An article in Amsterdam daily Het Parool I found via LinkedIn reported on the results of an 18-month experiment that began in December 2023 to reduce car speed limits to 30 km/h on more than 500 streets in the city, around 270 km of its road network.
The move was criticized by some as another concession to green fundamentalism, making the life of motorists yet more difficult.
The result has been a silent but significant transformation of the city. Fewer accidents, less noise, greater respect for rules, a clear perception of improved safety, and most interestingly, widespread acceptance. As usually happens when political decisions face the hill of hysteria — the initial rejection of any innovation that upsets the status quo — evidence of the benefits has gradually reduced resistance and slowly consolidated a new normality that’s increasingly being accepted.
Are drivers actually reducing their speed, or are they simply ignoring the measure while looking the other way? Reality shows that the behavioral change is palpable: more than 60% of drivers in Amsterdam now respect the new limit, a figure that has increased progressively since its implementation. The most serious infractions, those above 55 km/h, have practically disappeared: they dropped from 1% to 0.2% of the total. The strategic use of fixed and mobile radars in selected areas has contributed to this decrease, reducing average speed by 20%.
Beyond controling drivers’ behavior, what’s really happened is a change in the way residents understand the city around them: it’s no longer just about fining the offender, but making driving fast seem as out of place as smoking inside a daycare center. And yes, making the city more uncomfortable, slower, more unpredictable, and less convenient for private cars is a deliberate objective. Only when the automobile is tamed do healthier, more sustainable, and more equitable alternatives appear.
Among the unexpected outcomes of forcing cars to drive slower, the presence of vehicles that clearly don’t respect limits has been highlighted, notably high-speed e-bikes, most of which aren’t regulated and regularly exceed the 30 km/h. The result is a sense of injustice: the driver who’s forced to go slow is constantly overtaken by cyclists who seem immune to regulations, generating frustration and disaffection toward the measure. This problem not only erodes the legitimacy of the speed limit but reveals the need to control other forms of transport.
At the same time, the move hasn’t done much to dissuade people from using their cars and take the bus or tram. The data forces deeper reflection: is an isolated measure like speed reduction sufficient to induce real change? Probably not. For the car to stop being the default option for many people, integrated policies are needed: access restrictions, congestion charges, cycling networks, public transport incentives, elimination of road parking… In other words: the 30 km/h limit is an excellent beginning, but by itself it’s not sufficient leverage to trigger a complete structural transformation.
On the upside, data are pretty conclusive: accidents with injuries dropped 11%, crashes with trams and buses fell from 58 to 44, even considering that these vehicles maintain the previous 50 km/h limit in separate lanes. Noise levels have decreased by an average of 1.5 decibels, and most revealingly, even on streets where the speed limit wasn’t changed, average speed and accidents have also decreased, pointing to a generalized calming effect. Not even increases in emergency service response times have been detected, one of the usual criticisms at the beginning. And while initially only a minority supported the measure, now 60% of citizens declare themselves favorable, with peaks of 75% among those who don’t own a car.
But what’s most interesting is the Europe-wide trend to reduce speed in cities and towns. Paris, Lyon, Grenoble, Brussels, Helsinki, and almost every city in Spain have implemented so-called 30 zones with similar results: fewer accidents, fewer deaths and less noise and air pollution. In Spain, since the 30 km/h limit was adopted in 2021 on single-lane streets in each direction, urban deaths fell 14%. In Lyon, accidents dropped 22% and hospital admissions for traffic injuries 40%. In Brussels, speed reduction translated into fewer serious pedestrian accidents and a greater sense of safety among cyclists and pedestrians. And in Helsinki, after two decades of similar policies, the city center has managed to reduce traffic-related injuries by 42%. Even some Indian cities are signing up. None of these cities has reversed its decision. None regrets it.
And while speed is one of the worst aspects of urban life, the real problem remains the indiscriminate use of private automobiles as the dominant mode of transport. Limiting speed not only reduces the severity of accidents: it also modifies driver behavior, reinforces coexistence with more sustainable transport modes and, above all, transforms the perception of the street as common space. A street at 30 km/h is a quieter, more human, less hostile street. An environment where pedestrians and cyclists feel they have the right to be there, they stop seeing themselves as intruders on what have become urban highways.
Of course, these measures aren’t exempt from opposition. In Bologna, the first Italian city to implement the limit in January 2024, drivers soon protested. In Australia, similar proposals have unleashed fierce media debates. The arguments are usually the same: that it’s an ideological imposition, that it harms commerce, that it slows urban life, that it generates traffic jams. But when results are measured seriously, these criticisms dissolve. Sure, there’s still traffic, but it’s more manageable. What’s more, shops and restaurants don’t disappear, they benefit from a more livable environment. Public space stops being a place of transit, and instead becomes a place to enjoy.
Reducing the speed cars can travel in cities doesn’t solve everything. It’s no substitute for joined up policies, investment in public transport and bicycles to get around. Nevertheless, it’s an essential piece of the urban puzzle. A measure that, when accompanied by transparent communication, coherent implementation and rigorous evaluation, demonstrates that the future of the city isn’t about running faster but living better.
The data is there. The question isn’t whether other cities will follow Amsterdam’s example, because obviously they’re already doing so and it’s been for the good. The real question is why it takes us so long to understand that going slower can be the smartest way to get to where we want to go.
—
This post was previously published on Enrique Dans’ blog.
***
If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today.
All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS.
Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.
Photo credit: iStock
