P
Paul Smith
Guest
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 21:31:45 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>There is a widely held belief that drivers can be exoected to drive safely within the speed
>>>limit, and some are so rash as to suggest that having been required to demonstrate this at the
>>>time of passing their driving test it is not unreasonable to suppose that they may continue to be
>>>required to do so without significant detriment to road safety as they become more experienced.
>>>Funny, that.
>>Some may. Some will. Some won't. The "won't" group is far too large to ignore.
>But you must accept that, on the evidence that they were able to manage it while they were still
>unqualified and inexperienced, it is very definitely "won't" rather than "can't." And for those who
>won't obey the law we have courts.
I don't regard any inexperienced driver as "safe".
There's no way to identify them, and the courts can't deal with (maybe) 20 million.
>>>Oops! Argument by assertion again. Where's the proof? Oh, yes, you have acknowledged you don't
>>>have any of course. Ah, well.
>>Lack of proof does not stop it killing 3 each day.
>Oops! Argument by assertion again. Lack of proof means precisely that: you can't prove that it has
>ever killed a single person
I'm quite sure it will be recognised and accepted within a few years. The international
comparison figures are becoming quite obvious, and it won't be much longer before lots of people
start to notice.
>>>And equally reasonable to suggest that this is not an argument for not enforcing speed limits.
>>It's an important component of one of the arguments, and goes towards reducing the benefit side of
>>the changes that cameras bring.
>So what? So cameras only bring X amount of benefit instead of 2X or
>3X. Big fat hairy deal. Speeding, by contrast, brings absolutely no benefit to safety.
An effective road safety strategy, based on sound priorities brings benefits amounting to perhaps 6%
annual reduction in fatality rates. As we can see when we look around the world.
>>>>speed cameras cost lives
>>>But only when combined with dangerous drivers who are prepared to put speed above safety.
>>>Obviously.
>>But that's most of us for some of the time.
>By "us" do you include yourself? Are you prepared to put speed above safety?
I certainly hope not. But at that instant when a camera or a ("modern") cop appears, perhaps I do. I
can't be certain.
>I came across three people today who put /their/ speed above /my/ safety - is that OK? How about
>the time last week when I was run off the road by someone whose speed was more important than my
>safety. Was that acceptable?
Safe Speed, every time.
You can be put at danger by another road user's speed at well below the speed limit, and 2/3rds of
the time (where excessive speed is a factor) that's what happens.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
>>>There is a widely held belief that drivers can be exoected to drive safely within the speed
>>>limit, and some are so rash as to suggest that having been required to demonstrate this at the
>>>time of passing their driving test it is not unreasonable to suppose that they may continue to be
>>>required to do so without significant detriment to road safety as they become more experienced.
>>>Funny, that.
>>Some may. Some will. Some won't. The "won't" group is far too large to ignore.
>But you must accept that, on the evidence that they were able to manage it while they were still
>unqualified and inexperienced, it is very definitely "won't" rather than "can't." And for those who
>won't obey the law we have courts.
I don't regard any inexperienced driver as "safe".
There's no way to identify them, and the courts can't deal with (maybe) 20 million.
>>>Oops! Argument by assertion again. Where's the proof? Oh, yes, you have acknowledged you don't
>>>have any of course. Ah, well.
>>Lack of proof does not stop it killing 3 each day.
>Oops! Argument by assertion again. Lack of proof means precisely that: you can't prove that it has
>ever killed a single person
I'm quite sure it will be recognised and accepted within a few years. The international
comparison figures are becoming quite obvious, and it won't be much longer before lots of people
start to notice.
>>>And equally reasonable to suggest that this is not an argument for not enforcing speed limits.
>>It's an important component of one of the arguments, and goes towards reducing the benefit side of
>>the changes that cameras bring.
>So what? So cameras only bring X amount of benefit instead of 2X or
>3X. Big fat hairy deal. Speeding, by contrast, brings absolutely no benefit to safety.
An effective road safety strategy, based on sound priorities brings benefits amounting to perhaps 6%
annual reduction in fatality rates. As we can see when we look around the world.
>>>>speed cameras cost lives
>>>But only when combined with dangerous drivers who are prepared to put speed above safety.
>>>Obviously.
>>But that's most of us for some of the time.
>By "us" do you include yourself? Are you prepared to put speed above safety?
I certainly hope not. But at that instant when a camera or a ("modern") cop appears, perhaps I do. I
can't be certain.
>I came across three people today who put /their/ speed above /my/ safety - is that OK? How about
>the time last week when I was run off the road by someone whose speed was more important than my
>safety. Was that acceptable?
Safe Speed, every time.
You can be put at danger by another road user's speed at well below the speed limit, and 2/3rds of
the time (where excessive speed is a factor) that's what happens.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives