On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 01:27:47 +0000, Paul Smith <
[email protected]> wrote:
>>Interesting choice of words. I am a driver too. I drive within the speed limit, as advocated by Mr
>>Ripley, and that has resulted in a less stressful driving experience for me, and far less
>>aggressive driving. So yes, my responses have altered - I am now much more aware and alert to
>>danger, as well as having more time to react and less energy to dissipate should it prove
>>necessary. What was your point again?
>>Strange to relate, it is widely believed that even the most experienced drivers are capable of
>>driving safely without exceeding the speed limit - indeed they are required to demonstrate this
>>ability as part of the driving test.
>None of these statements are true of the population at large. Care to try again, talking about
>average UK drivers?
I see - so the average driver hasn't passed a driving test and can't stop quicker at lower speeds.
That would certainly explain a lot. The average driver, of course, doesn't exceed the speed limit
all, or even most, of the time.
>How are YOU going to slow all of us down without risking altering our responses?
I don't have to - you are the one making bizarre and unsupportable claims, you are the one who has
repeatedly failed to convincingly argue your case, and yu are the one who is denying that a car at
70mph is more likely to avoid a crash than one driving at 80mph.
>You suggested that a slower vehicle was inherently safer. I asked you "how slow do you
>want to go?".
I'm quite happy to start with the speed limit and see how we get on from there.
>I was hoping to point out that we have to make a speed / safety compromise in the interests of
>transport utility.
That compromise has already been made, in that speed limits are mandatory and legally enforceable.
>The only speed safety compromise I can wholeheartedly believe in is the "safe speed" one.
Whereas I join Mr Ripley in the "safe and legal" camp.
>Why not make that one, instead of bleating on about a few mph less, a few mph less, which would
>inevitably sometimes apply when it wasn't needed, and equally sometimes fail to apply when it
>was needed?
Hello, Mr Straw! Back again? Nice to see you.
>Looks like I got the wrong figure for Sweden, I had 7.9 in my spreadsheet and checked it against
>IRTAD. 7.9 is there in the next column. Sorry about that.
De nada. Anyone can make an honest mistake.
