Huge wrote:
On 2007-05-10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2007-05-09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
judith wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 11:27:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

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.
So are you saying if every vehicle was compelled to and drove at say
20mph there would not be fewer accidents?
Definitley.

As I said earlier, horse drawn transport shows that to be the case.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Boy, are you an (innumerate) moron.

I don't think so.

Check the statistics out yourself..the number of horse related deaths
was massive around the turn of the 20h century.

Quite. Far more people were KSI when we had horse drawn transport (and
a lot less of it) than we have now. So, how does that mean that horse
drawn transport shows it to be the case that there would be fewer
accidents if everyone drove at 20mph?


dunno. That was my point. Of all the factors that influence frequency
and severity of accidents. speed is the one everyone thinks dominates,
but the facts and statistics show otherwise when closely examined.

What causes accidents are poor drivers and poor road conditions and poor
car design.

Good drivers don't do "inappropiate" speed, though they mostly don't
stick slavishly to speed limits.

It is however the EASIEST way to get a conviction if you want to ****
off drivers, and raise stealth taxes. Which is pretty much the current
govts attitude, AFAICT