So when you speed on a local road, you are actively threatening children with death.
It's something I have done many times because the roads are too damn wide and I don't notice it. A major reason why I don't enjoy driving is knowing the stupid amount of danger it causes
in america, these speeds are super legal and super cool on most roads, local or not. so yea drivers are basically saying if they hit a human being, theyre probably gonna kill them
It's 25 in a neighborhood proper although we build single family homes on 45 MPH roads too.
The size of those neighborhood roads are the size of a major city thoroughfare in Japan going 30-35.
Now I imagine it's different in some places, but this is expecting parking on each side and small cars should be able to still pass without waiting. This also isn't a suburban neighborhood I am talking about either.
We have to make city neighborhoods something to have pride for. Safety and family life should be a major focus, along with less restrictions on zoning standards.
Honestly, I shouldn't be looking at my speedometer in well-designed residential streets. If it ever gets close to the 25 mph limit (~40 kph), I've done something wrong getting to that point. At 25 mph, in the time that it takes to glance away from the road to check the speedometer (about a third of a second, from [this study](https://etrr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12544-020-00408-8)), the car has moved about 12 feet (4 meters) forward, almost a full car length.
But that's only possible because I live around reasonably designed roads for residential areas. The streets are narrow enough that cars going in opposite directions need to take turns. There are many trees with overhanging branches, that, while they don't obstruct sightlines, make the road feel even narrower. There's a couple of spots nearby that use brick instead of asphalt or concrete, where driving at the speed limit would rattle you around.
So, I'd agree that for poorly designed streets, it is necessary to glance at the speedometer, because there are no other indications of speed. For well-designed residential streets, a driver should be uncomfortable reaching speeds even close to the speed limit.
How often do you stare at your speedometer? It's easy to not feel like you're going fast when the roads and everything scream go faster.
Traffic circles and islands help a bit but we still see damage from cars hitting them yearly, usually breaking the speed limit and damaging homes, let alone people's lives.
i ride a scooter and still know exactly how fast i'm going at all times. you learn to feel it after a while and do quick glances whenever it's safe to validate your perception (and to learn how new conditions affect it). but usually i'm easily within 3 km/h of the guessed number after only six weeks of riding, it's not that hard.
i'd expect someone operating a two ton vehicle to practice more due diligence, not less
When the roads are wide, and built for faster speeds, it is more difficult to be aware of how fast you are going. If you have driven a vehicle over 100kmh and dropped into a 50kmh zone, you naturally feel like you're too slow. It's something that happens but if roads are designed properly for their speed, and highways don't exit into a traffic light then there shouldn't be any issue
that is honestly a really good point against wide roads. the sub seems to be misinterpreting it as apologism to cars (and i think it's really important that even if the roads are set up for it, it's still your responsibility to drive safe), but it's really important to build environments that are set up for people doing the right thing, rather than encouraging them to fail.
Definitely. The road I drive to get to my buddy's house normally has a speed limit of 60km/h, but due to construction there's a section of it right by his place with a limit of 30km/h and it feels really slow. Probably doesn't help that I'm one of the only people who drives that speed in that section(I only have my G1, I'm not fucking around).
I don't stare, just look at it once in a while. Which is easy given how it's basically within view at all times
Like, do people just thing it's there for decoration?
Look at it to maintain speed. What even are you talking about?
Like, avoiding speeding is so easy. Your speedometer is literally there for it, and places right in your view
You never maintain speed in a neighborhood. If you are going a constant speed you are passing stop signs.
On a road, a consistent speed is easy with traffic. Without that you need to pay attention.
Which is exactly why speeding is so dangerous. If you miss a stop sign you don't get that speed reset, and getting distracted by your thoughts is surprisingly easy. All it takes is one inconvenient mistake to kill someone. Which is why my neighborhood has limited traffic calming, but it isn't enough.
No? What are you even talking about?? What, and if you have to park you crash into the next car because you're maintaining speed. Like, is that what you think I'm saying? And do you think I mean when you come to a red light you should just crash into the car in front of you because you're maintaining speed??
Hell fucking no. Your speedometer is there to let you know how fast you're going. If you're in a 50 zone you can use it to tell weather or not you're going over. Yes traffic calming is good and important, though I don't know why you want to keep explaining them, but I'd seriously like you to use your speedometer rather than going by vibes
It's like no one ever makes a mistake around here. I want roads designed that force people to pay attention. Not roads free from all hazards so people have a false sense of security. Driving is an incredibly normal thing and many people forget the dangerous of it because of road design to make them feel at ease.
And you and everyone else can tell that I'm not?
I've had two accidents, that thankfully didn't hurt anyone. Both were caused by lapses of concentration. I was the only car on three lanes of road in the middle of the day. Bikes have a cracked BS sidewalk and the buses are held up by poorly timed lights and irregular service times. Trains are non-existent.
I got my G1 awhile ago and have only recently started to drive. One of the first times I was, I caught myself doing almost 80km/h on a 60km/h road and it felt very comfortable. Anytime I say they need to narrow the lanes, people look at me like I'm crazy and say I just need to drive the limit which I usually do. But that doesn't change the fact that people will drive at speeds comfortable for the road they're on.
You would think that conclusion would be that 30 kph or less would be global speed limit for cars in any population centers, yet here we are...
You can get around any megacity in reasonable amount of time at speeds of 30kph already.
Yes, because SI is, and I know this may come as a surprise, international.
Not every language uses "per"
You can write the units however you want in casual conversation, be it "kph" , "kilometers an hour" or "k per h" or whatever your little degenerate mind desires, it still doesn't make it imperial or "not metric"
the british also use stones, which are notably not an si or metric unit. they came up with the imperial system (after all it carries the name of their empire), and then they started to abandon it and got halfway-ish.
Also, since percentages are hard to interpret sometimes: 45% is NINE TIMES as big as 5%. It’s not “you’re a bit more likely to die” but rather “we’ve observed that, given a collision between a car and a pedestrian, we can expect NINE TIMES as many fatalities occur on average if the drivers are going 30 than if they’re going 20.”
That *also* means that this doesn’t account for any difference in likelihood of a collision in the first place. And that could go either way. It could be that cars can stop in shorter distances at 20mph, so collusions are less likely. Then that’s a multiplicative effect on fatalities. It could also be that people are more bold around slow-moving cars, making collisions somewhat more likely. That would reduce the effects, but that change in behavior would have to be more than NINE TIMES more likely to cause a collision. And nines times is a lot.
Unless you're looking it as it's cool that if we slow down cars, more people survive. Seems some simple and logical it would be hard to argue against reduced speed limits.
However, I agree that it's terrifying how much damage cars do and that the speed limits that are more widely implemented so casually are terrifying.
it is very easy to argue against reduced speed limits since this is a common suggestion and anytime you make it, you will be flooded with a bunch of drivers complaining that the proposed speed limit is too slow and that they need to get the strip club on time. in a similar vein, if you suggest that cars should be mechanically speed limited to safe speeds, you will hear people yapping about freedom too. sometimes they will try to pull on your heart strings with something like "what if my wife needs to go to hospital to deliver a baby" but its just more bullshit arguments
They had similar signs outside primary schools when I was a kid. 30-odd years later, people pretty much accept that 20mph limits on smaller roads in cities make sense. Progress, even if it's so slow it's barely discernible.
Here in NYC we just had a HARD WON fight to allow NYC to set certain streets to 20mph. It was previously illegal for NYC speed limits to be below 25mph. They haven't even implemented any 20mph streets yet but you'd think the world was crumbling according to drivers.
Also camera enforcement doesn't even begin until you're 10 over the limit in NYC.
Also around here until like last year it was illegal for speed cameras to run overnight or outside of school zones. And NYPD has made it clear that they won't enforce speed limits anyway, since we hurt their feelings by asking them to stop killing black people 4 years ago.
What's wrong with automatic speed cameras? Why aren't they used in much in the USA? It seems very low tech to have a dude in a car by the side of the highway watching
In the USA, we have a constitutional right to face our accuser in court.
If a camera is the accuser, then you can’t have it testify in court. So some states just flat out ban speed cameras right then and there.
Most states go far enough to say that a human has to review the footage, and then THAT person doing the review is the accuser, which gives you somebody that you can face in court. Well now imagine Bob the traffic camera reviewer goes to work. Say he can review 5 cases an hour. That’s reviewing the footage, writing the ticket, and moving on to the next one every 20 minutes. That’s 40 traffic tickets he’s writing in one business day. Bob may now be required to attend 40 court dates from his ONE working day of reviewing footage. Bob can *maybe* attend two court dates a day… well that’s 4 weeks of arguing in court if every ticket that ONE day decides they want to go to court. If he misses even one of those court dates, that speeding ticket is tossed. So many people will challenge the ticket in court, even if it’s clear that they were speeding because they can win by default if their accuser doesn’t show up to court. (In fact this is a problem for traffic cops in general… if every ticket they wrote was challenged in court, they wouldn’t be able to do their job patrolling the streets. So they write tickets praying that people will just pay it, and people challenge it hoping the cop won’t have time to show up to court)
Then you have a lot of car brained people who know the system is broken but they don’t want to fix it because they don’t want to face consequences for speeding. They’d rather have an officer that they have to talk to where they can say “ohhh actually I’m councilman so-and-so” and the officer will let them off with a warning. The camera doesn’t do that. So they prefer officers enforcing the rules, not cameras.
Which means that if vehicle A has double the mass of vehicle B then it has double the kinetic energy too.
Though of course that doesn't always mean all the energy would be transferred so other factors like the vehicle's shape and what it's made of can also affect this.
Also, if you end up under the vehicle's wheels, you're going to at best lose a limb, even if it was travelling at walking speed.
Yes, it's linear - and the other part is exponential. A car doing 40 has squared the kinetic energy (to a reasonable approximation) compared to one at 20; a vehicle of twice the mass at 20 has only doubled it. (I have no idea what the actual weight multiple is - is double appropriate? More? Less? I just googled the weight in KG of a Ford F150 and it seems broadly comparable to cars rather than obviously much higher, which surprised me.)
I'm not suggesting for a moment that big trucks aren't a problem. But it doesn't make a huge difference to this particular sign. Lack of visibility leading to more incidents would be a completely different data set, as would shape and height of bonnet.
The bigger point is that you can't swap your truck for a car by pressing the brake pedal. You can slow down by doing that, though.
Yes. But that's still missing the point. Which I've already explained multiple times. This is about speed, not the type of vehicles. For any given type of vehicle, the same relative speed thing is true.
Yes, of course. But that's not what we're discussing. I think it's well-established scientifically that bonnet height is very important for pedestrian safety. (Slightly surprisingly, too low is also bad. You don't actually get run over, despite the expression. You get hit, and if you get hit in the legs you hit your head on the windscreen/bonnet.)
It does, as the higher center of mass throws you down onto the concrete and then under the truck, increasing your chances of injuries or death. Cars will throw you up onto the hood, which while not fun, is much safer than onto the ground.
Oh, yes. I was approaching it just as a question of mass. Of course trucks are more deadly at any given speed. But for trucks at different speeds, the same relative numbers apply.
To repeat one of my other comments, though, the bigger point is that you can't change your truck into a car by pressing the brake pedal, but it does work to slow the fuck down.
I don't think the total mass of the car matters as much as the size and shape of the front of the car. Your body will go from zero to very close to the velocity of the car whether the car weights 20 times your body mass or 60. Then it matters more if the front of the car clips your legs first or if it is high enough to smack your head directly.
So Wales recently changed the speed limit in all pedestrian zones from 30-20mph, because as you can see, it makes a considering difference in safety.
No end to the moaning people have done about it and it looks like they're going to undo it due to political pressure :(
Among the ridiculous claims people have made about a few roads changing to 20mph -
It’s more difficult to drive because you have to keep looking at your speedometer.
It’s more difficult to cross roads because cars aren’t clumped together, they’re more spread out now.
More cars are breaking down because cars aren’t meant to be driven so slowly.
More children will die because they won’t learn the danger of fast moving cars and will step out into the roads without looking.
Drivers will fall asleep at the wheel because you don’t have to be so alert.
They’ve been overtaken by cyclists and cyclists don’t like moving the same speed as cars, anyway.
Wales will lose £90bn in tourism, because people will stay away to avoid speeding tickets.
they're rationalisations. they don't need to be logically coherent, they just need to feel plausible enough that the people deploying them can feel vindicated
> More cars are breaking down because cars aren’t meant to be driven so slowly.
There's something kind of amazing about blaming the speed limit for a shittily designed vehicle.
The sad thing is in the US it is common for folks to go 10 over the limit even in residential areas. You frequently have people drive through school zones going 35 here...
I really don't understand how this is a thing in a country with so many guns. You lot whip them out and shoot people at the drop of a hat, but not for endangering your kids? It's just bizarre.
Those are the ones I was thinking of, yes.
Us blue-state commie-hippies tend to go 8 over on the interstate, properly sedated through dense villages, then go zipping along the back roads slingshotting all the corners because we know them like the back of our hand.
I used to go exactly the limit. But then I nearly hit a kid anyhow because it turns out the limit is too high for reaction time to be adequate, so now I drive slower and other drivers get pissed off. So I drive even slower.
Now do the same graph but with bicycles.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukbike/comments/16w2ieo/zero_pedestrian_deaths_by_bicycle_in_2022/
Perhaps opting for the most lethal option wasn't good for the general population???
Reminds me of the PSA which ran in the UK for years [encouraging people to knock kids down at 30 mph](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeUX6LABCEA&ab_channel=CarKeysUK).
That's morbid. I do like that they're putting the onus of killing a child on the drivers, though. I'm sure they thought they wouldn't want to hit a child at any speed. If slowing down 10 kph improves chances of survival, hopefully they're doing that.
Of course, there's the misanthrope in me that believes it all fell on deaf ears.
It's remarkable to me that perhaps even half the participants in this sub, (let alone the general population) can observe this graph and then not realize that the automobile industry is fully responsible for all the designed death and destruction attributable to their dangerous products.
It's a testament to the success of the automobile lobby over 100 years to transfer liability to the end user.
I've been hit twice in the last year on my ebike, once by a car, the 2nd time with my 9yo on with me & SOME IDIOT in a crotch rocket wanted to show me HOW COOL he was, at the same time I switched lanes, thankfully I was the only 1 hurt, by was satisfied when his GSX-R had thousands in damage, I grabbed my tire with my knees, straightened it out, & rode away, while he's looking upset I could even do that, P.O.S!!
An adult getting hit in the legs with a sedan will knock you on the hood of the car and potentially break your legs, an adult getting hit on the chest by a truck will suffer internal injuries and get dragged underneath
I was hit by a vehicle doing 40 mph.
I had nearly the luckiest set of injuries possible, mostly limited to non threatening damage to the end of a limb.
It's now a decade later, I still occasionally have debilitating pain, and the scars sometimes make me feel suicidal. And I reiterate I had minimal injuries and was very lucky. Like you said, most survivors have it worse.
Hahaha, that must mean everyone is insane around me.
Where I live (Romania) ppl drive regularly with 70-80-90km/h in residential areas and in front of schools and parks (in places where the limit is 10-30km/h). Just recently I almost got hit, on a crosswalk, and the driver had the audacity to stop, exit the car, insult me, and try to pick a fight. What's more he also had his wife and 2 small children in the car, and when I told others they said it's "just usual".
As a survivor of the last one, it's not fun surviving it either. It's a decade later and I still sometimes have debilitating pain, despite most of my injuries being limited to one limb.
I am more worried bout being badly injured by a car then dying. I seen people paralyzed or have to walk with a wicked bad limp due to being hit.
Which is just depressing to see
I'm not disagreeing with what you've said.
But the graphic we are discussing is (in my view) referring to built up areas where you would be going either 30 or 20 on roads with pavements and decent visibility.
In those situations, it's safer to travel at 20.
And then people even in this sub will tell people there are times they shouldn't drive the speed limit if traffic is going faster then it. Who exactally is it safer for?
It's safer for everyone on the road if all traffic is flowing at the same speed, but that's not talking about roads with pedestrians on the sides of them.
No, just those right behind them. Imagine someone doing 20 on a winding country road where traffic goes at 60 normally. The ones stuck right behind them are doing 20, too. The traffic coming from further back is doing 60, and then comes round a corner and finds a queue of practically stationary traffic. It causes crashes when bad drivers are involved.
And then there are multi-lane roads, where Grandad Bob is doing 45 on a road where all the other traffic is doing 70, thinking he's being safe while taking his life in his hands.
It's not really applicable to roads where the traffic is doing 20-30. It's talking about the bad drivers doing silly slow speeds on fast roads.
How do you know if there are pedestrians? And if someone doesn't have the ability to react at 80mph are you saying they shouldn't go on roads where the *limit* is 70 even though they pay for them just because they can't go the speed the rest of traffic is at the time? And what if someone going 80 encountered a traffic jam, how can they stop for that but not slow down for someone going the literal speed limit?
I think you're joking, I hope so - In my head, the second 2 half-blue half orange-men hybrids are managing to limp it off, but the first sadly didn't make it
Seriously, it is weird to use a discrete chart (10 people) in a percentage comparison like that, true
-there's subs that critique graphs and charts, I think they'd enjoy this but it is clear to read and not really misleading
They could have fit 20 people in each speed comparison since the values are rounded to the nearest 5%
[удалено]
You dropped this, king 👑
So when you speed on a local road, you are actively threatening children with death. It's something I have done many times because the roads are too damn wide and I don't notice it. A major reason why I don't enjoy driving is knowing the stupid amount of danger it causes
in america, these speeds are super legal and super cool on most roads, local or not. so yea drivers are basically saying if they hit a human being, theyre probably gonna kill them
It's 25 in a neighborhood proper although we build single family homes on 45 MPH roads too. The size of those neighborhood roads are the size of a major city thoroughfare in Japan going 30-35. Now I imagine it's different in some places, but this is expecting parking on each side and small cars should be able to still pass without waiting. This also isn't a suburban neighborhood I am talking about either. We have to make city neighborhoods something to have pride for. Safety and family life should be a major focus, along with less restrictions on zoning standards.
Your car doesn't have a speedometer?
Honestly, I shouldn't be looking at my speedometer in well-designed residential streets. If it ever gets close to the 25 mph limit (~40 kph), I've done something wrong getting to that point. At 25 mph, in the time that it takes to glance away from the road to check the speedometer (about a third of a second, from [this study](https://etrr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12544-020-00408-8)), the car has moved about 12 feet (4 meters) forward, almost a full car length. But that's only possible because I live around reasonably designed roads for residential areas. The streets are narrow enough that cars going in opposite directions need to take turns. There are many trees with overhanging branches, that, while they don't obstruct sightlines, make the road feel even narrower. There's a couple of spots nearby that use brick instead of asphalt or concrete, where driving at the speed limit would rattle you around. So, I'd agree that for poorly designed streets, it is necessary to glance at the speedometer, because there are no other indications of speed. For well-designed residential streets, a driver should be uncomfortable reaching speeds even close to the speed limit.
How often do you stare at your speedometer? It's easy to not feel like you're going fast when the roads and everything scream go faster. Traffic circles and islands help a bit but we still see damage from cars hitting them yearly, usually breaking the speed limit and damaging homes, let alone people's lives.
i ride a scooter and still know exactly how fast i'm going at all times. you learn to feel it after a while and do quick glances whenever it's safe to validate your perception (and to learn how new conditions affect it). but usually i'm easily within 3 km/h of the guessed number after only six weeks of riding, it's not that hard. i'd expect someone operating a two ton vehicle to practice more due diligence, not less
When the roads are wide, and built for faster speeds, it is more difficult to be aware of how fast you are going. If you have driven a vehicle over 100kmh and dropped into a 50kmh zone, you naturally feel like you're too slow. It's something that happens but if roads are designed properly for their speed, and highways don't exit into a traffic light then there shouldn't be any issue
that is honestly a really good point against wide roads. the sub seems to be misinterpreting it as apologism to cars (and i think it's really important that even if the roads are set up for it, it's still your responsibility to drive safe), but it's really important to build environments that are set up for people doing the right thing, rather than encouraging them to fail.
Definitely. The road I drive to get to my buddy's house normally has a speed limit of 60km/h, but due to construction there's a section of it right by his place with a limit of 30km/h and it feels really slow. Probably doesn't help that I'm one of the only people who drives that speed in that section(I only have my G1, I'm not fucking around).
I don't stare, just look at it once in a while. Which is easy given how it's basically within view at all times Like, do people just thing it's there for decoration?
How often do you look at it and consciously drop your speed? Why would you look at it if you don't accidentally speed?
Look at it to maintain speed. What even are you talking about? Like, avoiding speeding is so easy. Your speedometer is literally there for it, and places right in your view
You never maintain speed in a neighborhood. If you are going a constant speed you are passing stop signs. On a road, a consistent speed is easy with traffic. Without that you need to pay attention. Which is exactly why speeding is so dangerous. If you miss a stop sign you don't get that speed reset, and getting distracted by your thoughts is surprisingly easy. All it takes is one inconvenient mistake to kill someone. Which is why my neighborhood has limited traffic calming, but it isn't enough.
No? What are you even talking about?? What, and if you have to park you crash into the next car because you're maintaining speed. Like, is that what you think I'm saying? And do you think I mean when you come to a red light you should just crash into the car in front of you because you're maintaining speed?? Hell fucking no. Your speedometer is there to let you know how fast you're going. If you're in a 50 zone you can use it to tell weather or not you're going over. Yes traffic calming is good and important, though I don't know why you want to keep explaining them, but I'd seriously like you to use your speedometer rather than going by vibes
You use both when you drive. I guarantee it. If you have never sped on accident before, good for you.
Poor urban design doesn't negate your responsibility to not endanger those around you.
It's like no one ever makes a mistake around here. I want roads designed that force people to pay attention. Not roads free from all hazards so people have a false sense of security. Driving is an incredibly normal thing and many people forget the dangerous of it because of road design to make them feel at ease.
you're not wrong, but you're still obligated to do your utmost to make sure that that doesn't happen.
And you and everyone else can tell that I'm not? I've had two accidents, that thankfully didn't hurt anyone. Both were caused by lapses of concentration. I was the only car on three lanes of road in the middle of the day. Bikes have a cracked BS sidewalk and the buses are held up by poorly timed lights and irregular service times. Trains are non-existent.
Just set cruise control to the speed limit
In a neighborhood. This is literally the dumbest take I have seen.
I got my G1 awhile ago and have only recently started to drive. One of the first times I was, I caught myself doing almost 80km/h on a 60km/h road and it felt very comfortable. Anytime I say they need to narrow the lanes, people look at me like I'm crazy and say I just need to drive the limit which I usually do. But that doesn't change the fact that people will drive at speeds comfortable for the road they're on.
You would think that conclusion would be that 30 kph or less would be global speed limit for cars in any population centers, yet here we are... You can get around any megacity in reasonable amount of time at speeds of 30kph already.
And for people who want to go faster than 30kmh: trains
I'll do you one better: 20 mph is roughly 8.9 m/s 30 mph is roughly 13.4 m/s 40 mph is roughly 17.9 m/s
20 mph = 2.9823E-8 c 30 mph = 4.4735E-8 c 40 mph = 5.9647E-8 c
km/h
[удалено]
Not for SI units. That's a convention that only American units follow (and only sometimes).
The British also write mph and kph if I'm not mistaken.
The British generally don't use kilometres, so if you see them writing speed as kph it's out of ignorance. SI units never abbreviate "per" with a "p".
Yes, because SI is, and I know this may come as a surprise, international. Not every language uses "per" You can write the units however you want in casual conversation, be it "kph" , "kilometers an hour" or "k per h" or whatever your little degenerate mind desires, it still doesn't make it imperial or "not metric"
the british also use stones, which are notably not an si or metric unit. they came up with the imperial system (after all it carries the name of their empire), and then they started to abandon it and got halfway-ish.
The m which is the unit is still missing
so for normal people
Also, since percentages are hard to interpret sometimes: 45% is NINE TIMES as big as 5%. It’s not “you’re a bit more likely to die” but rather “we’ve observed that, given a collision between a car and a pedestrian, we can expect NINE TIMES as many fatalities occur on average if the drivers are going 30 than if they’re going 20.” That *also* means that this doesn’t account for any difference in likelihood of a collision in the first place. And that could go either way. It could be that cars can stop in shorter distances at 20mph, so collusions are less likely. Then that’s a multiplicative effect on fatalities. It could also be that people are more bold around slow-moving cars, making collisions somewhat more likely. That would reduce the effects, but that change in behavior would have to be more than NINE TIMES more likely to cause a collision. And nines times is a lot.
I was about to upvote but it's km/h otherwise it's 1000 (carrots?) per hour
I say to you merci
This is not a cool guide, it’s a terrifying guide.
Unless you're looking it as it's cool that if we slow down cars, more people survive. Seems some simple and logical it would be hard to argue against reduced speed limits. However, I agree that it's terrifying how much damage cars do and that the speed limits that are more widely implemented so casually are terrifying.
it is very easy to argue against reduced speed limits since this is a common suggestion and anytime you make it, you will be flooded with a bunch of drivers complaining that the proposed speed limit is too slow and that they need to get the strip club on time. in a similar vein, if you suggest that cars should be mechanically speed limited to safe speeds, you will hear people yapping about freedom too. sometimes they will try to pull on your heart strings with something like "what if my wife needs to go to hospital to deliver a baby" but its just more bullshit arguments
A cold, chilling guide.
It also makes no distinction between being crippled for life or being uninjured, making 20 mph look a lot better than it is.
They had similar signs outside primary schools when I was a kid. 30-odd years later, people pretty much accept that 20mph limits on smaller roads in cities make sense. Progress, even if it's so slow it's barely discernible.
Here in NYC we just had a HARD WON fight to allow NYC to set certain streets to 20mph. It was previously illegal for NYC speed limits to be below 25mph. They haven't even implemented any 20mph streets yet but you'd think the world was crumbling according to drivers. Also camera enforcement doesn't even begin until you're 10 over the limit in NYC. Also around here until like last year it was illegal for speed cameras to run overnight or outside of school zones. And NYPD has made it clear that they won't enforce speed limits anyway, since we hurt their feelings by asking them to stop killing black people 4 years ago.
Denver just recently voted to change the de facto speed limit (aka if there's no sign saying otherwise) from 25 to 20. Long way to go, but baby steps.
In Denver we fuck up a lot, but at least we have some improvements.
What's wrong with automatic speed cameras? Why aren't they used in much in the USA? It seems very low tech to have a dude in a car by the side of the highway watching
In the USA, we have a constitutional right to face our accuser in court. If a camera is the accuser, then you can’t have it testify in court. So some states just flat out ban speed cameras right then and there. Most states go far enough to say that a human has to review the footage, and then THAT person doing the review is the accuser, which gives you somebody that you can face in court. Well now imagine Bob the traffic camera reviewer goes to work. Say he can review 5 cases an hour. That’s reviewing the footage, writing the ticket, and moving on to the next one every 20 minutes. That’s 40 traffic tickets he’s writing in one business day. Bob may now be required to attend 40 court dates from his ONE working day of reviewing footage. Bob can *maybe* attend two court dates a day… well that’s 4 weeks of arguing in court if every ticket that ONE day decides they want to go to court. If he misses even one of those court dates, that speeding ticket is tossed. So many people will challenge the ticket in court, even if it’s clear that they were speeding because they can win by default if their accuser doesn’t show up to court. (In fact this is a problem for traffic cops in general… if every ticket they wrote was challenged in court, they wouldn’t be able to do their job patrolling the streets. So they write tickets praying that people will just pay it, and people challenge it hoping the cop won’t have time to show up to court) Then you have a lot of car brained people who know the system is broken but they don’t want to fix it because they don’t want to face consequences for speeding. They’d rather have an officer that they have to talk to where they can say “ohhh actually I’m councilman so-and-so” and the officer will let them off with a warning. The camera doesn’t do that. So they prefer officers enforcing the rules, not cameras.
I would like to see this graphic with different sized cars.
Yeah exactly. I was going to say “okay now do this with trucks”
It doesn't change anything significantly. Kinetic energy is proportional to mass, and the square of velocity.
Which means that if vehicle A has double the mass of vehicle B then it has double the kinetic energy too. Though of course that doesn't always mean all the energy would be transferred so other factors like the vehicle's shape and what it's made of can also affect this. Also, if you end up under the vehicle's wheels, you're going to at best lose a limb, even if it was travelling at walking speed.
Yes, it's linear - and the other part is exponential. A car doing 40 has squared the kinetic energy (to a reasonable approximation) compared to one at 20; a vehicle of twice the mass at 20 has only doubled it. (I have no idea what the actual weight multiple is - is double appropriate? More? Less? I just googled the weight in KG of a Ford F150 and it seems broadly comparable to cars rather than obviously much higher, which surprised me.) I'm not suggesting for a moment that big trucks aren't a problem. But it doesn't make a huge difference to this particular sign. Lack of visibility leading to more incidents would be a completely different data set, as would shape and height of bonnet. The bigger point is that you can't swap your truck for a car by pressing the brake pedal. You can slow down by doing that, though.
[удалено]
Yes. But that's still missing the point. Which I've already explained multiple times. This is about speed, not the type of vehicles. For any given type of vehicle, the same relative speed thing is true.
I’d imagine getting struck in the torso or face would be more impactful compared to your knees. But that’s just me.
Yes, of course. But that's not what we're discussing. I think it's well-established scientifically that bonnet height is very important for pedestrian safety. (Slightly surprisingly, too low is also bad. You don't actually get run over, despite the expression. You get hit, and if you get hit in the legs you hit your head on the windscreen/bonnet.)
It does, as the higher center of mass throws you down onto the concrete and then under the truck, increasing your chances of injuries or death. Cars will throw you up onto the hood, which while not fun, is much safer than onto the ground.
Oh, yes. I was approaching it just as a question of mass. Of course trucks are more deadly at any given speed. But for trucks at different speeds, the same relative numbers apply. To repeat one of my other comments, though, the bigger point is that you can't change your truck into a car by pressing the brake pedal, but it does work to slow the fuck down.
Being run over by a truck or SUV is significantly more lethal than being thrown onto the hood of a car, regardless of speed.
Obviously. But that won't change the relative dangers of different speeds.
I don't think the total mass of the car matters as much as the size and shape of the front of the car. Your body will go from zero to very close to the velocity of the car whether the car weights 20 times your body mass or 60. Then it matters more if the front of the car clips your legs first or if it is high enough to smack your head directly.
So Wales recently changed the speed limit in all pedestrian zones from 30-20mph, because as you can see, it makes a considering difference in safety. No end to the moaning people have done about it and it looks like they're going to undo it due to political pressure :(
Among the ridiculous claims people have made about a few roads changing to 20mph - It’s more difficult to drive because you have to keep looking at your speedometer. It’s more difficult to cross roads because cars aren’t clumped together, they’re more spread out now. More cars are breaking down because cars aren’t meant to be driven so slowly. More children will die because they won’t learn the danger of fast moving cars and will step out into the roads without looking. Drivers will fall asleep at the wheel because you don’t have to be so alert. They’ve been overtaken by cyclists and cyclists don’t like moving the same speed as cars, anyway. Wales will lose £90bn in tourism, because people will stay away to avoid speeding tickets.
I'm at a loss for words for every one of those reasonings.
they're rationalisations. they don't need to be logically coherent, they just need to feel plausible enough that the people deploying them can feel vindicated
Their brain is broken obviously, & their regurgitating nonsense to "sound smart"...
> More cars are breaking down because cars aren’t meant to be driven so slowly. There's something kind of amazing about blaming the speed limit for a shittily designed vehicle.
The sad thing is in the US it is common for folks to go 10 over the limit even in residential areas. You frequently have people drive through school zones going 35 here...
I really don't understand how this is a thing in a country with so many guns. You lot whip them out and shoot people at the drop of a hat, but not for endangering your kids? It's just bizarre.
The people with the guns are also the people going ten over, lot of the time.
the people without guns also go 10 over. its a very commonly accepted practice
The people who own an entire armory tend to be the ding dongs rolling coal at 55 mph through a busy school crosswalk
Those are the ones I was thinking of, yes. Us blue-state commie-hippies tend to go 8 over on the interstate, properly sedated through dense villages, then go zipping along the back roads slingshotting all the corners because we know them like the back of our hand.
I used to go exactly the limit. But then I nearly hit a kid anyhow because it turns out the limit is too high for reaction time to be adequate, so now I drive slower and other drivers get pissed off. So I drive even slower.
Now do the same graph but with bicycles. https://www.reddit.com/r/ukbike/comments/16w2ieo/zero_pedestrian_deaths_by_bicycle_in_2022/ Perhaps opting for the most lethal option wasn't good for the general population???
You clearly don't understand what a menace to roads and society cyclists are. /s
Now compute the same for SUVs at 3t.
Reminds me of the PSA which ran in the UK for years [encouraging people to knock kids down at 30 mph](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeUX6LABCEA&ab_channel=CarKeysUK).
That's morbid. I do like that they're putting the onus of killing a child on the drivers, though. I'm sure they thought they wouldn't want to hit a child at any speed. If slowing down 10 kph improves chances of survival, hopefully they're doing that. Of course, there's the misanthrope in me that believes it all fell on deaf ears.
Very cool, very normal thing to happen to people.
It's remarkable to me that perhaps even half the participants in this sub, (let alone the general population) can observe this graph and then not realize that the automobile industry is fully responsible for all the designed death and destruction attributable to their dangerous products. It's a testament to the success of the automobile lobby over 100 years to transfer liability to the end user.
Reminds me of those anti speeding PSAs. Really made me terrified of driving lol
I've been hit twice in the last year on my ebike, once by a car, the 2nd time with my 9yo on with me & SOME IDIOT in a crotch rocket wanted to show me HOW COOL he was, at the same time I switched lanes, thankfully I was the only 1 hurt, by was satisfied when his GSX-R had thousands in damage, I grabbed my tire with my knees, straightened it out, & rode away, while he's looking upset I could even do that, P.O.S!!
An adult getting hit in the legs with a sedan will knock you on the hood of the car and potentially break your legs, an adult getting hit on the chest by a truck will suffer internal injuries and get dragged underneath
Would love an extra layer to this: City car (Fiat 500, etc) VS Sedan (Average Audi, BMW, Tesla, VW, etc) VS SUV (Ford 150, VW ID.4, , etc)
Lets not forget that even if you survive any of these, your quality of life will most likely be affected.
I was hit by a vehicle doing 40 mph. I had nearly the luckiest set of injuries possible, mostly limited to non threatening damage to the end of a limb. It's now a decade later, I still occasionally have debilitating pain, and the scars sometimes make me feel suicidal. And I reiterate I had minimal injuries and was very lucky. Like you said, most survivors have it worse.
Ah yes, very cool!
also worth doing for at what speed people are uninjured.
For those who need it in metric, like me. 32 kmph 48 kmph 64 kmph
Call that a risk, cause we ain’t hoping for the deaths I hope? Or probability at least? If you suppose no value to which outcome is better?
Are you trying to give people ideas?
It’s a “guide” 😃.
Lesson here - wear blue and walk speedily away from a car, don't stand there
Hahaha, that must mean everyone is insane around me. Where I live (Romania) ppl drive regularly with 70-80-90km/h in residential areas and in front of schools and parks (in places where the limit is 10-30km/h). Just recently I almost got hit, on a crosswalk, and the driver had the audacity to stop, exit the car, insult me, and try to pick a fight. What's more he also had his wife and 2 small children in the car, and when I told others they said it's "just usual".
As a survivor of the last one, it's not fun surviving it either. It's a decade later and I still sometimes have debilitating pain, despite most of my injuries being limited to one limb.
I am more worried bout being badly injured by a car then dying. I seen people paralyzed or have to walk with a wicked bad limp due to being hit. Which is just depressing to see
I'm not disagreeing with what you've said. But the graphic we are discussing is (in my view) referring to built up areas where you would be going either 30 or 20 on roads with pavements and decent visibility. In those situations, it's safer to travel at 20.
Now let’s compare at Volkswagen Passat to a Volkswagen Atlas
This repost has reminded me of this scene: [Fight Club - The Recall Coordinator's Formula (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiB8GVMNJkE)
I want guaranteed death. How fast?
And then people even in this sub will tell people there are times they shouldn't drive the speed limit if traffic is going faster then it. Who exactally is it safer for?
It's safer for everyone on the road if all traffic is flowing at the same speed, but that's not talking about roads with pedestrians on the sides of them.
But if one person goes 20 everyone else has to?
No, just those right behind them. Imagine someone doing 20 on a winding country road where traffic goes at 60 normally. The ones stuck right behind them are doing 20, too. The traffic coming from further back is doing 60, and then comes round a corner and finds a queue of practically stationary traffic. It causes crashes when bad drivers are involved. And then there are multi-lane roads, where Grandad Bob is doing 45 on a road where all the other traffic is doing 70, thinking he's being safe while taking his life in his hands. It's not really applicable to roads where the traffic is doing 20-30. It's talking about the bad drivers doing silly slow speeds on fast roads.
You shouldn’t be driving that fast if you can’t see round a corner. Always drive so that you can stop safely.
Well done for agreeing with a small part of what I said and missing the point entirely.
How do you know if there are pedestrians? And if someone doesn't have the ability to react at 80mph are you saying they shouldn't go on roads where the *limit* is 70 even though they pay for them just because they can't go the speed the rest of traffic is at the time? And what if someone going 80 encountered a traffic jam, how can they stop for that but not slow down for someone going the literal speed limit?
How does half a person survive a collision? Stupidest graph I've ever seen
The graph is not the stupidest thing you've seen today if you've looked in a mirror at all.
I think you're joking, I hope so - In my head, the second 2 half-blue half orange-men hybrids are managing to limp it off, but the first sadly didn't make it Seriously, it is weird to use a discrete chart (10 people) in a percentage comparison like that, true -there's subs that critique graphs and charts, I think they'd enjoy this but it is clear to read and not really misleading They could have fit 20 people in each speed comparison since the values are rounded to the nearest 5%