Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andyl
Ignoring the loud VERY. How strong do you really think an argument is that says hitting somebody at 20 can kill so speed doesn't kill? Ask yourself, is that is really watertight?
You clearly think speed limits are arbitarily dreamt up by cunning politicians who want to raise revenue. That's not really true is it? So, a camera to my mind can be placed anywhere where it is needed to keep drivers to the limit (for reference, that being the maximum) deemed safe by the highway authorities. Break the speed limit (reminder, the maximum, you can drive slower) and you might get done.
Besides, what's the hurry?
|
What is watertight is that 30mph is not the waterline at which people get killed. If I drove at 1000mph and missed you, it wouldn't kill you. My point is that speed ALONE doesn't kill, yet that is all that GATSOs detect. And no life has ever been saved by the driver of a car being photographed.
No I don't think that about speed limits. I think that many need to be reviewed, and I also think that too much focus is placed upon the enforcement of speed limits. I shall re-iterate, cameras do not enforce the speed limit, they merely generate revenue. If speed kills, why don't we have a nationwide blanket speed limit of 10mph? And maybe inhibit vehicles so that they cannot exceed that limit? Or do you not think that would save lives?