You’re right that we need more than just lower speed limits, and the article acknowledges that.
That said, lower speed limits are a good place to start. They make roads safer and also make them feel safer, which encourages more walking and cycling. With more walking and cycling, you have more people using the associated infrastructure and it’s then easier to advocate for more of it.
I couldn’t disagree more. A better place to start would be outlawing yank tanks and vehicles that immediately kill pedestrians and cyclists even at low speeds. Reducing the speed limit from 50 hm/h to 40km/h literally does nothing for cyclist safety if they are hit by an SUV, nor does it address that larger vehicles have inadequate visibility and reducing speed limits without changing road design will likely increase distracted driving.
Removing vehicle capacity without providing a viable alternative will not reduce number of vehicles committing but will increase unpredictable behavior, the best option is to provide an alternative to driving first, once that is established, you can add disincentives for driving.
I think we broadly agree here! I think lower speed limits are an incentive to walk or cycle. Collisions at lower speeds are significantly less dangerous, and roads with lower speed limits feel a lot safer, too.
Lower speed limits are also not really a disincentive to drive, because they don’t make journey times much slower. And, of course, they make things safer for motorists, too.
I totally agree that you need to introduce whole packages of measures. Speed limits are an important measure, but not the only one, and not the most important.
You’re right that we need more than just lower speed limits, and the article acknowledges that.
That said, lower speed limits are a good place to start. They make roads safer and also make them feel safer, which encourages more walking and cycling. With more walking and cycling, you have more people using the associated infrastructure and it’s then easier to advocate for more of it.
I couldn’t disagree more. A better place to start would be outlawing yank tanks and vehicles that immediately kill pedestrians and cyclists even at low speeds. Reducing the speed limit from 50 hm/h to 40km/h literally does nothing for cyclist safety if they are hit by an SUV, nor does it address that larger vehicles have inadequate visibility and reducing speed limits without changing road design will likely increase distracted driving.
Removing vehicle capacity without providing a viable alternative will not reduce number of vehicles committing but will increase unpredictable behavior, the best option is to provide an alternative to driving first, once that is established, you can add disincentives for driving.
I think we broadly agree here! I think lower speed limits are an incentive to walk or cycle. Collisions at lower speeds are significantly less dangerous, and roads with lower speed limits feel a lot safer, too.
Lower speed limits are also not really a disincentive to drive, because they don’t make journey times much slower. And, of course, they make things safer for motorists, too.
I totally agree that you need to introduce whole packages of measures. Speed limits are an important measure, but not the only one, and not the most important.
Yeah we absolutely agree talking big picture! I meant I couldn’t disagree more with the place to start haha.