Horrible. Texas used to follow this belief too, that exceed speed was the primary cause of traffic accidents and so must be heavily enforced, but then reversed direction with positive results.
The bad logic is as follows: Speed in excess of posted limits increases the probability of a traffic related accident. This is affirming the consequent in combination with an appeal to probability. The reality is that there are typically a multitude of variables responsible for traffic accidents, and so isolating and then blaming one of those variables in isolation results in a belief system that ignores evidence.
The primary cause of most traffic accidents is driver inattention irrespective of their speed. A driver who is not paying sufficient attention and driving with excess speed is more dangerous still, but the primary factor there is still not the speed.
Now instead of heavily enforcing speed limits aggressively everywhere, often as a money making venture for local municipalities, Texas police instead focus on more import aspects of criminal law and community service. Reckless driving is still just as heavily enforced however.
That's why road redesigns that makes drivers less comfortable with high speeds are important. It makes them slow down and also become more attentive. People respond to the psychological cues of their built environment. Here's a YouTube short explaining it: https://youtube.com/shorts/MyT7F5zuOU4
Speed may or may not be the cause of accidents, but higher speed 100% makes accidents worse in terms of outcomes.
Sometimes roundabouts are found to increase accidents relative to four way stops, but they're still held to be an improvement because the accidents are on average much less severe.
While the SF bay area has been sticking silly circles into pre-existing intersections, there are many roundabouts and circles in the Northeast that keep everything moving. Sitting at a red light when there is no other traffic breeds contempt for traffic laws.
I certainly agree speeding is not the sole cause of accidents...
But your conclusion is not supported by this -- if anything it encourages towards a similar result through technology...
Less people can speed.. less police officers would be needed to police 'just' speeding, those police officers would not be able to collect money for their local municipality.. and would be assigned alternative duties, or focus on wreckless driving (which could still generate money)
Texas went through that conclusion as well starting about 15 years ago. If speeding must continue to be heavily enforced and officers are needed elsewhere then just use technology to automate that enforcement. This was incredibly unpopular and such technology was removed through various forms of democratic and legal processes at great expense to various municipalities. This was the final nail in the coffin that killed heavy enforcement of speed and traffic light violations. Instead speed and traffic light violations are used as evidence in determinations once accidents do occur.
During this same time period Texas has become drunkenly addicted to traffic circles. Supposedly these simultaneously ease congestion and reduce accidents. These are also generally unpopular, but not so much so to warrant large law suits or rush to the voting ballots.
You will not eliminate bias as long as humans are involved in the decision making process. So it’s pretty trite to point it out like this.
A collection of humans making a collective decision compromising on everyone’s biases is called politics.
California has decided through a political process to take a step against speeding.
Now, you may not personally like it, but you are in no position to say they are wrong.
Applying Texas’ example as evidence of California’s objective mistakenness is also logically inconsistent. You did not state any conditions which may apply in Texas but not in California. You are equating the two in an all-else-remaining-equal fashion.
Ultimately, Gavin Newsom will need to sign it. I doubt he will unless he plans to end this term and move out of California. Remember how Dukakis lost Massachusetts. Different but has similarities.
You can arbitrarily increase stopping distance by slowing down earlier. If you wait until you must lock your brakes time is a more critical factor than velocity.
The bad logic is as follows: Speed in excess of posted limits increases the probability of a traffic related accident. This is affirming the consequent in combination with an appeal to probability. The reality is that there are typically a multitude of variables responsible for traffic accidents, and so isolating and then blaming one of those variables in isolation results in a belief system that ignores evidence.
The primary cause of most traffic accidents is driver inattention irrespective of their speed. A driver who is not paying sufficient attention and driving with excess speed is more dangerous still, but the primary factor there is still not the speed.
Now instead of heavily enforcing speed limits aggressively everywhere, often as a money making venture for local municipalities, Texas police instead focus on more import aspects of criminal law and community service. Reckless driving is still just as heavily enforced however.