Roads do a surprisingly good job of making clear how fast is safe to drive on them. I'm sure there must be places where people think, "Oh wow, going with the flow of the rest of these drivers feels really unsafe," but much more common is the experience where people are comfortably driving 10-20mph over the speed limit and there is no higher incidence of accidents there than anywhere else.
I think in general setting a speed limit to try to regulate speed for the sake of safety is one of the least effective ways to bring about the desired change.
People who obey speed restrictions have a dead hooker in the trunk, who knew?
No, people with a dead hooker in the trunk obey the speed limit.
Completely different thing and an important distinction.
Re:Are road speed limits based on safety?
by curiousgibbon on Friday March 10, 2023 @09:53AM
(#35094986)
This logic can only make sense based on the axiom that almost nobody can be coerced into compliance. Sure, if fixed cameras are somehow impossible and the best hope for enforcement is "no more than 10 over no matter how bad the conditions" this may be the case. But in some countries other than the US these are solved problems.
You can't just set a 40mph speedway on a limited access highway because "tHaT's WhAt'S sAfE gUyZ". Drivers will ignore it. Except that one guy with a dead hooker or brick of cocaine in the trunk or some other specific reason to be very cautious about complying with the law. He'll do 40. And safety will have been reduced because you have increased the variance in speed of traffic on the road.
There's a reason that current civil engineering doctrine is to set speed limits based on traffic speed and not the other way around.