I literaly just tried that at 50km/h spot on and I'm pretty damn sure I didn't even reach 10 meters. It stopped damn near on the spot. And mind you, this isn't the standard for absolute stopping power we're talking about.
What do you consider as triggering the reaction time though? These distances seem to take assumption that 100% of the people are either total morons while driving or have cars with worn out brake pads and bald tires on a rainy day.
Not only that...
"This power of speed to determine who lives and dies was made clearly on Toronto streets. Researchers there found that over a four-year period, zero people died after being hit by motorists in 30-km/h speed zones. Meanwhile, in 40-km/h areas, 12 died. In 50-km/h areas, 44 died."
By this logic, every zone should be a 30 zone, but we aren't gonna do that because it isn't the logical thing to do. You'd have a point in a narrow road, but not in a place wide enough for two cars. And putting speed cameras is just gonna piss the ever living shit off of people for obvious reasons. It still might not even fix the problem, and it might be vandalized, while ALSO requiring maintenance, of which none of those happens to a speed bump, which you build and it forces people to slow down or get their cars fucked.
Also, why does it sounds like the pedestrian infastructure doesn't allows for enough safety from passing cars??? It boggles my mind that people are even getting hit by cars in the first place, at whatever speed. Or is it actually the pedestrians just copying the "careless king pf the road cyclist"?
That's really not a good way of testing your reactions tbh, you're expecting it and there is no element of surprise.
A good portion of the population fall in either of those categories. That's who the rules are designed for. If rules were more lenient, you'd see a lot more deaths on the road.
the car isn't gonna stop any later, if anything, its gonna stop even sooner because of slamming harder on the brakes
besides, I was talking about braking distance, not reaction times
Speed limits are low in residential areas to prevent deaths when accidents like this happens: https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/police-release-dashcam-footage-of-the-moment-a-boy-is-hit-by-a-car/news-story/5906864272ac8e7e6613982cecf8244f
Maybe you really did stop in 10 m (modern cars are good), but neither a perfect car or perfect driver wouldn't have been enough to avoid the above accident. You're absolutely right in that pedestrian infrastructure is a factor in the speed limit, but people need to get to and from their houses. The majority of roads have higher speed limits because they are not as prone to vehicle-pedestrian contact as residential areas. You could rebuild residential areas with tall fences, tunnels or personal garages built away from the houses, but pushing the expense, complexity and inconvenience in rebuilding residential areas just to shave 1 minute off your commute isn't the logical thing to do either.
I really don't understand your angle on all this. What is it that's so outrageous about being told how fast you can drive? If you got to decide all road laws, what would you do?
I took it from the UK highway code.
Stopping distance includes 0.7 second "thinking time" which is from the moment you see the danger to the moment you kick the brakes.
As for the braking distance, i havent looked into it but i know whenever speed doubles, the kinetic energy of the car quadruples, so that's something to keep in mind.
That also affects how violent the impact with pedestrians is, btw. Hence why you've got a much higher fatality rate at 50kph vs 30kph.
I wouldn't call it modern, but sure... just well built I guess.
It isn't just one minute. Yday was stuck nehind someone doing 10 under the limit, delayed me by 5 minutes or so in comparison to doing the regular limit. What for? It just wastes time for no reason whatsoever.
The only place where we have a 30 kph limit here is a place where its a stone surface and a single lane for both incoming and oncoming cars, AND also used by pedestrians on a daily basis.
Keep everything as it is, but remove speed cameras everywhere except in highways, but also signal said hgwh speed cameras better, if not just for people to get scared and slow down.
And place speed bumps in critical and slightly less critical spots. Maybe in pedestrian walks aswell.
We have those in a long straight near a parking spot here, it literaly kills your mood to speed because its like 3 or 4 bumps in like 100 meters or something.
IIRC, Top Gear tested the breaking distance and found that cars can brake alot harder than what the Highway code suggests
There's no excuse for going below the speed limit unless the road conditions are poor, keeping traffic flowing is everybody's responsibility.
But, sticking to the point, would you concede that situations like that in the example might be a good reason to keep a 30 kph speed limit in residential areas, with speed bumps or otherwise? Your posts made it look like you vehemently oppose all speed limits in general, but maybe that isn't the case?
You can't make laws that assume everyone has the best equipment or the best reaction time.
It depends on how wide the street is and the kind of traffic in it.
Here we mostly use 30kph for streets almost narrower than one lane with heavy pedestrian traffic or with house exits right next to the road,, unless its a special reason, like a place with a lot of retired folk who walk around, or a school. Everything else has a 50km/h limit, which I guess its perfect.
I fully oppose speed cameras being used anywhere but the highway and draconian speed limits that are there just because "speed is bad!", not speed limits. Speed cameras are quite literaly a gadget for easy cash grabs, much like police radars who clock you 5 over the limit at the off ramp.
Also to be noted that a lot of old cars are still on the road. Their brakes are probably worse too.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.