What We Can Learn From Lower European Speed Limits
Lives saved with little impact on travel times.
The bottom line: slower traffic speeds save lives.
A body of evidence from a variety of European countries summarized by Geraldine Herbert makes it clear that reducing speed limits leads to higher road safety:
A comprehensive review of 30 km/h [18.5 mph] limits in European cities found a 23pc reduction in crashes, a 37% drop in fatalities, and a 38% decrease in injuries. In addition, emissions fell by 18%, noise pollution dropped 2.5 dB, and fuel consumption improved by 7%.
This is the major factor in the US push for ‘20 is plenty’ in dense urban settings.
Country by country:
On rural roads, France saved 349 lives in the first 20 months after reducing the speed limit from 90km/h to 80km/h [from 56 mph to 50mph], while Sweden saw a 41% reduction in fatalities after lowering rural road speed limits.
What about the impact on travel time?
Research findings show that slower speeds do not have a significant increase in travel times.
Research in Switzerland found that 30km/h limits improved overall traffic efficiency by reducing stop-and-go congestion. France’s decision to lower the speed limit from 90km/h to 80km/h on some two-lane rural roads faced backlash from drivers fearing longer journeys. However, data shows the actual impact was minimal – to lose five minutes, a driver would need to cover 300km [Around 185 miles].
Perhaps the most important fact is that drivers consistently overestimate time lost due to lower speed limits, and time ‘saved’ by speeding. At the same time this is one of the most consistent points of contention when arguing about lowering speed limits.
What about the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road-users?
Those not encased in thousands of pounds of metal, glass, and rubber are significantly better off if speed limits for motor vehicles are lowered. As Max Krupnick explains,
In 1990, one-quarter of new cars purchased by Americans weighed more than 4,000 pounds. In 2023, more than three-quarters did. Those unable to upsize, like bikers and pedestrians, suffer the most: pedestrian deaths have doubled since 2009.
Car bloat is causing the surge in pedestrian deaths in the US, as laid out by David Zipper:
A growing number of studies have linked car bloat to the surge in deaths among American pedestrians and bicyclists, both of which recently hit 40-year highs. University of Hawaii economist Justin Tyndall attributed 1,100 pedestrian deaths in the U.S. to the shift from cars to SUVs in the period from 2000 and 2019, a figure that did not include effects of pickup trucks or the expansion of model sizes. Notably, most other rich countries, where large cars are not as widespread, have seen a recent decline in crash fatalities, while the American death toll has surged.
Herbert sums up the benefits of lower speeds for the vulnerable:
Studies show that reducing speeds gives drivers more time to react, lessens crash severity, and creates a safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists.
But those in a position to do something about this — legislators, state and local traffic safety boards, and others responsible for setting speed limits and regulations on vehicle sizes and weights — are not doing enough on this front in the US, as the recent fatality surge shows.
But US traffic fatalities — estimated to be 40,990 for 2023 — are double what we see in other economically advanced countries, and US pedestrian crash deaths are at a 40-year high.
The last objection to lower speed limits.
I’ll simply observe that many drivers seem more than willing to accept lower safety for themselves and others in exchange for the hypothetical ‘saved' time’ they gain by higher speed limits and exceeding those limits, and increasingly in gigantic bloated pickups and SUVs.
What other explanation is there?