> If someone could wave a wand and get every American to drive below 60 mph, roads would be safer.
That wand exists - it's called "enforce the law". Increase penalties, or decrease them if you need a revenue-neutral plan, but enforce that 60MPH is a limit, not a suggestion.
This article parrots the same concept as most speeding solutions: speed doesn't kill, only variance in speed is dangerous. That makes perfect sense. So why increase the possible variance from zero, and why let people complain about driving at the limit being too slow? If you're above the limit, _you_ are increasing the variance, and _you_ need to slow down.
> Enforcing the limits when they are artificially low helps no one except for the police.
Sufficient enforcement will, over time, reduce speed variance, which is the behavioral problem which leads to the conclusion that speed limits are "too low". So, no, increasing enforcement of limits that are "too low" based on the variance of speeds produced on those roads given present enforcement patterns helps safety in the same way as raising speed limits does, by reducing speed variance. And it does so without increasing the number of people who are driving faster than is safe for their own abilities because of traffic pressure.
Now, you might argue that the cost of enforcement or the travel time make it undesirable.
Did you even read the article? Many speed limits are not based on safety, which is the entire point of a speed limit. That's where "artificially low" comes from. 85% of people drive at a safe speed regardless of what the speed limit is. The speed limit should more closely match that safe speed.
Forcing everyone to drive at a slower speed than what's safe by force does not actually make the road safer. 100% enforcement of current speed limits would not actually make things better.
Yes, and I directly addressed it's points. Did you read my post? Because you don't seem to address what I've said, and you ignore that I've more directly dealt with the points made in the article than you do in yours.
> 85% of people drive at a safe speed regardless of what the speed limit is.
No, traffic engineers have come to the conclusion that, because speed variance is a significant source of risk, the safest speed limit (considering auto vs. auto issues only) is the 85th percentile speed of traffic on the road, which (at least with patterns of enforcement over the time the rule was found and since) seems not to vary much based on posted limits, in any case.
That's the 85th percentile rule, and it's the single most common rule for setting speed limits in the US. Its incorporated in federal guidance, its incorporated in most state laws (though with some exceptions—e.g., school zones, upper highway speed limits—in virtually all of them).
Given that the 85th percentile speed will rarely fall on exactly a convenient numbee, you'd expect nearly half of limits to be below that because of rounding, and add in some conditions which create downward departures in limited cases, and, sure, as the article body says, most (>50%) are below. But that's not the headline's "every speed limit".
Not is it clear, as I stated previously, that the 85th percentile rule is ideal for safety for mixed use. There's considerable global evidence that lower speed limits are better for that.
Suppose I am driving down a street. The sign says the limit is 60kmph. However the condition of the road is good. It's well maintained, it's nice and wide. I can clearly go faster. Say 70kmph. Most people realise this so they go faster too. Say between 65-70kmph.
But the sign clearly said 60. Further more, you know you can get ticketed. Even if the limit is artificially low and the police are doing it for revenue raising reasons, why not just slow down regardless of the conditions?
It seems irrational to me that you would go faster on a street where they enforce the limit just because the conditions are good. Why even bother risking the ticket and losing points on your license.
I drive in Sydney. There are signs well in advance of red light cameras and speed cameras. And people still speed through them. There are certain roads where I see the camera go off quite regularly. Hell, a couple of times I've seen signs, slowed to match the limit and people behind me will change lanes and speed to over take me, triggering the cameras. Sometimes I am already over the limit, and the person behind me will decide I am not over enough, change lanes and speed to overtake.
That wand exists - it's called "enforce the law". Increase penalties, or decrease them if you need a revenue-neutral plan, but enforce that 60MPH is a limit, not a suggestion.
This article parrots the same concept as most speeding solutions: speed doesn't kill, only variance in speed is dangerous. That makes perfect sense. So why increase the possible variance from zero, and why let people complain about driving at the limit being too slow? If you're above the limit, _you_ are increasing the variance, and _you_ need to slow down.