The changes have been endorsed by transport researchers and street safety advocates as effective measures to help reduce the number of Kiwis killed and injured on the roads.

That's all there is to it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] deadbeef79000 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes I did read the article, thanks for the opening ad hominem.

As I've said in another reply:

Greater speed makes every collision and accident worse.

We can save lives, already involved in collisions, by reducing the speed at which those collisions happen.

There is exactly one action you can take to mitigate the severity of someone else's mistake in a collision: reduce your speed.

How many lives, including your own, are worth taking to satiate your need for speed?

[–] sylverstream 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes think we're on the same page. I have absolutely no need for speed anymore (I did when I was younger, I admit), I just don't think it makes sense to limit speed on certain roads at 100km / hour like the Kapiti Expressway. It should be 120km/h IMO. Police is checking for speed there very often as it's an easy cash grab, but I hardly see them in 50km/h areas where it's much less safe to go over the limit.

[–] deadbeef79000 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah I think we are on the same page, nobody argues harder than two people who agree with eachother.

When I was a testosterone charged teen/20yo speed was all important. I grew out of it, many do not.

And yes, modern divided highways/motorways can and should be higher limited. Most are not modern nor divided. The Waikato expressway is 110km/h. It's great.

Also, if I hit a pole at 120km/h then the impact speed is 120km/h. If I have a head-on at 80km/h then the impact speed is 160km/h. So physically segregating traffic is the most effective infrastructure change to make, it is slow and expensive and impractical in most places.

Lowering limits on old crappy roads is the cheapest and therefore most efficient option.

[–] sylverstream 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Also, if I hit a pole at 120km/h then the impact speed is 120km/h. If I have a head-on at 80km/h then the impact speed is 160km/h. So physically segregating traffic is the most effective infrastructure change to make, it is slow and expensive and impractical in most places.

I also initially thought that was the case, but it's not! http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/collisionmath.html There's no difference between 80km/h against a pole or wall vs 80km/h head on.

[–] deadbeef79000 3 points 1 year ago

Fascinating! TYVM for that.

Though, I'll argue that even in my flawed examples having double the number of vehicles in the collision is still worse: double the casualties. It's just technically the same as two vehicles having independent collisions.

[–] deadbeef79000 2 points 1 year ago

Oh, also: it improves the effectiveness of lowering the speed limit versus infrastructure upgrades.

Neat.

[–] Ilovethebomb 2 points 1 year ago

How many lives, including your own, are worth taking to satiate your need for speed?

Lol, we're talking about driving at 100 kmh here. Tad melodramatic, don't you think?