On 2007-05-08 22:50:47 +0100, judith said:

On Tue, 8 May 2007 14:21:04 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-08 13:59:49 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-08 12:45:05 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS.
the roads would be a far safer place.

Or *both*.
Not really. There is no direct correlation between vehicle speed (within
broad limits), and accidents.


Really?
You aren't going to get many accidents unless one or more parties are
moving
and if they do collide one or more of them was going too fast.

Umm no.

One could be traveling along a major road within the speed limit.

The other could pull out from a junction and simply not spot the driver on
the main road (e.g. blind spot, distracted by an animal, etc.~)

Neither was traveling too fast, but there can still be an accident - in
this case a mistake by the driver pulling out.


Why was the driver on the main road driving too fast to take avoiding
action?

He wasn't. He was driving at 15mph and was 15m from the junction when
the other car pulled out.

In the case of this accident, to whom do you think that the insurers
would apply the blame?

The driver of the car going at 15mph.

There would be something wrong with his reaction times or his brakes
or 15mph was too fast for the road conditions if he could not stop in
15m

You obviously didn't read the context of the illustration.