Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
Is the reason for disliking this anything more than " I like to drive fast" or "I don't get the point"?
Low limits within city limits have been found to be very beneficial, and the only negative associated with a limit as low as 30 has been a minor increase in individual travel time.
If it takes you an extra 30 seconds to get where you're going because you hit 3 playground zones at 8PM, isn't that worth the benefits of higher safety, more conscious drivers, better mileage (though at a block or two that benefit is more applicable to other residential areas), and the possible improvements to traffic flow?
I can see why people don't like it, I don't agree, but personally, I'd rather they all just be "SLOW" zones and have them run 24/7 to avoid some of the semantics.
|
Where are these documented benefits? I've always heard of the benefits of road restrictions improving safety, but I've never seen a study.
I have seen two studies, one Germany used to justify reducing traffic controls to improve safety, and one on Vehicle mortality rate jump after Montana re-instated speed limits, that both say reducing restrictions is safer.
Seems to me slower is safer is hear-say.
To be clear I'm not against people going ~30 - 50 Km on small roads with houses on them. I'm Advocating reasonable is safer, and in general there is no consistent and reason logic behind our speed limits or playground zones.
If they don't reasonably allow people to use roads to efficiently get around nobody will have any respect for the rules.
And I didn't really understand what you were saying in the bold part, but as I said before, short and rapid changes in speed are actually hard on vehicles and worse on mileage.