20 is Plenty - Roads in MoCo now only 20 miles per hour

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is no data that demonstrates what you say, that 20MPH represents a specific threshold or “dividing line”. That’s not how modeling works.

AAA says you're wrong.

https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-severe-injury-death/

But if you'd rather set the safe speed limits at 15 mph instead of 20 mph, I don't have any problem with that.

Are you so stupid that you are incapable of even reading what you post? 20 MPH is not mentioned and as I pointed out already, there is no “dividing line” or threshold as you claim because that’s not how modeling works. You cyclists want to be respected? Stop being lying whiners.

Results show that the average risk of severe injury for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle reaches 10% at an impact speed of 16 mph, 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 mph, and 90% at 46 mph. The average risk of death for a pedestrian reaches 10% at an impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph, 75% at 50 mph, and 90% at 58 mph. Risks vary significantly by age.

Posted speed limits must be numbers divisible by 5. Did you know that?

Also, which part is whining? The higher the speed, the greater the danger. That's just physics.

First off, you are dumb. The reason that the speeds are reported the way they are in the study is because effects are modeled.

Second, you specifically said that 20 MPH was a “dividing line”. Can you explain that? Based on the link you provided, what makes 20 MPH a “dividing line”?

Hint, you cannot because it’s a curve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is no data that demonstrates what you say, that 20MPH represents a specific threshold or “dividing line”. That’s not how modeling works.

AAA says you're wrong.

https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-severe-injury-death/

But if you'd rather set the safe speed limits at 15 mph instead of 20 mph, I don't have any problem with that.

Are you so stupid that you are incapable of even reading what you post? 20 MPH is not mentioned and as I pointed out already, there is no “dividing line” or threshold as you claim because that’s not how modeling works. You cyclists want to be respected? Stop being lying whiners.

Results show that the average risk of severe injury for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle reaches 10% at an impact speed of 16 mph, 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 mph, and 90% at 46 mph. The average risk of death for a pedestrian reaches 10% at an impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph, 75% at 50 mph, and 90% at 58 mph. Risks vary significantly by age.

Posted speed limits must be numbers divisible by 5. Did you know that?

Also, which part is whining? The higher the speed, the greater the danger. That's just physics.

First off, you are dumb. The reason that the speeds are reported the way they are in the study is because effects are modeled.

Second, you specifically said that 20 MPH was a “dividing line”. Can you explain that? Based on the link you provided, what makes 20 MPH a “dividing line”?

Hint, you cannot because it’s a curve.

What's your point here? You don't like 20 mph speed limits? You think there should be variable speed limits for drivers, depending on the age of the pedestrian? You think 20 mph is too fast? What are you arguing about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is no data that demonstrates what you say, that 20MPH represents a specific threshold or “dividing line”. That’s not how modeling works.

AAA says you're wrong.

https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-severe-injury-death/

But if you'd rather set the safe speed limits at 15 mph instead of 20 mph, I don't have any problem with that.

Are you so stupid that you are incapable of even reading what you post? 20 MPH is not mentioned and as I pointed out already, there is no “dividing line” or threshold as you claim because that’s not how modeling works. You cyclists want to be respected? Stop being lying whiners.

Results show that the average risk of severe injury for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle reaches 10% at an impact speed of 16 mph, 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 mph, and 90% at 46 mph. The average risk of death for a pedestrian reaches 10% at an impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph, 75% at 50 mph, and 90% at 58 mph. Risks vary significantly by age.

Posted speed limits must be numbers divisible by 5. Did you know that?

Also, which part is whining? The higher the speed, the greater the danger. That's just physics.

First off, you are dumb. The reason that the speeds are reported the way they are in the study is because effects are modeled.

Second, you specifically said that 20 MPH was a “dividing line”. Can you explain that? Based on the link you provided, what makes 20 MPH a “dividing line”?

Hint, you cannot because it’s a curve.

What's your point here? You don't like 20 mph speed limits? You think there should be variable speed limits for drivers, depending on the age of the pedestrian? You think 20 mph is too fast? What are you arguing about?

Answer the question. Please explain how 20 MPH is a “dividing line” like you claim. I am all ears.

[Anonymous]

I don't have any more interest in arguing with anonymous randos on the Internet. 20 mph is generally recognized as a safe speed. If you think that's still too fast, talk to your state legislators. If you think that's too slow - well, too bad. Just avoid those roads when you're driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't have any more interest in arguing with anonymous randos on the Internet. 20 mph is generally recognized as a safe speed. If you think that's still too fast, talk to your state legislators. If you think that's too slow - well, too bad. Just avoid those roads when you're driving.

And there is no data to back up your claim. Even the study that you Googled does not back up your claim.

If you don’t want randos on the internet arguing with you, you should stop saying things that are easily disproven as objectively false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't have any more interest in arguing with anonymous randos on the Internet. 20 mph is generally recognized as a safe speed. If you think that's still too fast, talk to your state legislators. If you think that's too slow - well, too bad. Just avoid those roads when you're driving.

It must be so frustrating to be you, lol!

[Anonymous]

Will the stupid bikers follow the speed limit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will the stupid bikers follow the speed limit

Will the stupid drivers follow the speed limit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have any more interest in arguing with anonymous randos on the Internet. 20 mph is generally recognized as a safe speed. If you think that's still too fast, talk to your state legislators. If you think that's too slow - well, too bad. Just avoid those roads when you're driving.

It must be so frustrating to be you, lol!

DP, but the PP seems much better adjusted than the people here whining about a 5 MPH reduction in the speed limit on a few roads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will the stupid bikers follow the speed limit

How fast do you think they ride?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have any more interest in arguing with anonymous randos on the Internet. 20 mph is generally recognized as a safe speed. If you think that's still too fast, talk to your state legislators. If you think that's too slow - well, too bad. Just avoid those roads when you're driving.

It must be so frustrating to be you, lol!

DP, but the PP seems much better adjusted than the people here whining about a 5 MPH reduction in the speed limit on a few roads.

Coming into this a little late, but the posted speed limit does not make a difference to me as a bicyclist or a driver. I will use my independent judgement in every circumstance to make decisions that I deem safe in each situation.

What’s funny to me is that people somehow think 20 MPH is a magic number. It’s really not. There is no statistical difference in collision outcomes at 20 vs 25 MPH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have any more interest in arguing with anonymous randos on the Internet. 20 mph is generally recognized as a safe speed. If you think that's still too fast, talk to your state legislators. If you think that's too slow - well, too bad. Just avoid those roads when you're driving.

It must be so frustrating to be you, lol!

DP, but the PP seems much better adjusted than the people here whining about a 5 MPH reduction in the speed limit on a few roads.

Coming into this a little late, but the posted speed limit does not make a difference to me as a bicyclist or a driver. I will use my independent judgement in every circumstance to make decisions that I deem safe in each situation.

What’s funny to me is that people somehow think 20 MPH is a magic number. It’s really not. There is no statistical difference in collision outcomes at 20 vs 25 MPH.

Tell it to the judge.

[Anonymous]

This entire thread is a great example of why I believe that mandatory driver's education and safety refresher courses are needed every few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread is a great example of why I believe that mandatory driver's education and safety refresher courses are needed every few years.

But no requirements for cyclists? Hmmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread is a great example of why I believe that mandatory driver's education and safety refresher courses are needed every few years.

But no requirements for cyclists? Hmmm.

They have a 35mph speed limit. Cars have 20.