[alistairSH]

Of course not. “Speeds are correct on non-highways” doesn’t match the level of pedestrian fatalities in the US. He might be 100% correct about the highway speed, though I doubt it, since most highways (interstate/limited access) seem to be 65 or 70, except in urban areas.

[pclmulqdq]

It's a good thing that the pedestrian fatalities you are trying to cite very often happen due to someone speeding (that is a fact that you can corroborate with police data if you would like). If people don't obey a speed limit, you can't cite a consequence of their driving speed to say that the limit is too high.

Also, I have exactly as much data as everyone else is bringing to this discussion, including you and the GP comment, who have brought no relevant data either. This is just my opinion.

[alistairSH]

You’re the one who made the contention that suburban/non-highway speeds are just fine, despite high levels of pedestrian/non-car injury/death, not me.

And yes, I can absolutely say speed limits are too high, even if people are exceeding them. People drive the speed they feel safe, not the speed we want. So, we should design the roads to ensure people drive the speeds we want.

IE, a wide open 4-lane road is going to see speeds above 40mph, even if it’s posted at 20mph. Because it looks/feels safe from within a car. Yet, we keep building wide open 4-lane roads and wondering why everybody speeds and people keep getting run over.

[pclmulqdq]

I never said speeds are just fine. I said speed limits are fine, but being flagrantly violated. And yes, I agree that road design plays into this.

My experience with the design of many roads suggests that people generally take them far too fast regardless: they cut corners, don't stay fully in their lane, and do lots of other things that indicate they are driving far too fast.