Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andyl
It is quite obviously not a good way of exemplifying the point you are trying to make. This really isn't hard to grapple with. If you are travelling at greater speed you have less time to respond and will cause greater damage if you collide with something or some one. That is undeniably logical. Your argument that you can kill anyone at nearly any speed is frankly stupid. Presumably you also think water is a dangerous toxin because if you drink enough of it, it will kill you.
|
The argument that you can kill someone at nearly any speed is frankly stupid?
How is that stupid? It's a fact.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andyl
To address the response time/collision impact scenarios highway planners devise maximum limits at which you may legally travel, based on the local conditions. This is a logical response. Speed limits cannot be arbitrary or they will not be enforceable in law so they are set at, 30, 40, 50 etc according to the risk. Break those limits and you will be prosecuted and, unless the evidence is deficient, you can have nothing to complain about.
|
Perhaps you should read this which details what should be taken into account when deciding to set speed limits.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ads_505174.pdf
Notice point 9 where it says that the 85th percentile should be taken into account, and that its pointless to set too low a speed limit. (unless of course you want to make money out of a speed camera...)
With regards to pedestrian safety, there does appear to have been a shift of responsibility from the pedestrian to the motorist rather than educating both.
The hedgehog adverts are usually only on in the early hours of the morning (along with the "don't play with matches" ads) when kids aren't likely to be watching TV.