LOL, I dont think you or HonestJoe quite get my point. I drive an auto so its not me stalling the car. The point is going that slow takes a long time, which means 'everyone' is going to be riding the 40km/h limit to try not to waste any extra time. The problem with this is if the road is policed for speeding then you are going to have everyone making sure they are going as fast as possible without going over. People paying more attention to their speedo's actually leads to crashes even at speeds as slow as 40km/h. As for drivability in a manual car, I'm speaking from experience driving 40km/h roads which are not straight. I get your point for straight 40km/h roads but if its being considered to have more roads with lower limits then your going to get more diverse roads with those low limits. A twisty road at 40km/h is a pain in the arse with changes in slope. Cruise control and an auto is the only thing to keep sane doing speeds less then 100km/h. I used to have a sportscar so I know how to drive, and sportscars 'really' do not enjoy putting around as they tend to setup to thrive above 100km/h.
I think I would prefer variable speed limits around suburbia, rather than having to encounter speed bumps, roundabouts and chikaines every few blocks, although all these factors are an attempt to slow cars down, which can only be for the good of drivers, passengers, and pedestrians, as well as children at school zones, and kiddies on bicyles, and those mums and dads with prams...so its not only the jaywalkers that are targetted... The other end of the spectrum is, as it will always be, wait for someone to get killed, then do something....hhhmmmm... Then there are the hoons, who will always be around, that need to be slowed down....
I get the point perfectly. You're too ignorant or arrogant to recognise that, on some stretches of road, 40kph/20mph are perfectly reasonable speed limits for the purposes of the safety or all road users. You can certainly argue for places where the limit could/should be higher but there will always be some roads with legitimately low limits and so drivers (and car manufacturers) need to take account of this. The vast majority of drivers are demonstratably capable of travelling down a road within a 40kph/20mph speed limit without constantly staring at the speedo and without having any kind of accident. If you can't, maybe you should reconsider your opinion that you know how to drive because you once owned a sportscar!? (Did you know that around 80% of drivers think they're driving ability is above average? Think about that for a moment).
Wow thats some deepness there, thanks for adding.... absolutely nothing to the thread. Just admit you missed my point entirely rather then pretending somewhere anyone said anything about not having any 40km/h zones. LOL, and getting all emotional and delicate about it
I was responding to your statement; "50 is slow enough. I have a 40 zone near me at its more dangerous!! You spend all your time looking at your speedo because you cannot go any slower without the car basically stopping." That sounded to me like saying there shouldn't be any 40kph zones because it's impossible to safely drive so slowly so that's what I responded to. If that wasn't you point there I really did miss it and you're going to have to clarify.
Cars have to stop at red lights, slow down in construction zones etc etc all the time. It already exists and no-one is saying these things should be changed and a short stretch of road that requires a low speed limit due to an obstruction or safety reason is the same thing and not relevant to my point. Having lower limits in otherwise normal roads is a bad idea for the reasons I stated and in fact can cause more accidents - albeit less serious accidents. If the limit is too low, then it takes too long and people ride the speedo. This isnt nit picking, 40km/h is reeeeaaally slow if their is no reason for it.
Was that the suggestion actually made, or was it twisted a bit to make a point that wasn't there? In the region I live in (south brisbane), the number of CHANGES to the speed limit within quite short distances is simply ridiculous, and often completely unjustifiable. So you DO have to spend more time watching for the speed limit signs and then checking/adjusting your speed than if the limits were sensibly and sparsely implemented. I remember simpler days, when speed limits were not changed at some road 'engineer's whim and when simply by looking around you, you could take a very accurate guess at what the speed limit was, and should be. If you don't think that is an issue, then perhaps you need to come visit.. And some folks seem to accept there is an issue, eg: There is a similar story on my drive to work every day. 60, then 70, then 60, then 80 (and within that short 80 stretch there's a bit my GPS thinks is 50, just for extra fun!), then 70, then 60, then 70, then 60... Yes, all highly justified changes. I have NEVER understood the justification for separate 30,40,50,60,70,80,90 etc kph speed limits - why can't they use a twenty k increment??? I remember when the metric limits were first introduced in South Oz where I lived, they only used 40, 60, 80, and 100/110? But common sense has since vanished.
If your point is that we should only have lower limits when there is a good reason for it then we're saying exactly the same thing. The OP refers to a proposal for a lower limit on certain streches of road for a safety reason. The question is whether the reason is a legitimate one. That is somewhat contradicted by your suggestion that a 40kph limit is fundamentally dangerous. Do you have anything to back up the claim that low limits cause more accidents? I would have though that drivers incapable of driving safely at 40kph would be equally incapable at any speed. Poorly implemented speed limits could certainly cause issues but that won't be restricted to lower ones.
It was effectively made by axialturban (as per my quote above) and it's a common impression given on this issue. I agree that too many changes is an issue. Of course, one reason for this could be two stretches of road with a legitimately low limit connected by one which, on it's own, justifies a higher one. One low limit throughout and people complain that the middle section is too slow but a shift in the limits up and the down again and people complain about the changes. They can't win! I do think that there is a general attitude issue here. We treat cars and the be-all and end-all and have a grossly low underestimation of the inherent dangers tons of metal rolling around at any speed. Drivers are encased in a comfortable shell covered in "safety features" and so think (subconsciously at least) nothing can possibly go wrong. Cyclists, pedestrians and the like all suffer the same psychology (hence, for example, the jaywalking issue that kicked all this off). We basically take it all for granted. I've no idea how to resolve this general attitude but until we do, we'll have constant arguments about speed limits and other road safety measures and we'll continue to suffer the many thousands of serious accidents, injuries and deaths.
The UK "local" limit for urban streets is 30mph. Down to 20mph (30kph) near schools. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5f73EHRhA"]Think UK - Road Safety Ad - YouTube[/ame]
The limit then should be as high as possible in regards to safety to reduce pollution, congestion and inconvienance. I do not agree that simply lowering limits on roads will improve safety. If we look at the specific of the OP it is about pedestrians crossing well I bet you if you lower the limits then pedestrians will cross more and more because they can. My local 40k road doesnt have pedestrians but suffers another risk factor caused by thinking a lower limit will improve safety. Obviously most everyone thinks they can go faster but when your talking about reducing speeds to 40 or 30k's then your starting to get down towards pushbike speeds. It also adds a whole bunch of human factors because drivers at slower speeds start to think they do not need to pay as much attention to driving. So for me limits need to be high, roads need to be good and wide, pedestrians and bikes need to be seperated, and danger zones need to be early warned and well defined.
