Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ian@huth
That is one of the most stupid arguments I have heard.
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.
Here lies the body of my son
He died because I was speeding
|
Firstly, why is it stupid? You constantly make the point that higher speed = greater risk of death/injury. I am pointing out that there are still deaths/injuries when drivers have not broken the speed limits. Therefore, if we as a nation are committed to trying to stop ALL deaths/injuries on the road then why not reduce all speed limits to the point where accidents/injuries don not happen? Why is that stupid? I notica also that you didn't answer...
Second point, is actually wrong to say. Different cars, different drivers, different conditions... all have an impact on stopping distances. You might as well say "that car would have stopped from 30 mph in a much shorter distance if it had ABS brakes. The driver is to blame because he chose a cheaper option on his car". As has been pointed out, why always assume it's the driver's fault?
Last point - very poor. I think it is safe to say that nobody on this board would want anyone to die. But to then heap the blame on just one factor is grossly unfair. How about, for example:
HERE LIES THE BODY OF X. HE GOT DRUNK AND WALKED IN FRONT OF A NON-SPEEDING CAR. HOWEVER IF THAT DRIVER HAD BEEN TRAVELLING AT 1MPH LESS HE MIGHT ONLY HAVE MAIMED OR CRIPPLED POOR X".
The facts are that speeding is always pointed at. There are no GATSOs that I know of which can detect a drunk driver, which is far more dangerous in my opinion that having an extra stopping distance of a few feet. However there is a much smaller effort put in by the police to snare drink drivers than there is to catch speeding motorists. Incidentally, drink driving is (I believe) impossible to defend, unlike speeding.
By the way, as opposed to justifying NOT using the Durham example, can you tell me why Durham IS such a comparitively safer place to drive? Perhaps if you look at the positives that Durham can teach, as opposed to pooh-pooh-ing something that puts a spanner in the works of your argument, then you may broaden your views on this subject?