Doesn't that just cause speeds to creep up as people think it's okay to go a little over the limit?
Sure, driving to the supermarket doesn't change much at 20mph vs 35mph. However, you may want to start speeding more situational as a lot of the lights feel very interconnected so rather than constantly hitting the same red you can speed before it to get a yellow.
Speeding largely just increases consequence of an accident but the thing that's causing them in the first place is looking at your phone. Adjusting how fast people can go won't fix then unless you dial it all the way down to 10mph.
Assuming the speed limit is 65 and you're driving at 75 that's quite normal but on a 1 hour journey you've saved ~9 minutes. Maybe worthwhile if you're going to the hospital but mostly not worth the stress and increased risk to others.
Also speeding is a major cause of accidents, even before cellphones were pervasive. https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/deta.... Also found another report dating back to the 90s that says the same thing but it's a pdf.
Most highways around me at 55 so it's 16 minutes. It improves much more when compared to 45 which is common to see people at because they cannot use their hands and feet at the same time (curvey roads).
> In 2024, speeding was a factor in 29% of motor vehicle crash deaths.
Well yeah of course speed is involved in a crash. You can't have a crash with two parked vehicles. Faster speeds make an accident worse but the accident occurs because somebody didn't break in time or look where they were going (common with pedestrian strikes as right turning vehicles don't look right for peds; just left for cars).
Them finding only 8% of accidents involved a distracted driver is highly suspicious. Anecdotally the amount of times I see people leaving lane unintentionally while also either staring at their crotch or holding a phone to their mouth is way beyond 8%.
So, if a road feels "safe" at 60mph to people, and you put the speed limit as 20 the average traffic might be 40mph. If you put the speed limit as 40mph, it might go up to 55mph. If you put the speed limit as 60mph, it might go up to 65 mph.
But that natural tapering is what lets you find a stable value for a specific percentile threshold.
I don’t feel like setting the speed limits at whatever people “think is safe” is a good idea, and the deaths confirm drivers are really, really bad at determining what is safe.
Our highways also train you that speed limit are complete bullshit. On an 8 lane, divided highway, with nothing but empty field or protective barriers on either side, 60 mph is comically low. That's how you end up with absurdities like it often being unavoidably illegal to drive on 680 in the Bay Area: either you're speeding, or you're obstructing traffic, both of which carry a fine.
IMO, the correct answer is to raise the speed limit of surface streets that already double as psuedo-highways (looking at you, San Jose), strictly enforce speed limits on surface streets, and then completely eliminate speed limits on the freeways.