Quote:
Originally Posted by azazel1024
True in part, but in my limited experience, more accidents occur because a person is going too slow than that people are going to fast. At least as it relates to being in excess of the speed limit or below the speed limit. I have seen plenty of accidents where people chose to merge on to a highway going well below the posted speed limit causing an accident or people just generally driving down the highway going well below the posted speed limit causing an accident...............
|
I don't mean to be impolite, but your phrase "limited experience" says a lot.
Ask any traffic law enforcement officer, and you will find your opening statement is ... incorrect. And my extensive experience, at times 50-60,000 miles a year, have shown me it is.
Of course you can cause an accident at any speed, or stationary, but you are more likely to do so if you are travelling fast - which is why speed limits are imposed. It isn't just a fad you know.
I've even witnessed a young lad , in a "modded" vehicle, slam into the rear of another, in a line of cars waiting to exit, in a Tesco car park, (which was a bit surreal) doing what turned out to be over 30mph. He simply said he didn't realise he was going too fast - a "defence" slightly marred by the tyre screech that caught my attention, and the two long tracks of laid rubber....
Result - two hospital admissions, one lengthy, two write-offs, and a civil prosecution. Luckily no pedestrians were involved.
And, anamardol, "Apparently you missed my post about how I actually know someone who was financially harmed by those cameras" - I didn't, and it is unfortunate, but financial harm is not a very legitimate reason for what is still breaking the law - a law aimed at avoiding harm to people - that we all know about.
And finally, mr. ploppy, "You can kill someone just as easily at 30mph as you can at 71mph.".......
Sorry, but obviously this is incorrect, because the impact is more severe. An injury recieved by being hit by an object travelling at 30mph, is less severe than being hit by the same object travellin at 71mph.
(In my car park incident, the damage would have been horrendous.)
Given the choice, go for 30. You could try it, but I wouldn't advise it - just ask in the local A & E unit.....
I'm not a "hang 'em shoot 'em" merchant, but sensible laws - and some aren't, perhaps, but you have to draw lines at some point, and most support them in a democracy - like speeding limits are fine by me if it protects human life. We know they are there, we don't have to break them, it's not an erosion of your civil liberty - unless you have a yen to take risks with other people's lives that is.
Forgotten what this thread started life as now............