluded that if support for enforcement of how' ~a an pport can bened, first the enforcement community would need to be provided to them for enforcement o£ the cu~~rent 34 MPH limit. If that can be accomplished over a period. of years, it might be possible ii1 the future to revisit the speed limit issue and expect that enforcement would support a new limit., The ix~ain methods to provide support to enforcement are through vigorous funding and support of education efforts focused on teaching drivers to obey all. speed limits. The education efforts need to teach our citizens the dangers of speeding. Successful education models do exist and have proven to modify driver behavior. MnlDQT and other xaad authority agencies should explore opportunities to promote education. This could be through, for example, public service announcements or support for speed enforcement saturation at the local level. The Task Force also considexed the prospective cost to communities of the need to post signs as o~ae aspect of educating the public .regarding a new statutory speed limit. Page 21 -176-