allan tracy
Think objectively rather emotionally about this. In particular, look at the "driver in a hurry, child in a coma" poster, and ask yourself these questions:
(a) why didn't the child look before running into the road? (b) precisely what speed was the car doing? (not stated) (c) if he had been driving slower, would it have made any difference? (impossible to judge given the lack of information) (d) last but not least - was this a genuine incident, or was it staged for the camera? (staged for the camera)
Now consider a child rushing out on to an NSL dual carriageway straight in front of a car. The chance of him being end is I would guess near 100%. So why don't we reduce the speed limit to 30 on all roads so that kids can rush in front of cars safe in the knowledge that they probably won't be end?
It's easier to blame everything on "speed" rather than address issues such as hazard perception, road safety, road design and driver training. You make a fistful of money from the cameras as well, which pleases Gordon Brown.
The report indicates that only 12% of bane accidents were the result of "inappropriate speed". Have a look at this Safe Speed PR release:
There is also apparently no evidence of a reduction of RTA related A&E admissions.
-- Brian
