[jfk13]

You're ignoring the fact that many people's perception of what is "a safe speed" is not at all reliable. (Compare: what percentage of people would claim to be better-than-average drivers? https://www.smithlawco.com/blog/2017/december/do-most-driver...)

We have speed limits because trusting people to "go a safe speed" doesn't work, in general.

[Dylan16807]

Objectively, the group settles into a particular speed.

It's based on both safety and perceived safety, and it's not perfect, but it works out pretty well.

If the road is designed properly it's the top few percentile that you need to restrain, not the masses.

If you make a super wide straight shot of asphalt down a residential neighborhood, and people go too fast, that's the road designer's fault.

[jfk13]

> it's the top few percentile that you need to restrain, not the masses

And how do you propose to "restrain" them, if not by enforcing a speed limit?

[alistairSH]

I don’t think anybody is arguing speed limits should be abolished. At least not in any general sense. But, it’s plain enough to see that speed limits on some roads are wrong.

I-495 in VA is a prime example. It’s posted at 55mph and traffic regularly flows faster (or slower, during rush hour). It really needs variable limits based on traffic volume instead of a dumb 55.

[jfk13]

Dylan16807's comment about

> If you replace speed limits with "go a safe speed"...

sounded to me like a suggestion that speed limits could be abolished in favour of a "use your judgement" rule, which I don't think is a sensible idea.

[Dylan16807]

It wasn't.

[Dylan16807]

I'm not suggesting getting rid of speed limits.

I was objecting to the idea that there is no natural speed, and that the group will "just escalate". Nothing else.