“
The idea of Road Traffic Law (in this case principally speed limits) is to minimise the damage caused when mistakes are made.
Originally posted by TooManyPoints
”
On that basis you could make everyone drive at 5mph. It doesn't really wash. The aim should be to minimise the accidents in the first place.
“
The driver!!!8217;s speed at the time of the incident is crucial because the faster he is travelling the greater distance it takes him to come to a halt or at least reduce his speed so as injuries are kept to a minimum.
Originally posted by TooManyPoints
”
Naturally but that point remains true whether you drive at 30mph or 100mph. So the real question is who is determining that a car in a given location needs to be able to stop within a specified distance? Presumably the Road Traffic bods. But how do they arrive at that requirement? Is there a database somewhere that contains information on the distance pedestrians were from a car when they stepped out in front of it every time an accident occurred? And using such data they determine the most common distance and then determined what speed a car needs to be travelling at to be able to brake within that distance? Perhaps this stuff does exist . . . . or maybe they just slap a 30mph limit just about everywhere that is not a dual-carriageway because it's easier.
Ultimately, if you truly want a nation of drivers to behave in a specific way then you need to properly convince them, heart and mind why that behaviour is needed. I drive down a dual-carriageway most days which has 2 lanes each side and a big central reservation. It has huge wide grass verges each side and then pavements. Despite this it is labelled as a 40mph limit. Why? because there's some ancient bridleway that existed before they built the carriage-way and so there exists the remotest possibility that one day someone on a horse might try to cross it. I've lived in my city all my life, over 50 years. Not once have I witnessed a horse cross that road, nor a pedestrian for that matter. It's a ludicrous speed limit and frankly 99% of cars that traverse that stretch of road do 50mph-60mph. It is quite safe to do so. But if they chose to these parasitic private firms could set up one of their stupid vans and clock drivers all day long to generate more money for themselves. Such is the world we live in.
“
What you are suggesting is that if a pedestrian steps into the path of an oncoming car, the speed of that car will not influence the outcome and that is patently absurd.
Originally posted by TooManyPoints
”
Nope I didn't suggest that at all. What I am suggesting is that if a pedestrian steps out at a point within the car's braking distance REGARDLESS OF ITS SPEED, then the pedestrian will get hit.
“
You cannot divorce the two and say: Stupid pedestrians will step out in front of me. Thats their fault so I!!!8217;ll travel as fast as I like.
Originally posted by TooManyPoints
”
Actually what every driver NEEDS to do is properly assess an entire range of factors, speed being but one of those and fairly far down the pecking order and then drive accordingly.
Blindly following speed limits is actually stupid. Many country roads are marked as National Speed Limit when very patently it is hugely dangerous to do that speed. A good driver will recognise that and adjust speed accordingly. The road I was caught on was empty, early in the morning, zero pedestrians or other cars. Travelling in excess of 30mph was "safe as houses" as they say.
I haven't been the cause of an accident for over 30 years. I assess a wide range of conditions constantly, think ahead, anticipate, am aware of the cars and bikes around me. That is far more important than blindly obeying a speed limit.