Last week’s decision – if we can call it that – by Athabasca town council to reduce the speed limit in two local neighbourhoods is quite the head-scratcher.
The speed limit in Hees Estates and the high school hill area will be reduced to 40 km per hour, but only for the next two years, and only if a majority of area residents want it.
And how do they indicate their desire for a lower speed limit? They’ll soon receive a letter explaining the change, which they should ignore.
Confused yet? You’re excused.
Amending local speed limits is a common practice in most municipalities; Mayor Roger Morrill said he’s noticed a trend towards lower speed limits, and argued that it’s time Athabasca “stepped up and showed that we are at the forefront of this.”
But council did neither. If they want to ‘step up’, they should change the speed limit and be done with it. No trial periods, no ambiguous ‘silence equals consent’ referendums. Just change it and move on.
Furthermore, Athabasca would only join the ‘forefront’ of the trend if they lowered the speed limit across the municipality, rather than cherry picking convenient neighbourhoods; when the inevitable question of why other areas (like Cornwall) weren’t being considered, Morrill’s response was that it was cheaper to implement in Hees Estates and the high school hill because fewer signs would be required.
In short, though Morrill called for Athabasca to show leadership on this issue, his suggestions – endorsed by a majority vote of council – failed to demonstrate any conviction, resulting in a decision wrapped in qualifiers and escape clauses.
And we haven’t even touched the obvious question of enforcement. It won’t matter a lick what the speed limit signs say, if there isn’t a consequence to disobeying them.
There’s an old adage that what’s right is not always popular, and what’s popular is not always right. Council needs to ask themselves the simple question: do motorists in Athabasca need to slow down? If so, then lower the speed limits and line up sufficient enforcement to make sure they’re followed.
At its core, this is an issue of public safety. And in this instance in particular, public safety should not be compromised by cost concerns, nor should council abdicate its responsibility for ensuring safety to the whims of public sentiment.
