Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Speeding On Randall


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#31 gingersmom

gingersmom

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 04:02 PM

People FLOOR it going up Willow Creek towards Rebecca. I bet they are going at least 40 MPH up and down the hill. We have complained, but no answer. I have NEVER seen a cop sit in this area. Talk about some revenue generating if they did! I wish I could sit out there with a radar gun pointed at the cars. I'm convinced nothing is going to change unless an unfortunate incident where someone dies due to speeding, and I pray it is not a little kid chasing a ball. Our cat was hit a few years ago because a kid went flying up the hill. He didn't even stop to say sorry.

#32 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Historic District

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:30 PM

OK, you're right, the majority of people drive recklessly and dangerously. It's a fricking miracle any of us survive on the road.

Over 30,000 every year in the US do not! And millions more are injured. Clearly what we're doing is not working, starting with how we set speed limits - the 85th percentile rule (not 80). This rule is based on the presumption that 85% of drivers will drive at a reasonable rate of speed and that large differences in speed of vehicles are most dangerous (that's why freeways have minimum and maximum speed limits).

IMHO, this is correct when dealing with freeways and rural highways, but has no basis for use on city and suburban streets (other than that it is the law in CA and most other states). The problem with it is that it does not account for non-vehicular users of the road -- bicyclists, pedestrians, kids in adjacent yards. Unless there are lots of these users, motorists will not consider their presence in determining what they perceive to be a safe speed, and thus, it is quite likely that 85 percent of the drivers are wrong about what speed is safe in these situations. To be fair, state law allows speed limits on residential streets to be set at 25 mph without the benefit of a speed survey, but the definition of a "residential street" is fairly restrictive, requiring a certain density of residences that is not met by all streets that residents might consider residential (think large lot subdivisions). There have been efforts to repeal the 85th percentile rule in recent years, but about 85% of the population thinks its just fine, except when applied on their street.

As for traffic calming in Folsom, while the city has a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan that includes many useful tools, including speed humps (but not bumps - bumps are the nasty things in shopping center parking lots; humps are the gentle sinusoidal-shaped ones you see in east Sac that are comfortable at the posted speed limit, but jarring at any faster speed), but fire and solid waste have vetoed almost all proposed applications of serious traffic calming, including speed humps in a historic district alley because of concerns about response time, patient comfort and vehicular maintenance (garbage trucks). Even in an alley!! Makes you wonder how the couple of hundred cities in the US who use traffic calming (including the City and County of Sacramento, Roseville, Citrus Heights and Davis) manage to collect garbage and respond to emergencies. Perhaps if the streets were safer, there would be less emergencies to respond to!

#33 Homer

Homer

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 697 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:25 PM

Over 30,000 every year in the US do not! And millions more are injured. Clearly what we're doing is not working, starting with how we set speed limits - the 85th percentile rule (not 80). This rule is based on the presumption that 85% of drivers will drive at a reasonable rate of speed and that large differences in speed of vehicles are most dangerous (that's why freeways have minimum and maximum speed limits).

IMHO, this is correct when dealing with freeways and rural highways, but has no basis for use on city and suburban streets (other than that it is the law in CA and most other states). The problem with it is that it does not account for non-vehicular users of the road -- bicyclists, pedestrians, kids in adjacent yards. Unless there are lots of these users, motorists will not consider their presence in determining what they perceive to be a safe speed, and thus, it is quite likely that 85 percent of the drivers are wrong about what speed is safe in these situations. To be fair, state law allows speed limits on residential streets to be set at 25 mph without the benefit of a speed survey, but the definition of a "residential street" is fairly restrictive, requiring a certain density of residences that is not met by all streets that residents might consider residential (think large lot subdivisions). There have been efforts to repeal the 85th percentile rule in recent years, but about 85% of the population thinks its just fine, except when applied on their street.

As for traffic calming in Folsom, while the city has a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan that includes many useful tools, including speed humps (but not bumps - bumps are the nasty things in shopping center parking lots; humps are the gentle sinusoidal-shaped ones you see in east Sac that are comfortable at the posted speed limit, but jarring at any faster speed), but fire and solid waste have vetoed almost all proposed applications of serious traffic calming, including speed humps in a historic district alley because of concerns about response time, patient comfort and vehicular maintenance (garbage trucks). Even in an alley!! Makes you wonder how the couple of hundred cities in the US who use traffic calming (including the City and County of Sacramento, Roseville, Citrus Heights and Davis) manage to collect garbage and respond to emergencies. Perhaps if the streets were safer, there would be less emergencies to respond to!

It's too bad that the city has such knee-jerk reaction against using tools such as speed humps where they are needed. I ran across this awhile back trying get the city to do something about the daily 40-50mph traffic on my residential street that includes a busy mid block un-marked school crossing.

#34 CaptainThom

CaptainThom

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 06:51 PM

I live on Randall as well, Next to a stop sign and they do not only speed well over 25 miles per hour but they run this stop sign every day, almost every car. We have complained to city hall and police tons of time. They came but only to give a NEIGHBOR a ticket and then leave.

If you ask me Folsom Police are Useless. Straight up useless.

I have lived here for 10 years on randall and from day one it has been speeding and as more and more kids come around it becomes more and more of a problem.

If you live on randall, please send me a PM. We can group together and try something.
What we have done in the past, ME and Neighbors.
Put up black cardboard cat cut outs and place them in the street at night. People usually slow down when they are driving up fast on a cat laying in the middle of the street.
We have also have thought of molding our own speed humps we would place randomly on Randall at night,
as this seems that it could be illegal i do not see why we can not protect our own streets.
I have also stood on the corner with a camera pointing it at people who speed by.

I watch the neighborhood alot and i see the same people speeding and running the stop signs.
I have seen the police put out the mobile boxs telling you you're speed. What does that do?
It encourages people to go faster if you ask me.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users