4 ms·

Automated enforcement of speed limit violations would be fine, as long as our speed limits were adjusted for strict enforcement versus human enforcement. Almos

Automated enforcement of speed limit violations would be fine, as long as our speed limits were adjusted for strict enforcement versus human enforcement. Almost everyone will drive 35-40 in a 30, but you could make a case that anyone breaking 45-50mph for more than a few seconds should automatically get a ticket. Even better, the automated enforcement could account for actual danger, using road conditions, traffic density, and pedestrians: you can do 15+ if the road is empty, but you had better slow way down for a stroller in the crosswalk, etc.

revelation 10y ago
Every speeder ever thinks they can speed until, well, they can't. As air drag increases quadratically with speed so does kinetic energy and pedestrian survival rates in a collision rapidly approach 0% for speeds above even 25 mph. So no, widespread violation of speed limits is not in fact an argument towards allowing the violation of speed limits. Most countries are already much more lenient here than physical reality allows for.
- oconnore 10y ago
  I think you're talking about something else, because we should be designing for pedestrians to not be hit by cars, not making sure that pedestrians might survive the impact. At the same time, limiting modern cars to 25 mph everywhere is ridiculous. In some high density locations, that might mean strictly enforcing a 15mph limit instead of loosely enforcing a 10mph limit, building bike lanes, public transport, pedestrian bridges, and guarded crosswalks, etc.
  - revelation 10y ago
    I'm sure we can do both. It was you who suggested being lenient on people going 35-40 mph in a 30 zone; 30 suggests the likelihood of encountering pedestrians, hence the mention of the survival rate. I'm quite with you on what we can do in high density locations, but I think you have not quite thought it through. In high density locations, there should simply not be any cars. The huge compromises are not justified where pedestrians outnumber them 5:1 anyways.
    - closeparen 10y ago
      Let's be clear that what you're saying is, "In high density locations, there shouldn't be anyone who won't pay the rent to live within walking distance."
stronglikedan 10y ago
> Almost everyone will drive 35-40 in a 30 I used to, until I learned this [0]: > If someone is hit by a car at 40 mph they are 90% likely to be killed. > If someone is hit by a car at 30 mph they are 50% likely to be killed. > If someone is hit by a car at 20 mph they are 10% likely to be killed. [0]http://www.safespeed.org.uk/killspeed.html http://www.safespeed.org.uk/killspeed.html
- purple-again 10y ago
  I've never seen this before and you honestly just changed my behavior with these facts. Thanks for sharing this.
- colanderman 10y ago
  Funny, that site's an anti-speed camera site.
- closeparen 10y ago
  This is a great reason not to speed in residential or downtown areas where there are pedestrians around. We're most likely to get speed cameras on major roads and freeways, where pedestrians are rare to nonexistent and have no expectation of being yielded to, as you might with a crosswalk on a 25mph road.

revelation 10y ago

Every speeder ever thinks they can speed until, well, they can't. As air drag increases quadratically with speed so does kinetic energy and pedestrian survival rates in a collision rapidly approach 0% for speeds above even 25 mph. So no, widespread violation of speed limits is not in fact an argument towards allowing the violation of speed limits. Most countries are already much more lenient here than physical reality allows for.

oconnore 10y ago
I think you're talking about something else, because we should be designing for pedestrians to not be hit by cars, not making sure that pedestrians might survive the impact. At the same time, limiting modern cars to 25 mph everywhere is ridiculous. In some high density locations, that might mean strictly enforcing a 15mph limit instead of loosely enforcing a 10mph limit, building bike lanes, public transport, pedestrian bridges, and guarded crosswalks, etc.
- revelation 10y ago
  I'm sure we can do both. It was you who suggested being lenient on people going 35-40 mph in a 30 zone; 30 suggests the likelihood of encountering pedestrians, hence the mention of the survival rate. I'm quite with you on what we can do in high density locations, but I think you have not quite thought it through. In high density locations, there should simply not be any cars. The huge compromises are not justified where pedestrians outnumber them 5:1 anyways.
  - closeparen 10y ago
    Let's be clear that what you're saying is, "In high density locations, there shouldn't be anyone who won't pay the rent to live within walking distance."

stronglikedan 10y ago

> Almost everyone will drive 35-40 in a 30 I used to, until I learned this [0]: > If someone is hit by a car at 40 mph they are 90% likely to be killed. > If someone is hit by a car at 30 mph they are 50% likely to be killed. > If someone is hit by a car at 20 mph they are 10% likely to be killed. [0]http://www.safespeed.org.uk/killspeed.html http://www.safespeed.org.uk/killspeed.html

purple-again 10y ago
I've never seen this before and you honestly just changed my behavior with these facts. Thanks for sharing this.
colanderman 10y ago
Funny, that site's an anti-speed camera site.
closeparen 10y ago
This is a great reason not to speed in residential or downtown areas where there are pedestrians around. We're most likely to get speed cameras on major roads and freeways, where pedestrians are rare to nonexistent and have no expectation of being yielded to, as you might with a crosswalk on a 25mph road.