[matsemann]

Did you see the graph in my comment? There's a steep curve beginning a bit over 30 km/h. Hence great impact per km/h reduction at those higher speeds. Not as much when going even even lower. Most people don't think in extremes, and are actually capable to think of the various tradeoffs. No need to be so hyperbolic..

I'd like some streets to be 20 km/h as well, though. But that is because those streets should be for pedestrians / kids / those living there, and not for traffic.

[pakitan]

I saw the graph. It's probably crap, given that there is 5% death rate at 0km/h but let's take it at face value and let's say we implement 30km/h limit. Then there will inevitably be people claiming "death rate can be reduced by another 40% if we were just responsible enough to reduce the limit even further, to 10km/h". That's not hyperbole, that's exactly the way events unfolded near the end of the covid epidemic. Under the "every life is important" slogan, there was massive strain imposed on everyone, just to have a tiny % of old people die next year instead of this one.

Of course there should be 10 or 20km/h limits on certain streets, no one is arguing about that. We're talking about city-wide limits. Here, if I was driving at 30km/h on a main city road, I'd be lynched and rightfully so.

[matsemann]

At ~0km/h kids are unfortunately still dying, mainly being backed over by their own family.

The rest of your argument is basically a slippery slope fallacy and not even close to what's happening in any urban planning discussion I've ever been a part of. And I'm on the board of an organization discussing these things.