But I didn't. I followed it to "people who get caught by speed cameras are fast and inattentive drivers, by definition, and therefore likely to have more (inattentive) and worse (faster) accidents.
Now, now. You're sounding just a wee bit BMW driver here. It's safe to do 80 in many places now. That's why I think the limit should be raised.
Speed is linked to accidents in two ways: in the likelihood of an accident occuring (which I'd suggest for any given situation is a fairly flat curve with a steep rise after some critical speed) and in the severity of the accident once it does happen (I'd say proportional to KE, so a nice parabolic rise).
If you drive faster, you are more likely to have an accident. No question about that. Try doing 70 down the twisty road and across the bridge outside my house and I'll dig you out the garden. At 30 I'll wave as you go past. However, this is not a linear relationship: on that road 25 is just as safe as 30 and 70 is just as unsafe as 90. So the question is "Does ths 70mph limit mark the point of greatly increased risk?" Which I would suggest it does not, nowadays.
So, on the A75, is 80 more dangerous than 60? Negligably so, from the point of view of likelihood. Very much more so from the point of view of consequences.
But think about the other things which affect likelihood ... high on the list has to be diver incompetence, and an example of that is "inability to spot bloody obvious speed camera van".
Oh well, off to have some fun. Just fitted a new rack to the DS, so it's road test time ...
Ian
