Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
That's not the question that needs to be answered. The question is, does the reduction in speed provide any tangible benefits compared to the detriments? Nothing else should matter.
As the article posted, there's a $120 million annual societal cost due to pedestrian accidents. Would the decrease in speed limit reduce that? Would it reduce it enough that the benefits outweigh the detriments?
I mean the first step to determine if a change is required is understanding the outcome. Change for the sake of change is of course not the answer, but neither is lack of change for the sake of keeping the status quo.
|
At a cost of like $350,000 per accident i want to see the math on that one.