Mike Barnes wrote in
:

In uk.d-i-y, The Reid wrote:
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.

Indeed, the current strategy of slowing traffic down seems to waste a
small amount of many lives (extra time spent getting where you're
going is largely wasted time) to save lives. There has to be a
balance.


I don't agree with that "utilitarian" viewpoint. You can't add up lots
of small amounts of different people's inconveniences and say that's
worse than one or two fatalities. We only experience our own
inconvenience, which I'm happy to do if it avoids pedestrians being hit.


--
Adrian

Remove packaging and take out insurance before emailing me