Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem
Correct but all such incidents are less dangerous at lower speed. There's no doubt about it that speed isn't the only factor in serious accidents but equally there's no doubt that the higher the speed, the more serious any given incident will be whether due to an idiotic driver or a mechanical failure - especially if you happen to be a pedestrian who comes into conflict with a car.
Oh and yes I am a driver just in case Russ is wondering.
---------- Post added at 22:08 ---------- Previous post was at 22:04 ----------
It won't have any fines pouring in if drivers do what they ought to be doing and pay attention to their speed. Given that speed cameras are well signed and national limits well advertised, I'd say the real idiots are those who just can't help getting fined and racking up points!
|
50 limit wont save lives on those roads
100mph head on crash will be little diferent to 120 mph head on crash
the only difference will be fine revenue
if they want to reduce accidents on these roads then altering the layout in rural areas would be the way to go
there is no real reason why most blind bends which are mostly part of a road snaking through very old boundaries being straightened out
in recent news several of the deaths have been caused by hidden dips these to could easily be removed by filling in or cutting down the hight of parts of road
any attempt to say there is no money for this is laughable with the amount they spend on installing road humps and traffic islands which serve no purpose other than to pacify the anti speed alliance and are totally ineffective at doing the job could be used instead for making roads safe ( i know it would take time )
as to cameras being well signed i beg to differ plus the police still love thier hidden vans on perfectly straight roads in many areas