What an outrageous statement for Howard to make. The only thing that can be done is to slow drivers down? What a narrow minded, defeatist atbreastude. What about raising training standards and testing? What about retests (using special testing techniques tailored to weed out inattentive drivers) for drivers who cause accidents by recklessness or poor concentration? What about mandatory eye tests every year or so? What about capacity-power limits for new drivers, limited to, say, 1.1L cars until they get three years accident free-conviction free driving under their belts? It is a disgrace that theoretically one can pbutt their test after a few lessons in a 1.0 Micra, then drive their father's Koenigsegg.
There has to be better thought out answers than sticking (in some cases) unreasonably low limits on a pole in the hope that crap drivers have relatively low speed crashes. Placing low speed limits on, for example, straight, well engineered trunk roads 'in case' some idiot decides to drive badly is a very lazy atbreastude to road safety, and will do nothing to develop good driving techniques.
On the contrary, it will breed a generation of robotic drivers who trudge along bored, fiddling with the radio, looking at their pbuttengers while chatting, texting on their mobiles, reading maps etc. Either that or looking around for speed cameras and repeatedly glancing at their speedo to make sure they are driving 'safely' (yeah, right) and not picking up three points and a fine.
The more I hear about the government's 'road safety' tactics and their use of speed cameras, the more I'm convinced it's about pandering to the anti-car lobby and making motoring unpleasant for all rather than genuinely working to get dangerous drivers off the road, and I think we have only seen the beginning- it will get much worse.
Morse
