Decisions on changing speed limits in sa国际传媒 should be based on science and safety, not on what is popular. sa国际传媒 Transportation Minister Todd Stone has ordered a review of highway speed limits with the idea of making changes in the spring. Stone is seeking public input on possible changes, which is entirely appropriate, but that input should not be allowed to outweigh other factors, such as road design, weather, traffic volume and surrounding development.
The pressure to raise speed limits is likely to be strong, accompanied by such sentiments as 鈥渟peed doesn鈥檛 kill鈥� and 鈥渟low drivers cause accidents.鈥�
Of course speed doesn鈥檛 kill 鈥� it鈥檚 that sudden stop when one moving object collides with another that kills. But the extent of damage and injury increases with the speed involved 鈥� that鈥檚 straightforward physics 鈥� as does the potential for accidents. Faster reaction times are required to handle higher speeds, and the faster a car goes, the less control a driver has if something goes wrong.
A simplistic answer would be to lower speed limits to ensure everyone is safe in every circumstance, but that would be a wildly impractical and unworkable approach. Our commerce, government and daily living depend heavily on the efficient movement of goods, people and vehicles along our roads.
When the world鈥檚 first recorded speeding fine was levied in 1896 against Walter Arnold of East Peckham, England, his eight miles (13 kilometres) an hour in a two-mile-an-hour zone might have seemed a reckless pace. It required a constable going at top speed on his bicycle to catch the speeder.
Arnold鈥檚 speed might have been dangerous for the primitive roads and machines involved then, but modern roads and vehicles are engineered for speeds not dreamed of in those times. Laws need to keep up with technology. So the review is timely 鈥� the province鈥檚 last review of speed limits was 10 years ago. Many roads have been upgraded and traffic patterns have changed since then.
Cars, too, have become safer. Because of design and technology, they handle better. Unlike the solid-metal behemoths of the past, they absorb much more of the impact in collisions, saving lives and reducing injuries.
But human beings haven鈥檛 evolved at the same pace. Most of us think we are better drivers than we really are. Speed limits take physics into account; they also must factor in human nature.
Speed-limit critics like to point to Germany鈥檚 autobahns as relatively safe roads although some have no speed limits, but mountainous sa国际传媒 has very few places where speed restrictions could be lifted. It would be unwise to raise the speed limit on the Malahat Drive, for example. To reduce the danger of head-on collisions, concrete barriers have been installed along sections of the highway. Now motorists face a luge-like experience as they drive to and from the south Island. Higher speeds won鈥檛 help there.
Stone points to the 85th-percentile rule 鈥� research suggests that the speed that is exceeded by only 15 per cent of drivers should be the speed limit. Most of the risk comes from those who drive too fast or too slow.
So public input is useful 鈥� depending on how much comes from the 85 per cent and how much comes from the rest. That鈥檚 why public response should not be allowed to trump science as it did in 2001 when the sa国际传媒 Liberals discarded photo radar, despite the reduction in traffic fatalities that occurred during the six years it was used.
That was a political decision. Changing speed limits should be done if it鈥檚 appropriate for public safety and convenience, not for political expediency.
