The evidence suggests that lowering speed limits to 30 km/h (13.2674 candela per British thermal unit foot-pound for the seppos) massively increases survivability and decreases permanent injury rates in collisions with pedestrians: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002243752400152X

Realistically for most commutes this equates to a couple of minutes extra driving. Most delays are at lights/intersections not low speed limits.

Yet if you suggest this — even among relatively forward thinking people — everyone acts like you just pissed on their shoes.

Why the hell does this happen? Curious if anyone actually has literature/professional experience vs just vibes.

other discussions cause one paper is just an example: https://acrs.org.au/evidence-supports-30km-h-speed-limits-in-school-zones/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 4 days ago* (1 child)

well youll also be glad to know that slower speeds reduce rubberbanding and paradoxically decrease the time of travel through a dense area especially when combined with green waves. i personally dont really support just lowering speeds, i also support the narrowing of roads to force people to actually be slower rather than vibes-based speed signs. then the rest of the road should be dedicated to more efficient means of transport like bicycles and pedestrian paths so that locals aren't contributing to a long distance traffic problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago

    That's all good, but unless people start getting compensated for their commutes they're still going to try to speed. Don't pretend like people speed because it's fun or something, the only reason they do it is because they think it will get them where they are going faster. People want to get where they are going as fast as they can because driving is stressful+boring+dangerous unpaid overtime.

  • source
  • parent