Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
The argument that you can kill someone at nearly any speed is frankly stupid?
How is that stupid? It's a fact.
|
The fact that you can kill yourself by drinking too much water is also a fact. Best outlaw the tap now.
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
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...). |
All perfectly, totally sensible. But once a limit has been set if you don't stick to it and get GATSOed then, well, you're bang to rights aren't you. As I've said on countless occasions if you are unhappy with particular speed limits then campaign against them but don't think you can take the law into your own hands and whinge when you get caught by a particularly efficient enforcement method.
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
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.
|
Kids get a lot of road safety information at school. Of course pedestrians have to take responsibility for their actions but drivers need to take more responsibility because they are driving a potentially lethal weapon (when was the last time you saw a pedestrian come out top in a collision?!)
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me283
OK, my point is obviously a little unclear to you. Let me put it in simple terms:
The higher the speed, the more likely that death or injury will occur (your point).
Death and injury can occur at the current speed limits too (my first point).
If speed limits were LOWERED then death or injury would be LESS likely to occur (continuing my first point).
You argument would suggest that the government, or whoever sets speed limits, cannot care enough about reducing death or injury on the road, if they allow speed limits to remain as they are, instead of reducing them to a much lower level (I am hoping for a response to this point, but not getting one).
Put quite succinctly, the argument that speed limits etc are there to save lives is not accepted on my part. If that were the case, then it isn't working well enough. The reduction of speed limits would suggest that saving lives is higher on the agenda.
Let me just say however, that I certainly do not want speed limits reduced, but I think a complete review of speed limits should take place. Some should be lowered, some should be raised.
|
You want a response to that point. Well Xaccers has posted an excellent link detailing the rules for setting limits, one of which being that they must be realistic to road users. A balance has to be struck. Reducing speed limits will not necessarily produce the results you suggest. But it is apparent that speed limits are there, in the main (reducing congestion may be another factor for example), to protect all road users, including pedestrians. Somehow though, some motorists think that they know better, speed and get caught. End of story.
I agree that speed limits should be open to review but that doesn't mean we can break them in the meantime. We cannot pick and choose which laws we obey or rather, we can pick and choose but have absolutely no right to complain when we get caught doing so,