2024-07-16 14:55 UTC
@BrentToderian@mastodon.online One thing is not clear at all unless you go to the paper and read it: the previous speed in many of the studied cases was 50 km/h.
Why that's important: of course reducing speed will reduce crashes, but at which point reducing is not worthy? If it was a reduction from 90 to 30, it would look worthless, would be really small percentages for a big 67% speed reduction. But for a 40% reduction that's still good.
My city reduced speeds from 60 to 40 in some areas, a 33% speed reduction, and achieved a 80% reduction of road crashes. Despite that, many people are trying to propose an increase from 40 to 50, mostly store owners that are claiming that speed reduction moved customers away from those areas.
Replies (1)
-
@mcv@friendica.opensocial.space 2024-07-19 12:06
@qgustavor@urusai.social @BrentToderian@mastodon.online It's funny how store owners often object the most to this sort of traffic improvement, and quite often, a year after the changes, it turns out their profits have gone up. Because traffic that stops at your shop is not fast traffic. It's slow traffic. And often it's pedestrian or bicycle traffic. But for cars too, it's traffic that has to stop, and that's a lot easier when everybody is going 30 than when they are going 50.