[timbre]

The Priceonomics article's main point is that raising speed limits doesn't (much) raise actual speed, so it's not inconsistent with papers (like the one you linked) that show that increased speed causes more and worse accidents.

[cpncrunch]

Other research shows that raising speed limits increases accidents, and reducing speed limits reduces accidents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Effectiveness

[aetherson]

Obviously it's hard to judge studies by one sentence summaries, but some of those papers sound like extraordinary claims. "Speeds declined by 5 km/h. Fatal crashes declined by 12%." Come on, really? We're going to imagine that a 3mph change in speed (at speeds around 80mph) could possibly be causal to a 12% change in fatalities?

[cpncrunch]

I haven't looked at the refs, but you're welcome to. I suspect wikipedia is more reliable than priceonomics.com, although you have to look at the sources yourself to be sure.

[peatmoss]

As I said, to the extent that the article made the case for combining speed limits with roadway design, I agree.

However, the quote from the Lieutenant was clearly stating that speeding was not the problem. The whole article appears to have been either crafted or embarrassingly not crafted to muddle these two questions.