The go-to method right now seems to be to enforce it electronically, using the systems that are built into most new cars nowadays. Personally I’m not a fan of that, but it IS preferable to having all the surveillance electronics built into cars and just not doing anything worthwhile with it.
There’s another method using visual design that “calms” traffic. Ex, if you have a wide road, paint the sides of it a notable color that visually corrals people to a tighter space. They have the sides if absolutely needed, but recognize they need to go slower to stay within the lines.
You need forceful enforcement in some situations, but for the most part it pays to inspect the psychology that gets people to behave a certain way.
It is very possible to make higher speeds seem extremely unreasonable to drivers.
Having the streets be cobblestone instead of asphalt, for one, makes driving faster louder and more difficult for drivers. I’m not rooting for cars, I’m just saying there are so many methods that governments just don’t think are worth implementing because they value corporate lobbying more than citizen safety.
But … that exasperates so many issues that cars already cause. Like noise pollution, street maintenance costs (IDK maybe cobblestone lasts longer, but it’s for sure expensive to change a street into cobblestone vs. leaving it as-is), it compromises road safety for people who will drive fast anyway, and on streets that are too narrow for separate bike lanes they compromise bike safety (if we assume that cars start driving slow enough that it’s reasonably safe to ride a bicycle on that streets).
Sure, speed bumps are better solutions that cobblestone?
Honestly, this only exemplifies why speed limits by themselves don’t work. We have to design the streets so that the lower speed feels reasonable.
I know I’m probably preaching to the choir here, but it’s always worth saying.
The go-to method right now seems to be to enforce it electronically, using the systems that are built into most new cars nowadays. Personally I’m not a fan of that, but it IS preferable to having all the surveillance electronics built into cars and just not doing anything worthwhile with it.
There’s another method using visual design that “calms” traffic. Ex, if you have a wide road, paint the sides of it a notable color that visually corrals people to a tighter space. They have the sides if absolutely needed, but recognize they need to go slower to stay within the lines.
You need forceful enforcement in some situations, but for the most part it pays to inspect the psychology that gets people to behave a certain way.
It is very possible to make higher speeds seem extremely unreasonable to drivers.
Having the streets be cobblestone instead of asphalt, for one, makes driving faster louder and more difficult for drivers. I’m not rooting for cars, I’m just saying there are so many methods that governments just don’t think are worth implementing because they value corporate lobbying more than citizen safety.
But … that exasperates so many issues that cars already cause. Like noise pollution, street maintenance costs (IDK maybe cobblestone lasts longer, but it’s for sure expensive to change a street into cobblestone vs. leaving it as-is), it compromises road safety for people who will drive fast anyway, and on streets that are too narrow for separate bike lanes they compromise bike safety (if we assume that cars start driving slow enough that it’s reasonably safe to ride a bicycle on that streets).
Sure, speed bumps are better solutions that cobblestone?