Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me283
OK, let's assume that it's speed that is the main factor in road deaths. I think it is safe to say that a child could be killed at 20 mph, or even 15mph. So why not reduce the speed limit in the country to 10mph? That way there would be no deaths, or at most an extremely low number. And then we could imprison anyone who exceeded that limit! The question is, if you are happy to harp on about the life-saving merits of speed limits whilst people are still dying in accidents where the speed limit has not been exceeded, what is your argument then?
|
That is one of the most stupid arguments I have heard.
The faster that a vehicle is travelling the greater the risk of serious injury or death to a pedestrian hit by that vehicle, an indisputable fact. The same applies to the driver and occupants of motor vehicles involved in collisions, even your car.
A car travelling at 30 mph takes 75 feet to stop in a well maintained car during the day in good weather conditions with the driver concentrating on driving. At 35 mph that distance increases to 96 feet. That means that there is a 21 foot zone where the 35 mph car could hit and kill or injure a pedestrian but the 30 mph car would have stopped before entering.
What would your view of speeding be if you hit and killed a pedestrian in that 21 foot zone?
Would your view change if your child, partner or parent was killed in that zone?
How about if you hit and killed your own child, partner or parent in that zone? Would you put on their gravestone
Here lies the body of my son
He died because I was speeding