spindrift said:
Firstly, given that at 30 Mph around half of all people hit will die
it is hardly possible to say that driving at or even just below the
legal limit is 'safe', as most motorists would like to claim.
Ah, you are claiming speed limits are not safe. Good start.
Quoted message said:Here Clarkson was actually doing, or so he says, around 10 Mph.
So in no way influenced by the speed limit then. So you see, in this
case, the limit was irrelevant.
Quoted message said:He
also attributes his saving 'a little girl's life' to the fact that he
was driving at such a speed.
Yes, luckily he was ignoring the speed limit.
Quoted message said:I would suggest that had he hit and
killed that same child whilst doing say 30 Mph, it would be reasonable
to argue that this death was directly attributable to his failure to
drive at a lower speed, something which he was perfectly at liberty to
do, should he so choose.
Yes, me too. But the police would have examined any skid-marks, seen he
was travelling within the limit and recorded the main contributory
factor for the collision as "pedestrian failed to look properly".
Quoted message said:Now given the small possibility of killing someone when going at
around 10 Mph, even if you do hit them, then I think that it would be
fair to say that such a speed is pretty 'safe'.
In those circumstances, yes. Good job he ignored the posted limit.
Quoted message said:What's more it is
'safe' NOT because it is below the legal speed limit, rather it is
'safe' because of the relatively small physical forces generated at
such a speed and so the relatively small forces which need to be
dissipated when braking or in a crash situation.
Yes the limit was, in the circumstances, superfluous.
Quoted message said:In fact I would argue
that speed limits in a built-up area should be based primarily on the
sorts of speeds that the human body can be expected to withstand in
the event of a crash involving a motor vehicle, say 20 Mph at most.
Or better still, abolished, because even if he been travelling at 20 mph
he could have caused a lot of damage. He chose a safe speed based on
the circumstances. That is what we should allow, and even encourage
(through street design etc.) all drivers to do. It is sustainable and
there is no excuse of "I/he was travelling within the limit, so cannot
be blamed".
Quoted message said:I would say that, given our roads are only 'dangerous' because they
are filled with heavy, high speed vehicles with a high potential for
causing death or serious injury, often driven at inappropriately high
speed and with minimal skill and/or consideration for the safety of
others, the risk is, ultimately, always created by the very existence
of a motor vehicle on the publics' road.
Yes, as I've been saying, and you've been ridiculing for years, the
roads are poorly designed and encourage, even "force" (through
subconscious psychological processes) inappropriate speed.
Quoted message said:Given the degree of this
risk, it seems prudent to at least reduce the speed of such vehicles
to a less fatal velocity, if only to minimise the consequences when
someone makes the inevitable 'error' and a crash results.
Good man! Deregulation is the tool. You are seeing the light! Speed
limits cause, yes CAUSE, much inappropriate speed. Eliminate the
"safety cues" (kerbs, limits, signs, lights, lines) and drivers are
FORCED to take responsibility for their own actions. The proven
consequence of such measures elsewhere is the elimination of serious
collisions.
Quoted message said:Clarkson seems to think that slowing down to 10 Mph or even less is
advisable where there is the possibility of a child running into the
road, so it seems he is at last beginning to understand the path to
genuine road safety.
Yes, and it obviously therefore isn't speed limits, is it.
Quoted message said:Of course, a driver will not always be able to
spot a child who might run out, especially if they are masked by
parked vehicles and so on.
That's why the roads need to be designed to suggest that that is always
a possibility.
Quoted message said:What's more, surely looking out for every
child that might be around would be 'dangerously distracting' for
motorists.
No, that is what they /should/ be doing, rather than looking for
cameras, and constantly at the speedo, and at signs, lights and lines.
I'd rather they were avoiding pedestrians than avoiding licence points.
Quoted message said:This would seem to suggest that drivers should never drive
at a speed at which they might well cause death or serious harm in any
situation where there is even a possibility that a child might dart
into the road.
We have got there at last!!! Welcome aboard :-) We can eliminate
serious road casualties by using intelligent measures.
Remember the old adage... "you can tell kids not to touch the goodies in
a toy shop, but they'll keep touching them until you design a display
which prevents them from so doing". ;-)
--
Matt B
