7 ms·

Speed enforcement has been extensively studied, and there are a lot of publicly available articles on the subject. The results are basically universally in fav

Speed enforcement has been extensively studied, and there are a lot of publicly available articles on the subject. The results are basically universally in favour of speed enforcement reducing motor vehicle collisions, reducing injury and cost.

throwaway9832 1y ago
[flagged]
- franga2000 1y ago
  Where did anyone say that??? As for trucks having the same speed limit as cars in general: 1) a lot of the time there is a lower limit, 2) the truck itself has a lower max highway speed, 3) there a far fewer trucks on the road so it doesn't matter a much, 4) they are driven by professional drivers with things like electronically enforced daily driving limits, so many of the common causes of accidents are less likely.
  - throwaway9832 1y ago
    The legislation in the Anglosphere countries? Are you slow? Where in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, UK, Canada, or even most of US can you go 10 km/h over speed limit and not get fined? For your other points. 1. Where? other than steep grades, differential speed is not a thing. 2. Where again? Which trucks? Majority of trucks can do highway speed just fine, despite their 3 to 10x stopping distance. 3. Fewer tracks where? Most of Australia and New Zealand runs on trucks. But even if they're rare, truck accidents over 60 are often fatal due to their weight and energy. 4. Professional drivers can't adjust the laws of physics. Stopping distance is stopping distance.
    - franga2000 1y ago
      You were replying to a comment saying "studies have shown lower speed limits reduce accidents" with something along the lines of "but who cares if I go 10 over the limit, trucks have more mass and are more dangerous at the same speed". I can't even see your original comment since it was flagged, presumably for being total nonsense. This is not one vs the other, multiple things can be true. Trucks are individually more dangerous than cars. There are far more cars than trucks on basically every road basically everywhere. Cars are driven by any idiot in all kinds of situations, trucks are driven by professionals during their regulated working hours.
      - throwaway9832 1y ago
        I reply because "studies have show that claims of studies have show are often false". There is absolutely zero chance any respectable study would support that focusing on maintaining exactly 110 km in a 110km is safer than allowing a 10% buffer (going 10km over) so you can focus on the road and spend more of your attention on spatial awareness than staring at the odometer. Second, it is not about "who cares", it is about road design, a road that is up to standards of allowing a b-double doing 110km means a smaller car can safety do 140km or more. It is exactly one way or the other. It is either unsafe for B-Double to do 110km or a small modern car to do 140km. It is simple laws of physics. You can't see my original comment, so opt to make some nonsense assumptions to feel good about yourself. By God,this place is a cesspit of arrogance.
        franga2000 1y ago
        Nobody claimed any study found that zero percent speed tolerance is beneficial. They said speed limits in general. You're arguing against something nobody ever said. And no, it's not strictly "if a truck can safely do X then a car can do X+Y. It's not just about physics. There are more cars than trucks, so speed limits matter more for cars. A truck getting into a crash is worse, but less likely. Trucks also already have lower limits in many places, so this isn't even relevant in most places. Here, truck speed limits: https://dhl-freight-connections.com/en/business/truck-speed-limits-europe/ https://dhl-freight-connections.com/en/business/truck-speed-...
        throwaway9832 1y ago
        [flagged]
        franga2000 1y ago
        We're not talking about driving risk per km, that's not what laws are here tp prevent. They're here to reduce the number of accidents, injuries, fatalities... And you're the one who brought "anglosphere" into the mix. And specifically in the UK, there seems to also be a lower speed limit for trucks: https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits You're the one rambling off topic. You're the one calling people names. You're the one everyone is flagging. Log off and take a look in the mirror, you might find that I'm not the one "completely disconnected"
bluescrn 1y ago
Zero MPH = zero traffic = zero road deaths. But without transport significantly more people will die from other things, due to reduced access to healthcare, employment, food, etc. In a modern society, road transport is a critical part of our life support system. Those pushing for a what they see as a car-free utopia tend to ignore this.
- exe34 1y ago
  It's almost as if a balance could be achieved, both by reducing the number of cars and increasing the number of trains/busses.
  - rwyinuse 1y ago
    Yep. Something worth considering is also building long-term parking spaces to the outskirts of cities, accessible with public transport. I know lots of city-dwellers who pretty much never use a car for intra-city transport, but need to own one anyway to reach other important places that are beyond reach of public transport. In case of Finland summer cottages are one such case. They're extremely common, and located in areas that usually have no public transport. Lots of people have also older relatives who live in middle of nothing.
    - hdgvhicv 1y ago
      Surely car hire would make more sense for that type of usage
      - rwyinuse 1y ago
        It's pretty common for people to stay in their summer cottages for a week or more, several times a summer. Renting a car for all that time gets very expensive, and it will be just sitting idle most of the time. At that point you may as well just buy a cheap used car for the same yearly cost. The need for car ownership would plummet if we had self-driving cars that can autonomously drive back to the city, and to pick you up from the countryside.
  - 1y ago
IshKebab 1y ago
> The results are basically universally in favour of speed enforcement reducing motor vehicle collisions, reducing injury and cost. Yeah this argument comes up a lot in the UK from people advocating 20mph speed limits everywhere. It's a super dumb argument though. Obviously increasing speed is never going to decrease danger. But if "slower is safer" is the only argument for 20mph then the logical conclusion is 0mph. Clearly there are other factors at play, but the 20mph people never acknowledge that for some reason... (To be clear I'm not advocating for 30mph everywhere. I feel like 25mph is actually the best trade-off for most suburban roads.)
- rtpg 1y ago
  I think we do in practice apply 0mph (i.e. banning cars) in some major cities, turning roads into pedestrian areas! 0mph happens! It's obviously a trade between various participants, who have their own interests. 30km/h limits have had good success. If people think the number of fatalities is a problem, there's a solution waiting for you.
- graemep 1y ago
  My problem with the 20mph speed limits in the UK is that they seem to be imposed fairly randomly. There are many cases where wide roads with good visibility and few pedestrians crossing have 20mph limits. In one egregious case I experienced recently near identical stretches of the same road (it was a main road, I think an A road, passing through a built up area) switched between 20 and 30 mph limits. If anything it created a significant distraction keeping track of the limits. There are a number of other roads like that have 20mph limits. On the other hand narrower side roads in the same areas has 30mph limits. My road has a 20mph limit. On the bit I live on it makes no difference - narrower, parked cars etc. means you drive very slow anyway. Further down the road is broader and clearer. I think the reason maybe to encourage people to use the bypass instead of driving through the village so it may be reasoned- although I suspect the speed bumps are more effective at doing that.
  - Mawr 1y ago
    > There are many cases where wide roads with good visibility and few pedestrians crossing have 20mph limits. > My road has a 20mph limit. On the bit I live on it makes no difference - narrower, parked cars etc. means you drive very slow anyway. Make up your mind ;)

throwaway9832 1y ago

[flagged]

franga2000 1y ago
Where did anyone say that??? As for trucks having the same speed limit as cars in general: 1) a lot of the time there is a lower limit, 2) the truck itself has a lower max highway speed, 3) there a far fewer trucks on the road so it doesn't matter a much, 4) they are driven by professional drivers with things like electronically enforced daily driving limits, so many of the common causes of accidents are less likely.
- throwaway9832 1y ago
  The legislation in the Anglosphere countries? Are you slow? Where in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, UK, Canada, or even most of US can you go 10 km/h over speed limit and not get fined? For your other points. 1. Where? other than steep grades, differential speed is not a thing. 2. Where again? Which trucks? Majority of trucks can do highway speed just fine, despite their 3 to 10x stopping distance. 3. Fewer tracks where? Most of Australia and New Zealand runs on trucks. But even if they're rare, truck accidents over 60 are often fatal due to their weight and energy. 4. Professional drivers can't adjust the laws of physics. Stopping distance is stopping distance.
  - franga2000 1y ago
    You were replying to a comment saying "studies have shown lower speed limits reduce accidents" with something along the lines of "but who cares if I go 10 over the limit, trucks have more mass and are more dangerous at the same speed". I can't even see your original comment since it was flagged, presumably for being total nonsense. This is not one vs the other, multiple things can be true. Trucks are individually more dangerous than cars. There are far more cars than trucks on basically every road basically everywhere. Cars are driven by any idiot in all kinds of situations, trucks are driven by professionals during their regulated working hours.
    - throwaway9832 1y ago
      I reply because "studies have show that claims of studies have show are often false". There is absolutely zero chance any respectable study would support that focusing on maintaining exactly 110 km in a 110km is safer than allowing a 10% buffer (going 10km over) so you can focus on the road and spend more of your attention on spatial awareness than staring at the odometer. Second, it is not about "who cares", it is about road design, a road that is up to standards of allowing a b-double doing 110km means a smaller car can safety do 140km or more. It is exactly one way or the other. It is either unsafe for B-Double to do 110km or a small modern car to do 140km. It is simple laws of physics. You can't see my original comment, so opt to make some nonsense assumptions to feel good about yourself. By God,this place is a cesspit of arrogance.
      - franga2000 1y ago
        Nobody claimed any study found that zero percent speed tolerance is beneficial. They said speed limits in general. You're arguing against something nobody ever said. And no, it's not strictly "if a truck can safely do X then a car can do X+Y. It's not just about physics. There are more cars than trucks, so speed limits matter more for cars. A truck getting into a crash is worse, but less likely. Trucks also already have lower limits in many places, so this isn't even relevant in most places. Here, truck speed limits: https://dhl-freight-connections.com/en/business/truck-speed-limits-europe/ https://dhl-freight-connections.com/en/business/truck-speed-...
        throwaway9832 1y ago
        [flagged]
        franga2000 1y ago
        We're not talking about driving risk per km, that's not what laws are here tp prevent. They're here to reduce the number of accidents, injuries, fatalities... And you're the one who brought "anglosphere" into the mix. And specifically in the UK, there seems to also be a lower speed limit for trucks: https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits You're the one rambling off topic. You're the one calling people names. You're the one everyone is flagging. Log off and take a look in the mirror, you might find that I'm not the one "completely disconnected"

bluescrn 1y ago

Zero MPH = zero traffic = zero road deaths. But without transport significantly more people will die from other things, due to reduced access to healthcare, employment, food, etc. In a modern society, road transport is a critical part of our life support system. Those pushing for a what they see as a car-free utopia tend to ignore this.

exe34 1y ago
It's almost as if a balance could be achieved, both by reducing the number of cars and increasing the number of trains/busses.
- rwyinuse 1y ago
  Yep. Something worth considering is also building long-term parking spaces to the outskirts of cities, accessible with public transport. I know lots of city-dwellers who pretty much never use a car for intra-city transport, but need to own one anyway to reach other important places that are beyond reach of public transport. In case of Finland summer cottages are one such case. They're extremely common, and located in areas that usually have no public transport. Lots of people have also older relatives who live in middle of nothing.
  - hdgvhicv 1y ago
    Surely car hire would make more sense for that type of usage
    - rwyinuse 1y ago
      It's pretty common for people to stay in their summer cottages for a week or more, several times a summer. Renting a car for all that time gets very expensive, and it will be just sitting idle most of the time. At that point you may as well just buy a cheap used car for the same yearly cost. The need for car ownership would plummet if we had self-driving cars that can autonomously drive back to the city, and to pick you up from the countryside.
- 1y ago

IshKebab 1y ago

> The results are basically universally in favour of speed enforcement reducing motor vehicle collisions, reducing injury and cost. Yeah this argument comes up a lot in the UK from people advocating 20mph speed limits everywhere. It's a super dumb argument though. Obviously increasing speed is never going to decrease danger. But if "slower is safer" is the only argument for 20mph then the logical conclusion is 0mph. Clearly there are other factors at play, but the 20mph people never acknowledge that for some reason... (To be clear I'm not advocating for 30mph everywhere. I feel like 25mph is actually the best trade-off for most suburban roads.)

rtpg 1y ago
I think we do in practice apply 0mph (i.e. banning cars) in some major cities, turning roads into pedestrian areas! 0mph happens! It's obviously a trade between various participants, who have their own interests. 30km/h limits have had good success. If people think the number of fatalities is a problem, there's a solution waiting for you.
graemep 1y ago
My problem with the 20mph speed limits in the UK is that they seem to be imposed fairly randomly. There are many cases where wide roads with good visibility and few pedestrians crossing have 20mph limits. In one egregious case I experienced recently near identical stretches of the same road (it was a main road, I think an A road, passing through a built up area) switched between 20 and 30 mph limits. If anything it created a significant distraction keeping track of the limits. There are a number of other roads like that have 20mph limits. On the other hand narrower side roads in the same areas has 30mph limits. My road has a 20mph limit. On the bit I live on it makes no difference - narrower, parked cars etc. means you drive very slow anyway. Further down the road is broader and clearer. I think the reason maybe to encourage people to use the bypass instead of driving through the village so it may be reasoned- although I suspect the speed bumps are more effective at doing that.
- Mawr 1y ago
  > There are many cases where wide roads with good visibility and few pedestrians crossing have 20mph limits. > My road has a 20mph limit. On the bit I live on it makes no difference - narrower, parked cars etc. means you drive very slow anyway. Make up your mind ;)