Poll: Speed Limits

[Thief]

as one who has lived during the 55mph limits
and having done the crash at 60 to 0
(prior to the 55 experiment)

the limit was restored to 70+....because
insurance companies realized...……..
60 to 0 is still considered a sure kill
not 100%.....but fairly sure

less than that and someone has to pay for the survivors hospital bills and
rehab

that could take years
and cost a LOT more

better you should die at 70

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Dumb question. Why 20 mph? Why not 0 -- i.e. no driving at all. And walking can result in falls, and falls can result in broken hips, and broken hips in the elderly can lead to death, so stop that, too. And every other thing that can be shown to have resulted in a death, stop 'em all!

Because driving is essential for some people. Just as we can't shut down grocery stores and gas stations during COVID, we can't force everyone to stop driving completely. But driving at non-essential speeds must be sacrificed for the greater good.

 

[Revoltingest]

Show me a dataset that indicates that the majority of fatal crashes in the world occur when drivers are going less than 20 mph. Until then, I'm going to assume that you're blowing smoke.

I've been in vehicular misadventures both above & below 20 mph.
Let me tell you.....the ones under 20 are uneventful...perhaps a few
hundred dollars to fix a light or a scratch. But the ones over 20 mph
dang near killed me. Sure, sure...it's a small data set. But there are
arguments based upon physics for this being worthy of generalization.

 

[Wu Wei]

Bicycles are extremely efficient.
Even @Wu Wei agrees.

Alas, even they have their dangers...not just from bears.

That's not me a silly reprobate, propagandist skirt wearin' Scot..... I don't wear a tutu an I don't ride a two wheeler

 

[Kenny]

Is that a call to return to DOS & Netscape?

LOL.... Dial-tone internet!

 

[Revoltingest]

LOL.... Dial-tone internet!

Worse than horses & buggies, eh.

 

[Milton Platt]

Let the question speak for itself.

You picked an arbitrary number.....why?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

You picked an arbitrary number.....why?

It's as good as any and would save a lot of lives.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Was this asinine nonsense really supposed to serve as an analogy for deaths vs. economic cost of raising/lowering preventative measures against the pandemic?

I know that driving under 20 mph will be an inconvenience for you. But we must save lives by any means necessary. We all have to make sacrifices of personal convenience for the greater good.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I did not vote, its a totally loaded poll which does not allow me to answer honestly.

First, the only accident i have ever had was at about 4 or 5 mph, just pulling out from parking and a child ran into the road between the car parked in front of me and the one in front of that. Luckily the child was only shook up and not injured.

Second, we live in a 30kph zone. (18.64 mph) last October our young cat was killed by a speeding car. The year before part of a house was demolished by a drunken truck driver. Two years before that one tourist killed and one injured by walking out in front of a car traveling below the legal limit. And that's only while i have lived here.

Third, less than 1% of the world is built up (with its environs) are you proposing to limit the other 99% of the world or just the bit you live in?

The only way to reduce deaths on the road is to stop people using the road as a footpath, playground, football pitch, running track, place to stop and chat, somewhere to stand while admiring the view...


Answers, isolate roads from pedestrians, and keep blithering idiot drivers off the road

The problem is not speed limits but people.

Reducing speed limits is not a magic wand, not even your magic wand

It's not a magic wand, but it WOULD save lives. Again, I'm waiting for someone to produce a dataset showing that the majority of fatal crashes occur when drivers are going less than 20 mph. But no one can produce said dataset because it doesn't exist.

 

[MNoBody]

 

[ChristineM]

It's not a magic wand, but it WOULD save lives. Again, I'm waiting for someone to produce a dataset showing that the majority of fatal crashes occur when drivers are going less than 20 mph. But no one can produce said dataset because it doesn't exist.

I can only speak from my own experience as a long time driver including track racing. The answer is STICK TO THE RULES. it is not change those rules to fit personal ideas.

Speeding and drunk driving remain the cause of more than 60% of fatal vehicle accidents. While distracted by using your cell phone is responsible for 15% of fatal accidents.

Answer, stick to the speed limit, don't drink and drive and do not use your cell phone while driving will reduce fatal accidents by more than 75%.

And you made the OP, surely you are the one who should be supplying evidence to confirm your idea.

So i ask that you provide data to show that reducing the speed limit to 30mph will prevent speeding, prevent drunk driving and prevent bloody stupid use of your cell phone..

 

[Shad]

Let the question speak for itself.

Some limits are 20mph such as school and residential zones already. Reducing those by 20mph means no vehicles can operate. I can not vote according to this fact. Reform your question

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Some limits are 20mph such as school and residential zones already. Reducing those by 20mph means no vehicles can operate. I can not vote according to this fact. Reform your question

We wouldn't reduce speed limits by 20 mph. We would reduce them all to 20 mph.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

So i ask that you provide data to show that reducing the speed limit to 30mph will prevent speeding, prevent drunk driving and prevent bloody stupid use of your cell phone..

You're missing the point. Driving drunk and texting while driving are less likely to cause fatalities at 20 mph than at higher speeds. That is simply a fact of physics.

 

[Shad]

We wouldn't reduce speed limits by 20 mph. We would reduce them all to 20 mph.

Sorry misread that.

Reducing speeds to that would handicap logistics and kill trucking as a major business. Rail, which has been in decline in many areas, would have to be redeveloped. It would trigger a recession.

 

[Shad]

You're missing the point. Driving drunk and texting while driving are less likely to cause fatalities at 20 mph than at higher speeds. That is simply a fact of physics.

You are restricting everyone due to the acts of the few. How about people caught texting and driving without an accident have their license(s) suspended for a year. If the act causes an accident ban them from driving for a few years after whatever prison sentence is complete.

 

[ChristineM]

You're missing the point. Driving drunk and texting while driving are less likely to cause fatalities at 20 mph than at higher speeds. That is simply a fact of physics.

No, you are missing the point, without the speeders, drunks and idiots on the road then no matter what speed there would be far less accidents.

And consider, if all speed limits were reduced then every road death would be in a 30 limit.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

And consider, if all speed limits were reduced then every road death would be in a 30 limit.

Yes, but the number of deaths would decrease.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, but the number of deaths would decrease.

Would they because all the speeders (who would speed anyway) and all the drunks (who would be drunk anyway) would still be on the road. And of course those idiots texting and chatting on the phone when they should be concentrating on the road would be on the road for longer giving them much more time to be idiots.