I agree, but if the streets are set up accordingly, it's about as fast as you'd normally want to drive anyway.
For the standard US road with 12-foot-wide lanes and generally straight-ahead routes, 20mph does feel very slow. I've driven on some roads though where narrower lanes, winding paths, and other "traffic calming" features contribute to a sense that 20mph is a reasonable speed.
That's fine if the public transport is up to scratch, as well as the cycling infrastructure.
Where I live it's woefully inadequate making driving the only viable option for most journeys.
This has a knock on effect of making cycling down right dangerous in places, because of all the cars + relatively high speed limits, like I wouldn't want to cycle from my house to work, it would be at best unpleasant, and I would be taking my life in my hands on some of the roads.
i think a large part of this that often goes unstated is the suburban sprawl that causes people to need to drive longer distances near pedestrians to begin with -- do you live in an area with wide streets, many single-family homes, and parking lots? when i've lived in city neighborhoods with dense housing i've only had to drive far/fast to leave, and when i've lived in the middle of nowhere i wasn't at risk of flattening pedestrians
It may feel like you aren’t going very fast, but at the end of the day you’re probably only arriving at your location a couple of minutes later than you normally would and when applied at scale this could potentially save thousands if not tens of thousands of lives a year depending on how widely this is adopted. Hell maybe hundreds of thousands, but I don’t know the numbers well enough to make a claim that high, seems steep at first glance.
Surely we can agree the pros outweigh the cons here? I can wake up 5-10 minutes earlier for safer roads.
If we were a real country, we would actively hunt down people who express this sentiment and seize their vehicles until after they satisfy a psychological exam.
Sorry to say but if we can reduce traffic accidents by a significant margin this way, people being annoyed at having to drive slower is a fine price to pay.
For dumb Americans like you who haven’t heard of significant figures, it’s 20 mi/hr. Mayybe 18 mi/h but that’s stretching it.
using a different units system doesn't make you dumb. Otherwise the USA would still be navel gazing instead of star gazing
[flagged]
I agree, but if the streets are set up accordingly, it's about as fast as you'd normally want to drive anyway.
For the standard US road with 12-foot-wide lanes and generally straight-ahead routes, 20mph does feel very slow. I've driven on some roads though where narrower lanes, winding paths, and other "traffic calming" features contribute to a sense that 20mph is a reasonable speed.
Yes narrower lanes is "traffic calming" in itself. Residential roads and city streeets should have different lanes than highways.
Making drivers miserable is part of the intention, they want people to drive less because it's annoying as hell for everyone else.
That's fine if the public transport is up to scratch, as well as the cycling infrastructure.
Where I live it's woefully inadequate making driving the only viable option for most journeys.
This has a knock on effect of making cycling down right dangerous in places, because of all the cars + relatively high speed limits, like I wouldn't want to cycle from my house to work, it would be at best unpleasant, and I would be taking my life in my hands on some of the roads.
7 replies →
The intention is to prevent accidents. Encountering 30kmh zones in strange places means there have been loads of them.
And those with that intention are authoritarians that need to be kept out of government.
13 replies →
Clearly it’s opposite of killing
i think a large part of this that often goes unstated is the suburban sprawl that causes people to need to drive longer distances near pedestrians to begin with -- do you live in an area with wide streets, many single-family homes, and parking lots? when i've lived in city neighborhoods with dense housing i've only had to drive far/fast to leave, and when i've lived in the middle of nowhere i wasn't at risk of flattening pedestrians
Try checking the average speed (total distance / total time) on your next outing. You might be surprised.
Not as painful as getting run over, apparently.
[flagged]
10 replies →
It may feel like you aren’t going very fast, but at the end of the day you’re probably only arriving at your location a couple of minutes later than you normally would and when applied at scale this could potentially save thousands if not tens of thousands of lives a year depending on how widely this is adopted. Hell maybe hundreds of thousands, but I don’t know the numbers well enough to make a claim that high, seems steep at first glance.
Surely we can agree the pros outweigh the cons here? I can wake up 5-10 minutes earlier for safer roads.
> you’re probably only arriving at your location a couple of minutes later than you normally would
That depends on the total journey distance.
3 replies →
If we were a real country, we would actively hunt down people who express this sentiment and seize their vehicles until after they satisfy a psychological exam.
And then if they fail the exam, appoint to the public office.
2 replies →
Sorry to say but if we can reduce traffic accidents by a significant margin this way, people being annoyed at having to drive slower is a fine price to pay.
[dead]
Something tells me you play on your phone while driving anyways