The Reid wrote in
:

Following up to Tom Anderson

its a matter of balance, being reasonably safe while being able to
get a reasonable move on etc.

Exactly. We balance safety against freedom to move; the balance at
present indicates that we value the convenience we currently have more
than a couple of thousand lives a year. Or rather, the convenience we
would stand to lose if we tightened up on safety against the hundreds
of lives we'd save by doing it.

As one of the safer countries roadwise, we are probably near the
point where saving more lives requires disporortionate arbitary
restrictions like driving at 10mph, thats why I advocate using
more intelligent approaches like the use of matching speed to
conditions.

I don't think so. Enforcing 30mph should be a big step - apparently a
pedestrian stands twice as much chance of surviving a 30mph crash than a
40mph crash IIRC.

The emphasis is on carful driving. I've never hit a pedestrian and many
others haven't either. You can't eliminate all accidents because you
have to at least rely on people to take care. If someone walks in front
of your car because they're daydreaming there's not a lot that can be
done. But for a motorist to stop paying attention and veer off the road
into a bus queue (happened here a year or few back) is more serious.

--
Adrian

Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me