Other places have introduced the same limit and haven't seen the same results.
People who are likely to have crashes are likely to be able who ignore the limit. One of the biggest problems in modern policy-making is the introduction of wide-ranging, global policies to tackle a local problem (one place that introduced this limit was Wales, they introduced this limit impacting everyone...but don't do anything about the significant and visible increase in the numbers of people driving without a licence which is causing more accidents...and, ironically, making their speed limit changes look worse than they probably are).
Sure, but it's also paved with bad intentions, and neutral intentions. I would say that intentions have very little effect on the overall outcome of actions in general. Also good and bad are relative.
I would say that the road to outcomes are paved with actions. Not as pithy as the original though.
Great news, good on them. Not only does this make their lives better and safer, but it can help many other cities. Sometimes just knowing that something is possible is enough for people to achieve it.
Great, scooters are much less likely to kill pedestrians during collisions. I'm glad more people who didn't actually need 2 ton metal boxes are downsizing to something more practical.
So Helsinki city center is at 21km/h travel speeds, metro area at 31km/h. A speed limit of 30 km/h doesn't really affect these travel times much.
I can't find 2023 data to compare, however by other data on the net these are very common average speeds for any city in Europe even those with plenty of 50 km/h speed limits.
If more people take up public transport, bikes or scooters in fear of an average travel speed reduction of 1-2 km/h - that is a total win for everyone involved including drivers.
A 30 km/h limit and decline in driving means zero people have to die. If enforcing scooters meant zero people have to die, I'm not sure what the objection is, truly.
Scooters kill people too (often the drivers themselves but not always).
The problem with escooters is that basically any accident is "bad" since you have no protection while you toodle along at 15.5mph. Not just slamming into the ground, but into street furniture, trees, building, bikes - you name it. A helmet (which no one wears) is not going to help you if you wrap your abdomen around a solid metal bench at 15.5mph. The real world has a lot of hard sticky-out bits (and perhaps ironically cars don't due to crash testing rules, so I guess crash I to a stationary car is your best bet)
> More than half of Helsinki’s streets now have speed limits of 30 km/h. Fifty years ago, the majority were limited to 50 km/h.
So they hurt quality of life by making it more painful to get anywhere, taking time away from everyone’s lives. You can achieve no traffic deaths by slowing everyone to a crawl. That doesn’t make it useful or good. The goal should be fast travel times and easy driving while also still reducing injuries, which newer safety technologies in cars will achieve.
> Cooperation between city officials and police has increased, with more automated speed enforcement
Mass surveillance under the ever present and weak excuse of “safety”.
As someone who lives and regularly drives in Helsinki, I feel that most kilometers I drive are on roads that allow 80km/h. The 30km/h limits are mostly in residential areas, close to schools and the city center (where traffic is the limiting factor and it's better to take the public transit).
So while 30km/h might be the limit for most of the roads, you mostly run into those only in the beginnings and ends of trips.
The below article is in Norwegian, but has many references at the end. Apparently people are overwhelmingly happy, so it seems inappropriate to talk about «hurting quality of life».
> So they hurt quality of life by making it more painful to get anywhere
No, they only made it more painful to get into the city streets by car. And probably not by much, as it only matters if you are not stuck in traffic or waiting at a red light. Helsinki is a walkable city with good public transport, cars are not the only option.
> Mass surveillance under the ever present and weak excuse of “safety”
Speed traps (that's probably what is talked about here) are a very targeted from of surveillance, only taking pictures of speeding vehicles. And if it results in traffic deaths going down to zero, that's not a weak excuse. Still not a fan of "automatic speed enforcement" for a variety of reasons, but mass surveillance is not one of them.
> Speed traps (that's probably what is talked about here) are a very targeted from of surveillance, only taking pictures of speeding vehicles.
Speed cameras in practice will use ALPR, and by the time the hardware capable of doing ALPR is installed, they'll then have the incentive to record every passing vehicle in a database whether it was speeding or not, and whether or not they're "allowed" to do that when the camera is initially installed.
It's like banning end-to-end encryption while promising not to do mass surveillance. Just wait a minute and you know what's coming next.
I wonder if the "5 minute city" approach would also help. Just zone the cities so that getting that burger doesn't even involve driving at all, just a brisk walk?
Have you considered there are alternative modes of transportation other than personal vehicles? Some of them are even - gasp - public transportation, and quite efficient at what you want (fast travel).
"More than half of Helsinki’s streets now have speed limits of 30 km/h."
This is the only secret.
People over speeding is what kills.
Drivers are actually calm in Helsinki, not constantly honking and slowly rolling into you in the pedestrian crossing either.
Other places have introduced the same limit and haven't seen the same results.
People who are likely to have crashes are likely to be able who ignore the limit. One of the biggest problems in modern policy-making is the introduction of wide-ranging, global policies to tackle a local problem (one place that introduced this limit was Wales, they introduced this limit impacting everyone...but don't do anything about the significant and visible increase in the numbers of people driving without a licence which is causing more accidents...and, ironically, making their speed limit changes look worse than they probably are).
I rarely hear anyone in the US honking outside of maybe the downtown of really big cities like NYC.
2 replies →
For dumb Americans like me - that 18.641 miles/hr.
That is infuriatingly slow, driving 25mph in my hometown kills me.
Probably would be fine if I was in a self driving car and could just play on my phone going that speed, but actually driving that slow would suck.
4 replies →
> People over speeding is what kills.
I'm being deliberately obtuse, but - do you have any examples of speed ever killing someone?
Stopping very suddenly will kill you. Being hit by something very fast will kill you.
At what 'over‐speed' does speed kill?
...has the government tried banning poverty? also death? Seems pretty simple way to fix everything.
Speed limits are necessary but not sufficient. Good design is also essential, as are the right incentives.
Death is not a choice. Being an idiot like you is one though.
As Hank Green said…”no one tells you when you don’t die.”
There’s several people walking around Helsinki right now who would not be had they not made safety improvements…we just don’t know who they are.
Don't let anyone tell you that better things aren't possible
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Sure, but it's also paved with bad intentions, and neutral intentions. I would say that intentions have very little effect on the overall outcome of actions in general. Also good and bad are relative.
I would say that the road to outcomes are paved with actions. Not as pithy as the original though.
I think that means intentions alone are not enough.
What are the downsides in this case?
* unnecessarily high speed limits
Great news, good on them. Not only does this make their lives better and safer, but it can help many other cities. Sometimes just knowing that something is possible is enough for people to achieve it.
for a start when someone does it, others might start realising that it's even possible and start asking for it.
Someone has to put a chart near it, describing the decline in driving in the city. When you're limited to 30kmh, you might as well get a scooter...
Great, scooters are much less likely to kill pedestrians during collisions. I'm glad more people who didn't actually need 2 ton metal boxes are downsizing to something more practical.
https://www.tomtom.com/traffic-index/ranking/ 30 km/h is equal to 20 min/10km, 50 km/h is 12 min/10km.
So Helsinki city center is at 21km/h travel speeds, metro area at 31km/h. A speed limit of 30 km/h doesn't really affect these travel times much.
I can't find 2023 data to compare, however by other data on the net these are very common average speeds for any city in Europe even those with plenty of 50 km/h speed limits.
If more people take up public transport, bikes or scooters in fear of an average travel speed reduction of 1-2 km/h - that is a total win for everyone involved including drivers.
bzzzzt WRONG taking the limit from ~30mph to ~20mph does not significantly impact overal journey times.
Yes that's probably the point. Cars kill many more people than scooters.
Not per mile driven.
A 30 km/h limit and decline in driving means zero people have to die. If enforcing scooters meant zero people have to die, I'm not sure what the objection is, truly.
Scooters kill people too (often the drivers themselves but not always).
The problem with escooters is that basically any accident is "bad" since you have no protection while you toodle along at 15.5mph. Not just slamming into the ground, but into street furniture, trees, building, bikes - you name it. A helmet (which no one wears) is not going to help you if you wrap your abdomen around a solid metal bench at 15.5mph. The real world has a lot of hard sticky-out bits (and perhaps ironically cars don't due to crash testing rules, so I guess crash I to a stationary car is your best bet)
It's a bloodbath in London.
Maybe enforce pedestrian crossings instead. Zero deaths without annoying anybody.
1 reply →
> More than half of Helsinki’s streets now have speed limits of 30 km/h. Fifty years ago, the majority were limited to 50 km/h.
So they hurt quality of life by making it more painful to get anywhere, taking time away from everyone’s lives. You can achieve no traffic deaths by slowing everyone to a crawl. That doesn’t make it useful or good. The goal should be fast travel times and easy driving while also still reducing injuries, which newer safety technologies in cars will achieve.
> Cooperation between city officials and police has increased, with more automated speed enforcement
Mass surveillance under the ever present and weak excuse of “safety”.
As someone who lives and regularly drives in Helsinki, I feel that most kilometers I drive are on roads that allow 80km/h. The 30km/h limits are mostly in residential areas, close to schools and the city center (where traffic is the limiting factor and it's better to take the public transit).
So while 30km/h might be the limit for most of the roads, you mostly run into those only in the beginnings and ends of trips.
The below article is in Norwegian, but has many references at the end. Apparently people are overwhelmingly happy, so it seems inappropriate to talk about «hurting quality of life».
https://www.tiltak.no/d-flytte-eller-regulere-trafikk/d2-reg...
It doesn't say anything about hurting quality of life of self centered assholes like the top poster - but for me that would be another win.
> So they hurt quality of life by making it more painful to get anywhere
No, they only made it more painful to get into the city streets by car. And probably not by much, as it only matters if you are not stuck in traffic or waiting at a red light. Helsinki is a walkable city with good public transport, cars are not the only option.
> Mass surveillance under the ever present and weak excuse of “safety”
Speed traps (that's probably what is talked about here) are a very targeted from of surveillance, only taking pictures of speeding vehicles. And if it results in traffic deaths going down to zero, that's not a weak excuse. Still not a fan of "automatic speed enforcement" for a variety of reasons, but mass surveillance is not one of them.
> Speed traps (that's probably what is talked about here) are a very targeted from of surveillance, only taking pictures of speeding vehicles.
Speed cameras in practice will use ALPR, and by the time the hardware capable of doing ALPR is installed, they'll then have the incentive to record every passing vehicle in a database whether it was speeding or not, and whether or not they're "allowed" to do that when the camera is initially installed.
It's like banning end-to-end encryption while promising not to do mass surveillance. Just wait a minute and you know what's coming next.
Given i'm trying to advocate for speed cameras local to me, I'd be interested in your variety of reasons if you're willing to share?
Your argument is really "I'd rather people die then drive through your city slower."????
I think the argument "I'd rather have a higher risk of dying than do this other unpleasant thing".
Which to be fair everyone does all the time (driving habits, eating habits, etc).
You could ban cars entirely. Why wouldn't you? Would you rather people die than drive cars at all?
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the parent here; I'm just saying your rebuttal is a strawman.
2 replies →
50 km/h to 30 km/h on a city commute doesn't make a substantial difference.
If you're willing to risk people dying just to get to your preferred McDonald's three minutes earlier, then the problem is you.
I wonder if the "5 minute city" approach would also help. Just zone the cities so that getting that burger doesn't even involve driving at all, just a brisk walk?
I can't see how a 20 km/h difference can't not make a difference averaged over so many commuter-miles, but I'm not a city planner or traffic engineer.
8 replies →
Google seems to suggest that the secret to fast travel in Helsinki is to take public transit.
Have you considered there are alternative modes of transportation other than personal vehicles? Some of them are even - gasp - public transportation, and quite efficient at what you want (fast travel).