[CodeSgt]

I can logically understand why this is a good thing. I enjoy running and biking myself. I often walk to places instead of drive during the rare times it’s a viable option.

Despite that understanding, I still don’t like it. It’s so incredibly frustrating going 20 or 25mph on a road where most drivers could easily safely drive over double that.

I also often see sections of road with speed limits well below what the road can handle, where EVERYONE is speeding, cops included. This is also frustrating because you’re still paranoid about getting a ticket just for going with the flow of traffic.

[bryanlarsen]

> safely

But is it? A 20/25mph speed limit implies a residential street. If you are doing 40 could you stop in time if a kid is hidden by parked cars and suddenly runs out into the street chasing a ball? If not, could you scrub off enough speed quickly enough to get below the ~20mph threshold where a collision with a pedestrian is unlikely to be fatal?

[tstrimple]

This is a function of the road design. We know based on studies that most folks drive the speed they feel comfortable regardless of the posted speed limits. I live right across the street from a school. It’s naturally a 25mph zone. But the roads are literally as wide as a highway road with perfect sight lines and bike lanes on both sides. It’s a very straight and wide path with clear visibility for about a mile so of course cars are going to fly down that road regardless of the posted limit.

All it would take is some traffic calming measures on each side of the school zone. Chicanes or bollards which narrow the road and force people to slow down and been demonstrated to be highly effective at regulating speed. Roads should be designed for the speeds that motorists are meant to travel if safety is an actual goal.

[close04]

> It’s so incredibly frustrating going 20 or 25mph on a road where most drivers could easily safely drive over double that.

It's the minority of drivers that should worry you. Speed limits and road safety aren't only for the ideal conditions and safest drivers. And they aren't just for what drivers feel safe doing but what everyone else is safe with.

Very conservatively and in ideal conditions, at 50mph it takes at least 10m to decide to act, another 10m for your foot to get the signal, and another 30-40m to stop. NHTSA estimates between 260ft-300ft. Do you still think most drivers can safely drive in an urban/residential environment with 60-100m stopping distance?

You say "most drivers could easily safely drive", I say "most drivers dangerously overestimate their ability" and are only prepared for best case scenarios. The rules are for all those other cases. A better option would be to make the road the limiting factor and not just via a rule. Drivers feeling less safe at higher speeds would bring that in line with what other participants to traffic feel and make everyone safer.

[peoplefromibiza]

> I say "most drivers dangerously overestimate their ability"

I say "most road users dangerously overestimate their ability". At 10mph (about 16 km/h) most bikers dangerously overestimate their ability to safely turn, brake or handle road bumps without invading other lanes, crashing or falling from their bikes.

[dragonwriter]

> I also often see sections of road with speed limits well below what the road can handle, where EVERYONE is speeding, cops included.

You say "cops included", as if cops speeding was otherwise unusual; it very much is not, and never has been.