Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 12:42:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

|!Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|! On Tue, 08 May 2007 10:04:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
|!
|!
|! |!If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS.
|! |!the roads would be a far safer place.
|!
|! In reality *both* happen.
|! Small fine and a few points for speeding which *may* cause an accident.
|! Bigger fine and more points if you *do* cause an accident by speeding.
|!
|!Nobody ever caused an accident by speeding on its own.

Some years ago I was driving at under the speed limit of 30mph and two six
year old boys, seated on a skateboard, appeared from an absolutely blind
1in7 side road, doing one hell of a speed, directly in front of me. Had I
been speeding they would have both have been dead, as it was they were only
kept in hospital overnight.

How do you stop "boys being boys" and getting killed except by sticking to
speed limits.

If they had appeared half a second later they would have been dead anyway.

The first accident I ever witnessed at the age of 13,which I gave
evidence for, was an elderly woman who walked out in front of a very
well maintained Rover. Hew was travelling under the speed limit.

I saw the other year, a car overturned by 'traffic calming' ..under the
speed limit, again.

Travelling under the speed limit(which I do as often as over it, more so
these days) is no guarantee of anything. Even the powers that be will
only tell you that 30mph is a speed that, with modern car design, gives
the pedestrian an better than even chance of survival.

Out here in the boondocks someone hits a deer every other year. Its
usually a write-off at anything more than 45mph.

Speed limits are no guarantee of anything. They don't make drivers safer
or better. There is some evidence they make them worse.

One accepts urban speed limits as a necessary evil..but where
pedestrians are not to be found? no.