Faster is not always better: why the case for higher speed limits is fatally flawed.
Faster is not always better: why the case for higher speed limits is fatally flawed.
Higher speed limits are coming. But the case against them isn’t based on road safety alone – claims of increased economic efficiency are not supported by the evidence, either.
You're viewing a single thread.
It's also worth noting the current speed limits were set in 1985. I know this is the wrong place to point it out, and I do hate cars, but acknowledge they have value for some use cases. That said...
Since 1985, car safety evolution has introduced: -Traction Control -Anti-lock Brakes -Airbags -Electronic Stability Control -Crumple Zones -Adaptive Cruise Control -Blind spot detection -Pedestrian detection
...just to name a few. Cars are safer now than they've ever been, for both drivers and pedestrians (the Cybertruck not withstanding), so it's equally strange to suggest that the same speed limit that was set in the mid-80s is the best balance of convenience and safety. If it's simply a matter of reduction in absolute terms, why not LOWER the speed limit?
Not saying the article's premise is wrong, but it's kneejerk. In fact, smartly using speed limits can help to push traffic into out of the way areas where it will be less problematic to pedestrians. For example, lowering the speed limits in pedestrian areas in cities and increasing them less dense, outer areas can both improve traffic flow and make dense spaces more pedestrian friendly by diverting traffic into roads with fewer people. And intercity traffic through areas with little to no pedestrian traffic is a no-brainer.
I understand that trucks and SUVs are more dangerous to pedestrians due to increases in hood height and reduction in curvature (along with reduced visibility). Is this not correct?
It is - both things can be true. There are certainly some types of vehicles and conditions that are less safe than others, often for unjustifiable and stupid reasons, but the general trend of the average vehicle over time is towards being much safer than in the past. You'd still rather be hit by an SUV with a crumple zone than a sedan with an all steel body, all else being equal.
I'm not sure that's true for pedestrians? Going over the hood on a sedan might be better...
If you get the opportunity. It's just as likely the impact of the all-steel frame with no crumple actually bisects your body right in half, or crushes your internal organs to paste.
Rolling over a hood is "better" because it consumes energy. Everything about mitigating a crash impact is about putting as much of the energy of the impact as possible somewhere other than a human body. You don't get the opportunity to do that at all if the initial impact is rigid. It's putting all that collision energy directly into you.
I don't think the average human has enough mass to meaniningfully use a crumplezone. The trend of higher bumper heights causes more head an chest injuries than lower bumper heights. Higher bumper heights also increase the chances of being run over.
The average car is also much heavier these days and simple math means that car will have more force on impact at the same speed compared to a lighter car.
You are absolutely right that cars are heavier now, which means they are putting more energy into a collision, but cars are also better at dissipating that energy. I don't actually know enough to know what wins in that face-off. You could very well be right. I'd defer to someone with more expertise in collisions.
If cars are safer for pedestrians than ever, then why are pedestrian deaths increasing?
Number of cars. Increase the number of cars, you increase the number of deaths. But any given collision is more likely to be survivable than in the past.
Also, it's not a perfect analog, but a quick search for deer hits and you can see modern cars crumple just fine.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying this deer was out dancing that very night, but if you're gonna hit me at 30 MPH with either a flat, unyielding piece of steel with potentially sharp edges and/or rusted spots, or a soft piece of plastic or fiberglass formed to cushion my impact into the engine where the REALLY hard parts are, I'm going to choose the plastic/fiberglass every time.
Edit: Here. Just to back up the information I'm giving you...
The ABSOLUTE number of deaths are increasing, because the number of people and cars are increasing. But as a function of percentage of population they are only slightly above the lowest they've been since the 20's. Modern cars are much safer. Even a bad SUV with horrible visibility is safer to all involved in a crash than an average car in the early 80's. The numbers don't lie.
Edit again: To give pedestrian numbers to go with that:
You do have a point... there ARE increases in recent years, but overall the rate is still nearly half of the rate in the 80s. You are correct the most very recent trend is worrying, however.
I don't think the poster was speaking in the context of pedestrian safety?
Also, typically pedestrians aren't anywhere near highways and other high-speed roadways. So not really a concern in this context.
cars are safer now than they've ever been for both drivers and pedestrians
Cars don't need to be going high speeds to be dangerous to pedestrians. Roads near pedestrians can be designed poorly allowing drivers to go significantly faster than the intended limits.
Simple answer is an increase in the number of cars and the number of pedestrians. If cars are 10x safer for pedestrians now, but there are 1000x more interactions...
Vehicle sizes. SUVs and trucks kill pedestrian more often than sedans and coupes do
Oh, welcome to the eu. Speed limits are going down, generally. At least in this nick of the woods, we aren't driving as fast as in the eighties. The goal is zero Trafic fatalities.
Totally viable as an option if that's the goal.
If that's New Zealand's goal, they should do exactly the same.
But if they're looking for a balance between risk and convenience, there's factors to be considered that the article glosses over.