As a matter of fact I think forcing people to drive slower seems to cause more accidents. I mean moving away from 85th percentile engineering criteria - I mean laws making people drive slower ignoring engineering design.

That said, I'll bet even if emergency braking fails to prevent a collision, even slowing down a modest amount will pay off with significant crash energy reduction.

(energy goes up with square of velocity, so e = 1/2mv^2)

Stop signs are aggravating if people had to actually stop 'properly' at every single one. No wonder people do a rolling stop most of the time. Many European countries do this the right way and do not have stop signs everywhere but instead have the main road have right of way or rules. To bring up Germany as an example again: in many places where we need stops signs all around, they simply have a rule that says the person to the right is allowed to drive first.

Speed bumps do nothing, except very very locally. You can't have enough of them to actually slow down cars along any reasonably long stretch of road and adding so many that it would will get the locals to NIMBY them into oblivion. I can almost guarantee that. Like put two or three in front of that school, sure. Plaster the entire neighborhood with them? Forget it.

I'm saying "some curves" like the parent said won't do that magically all by itself.

And yes, I am very much arguing that putting a speed bump at the beginning of a 1 mile road will not do anything for at least 0.9 miles of that road. That's my point about "very locally". Anyone that argues differently I would call weird.

It's also funny how many things are super local. We already see people here argue about 85 or 90 with regards to Texas roads. Here in my neck of the woods they actually are gonna go from 100 to 110 km/h in some places and the radio was arguing how they can't imagine going that fast etc. Well guess what, the Autobahn is full of people going ~140 km/h (which is right smack middle between 85 and 90 mph actually) and it's absolutely normal and fine and if you go 140 and stay on the left lane people will honk at you to let them pass. One thing that comes with the Autobahn is that you always have to drive on the right-most lane available and no passing on the right is allowed. That would be insane at the allowed speeds (which in many places is unlimited).

Road traffic fatalities 2020:

    Canada 1,745 for ~35 million people
    Germany 2,562 for ~85 million people
    US 39,007 for ~332 million people

That said, I think the autobahn has pretty good engineering. None of the potholes and ripped up roads from road crews.

And none of the entitlement.

If two people want to speed, one going 70 in a 65, and one wanting to go 90 in a 65, they both are annoyed because they feel entitled to go that speed.

On the autobahn, if someone wants to go faster than you, he is allowed so you have to get out of the way, that's the rule.

I think the curves are actually part of it. But the other way around. The Autobahn in most places actually on purpose follows the landscape and has lots of curves going left and right. Not to slow people down but to keep people 'awake'.

Nothing is more boring than going in a straight line for 8 hours at a fixed 100km/h / 65 mph. The closest I personally have been to a traffic fatality was in Florida doing exactly this. So effing boring!

The most alert I have been is on the Autobahn going anywhere between 100km/h and 180km/h up and down through the hills around Kassel, going left and right. Having to slow down because someone is going "only 140km/h" on the left lane in front of you. Speeding back up. Going in a nice "tight" right turn up the hill while flooring it in 6th gear.

There is no reason for any casual motorist to be going 91+MPH on surface streets or highways.

But ya, the statistical argument of how often does accelerating out really help, vs. often is someone driving too fast the cause of the danger, seems very relevant.

Except at night to not wake you up they might not have the horn blaring then. But they also understand how much faster to go, when to have the horn enabled even at night, know to approach a red light slowly even if they have right of way and you are supposed to let them pass etc.

* El Paso to Dallas is 635 miles, driving the whole way at 85 mph would take 25 more minutes than driving the whole way at 90mph. The reality is even further in 85 mph's favor because you aren't able to sustain 90mph the whole way and we're only going slower when we would be able to.

A Toyota Prius can maintain ~90 mph on I-294 around Chicago. Anything above 95 mph degraded the tire traction to an unsafe level. (Personal experience.)

I don’t do that much anymore now that my manic episodes are under control and I’m better able to recognize my judgement is impaired.

  I actually have to set up a car alert for when I go above 90, because the car is so quiet and powerful that I can easily go above 90 without realizing (obviously on the highway) . 
  New cars have improved tremendously.

The minimum follow distance alone would prevent a LOT of crashes.

The problem is it doesn’t take much to become unsafe and physics is not very forgiving of bad judgement.

This is pretty much it. All it takes is a pothole (you'll barely see it coming at that speed) or something else, like a deer or small animal. And oops, it's over.

Lots of people over-estimate their ability.

Cars slower: Not Good

You don't need slower cars. Just efficient at X, Y, Z average speeds.

Cars are mostly getting bigger due to safety regulations though. The interiors are smaller than ever but the exteriors get bigger and bigger. The gap is being filled with crumple zones and airbags.

This is something that law makers can actually achieve.

There are a handful of cities here with mass transit systems that aren't an absolute joke. Everyone who lives outside those cities relies on a car. What you're describing would be political suicide.

  Honda Fit    1,070–1,280 kg (2,359–2,822 lb)
  Mazda Miata        1,058 kg (2,332 lb)
  Mitsubishi Mirage    955 kg (2,106 lb)

Safety standards have driven a lot of that. Air bags, impact beams, high hood line for pedestrian safety, rollover protection, ABS, etc all add weight, which disproportionately impacts small cars. An SUV with a V8 doesn't care, but it's a pretty significant thing to add a few hundred pounds to what used to be a 1500 lb subcompact. It requires a bigger engine to keep performance acceptable, and now you need bigger brakes for the extra power, a better suspension for the higher center of mass, and it all just snowballs.

And that's where consumer choice comes in: people look at a "subcompact", and find that they're heavy, inefficient, and expensive, which are exactly the opposite of what they want in a subcompact car. Once you've already made those concessions, you might as well buy something bigger.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-cars-are-getting-huge-ar...

Cars are large today because people buy them. Bigger seems to indicate prosperity and better value. People don't passionately buy modest vehicles (except maybe cars like the fiat 500 or mini cooper)

Personally I think this has an unfortunate effect on small pickup trucks. Think of toyota's "pickup" which was renamed tacoma and then got bigger every year.

You want a drive a big lifted truck? You need to be on the hook for the deaths and damages from those monstrosities.