The 36 number is inflated, as it likely includes teenagers with intent.
For those downvoting the parent comment, please do some critical reading of the article. It's conflating "children of all ages" with "toddlers". This is an absolutely trash article.
I agree, to an extent. But when articles twist words and uses stats in places that are lies, I have issues with it as well. There's no reason to embellish this data.
How many traffic fatalities is too many? If we lowered the maximum speed of cars to 20 mph, and that reduced fatalities by 90%, would that be worth it?
> How many traffic fatalities is too many? If we lowered the maximum speed of cars to 20 mph, and that reduced fatalities by 90%, would that be worth it?
Traffic fatalities are reduced by reduced speeds, and countries in Europe tend to limit quite heavily maximum speed in urban areas so... Yes, reducing speeds to 20-30mph in most cases is worth it, the US should adopt that.
Highways can have increased speeds as they are designed for it, here in Sweden it's limited to max 90km/h in urban perimeters (~55mph) but sometimes down to 70km/h, up to 120km/h outside urban areas (~75mph). Unfortunately speed limits aren't the solution though, better driver education, better urban design which naturally limits speeds, and stricter enforcement/punishment of traffic violations all build up to safer traffic.
Traffic in the USA is murderous, reminds me much more of my native country (Brazil) than any other developed country I've ever driven at.
https://everytownresearch.org/maps/notanaccident/
The 36 number is inflated, as it likely includes teenagers with intent.
For those downvoting the parent comment, please do some critical reading of the article. It's conflating "children of all ages" with "toddlers". This is an absolutely trash article.