4 ms·
On highways, the 85th-percentile rule makes some sense. The evidence seems to suggest that raising speed limits slightly increases fatality rates, but not accid
by enoch_r 9y ago
On highways, the 85th-percentile rule makes some sense. The evidence seems to suggest that raising speed limits slightly increases fatality rates, but not accident rates, and doesn't have much influence on driver speed.
At the other extreme, on neighborhood streets in residential areas, the rationale for the 85th percentile rule (reducing the speed differential between cars traveling in the same direction) is absurd: these speed differentials are much lower and much less important than other speed differentials. If a car driving down my street at 30mph has trouble dealing with a car going the same direction at 20mph, it will also have trouble with the kids playing basketball in the street, or the car headed the opposite direction without room to pass, or the car backing out of a driveway, or the bike going 15mph. Conflicts between drivers headed the same direction are a non-issue on these types of streets.
And there are streets in the middle. A major commercial street in my town is four very narrow lanes (the right lane is actually less wide than a city bus, so when a bus is traveling the same direction you must enter the oncoming lane if you try to pass), with very small blocks, crosswalks at every intersection, tons of pedestrians and cyclists, tons of cars turning left across traffic, etc. Should this be set at the 85th percentile speed? Although it's more debatable, again, I don't think that the speed differential between cars traveling the same direction is likely to be a major contributor to fatal accidents here--on a busy urban street like this the danger is much more likely to arise from the speed differential between pedestrians and cars, a car turning left and an oncoming car, cyclists and cars, etc.
- notahacker 9y agoNot to mention that one of the main reasons for speed limits typically being 30mph or lower in urban areas even where the roads are fairly easy to drive on is those kids playing basketball in the street or cyclist are much more likely to survive an impact even if the driver isn't able to anticipate and avoid it than at 40mph, when they have a 95% chance of being killed (it's 95% chance of survival at 20mph) Obviously this applies less to country roads where pedestrians are rarely encountered, speed limits are well over 40mph and drivers often should be paying more attention to the bends ahead of them than the notional speed limit when judging how fast to go anyway.
- panic 9y agoAs the article says, people won't slow down just because you posted a lower limit. A better way to protect these children would be to change the design of the road (this report seems to be a good overview of ways to do this: https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/216727/muarc298.pdf https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/216727/mu...).
- hvidgaard 9y agoIn the last 20 years Denmark have had focus on doing this in villages along main roads. Before it was normal to see cars on through the village with 100kmh, now they'll crash if they try to do that, because on entry and exit in the village there is a chicane.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> The evidence seems to suggest that raising speed limits slightly increases fatality rates, but not accident rates Accident rates are only a concern because of harms from accidents, including, most especially, fatalities.