dennis@home wrote:
"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?


Because at any speed there is always *some* event which will happen too
fast to take avoiding action.

Even if its a tree falling on your car (if only you had been going faster).

There IS no safe speed to travel at. You are always playing a percentage
game.

Theoretically a pedestrian can step out in front of you on a
motorway..should you therefore do 20mph along all motorways?