One for Peter 1197

Just because "safe" and "unsafe" don't exist as unqualified terms doesn't mean that "safety" isn't a useful concept. All drivers are unsafe, to some extent, because driving is an inherently risky business. The trick is to try to ensure that as many drivers as possible are reasonably safe. Placing fixed limits on some safety-related matters (mm tread on a tyre, blood alcohol level, maximum speed, brake efficiency 1) is a crude but fairly effective way of approaching this. It's not a matter of dividing drivers into "safe" and "unsafe", but to say "On the whole, most drivers with more than 80mg-ml, or less than 1.6mm tread, or doing more than 60mph on the A75 are being less safe than society accepts."

Of course there is an argument about the numbers: personally I'd like to see tham at 10mg-ml, 3mm and 80mph, but it is a strawman to claim that everything over the speed limit is seen as unsafe. I have never seen that claim made by a proponent of speed limits, and if I did I'd laugh myself silly over it.

I think my personal approach to this changed when I started doing a lot of flying (in gliders). The safety culture in the flying world is generally to say "This is unsafe. If we are honest with ourselves, and recognize our own limitations as well as those of the equipment we use, we can manage the risks, but we will never make them go away." That's why I have no problem in admitting that 70mph is inherently moe dangerous than 60mph, or in recognizing that in many circumstances 70mph is a reasonably safe speed, regardless of the limit.

I can't take seriously anyone who claims that absolute safety is a useful concept, and that includes those who say "I am completely safe doing 90mph, with no increased risk whatsoever compared to 60mph" just as it would include (if I could find anyone in this category) anyone who said "Driving under the speed limit is always safe" or "Driving over the speed limit is always dangerous."

Ian