Economic analyzes on the passage from 90 km / h to 80 km / h in France ...

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Oops it's true I forgot this factor the increase in the number of vehicles (all types combined) and the kilometers traveled ... very fair

[Leo Maximus]

In all countries the more the speed is limited the fewer people are killed on the roads, but the higher the percentage of pedestrians and cyclists killed.

[Janic]

In all countries the more the speed is limited the fewer people are killed on the roads, but the higher the percentage of pedestrians and cyclists killed there

as part of a global vision only. On national, departmental, etc. roads, these are more accident-prone due to lack of maintenance, lack of signage, by continuous or intermittent lines made despite common sense, etc ... and therefore an increase in vehicles including trucks, this inevitably leads to serious accidents and where speed plays only a secondary role (between 90 and 80, the nuance is weak and as no car can stop dead, it's booming! In town It’s hardly different! 60 or 50 when a pedestrian comes out, it takes between 12 and 27 meters to stop and it also boosts! We must therefore ban cars, cyclists and pedestrians!

[sen-no-sen]

Oops it's true I forgot this factor the increase in the number of vehicles (all types combined) and the kilometers traveled ... very fair

Above, the evolution of the French car fleet between 1970 and 2010 composed as follows:

32,39 million private vehicles, or 82,8% of the vehicle fleet.
6 million light commercial vehicles (less than 5 tonnes)
0,75 million coaches, buses and industrial vehicles (over 5 tonnes)
CCFA source

The curves speak for themselves, despite an increase of almost 13million in the number of vehicles on the roads between 1970 and 2010, mortality dropped from 18000 dead to less than 3450 dead in 2017 ...
The conclusion is therefore final, by maintaining the current policies in terms of prevention, deterrence and road repression and by reducing the number of vehicles in circulation (60%*) we would quickly arrive at a balance sheet that would approach the least 500 killed on the roads.


* 60% at least, why figure?
First of all because we are not alone on earth and if we want everyone to be a little bit, others must use their belts, moreover transport is responsible for almost 35% of GHG emissions.
On the other hand, almost 48 million inhabitants live in urban or peri-urban areas and are therefore likely to use public transport.

[Leo Maximus]

as part of a global vision only. On national, departmental, etc. roads, these are more accident-prone due to lack of maintenance, lack of signage, by continuous or intermittent lines made despite common sense, etc ... and therefore an increase in vehicles including trucks, this inevitably leads to serious accidents and where speed plays only a secondary role (between 90 and 80, the nuance is weak and as no car can stop dead, it's booming! In town It’s hardly different! 60 or 50 when a pedestrian comes out, it takes between 12 and 27 meters to stop and it also boosts! We must therefore ban cars, cyclists and pedestrians!

The state can (or should) have only one global vision.

Lack of maintenance and poor signage should encourage more careful driving, but this is never the case. Example, when the lights are broken at a crossroads, which respects the panels fixed on the lights? almost nobody is immediately anarchy.

Can improved maintenance and signage help reduce alcoholism while driving and driving? Absolutely not.

Ban cars? No, but banning drivers yes, that is the goal of the autonomous car.

Pedestrians, it's a special case, it's a real problem when you drive electric.

[Gaston]

Can improved maintenance and signage help reduce alcoholism while driving and driving? Absolutely not.

Neither did the lower speed limit.

[sen-no-sen]

Ban cars? No, but banning drivers yes, that is the goal of the autonomous car.

It is a process of cornucopian* In short, rather than finding resilient solutions, we promise technologies that aim to correct faults by striving to forget the causes.
Autonomous cars are worthy heirs of this ideology.


cornucopian: designates a futurologist or more broadly individuals (believers would be more just) persuaded that technological innovation would make it possible to solve the problems of humanity indefinitely.
At the present time, all the a fortiori ecological problems are considered from the point of view of this doctrine.

[Janic]

Example, when the lights are broken at a crossroads, which respects the panels fixed on the lights? almost nobody is immediately anarchy.

when the traffic lights are broken, priority to the right (yes, it still exists!) prevails, it is not anarchy!

[Leo Maximus]

Technical control, speed limits, seat belts, points license, etc ... it is cornucopianism that has reduced the number of road victims.

But the thick raw conductor remains.

[sen-no-sen]

Technical control, speed limits, seat belts, points license, etc ... it is cornucopianism that has reduced the number of road victims.

But the thick raw conductor remains.

This is not correct since the development of the automobile is in essence (sic!) The cause of accidents.
Strictly speaking, speed limits and the point license do not come under the "Cornucopian" vision but rather of legislative adjustment variables.
Now the highway code is good but it is insufficient when there are 30 million motorists.
The best way to channel thick thugs is to put them on public transport.
Anyway, the scarcity of energies and the contraction of the economy in the future will decide for us and the solutions will impose themselves.