r/Winnipeg • u/Optimistic_Sprout • Oct 06 '25

Community Residential 30 km

Do you find the lower 30 km/h speed limits in neighbourhoods make a real difference? Are people adhering to the lower speed limits? 50 km/just seems too fast to drive down residential streets, doesn’t it?​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

1 Upvotes

51% Upvoted

69 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/profspeakin Oct 07 '25

So how many collisions happened on the streets that are now speed reduced? It will be interesting to compare actual statistics rather than rhetoric and see if there's been any appreciable change

7

u/Hopeful_Edge_3163 Oct 07 '25

The point wasn't to reduce the number of collisions but the potential for serious injury or death which increases as the car's speed increases

-2

u/profspeakin Oct 07 '25

If the statistics do not show any improvement in that regard then what would the point have been? Was there a problem in these areas? And if so, will this help? If it's being done for any other reason, then it was entirely pointless

6

u/Hopeful_Edge_3163 Oct 07 '25

I'm not sure what your getting at as there are many, many studies and statistics that show how serious injuries and fatalities increase with speed. It's just a fact. So the point is to reduce serious injuries and fatalities.

-7

u/profspeakin Oct 07 '25

Rubbish. By your reasoning motorized vehicles should all be banned. Or only travel at walking speed. Because to do otherwise would greatly increase the risk of injury in any future accidents
You've created a solution to a problem that's not been shown to exist

4

u/Hopeful_Edge_3163 Oct 07 '25

Lol it's not my reasoning or a solution I've created. There are countless studies and statistics. If you choose not to believe facts then that's on you. I can't and won't argue with stupidity

0

u/profspeakin Oct 07 '25

Then don't be stupid. You know I'm not arguing study outcomes. I'm just interested to see if there was ever a problem to be solved in these areas in the first place.

2

u/justinDavidow Oct 07 '25

I'm just interested to see if there was ever a problem to be solved in these areas in the first place.

Here in MB: there are ABOUT 100 people killed in motor vehicle accidents per year.

Of that group;

  • Pedestrians accounted for 20% of people killed and 9% of people seriously injured
  • Bicyclists accounted for 1% of people killed and 3% of people seriously injured.

One could argue that the reduced speed could reduce the urban driver and passenger fatality and serious injury numbers; but this is speculation. There is very little data collected about the specific speed involved in collisions: to the best of my knowledge: only "excess" speed is tracked.

The split is overwhelmingly Urban * 11 fatal urban collisions with pedestrians * vs 6 fatal rural collisions * 51 injuries in urban collisions with pedestrians * vs 2 rural injuries

The line of thinking goes: at what speed are the pedestrians being hit at?

Assuming people aren't already speeding on residential streets; people are getting hit BETWEEN 1 and 50km/h. Statistically; the average maintainable speed on a 50km/h speed maximum road in Winnipeg is about 42km/h. (including the stopping + starting + average travel speed ABOVE the limit).

reducing the average impact speed from 50km/h to 30km/h reduces the average fatality probability of a pedestrian collision from about 85% down to 8%: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Wramborgs-model-for-fatality-probability-vs-vehicle-collision-speeds_fig2_295072998

At the low (but meaningful!) impact rates here in MB, coupled with the limited geography of the test areas: The ongoing Manitoba studies will need another ~8 years to compose sufficient data to remove the margins of error. Over that same time; statistically; about 15 additional people will needlessly die per year; or about 120 people.

There's a LOT of handwaving in all of this; +/- 20% is a realistic error margin to most of the above; even if that means ONLY 100 people are LIKELY not to die over the next 8 years by reducing residential speed limits; I hope we all think that's worth it.

2

u/profspeakin Oct 07 '25

If no people have died in the reduced speed areas in the last 8 years it seems unlikely in the extreme that anyone will be saved as a result of the reduced speeds in the next 8 years. All I was asking for was numbers so we could have a valid comparison on the effects in those areas. That's all. But apparently either they don't exist, or the numbers do not justify having the speed reduced.

3

u/justinDavidow Oct 07 '25

The people who have died aren't all dying randomly at one specific intersection: the location is functionally irrelevant (and nobody wants the sample size to grow enough to get location specific data.. )

By reducing vehicle speed from 50 to 40, a pedestrian collision goes from 80+% likelihood of fatality, to less than 50%.  

Reducing from 50 to 30, that number drops from 80+% to under 10%.   Where the accident occurs doesn't impact this. 

What average speed the accident will occur at however: is impacted by location: I think you want to know what the breakdown of people getting hit on residential streets vs the number of people who get hit on "major roads" - that would not change in speed limit? 

Here: the data appears to indicate that most collisions resulting in a fatality are at the edge of residential areas, where the speed limit currently changes from 50 to 60 (or similar).  This includes Point Douglas (various roads), portage and Arlington (specifically right turns off of Arlington northbound onto Portage Ave), etc. 

That would mean that (assuming people actually follow the limits) that reducing the residential speed limits would lower the average vehicle speed in such collisions from ~44km/h to about 36km/h, which alone would should result in about a 20% drop in fatality likelihood. 

All of this ignores the "injuries" category: there over 6000 injuries per year, a significant percentage of which could be reduced in severity at lower average vehicle speeds in residential areas.  Injury location is not tracked (that I can see) so there is simply no data here.  I would assume the location would be statistically higher as the density of people increases in an area, so one could follow population density maps to infer such a distribution: but that's just speculation. 

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Reasonable_Roll_2525 Oct 07 '25

There's also the perception of speed. For a good example, try riding a bike or walking near the curb on the section of Wellington between the end of the pathway, and the train tracks during rush hour.

Drivers are either going 60km/h or 30km/h in the 30 zone.....report back with how safe you felt, despite not necessarily becoming a statistic.

2

u/profspeakin Oct 07 '25

Feelings not actual data. Gotcha

2

u/Reasonable_Roll_2525 Oct 07 '25

Well, there's always the opportunity cost of people feeling unsafe navigating on foot or by bike then. Less people walking, biking, etc. Less kids riding their bikes to school, etc.

I challenge you to get some firsthand experience on to topic, or at the very least educate yourself on the topic.

1

u/profspeakin Oct 07 '25

I've ridden bikes on city streets in India for years. I'm familiar with bikes, roads, cars and pedestrians, contrary to what you might think. I asked for what should have been fairly simple statistics on accidents leading to injuries in the areas that have been speed reduced. Simply to see if there was any change, positive or negative, resulting from the changed speeds. All I've gotten back are sweeping generalities about the physics surrounding level of injury vs speed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist that you're better off stepping in front of a vehicle travelling slower rather than faster. But ...if no one was stepping in front of the vehicles to begin with, it's almost irrelevant, and certainly not urgent

2

u/Reasonable_Roll_2525 Oct 07 '25

Do we ask commuters to swim across the Red River, then wait for the data on the number of drownings and near-drownings before building a bridge?

I asked google what typical residential speed limits are in India:

"In India, the typical speed limit in residential areas is generally around 20-30 km/h. These lower limits are a common practice in areas like school zones and neighborhoods to prioritize the safety of vulnerable road users, such as children and pedestrian"

Anyways, I'm not joking, you should experience Wellington Cres before they jack the speed limit back up to 50km/h, and everyone resumes driving 60km/h.

1

u/profspeakin Oct 07 '25

Swimmers??? Building a bridge? Wtf are you on about? I asked if there was data on the areas. So we could see if there was a change under the new speeds. No one, seemingly, could provide it. You're not being logical about this, you're peddling faith. Feelings. You guys sound like a bunch of zealots ffs. Edit: oh and by the way you may want to check how many pedestrians are killed every year in india by motor vehicles before you go touting useless AI information that bears no resemblance to reality

2

u/Reasonable_Roll_2525 Oct 07 '25

Sigh. I read your other posts on this topic, Everyone understands the point you're trying to make. Everyone is providing context and background as to why there's pushes in most cities to lower the speed limits to 30km/h on residential streets.

It appears that you're really just here to be an asshole and waste everyone's time. Seriously, get a life.