allan tracy
Running over a child at higher speed shas more chance of killing them than at lower speeds?
True. That's why 30 limits in areas liable ot kids are fine, as are 20mph limits where the risk is very high. I think if you search back you'll see that whenever it gets mentioned everybody claims to respect 20 or 30mph limits in likely areas.
It's the 30mph that carries on a mile after the last house on a large rural A road that gets peoples goat. And the Speed Camera near the end of it.
Bollocks does spring to mind here however. If all of the other conditions are true then what does the number onnastick have to do with it?
Are you saying that if you were under the limit it's just a sad accident but 1mph over and you should be strung up?
No question there.
That's why there are lower limits in riskier areas. However there is a responsibility on the pedestrians to take care also.
Again no argument. I just fail to see what the number onnastick has to do with the seriousness of the offence. Consider 2mph above and 2mph below the limit. The end result is very little different.
Consider 40mph in a 60mph in thick fog. Is it safe then? No, it's inappropriate speed. that's the crime.
And it's the focus on speed limits are everything and the lack of advice and enforcement of bad driving and inappropriate speed because cameras are easier and more profitable than Traffic Police is the REAL crime.
