• upstream@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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)

    • InsurgentRat@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • upstream@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • ntzm [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.