The Welsh parliament has passed a law bringing down the speed limit on all residential roads and busy streets to 20 mph (30 km/h). Not everyone is pleased.
They just want to make money. They’ve covered the country with cameras and then they dropped the speed limit to a brisk walk. Breaking 20mph is almost guaranteed by accident, and those cameras are going to snitch.
This doesn’t really apply because harm to a pedestrian during an impact isn’t a linear scale.
There are sharp decreases in fatalities and permanent injuries, particularly to children who are often the ones hit in neighbourhood streets, below about 30 km/h so there’s a strong incentive to have drivers travelling at speeds no higher than that to avoid child murder and maiming due to inattention.
Below those speeds, and given that people do often belatedly apply the brakes when they’re driving recklessly there is a much weaker case for further reduction in speed limits. At least until car geometry changes again to make them even deadlier /shrug
shrug
I agree, it’s a trade off. That’s why reducing car usage is the most important thing. Making it less convenient to use a car, and more pleasant to walk and cycle are some of the ways you can do that.
They just want to make money. They’ve covered the country with cameras and then they dropped the speed limit to a brisk walk. Breaking 20mph is almost guaranteed by accident, and those cameras are going to snitch.
Good job guys.
If people can’t follow the speed limit they should be fined.
What’s the point in speed limits if they aren’t enforced?
I’ve never had a problem driving 20. In fact I do it voluntarily in some build up neighbourhoods.
Plus 20 mph is basically sprinting.
Edit:
20mph is significantly safer than 30mph, that’s all there is to it
If you follow that logic to its conclusion - 0 is the safest speed limit.
(Not trying to argue about the topic, just pointing out the obvious - all speed limits are a tradeoff)
This doesn’t really apply because harm to a pedestrian during an impact isn’t a linear scale.
There are sharp decreases in fatalities and permanent injuries, particularly to children who are often the ones hit in neighbourhood streets, below about 30 km/h so there’s a strong incentive to have drivers travelling at speeds no higher than that to avoid child murder and maiming due to inattention.
Below those speeds, and given that people do often belatedly apply the brakes when they’re driving recklessly there is a much weaker case for further reduction in speed limits. At least until car geometry changes again to make them even deadlier /shrug shrug
Now, you see - that’s a completely different argument.
And also validates my point, all speed limits are tradeoffs.
Don’t get me wrong though, 20mph/30kph limits are commonplace where I live and honestly surprised to hear that it wasn’t everywhere.
For improved safety in the future we’ll need better driving assistance systems in the cars, and finally to replace humans altogether.
I agree, it’s a trade off. That’s why reducing car usage is the most important thing. Making it less convenient to use a car, and more pleasant to walk and cycle are some of the ways you can do that.
Carrot or stick?
Both are needed