In EU by the law, limit inside towns and cities is 50km/h - so it is a spot on speed.
By the way in cities average speed is very low. For instance in London the average speed within a mile of the city center dropped 1.22mph from an average of 6.35mph in 2016 to just 5.13mph in 2017.
It's simply not true for the cities, people largely drive around 50 km/h if that's the limit. On the highways however going 30+ over the limit is a norm.
Seems same in Bosnia, I traveled there and ppl said I should follow the speed limit at all times due to likelihood of police punishing with big fines. Uhh.. that didn't last long. I was getting tailgated and passed angrily by basically every single person on the road, and even when I did get pulled over by the police (wasn't speeding or violating any driving rule there -- I read up on them), they just sent me on my way once I acted totally oblivious and also they could barely understand my English... heh! Too much hassle to try to get a bribe out of me I guess?
A car I was in was stopped three times in 10 minutes the moment it crossed into the "other" part of Sarajevo. Just before, the driver suggested I watch his speed, which was 5km/h below the limit the whole time. The police were simply taking money from the other ethnic group.
> police conduct around the Inter-Entity Boundary Line separating the two entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska, had been the "greatest obstacle to freedom of movement", including intimidation and arbitrary fines.
I used to live in Florence, I'm familiar. Yes, cars are dangerous even at low speeds, but I find it annoying that if I drive at 50 km/h in a low-vis, twisty and narrow hill road the car before me will almost invariably ignore the safety distance to signal displeasure towards my slowness.
> but I find it annoying that if I drive at 50 km/h in a low-vis, twisty and narrow hill road the car before me will almost invariably ignore the safety distance to signal displeasure towards my slowness.
I guess you meant the car behind you.
It is called tailgating.
It is very annoying, I agree, but if I can offer en explanation, in those conditions to overtake you wanna cover the less possible distance, being closer to the car in front of you is a way to make it possible.
Having said that: compared to the population the most dangerous cities in Italy are, in order, Genoa, Florence and Milan.
That could explain it too.
To deal with a taligater, according to the experts, you should
> Brake slowly before stopping. Avoid tailgaters when possible by changing lanes. If you cannot change lanes, slow down enough to encourage the tailgater to go around you. If this does not work, pull off the road when safe and let the tailgater pass.
Yes, tailgating, exactly. I'm mostly talking about narrow roads where you need to slow down and maybe go a bit outside of the paved area to let another car pass in the opposite direction; these are common in the hills of Tuscany and overtaking is impossible. My approach if I'm not in a hurry and there is just one car behind me is to slow down to 10 km/h until the tailgater gets the message.
50km/h would be spot on for speed. 45km/h will just hold up the traffic behind you and lead to dangerous behaviour from frustrated drivers. I don't think this would be very safe to drive in NZ, but if it went 50km/h it would be fine (our traffic really does go 50km/h, and those averages must include waiting at lights, etc.).
Frustrated drivers need to learn to calm down instead of engaging in dangerous behavior. That's really the root of the safety problem that is big powerful cars.
True, but antagonising them isn't going to make that happen, and making this go just 5km/h faster is an easy way to avoid the problem entirely. Maybe "dangerous" isn't quite the right word, but certainly more aggressive, and it's not fun being on the receiving end, even if you're physically safe.
Someone who can't handle going 5 km/h under the speed limit (aka maximum) shouldn't be trusted to operate a motor vehicle.
Sadly, that describes all too many drivers. Enforcement and normalization of slower speeds through a critical mass of slower vehicles could change things.
Ultimately, people have shown that the need to be "tamed" while driving cars.
> Someone who can't handle going 5 km/h under the speed limit shouldn't be trusted to operate a motor vehicle
Neither should someone who can't handle going at 5km/h faster than the speed limit.
It will happen one day that they'll need to and maybe that day it will rain and that will be the day they cause an accident, possibly involving others.
Limits are not there because that's the maximum speed you should be _able_ to drive, they are there for pedestrian safety and to reduce the noise.
> . Enforcement and normalization of slower speeds through a critical mass of slower vehicles could change things.
On the contrary, I hope there will be way faster vehicles, underground, only for those trained to drive them or machine operated.
Everyone else should just ride a bike or walk or catch a bus or a (slow) cab.
The need for speed won't go back, we need to move faster and faster, the more our lives go faster.
p.s. before someone says it, I live in a very expensive neighborhood just to be at walking distance from my office. Even though I love driving and are a semi professional trained pilot, I usually don't drive in the city, unless I have to.
But I can understand why people forced to use a car want to drive them as fast as the limit permits.
The truth is that 50km/h is already way to fast in a city. A good driver who actually takes into account everything that can happen in a city would never drive at 50 km/h as it is already way to fast to keep pedestrian safe, at least in most European cities.
Nobody needs to drive at higher speed than the limits. If you can't wait behind a slow vehicle, unless you have a dying person on your side, maybe you should not drive in the first place...
> The truth is that 50km/h is already way to fast in a city.
The average speed in Rome is 8.3 km/h
So yeah, speeding is almost never the problem.
But people doing something else while driving is.
> If you can't wait behind a slow vehicle, unless you have a dying person on your side, maybe you should not drive in the first place...
If you are driving a car to go really slowly, driving in the middle of the streets, because you are too scared to drive too close to the side of the streets, why are you even driving in the first place?
It's like driving a motorbike with the training wheels because you have no equilibrium.
Would you find that acceptable?
And why not?
People can have many reasons to speed, they are not your concern, if you feel to drive slowly, just get out of the way, as experts of road safety suggest to do (that's exactly what I do on highways all the time)
> If someone behind you clearly wants to go faster, remember that it’s not your job to prevent them from doing so. Staying in front of a driver like this when you have space to move over could lead to even more aggressive driving, so it’s best to steer aside and let them drive the speed they’re going to drive (it’s their problem if they get pulled over, not yours!). If you’re genuinely concerned for the safety of yourself or others on the roadway, pull over and call local authorities to report an erratic or unsafe driver.
EDIT:
Some stats regarding Rome (the city where I was born and live)
- Rome has the highest number of accidents per capita, but the lowest mortality per capita in the whole Lazio region
- 75% of the accidents in the region happen in the cities, 25% outside them
- 52% of the accidents on urban roads and 62% of those on extra-urban roads happen on the straights
- most of them caused by distraction
- 45% of the accidents of the year in Rome happen between June and September due to the higher mobility of holiday season
- the two age groups where mortality is raising are 15-19 and over 70. Younger people number one cause of death is speeding (sometimes under the influence), due to inexperience (and the eventual alteration) they can't handle it. For older people is misjudgement: slower reaction times and impaired senses (vision, hearing) lead to deadly crashes.
- 80% of the accidents happen between 8-20, but most of the deadly one happen between 2 and 7 o'clock. Again, most probable causes are: distractions, sleepiness, driver fatigue, DUI.
Driving is a very complex operation, that requires skills and focus, and engage all the body, especially when using manual gears, it is very similar to playing drums.
If people don't give full attention on what they are doing it is very easy to make mistakes that could lead to very bad consequences or even death.
Hoping that other drivers will compensate for my own lack of focus, it's not the safest of the bets.
So, in my opinion, being a driver concerned of the safety yourself and others, means focusing on what you are doing and preventing potentially dangerous situations.
Blaming other drivers will not help you if you don't look twice before crossing a large street late at night or if you speed up to catch the yellow at the traffic-light.
Road safety statistics goes totally against your statement. There's a clear corelation between speed and accidents. You can claim that the person who are dangerous are the one driving slowly to stay in control, but the reality is that the real dangers is people thinking they are pilots and not understanding that a road is a shared infrastructure, not a private race track.
I started driving when it was the same really bad mentality of people having to make place to the one who wants to go fast. And it wasn't great at all, safety records show it.
When i started to understand that the best thing to do when I had such a "pilot" behind me was to slow down until the situation could be less dangerous, I just found myself in way less dangerous situations.
So no, you can be the best driver of the world, 50 km/h in a city is already way too dangerous for pedestrian, with a high death rate in case of accident. The unconfortable slow driver you hate ? Maybe not as dangerous as you are... Actually maybe making road safer.
You want to drive "fast"? Think about the safety of other people it involves.
> So no, you can be the best driver of the world, 50 km/h in a city is already way too dangerous for pedestrian
Nobody has ever said the contrary...
> The unconfortable slow driver you hate ? Maybe not as dangerous as you are
Maybe is a no until you prove it.
Meanwhile I can show you that the categories that suffer more deaths per capita are really young and inexperienced people and older people with slow reaction times and impaired vision (the traffic light was red but they didn't see it).
> You want to drive "fast"? Think about the safety of other people it involves.
I never said that.
I've said that if you can't handle to drive fast (fast as in slightly above the speed limits), you are dangerous even at low speed.
If you can't swim in a swimming pool, will you be a better swimmer in the Ocean?
As an example: my dad never liked driving, he never learned to be a good driver and as a result now that he is older his driving skill have lowered so much that he is a danger to himself.
He could drive meh at 50kmh when he was 40, barely when he was 50, now that he is 75 at 30kmh everything looks too fast for his reflexes. He breaks in the middle of the straight because he sees shadows, wait too long at crosses but then he passes in the wrong moment because he gets frustrated that other cars behind him are forming a long line because of him.
He never had to challenge his mediocre driving skills, because they were almost good enough and now he can't drive safely anymore.
Driving is like a muscle, if you don't exercise it and stimulate it, it will atrophy.
Cities like Rome, with the highest number of cars per capita in the West (73 cars every 100 people) need to either remove cars from the streets entirely or deploy large programs of safe driving because the population is getting older and their driving skills are not getting better.
Forcing everyone to go by bike or at 10kmh is not a solution.
At 20kmh a delay in reaction times of just one second means 6 meters.
It is a lot!
And I repeat it to be clear: I don't even drive anymore in Rome, I simply walk, because it's too frustrating as an experience.
What they need to learn is one thing, what actually happens right now is another. In many countries if you drive below 50km/h you will get a lot of rage and dangerous maneuvers directed at you. It sucks but it is the state of things now and you don't want to be on a fragile vehicle in the middle of it.
Curious as to the downvotes. 50km/h is the usual city speed limit in NZ, and going slower than that in the car lane will cause real problems (occasionally I have to briefly on my e-bike, so I know from experience). Our roads are mostly wide enough that bicycles and e-bikes are generally off to the side so cars going 50km/h can easily pass, but this vehicle wouldn't fit.
I agree with what you’re saying, but average (assuming it’s a mean) speed is not really a useful figure to determine if someone would be holding up traffic, because traffic doesn’t go a constant speed, especially in a city. Something like an 80 percentile speed might be better.
Most people don't respect the strict speed limits in Europe. As long as there's no radar and no heavy traffic around I can guarantee cars will go faster than 50km/h.
The thing is why should we need radar, cameras or ever people to behave like saints to obey speed limits?
Every major vehicle manufacturers is working on self-driving. So just how difficult would it be for them to make cars now as an intermediate step that actually obeyed the speed laws?
In the UK, The National Police Chiefs Council stated that speeding is believed to be a significant factor in 17 fatalities and 126 serious injuries on the country's roads each month. Globally ...
I don't know how many people the vehicle makers should be allowed to kill and maim because of a speeding problem that is entirely technically preventable. But at the moment it feels like they are getting away with something that is uncomfortably close to murder.
Firstly, it'll be ineffective. Going 60 in a 50 zone, which many people do, isn't going to result in many more fatalities, most speeding fatalities probably come from drivers who were going stupidly fast. That kind of driver is just going to go for used cars if new cars won't let you drive as you wish.
Secondly, there's a more fundamental issue. Most people are not going to be ok with the lawmaker exerting that level of control over their cars, because it's 1984-y.
Just because something kills people doesn't mean it always has to be completely stopped and eradicated. People die from eating too much junk food, should we forbid it? People die to stairs, are you going to legally force constructions to pad any staircases with cushions? People ruin their lives due to alcohol. People drown in pools. Kids get injured on playgrounds - think of the children.
There's a line where you need to leave things up to individuals, even if some of them are going to fuck up, because otherwise you end up creating a draconian state, which is way worse than any possible outcome created by people misusing their agency. Trying to enforce speed limits this hard is way over that line.
Sales of alcohol have gradually been lowered in the Nordic countries through punitive taxation and a requirement that only a state monopoly can sell liquor. Yes, there are still people who drink destructively, but figures are way down compared to some decades ago before these restrictions. Moreover, the majority of the public is in favor of maintaining these restrictions instead of loosening them, so there hasn’t been that backlash against a "draconian state" that you speak of. It is definitely possible for a large enough group of citizens to be so concerned about the harmful effects of something that they do not believe it should be left to the individual.
Junk food, too, is the target of similar restrictions in several countries now. Also, playgrounds have been scaled down in the last couple of decades for safety reasons, and in the USA that wasn’t due to draconian laws, it was due to fear of lawsuits.
Taxing is not the same as forbidding. If you forbid alcohol, there is going to be a backlash, see prohibition. In the same way you can "tax" speeders with speeding cameras but I don't think people are going to be okay with literally getting forced to not do it.
> It is definitely possible for a large enough group of citizens to be so concerned about the harmful effects of something that they do not believe it should be left to the individual.
True. Everyone is fine with heroin being illegal. That's why I said that there is a line and not that you should leave everything to the individual.
> in the USA that wasn’t due to draconian laws, it was due to fear of lawsuits.
Is that not the same? Just that the US already has draconian laws?
Everyone is not fine with heroin being illegal. Heroin being illegal is wildly irresponsible and immoral because while heroin is a dangerous drug, far more danger is created by an unclean and unpredictable supply and by pushing addicts into crime to finance it.
The big difference is that speeding puts others lives at risk. Someones heroin addiction for the most part will themselves at risk (except where keeping it illegal pushes people into crime to finance their addiction, which is another reason to provide legal access)
Even in countries where heroin possession and use has been decriminalized (for the compassionate reasons you mention), heroin is still illegal in that there are still prohibitions against its production and sale. It would be a fringe position indeed to say that all laws relating to hard drugs be taken off the books.
It would be fringe position, yes, but decriminalisation is not enough - it does not fix the issues with heroin use, for example, which are tied to a mix of cost and unreliable supply.
Hence it's important to get people to stop seeing opposition to legalisation of these drugs as "obvious", because opposing legalisation of these drugs is extremely irrational.
Current laws on this are immoral and deeply harmful. The vast majority of drugs should be fully legalised and regulated, not decriminalised. The only reasonable exceptions are possibly things like fentanyl and "synthetic cannabis" variants that few people use because they want just those drugs but because of poor availability of safer drugs.
Any evidence-based drugs policy would involve full legalisation of most drugs - there's simply nothing that suggests the current laws achieve their claimed intent, and plenty that demonstrate they are causing massive harm both to addicts and to victims of related crime.
> there's simply nothing that suggests the current laws achieve their claimed intent
Decriminalizing heroin possession and use, while keeping production and sale illegal, has already resulted in absolutely massive reduction of heroin use in several places. Sometimes to the point that there’s only a few elderly addicts hanging on but virtually no younger users are taking up the drug. I’d say that the policies achieved their claimed intent. What more do you want?
> Going 60 in a 50 zone, which many people do, isn't going to result in many more fatalities,
If it is technically preventable without impeding the lawful usage, why is it assumed that the killing or maiming of even one extra person is okay?
> That kind of driver is just going to go for used cars if new cars won't let you drive as you wish
Perhaps, but isn't being surrounded by vehicles driving at the legal speed going to slow them down? And if that doesn't slow them down, then aren't the police likely to have more resources to deal with them?
> the lawmaker exerting that level of control over their cars, because it's 1984-y.
And having our roads festooned with cameras and number plate readers while still suffering the deaths and injuries is not a worse vision of dystopia?
> because otherwise you end up creating a draconian state, which is way worse than any possible outcome created by people misusing their agency. Trying to enforce speed limits this hard is way over that line.
I know what Top Gear and the rest of the industry with the largest advertising budget on the planet might like us to think. But speeding is not a human right. It's not much like freedom of speech; is it? So just how would preventing law-abiding citizens from being killed or maimed by illegal driving bring about a "draconian state"?
When science and technology make it preventable, why should it be acceptable to allow our loved ones to continue to be killed and maimed just so that some people can continue to break the law and drive dangerously?
It's not about being able to speed, it's about the government forcibly taking your control of your personal property away. In that way, it's an infringement of your basic human rights, and it's done basically because you're thought to be too incompetent to follow the rules, too stupid to be able to differentiate good from bad. And while that's merely insulting, what's actually dangerous about is that it's taking people's agency away at the same time that it's empowering the government to arbitrarily justify any further measures because "people die".
You mentioned free speech, so here's an analogy: Even with free speech, there are certain things you're not allowed to say, and most people agree that's reasonable. Imagine someone is bullied into suicide by hate speech, and we have the technology to implant people with chips that make it impossible for them to say these things.
Would you argue in the same way that "if it is technically preventable without impeding the lawful usage, why is it assumed that the killing or maiming of even one extra person is okay?"
In any case it should be clear that that would be a rather extremist position.
> It's not about being able to speed, it's about the government forcibly taking your
> control of your personal property away.
Is not every bought or sold item or service subject to some form of "government" regulation? Looking at Lead for instance; isn't it materially beneficial to a society that it is no longer a routine constituent of our gasoline or drinking water pipes? Is our health not better? Isn't stopping companies selling vehicles that can break speeding laws the same?
> re: mind-control chips. Would you argue in the same way that
> "if it is technically preventable without impeding the lawful usage,
> why is it assumed that the killing or maiming of even one extra
> person is okay?"
When, or if mind-control chips come into being, then it'll be up to the societies of which we are all parts to decide how, or if they want to use them. It'll be one heck of a debate; freedom of internal thought vs stopping rapists and serial killers.
Now, if they screw up, and "bad" mind-control comes to pass, will anyone seriously be saying? "you know what; it was because they stopped speeding cars on public roads". Would that be likely? Or are neural links, miniaturization, better batteries, etc and a sh*tty society misusing them more likely to be orders of magnitude more culpable?
So when science and technology make it (where "it" is speeding) preventable - who wouldn't want to use it to prevent theirs and other's loved ones from being killed and maimed?
> Isn't stopping companies selling vehicles that can break speeding laws the same?
No, because you can just not speed, whereas you can't just not drink the lead in your tap water. Your proposal is a different, far more extreme form of regulation.
> So when science and technology make it (where "it" is speeding) preventable - who wouldn't want to use it to prevent theirs and other's loved ones from being killed and maimed?
You keep repeating this thing about saving your loved ones, but it's not as simple as that. You have tunnel vision on the death toll and don't consider what other consequences you're creating. Reasoning that "if technology allows it and it can save a life, it's automatically worth doing" can justify a lot of hamfisted measures.
> It'll be one heck of a debate; freedom of internal thought vs stopping rapists and serial killers.
Here you even acknowledge that there is something to be lost in exchange for stopping bad things. That's my entire point. The speeding issue is exactly the same, just with smaller stakes.
Take away people's agency piece by piece to prevent speeding, murder and rape, and you end up with a society where everyone can live to 100 but no one is even human anymore.
It feels like doing 60mph in a 50mph zone is about the same thus people assume it’s equivalent even if it’s much more dangerous. The issue is most clearly demonstrated by stopping distance going up by ~40% even though it’s only 20% faster.
However that’s understating the difference. It’s common to be breaking just before impact at higher speeds you have less time to react and thus break less. If you go from 50MPH to 30 MPH that’s likely a completely survivable collision. Breaking from 60MPH to 50 MPH is less so as your dealing with V^2 = ~2.8x the energy. Similarly, many accidents are simply avoided...
I found one thing which is a bit counter to this, but not directly relevant to cities. Germany manages to have no speed limit on the majority of the Autobahn without a higher rate of accidents compared to surrounding countries.
It’s rather hard to directly collect such accident data, but plenty of studies have looked into the effect.
Anyway, overall safety of a given road is a separate factor. Germany has approximately 650,000 km of roads and only 12,996 kilometres (2016) where part of the Autobahn. So while per mile the Autobahn is safer than the older parts of the German road network, speed is hardly the only factor involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Germany#Roads
They have very high standards for what constitutes a no speed limit zone and such roads are safe enough to offset the added dangers of such speeds.
Some of the replies to you are focused on “nanny state” objections. So, how about a private sector solution here? Offer people a significant reduction in insurance for installing a speed governor that limits speeds to legal limits?
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to try and reduce speeds. Speed kills, and that’s a fact. A lot of the killing is externalized as well.
I’ve said it before, but people who drive public streets like a track should either get themselves to a track, or internalize their risk-taking by buying a motorcycle. As a motorcyclist, I’m very aware of safety trade-offs I’m making. Oddly enough, not being inside a steel cage is a pretty good reminder to keep safety very high on the list of things I think about while riding.
No, they will not go that fast. The infrastructure simply makes it impossible.
Most European city centers do not have four lane straight-as-a-line roads with only a sign "restricting" the speed. On tight, winding roads with near-zero visibility at junctions, it's rare to even hit the speed limit. Driving faster doesn't happen because it feels (and is!) dangerous.
That's the kind of road this vehicle is designed for.
I've driven in a fair number of European cities, and it's true that in the very center you're just not going to hit the speed limit, if you can drive there at all. But that's confined to a tiny area, outside of which you will easily and safely hit the speed limit on many streets. And practically no one is going to be driving in the center only, because then it doesn't even make sense to own a car.
and in this places, roads are either near empty (so overtaking is safe on a double-lane, otherwise, chances are high, you have a crossing every 100m and so can not drive more than 30km/h either), or there are endless traffic jams. Both cases, this thing works great.
You're right of course when it comes to many European countries. I really can't understand why comments along yours are downvoted on this thread. It's enough to watch how German drivers behave in Poland for example. Once the threat of a heavy fine and speed traps at many places in the city is gone they speed recklessly the same way as locals. If you respect a speed limit in Polish cities you will get a lot of rage directed at you. That's the case in many European countries I drove through as well. Not all countries mind you but most of them.
By the way in cities average speed is very low. For instance in London the average speed within a mile of the city center dropped 1.22mph from an average of 6.35mph in 2016 to just 5.13mph in 2017.
https://fleetworld.co.uk/average-driving-speeds-plummet-in-u....