Looks like an epidemiological model

I wasn't giving my opinion on this, I was stating what research has shown. Fuel consumption/exhaust emissions are somewhere between slightly higher and slightly lower, and particulate pollution (e.g. brake dust) is consistently lower.

What you might be mistaking is the fact that traffic calming methods such as speed bumps do tend to result in increased pollution because they result in much more accelerating/braking, which reduces fuel economy. A consistent lower speed limit has been found to noticeably reduce the amount and severity of acceleration/braking, which is why it can result in fewer emissions despite engines generally being a little less efficient at the lower speed (this is what actually matters, not how long the same journey takes).

To expand this to the original topic of speed limits on highways, pollution would definitely be reduced by a moderate amount if the limit was reduced from 70mph to 55mph because 99% of car engines are more efficient at these speeds so that's another possible thing to consider.

I agree and posted as such but I got trolled by the common sense squad who majors in ignorance

ban speed limits!

Another banger from PointlessWords!

I mean you take the speed ;limit from 65 to 55 and you are going to increase the rate of closure on the 20% who decide to drive 55 and the 75@ who say **** it and drive 70-80.

None of that matter as half the ****ing hopeless old 80 year old ****ers on the road drive the equivalent of a 30 year old with a 0.12BAC.

They need mandatory behind the wheel tests on old awful drivers if you actually want to save lives.

Lol you wish

It has more to do with the vehicle your driving. Taking certain old pick up trucks or minivans to 75 is more dangerous than is understood - like driving fast in the rain. Vehicles designed to cruise at 120 can be much
more safer than assumed.

It's the thing your sitting in. I raced both fast and slow vehicles at sears point in california.

^^^^^ agreed

now this i agree with you on 100%

That it is an awful idea?

I am more than a little tickled at the idea that Victor's solution. The majority of Americans live in suburbs? Well, too bad. Daddy Victor says that cars are banned now, so you better uproot your entire existence and move to the urban jungle. It isn't like similar ideas have been implemented in the 20th century, with predictably disastrous results.

Are you an expert on crashing?

There isn't room downtown for everyone lol, even if they all desperately wanted to go there.

Victor like other leftists wants to simply cut a ton of people out of access to urban areas so the intelligentsia can go to the museum without too much of a crowd (and their cab drivers are exempted from the rules that work for the commoners).

tell me youve never been to asia, without telling me youve never been to asia

Tell me you have never checked the population densities of the biggest American cities, nor that of the biggest asian cities.

That doesn’t address that Asians know how to build better cities than we do. If you have spent time in Asia you would see that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am grunching this thread, but after the 2020 Summer of Floyd racial awakening there was tremendous pressure by the left to stop enforcing pretty much all traffic laws, including speeding, because they resulted in racial disparities, and hence were racist.

So given this, it seems you think it is good idea to support enforcement of racist policies. Why is this?

people build the cities they want and people preferences vary across time and geography.

back to the topic, there isn't room for many more people in many American urban centers, no matter the reasons why

There absolutely is plenty of room. And no, city planning and large corporations builds the cities in America. Everyday people have nothing to do with it

radical leftism spreads like cancer, this is a Canadian newspaper citing my city suicide with the 18 mph speed limit as an example of what Canada should do as well

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/driv...ike-in-europe/

You have no understanding of what radical left means.

no the primary factor is short term profit for the cartels already in power.

you make a few assumptions in your post that I dont agree with. firstly that suburban dwellers would be cut off without a car. I think it would be possible to create an efficient public transport for them.

secondly, I am not saying to do it all at once. phasing out personal usage of cars, or limiting their usage over time would alleviate this.

no, I think access would be increased with better public transport.

elucidate, please.

Do you have any real world model of what that would look like? Because Japan, which is touted as one of the good examples on public transport, and where a greater percentage of total population is packed in a few urban areas, and the concept of suburb an exurb is less relevant than ib some american cities, still has approx 70% of the motor vehicles per person that the USA have (like 660 every 1000 people vs 900 every 1000).

So a completely radical change to american transport, becoming like Japan, which if lucky would require several decades, would still be very very far from your stayed goal, what exactly is the model to go much lower in private vehicles while still letting people actually, you know, reach their destinations?

How about Seoul


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk