dennis@home wrote:



"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

Cite a car accident where it would have happened if the car wasn't going
slower.
More than 1%?

No, you cite - you're the one making the assertion.

Well I have, there are less than 1% of car accidents where if the driver
was driving slow enough they would not have happened.
Virtually all accidents are avoidable by one of the parties as they are
nearly all driver error.

That's not a citation. That's an unsubstantiated assertion.


And you should defined "too fast". Do you mean:

a) Too fast for the conditions

b) Above the legal speed limit for the road in question?

Neither, too fast for the participants to avoid the accident.

Its like this.. if you can foresee an accident happening, you would slow
down to avoid it.

Well, yes - unless your a physcopath.

But what does "foreseeable" mean? Does it mean driving so that you can stop
in the event of any accident, however unlikely? If so, you'd better drive at
5mp max on the motorway as you cannot predict with absolute certainly that
someone is not going to suddenly open the door of the car in front and jump
out in front of you.

To me, it means extra care and less speed near parked cars where kids are
around and not flying round a bend on a narrow country lane.

However, it does not mean slowing down to less than 40mph on a 40mph road in
the dry just because some adults are walking on the pavement, just on the
offchance one of them should have a brain fart and run into the road.

Some drivers do this better than others.
They are the ones that the poor drivers say are driving too slow.
The fact the poor drivers have been held up prevents the accident
happening so they never get to see what the hazard was reinforcing their
mistaken beliefs that the good driver was driving too slow.

Its when the poor drivers get to make the decisions that they crash.
--
Tim Watts