On 2007-05-08 19:06:59 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


So assuming there are warning signs for a blind entrance/exit is it now the
fault of the driver on the main road for driving too fast?

If he isn't exceeding the speed limit and there are no other signs or
visual clues then no.


Why should he need warning signs? Is he driving too fast for the conditions?

There can be blind entrances and turnings with no visual clues at all.
If these represent a hazard, then they should be appropriately signed,
keeping in mind that if there are too many, people will have
information overload and not notice them as much.

It's all too easy to lay blame in connection with speed, but reducing
speed *may* simply serve to reduce the frequency and severity of
accidents. On this basis, one could argue for reducing the speed to
zero and not having motorised transport at all. Clearly that's not
acceptable.

So what does one do? Reduce all speed limits by 20km/h?
Statistically, that would reduce accidents and their results because
people would have more time to react and would not collide with as much
force.
Reduce limits by 30 km/h and the effect would be even greater.

Where does one draw the line on that? If people are going to drive
carelessly, they will do. Where that is the situation and an accident
is caused, the prosecution should be for the accident, as TNP says, not
for the speed, unless they were exceeding the limit.

The rules need to be as crisp as possible, which is the whole reason
for speed limits in the first place.