speed limits don't save lives, keeping people OFF city streets would, but don't tell the Karens that are protesting for NYC to lower speed limits (instead of parenting better, and keeping kids off streets) because logic won't work on deaf overly emotional protestors
I wondering how many of them had speeding tickets in their lives. And how many of them will throw a temper tantrum when the delivery boy will late with their pizz... soy something.
ReplyDeletewow, that is a brilliant point! thank you! And how many of them have driven drunk?
DeleteI think it's fair for NYC to be able to set their own speed limits, if that's what they want. But people are going to speed, regardless of the speed limit, so lowering the limit isn't going to change that.
ReplyDeleteI don't know who sets speed limits or on what criteria, but whoever it is, ought to be doing their job, and cities should not interfere because of opinionated pain in the ass people with a protest agenda.
DeleteI've covered the speed limit topic of New York City from the time when they first made one, as the crazy wealthy Vanderbilt was scaring the hell out of the poor that couldn't afford cars, and the horses, and the bike riders.
NO ONE who ever protested a speed limit was for a higher speed limit. We simply drive as fast as WE want. The angry people always want it SLOWER because they want to control the rest of us, and can't. That makes them angry.
I agree with you, people are going to speed regardless of the number on the sign saying what the legal limit is, and lowering the number is not going to change the driving habits of those who want to get somewhere in less time.
Laws work when they are enforced and the cost of breaking them becomes too high. Surely there will always be individuals who break them anyway, but most of us abide by laws, whether or not we think they make sense.
ReplyDeleteAs for if speed limits work, 'Transport for London' seems to believe they do:
"Transport for London (TfL) has announced that it has released new data that shows a significant reduction in the number of collisions since the implementation of 20mph speed limits on key roads in London.
Monitoring of the 20mph schemes in London shows that since they were introduced, the number of collisions has reduced by 25% (from 406 to 304), and collisions resulting in death or serious injury have also reduced by 25% (from 94 to 71), demonstrating the huge impact of lowering speeds across London.
Furthermore, although vulnerable road users continue to be most at risk on London’s roads, since the 20mph speed limits have been introduced, collisions involving vulnerable road users have decreased by 36% (from 453 to 290), while collisions involving people walking have decreased by 63% (from 124 to 46).
In March 2020, TfL introduced a 20mph speed limit on all of its roads within the central London Congestion Charging zone, as part of its Vision Zero commitment to eliminate death and serious injury on the capital’s roads by 2041. Currently, over half of London’s roads have a 20mph speed limit, of which almost 110km is on TfL’s network.
"TfL is now working to lower speeds on 220km of its roads by 2024, in inner and outer London, and plans to introduce a new 20mph speed limit on over 28km of roads in Camden, Islington, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Haringey in March 2023."
Laws work when they go without saying.... law of gravity, inertia, etc.
DeleteDo laws work when the cost of breaking them becomes too high? I think history proves this to be wrong.
England made many laws, and made the cost of breaking them, in various laws, lifetime of prison, prison with hard labor, solitary confinement in the Tower of London, oh and many others. Death by incineration for witchcraft... there's a law that was made by countries, and religions. Stoning for adultery, that's another by religions, and countries. The fiery death for witches didn't have the intended result, as horrible people simply accused people that they disliked, to be witches. Since witchcraft doesn't exist, neither does magic, therefore witches have never existed, but hateful people always have existed everywhere in every millenium, and was that a law with a cost of breaking it to be too high? Yes.
Did it work? No.
How about stoning for adultery? Nope. People still have sex with people they are not married to.
Seems that only applies to women, and not the men having sex with women they are not married to.
What's to be learned from that? Laws are only applied to the weak, and never to the powerful, rich, and government or religious leaders.
So, I think I disagree, and prove your statement wrong. Do you agree?
Also, going to speeding laws, they also do not work, as POLICE and government officials from attorneys, judges, commisioners, mayors, senators, and congressmen both at state and federal level, ignore the laws both for speeding and everything else they find inconvenient. I have too many examples to waste your time with.
Murder, that applies to everyone, right? And the cost of breaking that law? Prison, right? Nope, not if you're in the law enforcement profession. I have many examples, https://justacarguy.blogspot.com/search/label/abuse%20by%20law%20enforcement are some I've posted.
Maybe the cost isn't high enough for government employees, as though legally they are not exempt, realistically they are exempt, and being that it is so, perhaps your caveat that the cost isn't high enough applies.
That's a nice caveat.
It's vague, and ambiguous... like the wording of most laws.
Anwyay, your example, your one example, is of London.
I believe I can find an example that counters yours. I think you'll agree I can find where lower speed limits had the unwanted result of more collisions, more deaths and serious injuries.
If you'd like, I can take a couple moments and do that, but, since the red light cameras proved that just a stop light law, and fine, were enough to cause more collisions, and deaths, and serious injuries, AND that was why they were removed from California, if not all of the USA, about 7 years ago, I believe that solid example shows that a speed limit, or any other bad idea, has repercussions that were unpredictable.
Your example may not state all the quantifiable data that led to the lowered deaths, collisions, and serious injuries.
DeleteBy that, I refer to the possibility that tour busses, metro busses, auto ticket by GPS on rentals, taxis, etc for speeding have a cumulative effect that in certain environments like a city downtown, where stop lights do not allow traffic to move more than 3 blocks without a red light, and the unusually high number of people movers for city congestion (bus, trolley, street car, light rail, subway, elevated rail) might be regulating the speed of the other vehicles that have lead foot drivers, who are simply boxed into the gridlock of the people movers and auto ticket by GPS vehicles (autonomous might be real in London, I do not know) and all those locked into the lower speed limit prevent those who aren't locked into it, from having the available space to speed in.
See? Possibly, it wasn't the law and limit change, or legal results, that caused lower stats, it might by many other causes, that are not something that the writer of that London example wished to give credit to, as the writer may be paid by the govt, to give a good review, and loudly declare a success.
See? Even the news is not to be trusted unless you do a look at who writes it, and why, and what they stand to gain. Anyone that pays for a study, expects the results to be in their favor. Anyone that pays a writer, expects a good review.
How do I know? I get free books in exchange for book reviews. Movies too.
How long would I get those for free if I was giving a bad review every time?
Other countries charge a find for speeding that is based on the wealth of the person speeding. That hasn't stopped rich people from speeding. And poor people do not pay for car insurance. Drunk drivers quit going with the drivers license system, and drive without a license. People who choose to ignore laws, ignore the court summons too, and the parking tickets, etc etc.
Do you agree, that the cost is too vague, and how high is subjective? Also, do you agree that laws are ignored, regardless of the punishment?
Just curious if I've changed your mind based on history, recent events, and news. It's a big complicated world, and only two things are certain. Everything else is possible, maybe likely, but not certain. A crocodile just had eggs hatch that were never inseminated. Some fish can change from female to male, and impregnate themselves. Even laws of nature are not 100%. A Platypus, lays eggs, the offspring nurse on mothers milk. Has a duckbill. Laws? There's an exception to every rule. That's possibly the 3rd thing that is certain. Look at that, even the phrase about only death and taxes isn't accurate.
I didn't expect you to change your belief that laws don't work. It begs the question, though: If traffic laws - for argument's sake we'll be limiting it to those - are ineffectual because some of us break them, would the accident rate go up or down or stay the same if they all were abolished?
DeleteI remember that Montana did away with daytime speed limits a decade or two ago, I expect there were studies to see the effect of that.
DeleteThere have been new articles and studies that show people drive at the speed they feel comfortable with, regardless of the posted limit, the majority of their time on the roads, and I find that I drive this way. I haven't had a collision in about 30 years, and that one was caused by my following too close, when the truck in front of me panic stopped, and my old Dodge with 4 wheel drum brakes wasn't up to the challenge.
Modern vehicles with anti lock brakes, modern suspension and larger tires, all result in better ability to respond to traffic issues in less time with less collisions, and with better gas mileage. Nothing wrong with adjusting the speed limit to correspond to the better abilities of the vehicles on the roads.
The speed limits were based on factors, that are obsolete in several cases, such as the national 55 mph that happened in the 60s I think it was, or the 70s, due to Nixon, or OPEC oil crisis.
So, that was a speed limit based on something that had nothing to do with safety, it was to lower the use of oil imported, because cars built up to that time were terrible gas hogs, I know, my 69 Dodge is good for about 8 mpg