I don't know if you guys noticed but this argument has at its base a common denominator: SAFETY I hope we're agreed about that. Both Ian and Tangler on one side and John and I on the other are arguing that something should be done about SAFETY on the roads.
Where we start to differ is in our approach! On one side we have Ian and Tangler (I so wish he had a name) who are hell-bent on seeing the speed limits brought down, clearly laying the blame fair and square at the MPH door.
On the other side John and I are advocating that blanket speed restrictions do not work simply because even under those blankets there WILL be situations (this is John's and my point) where the limit IS too high. On top of this John and I are drawing the attention to the fact that there are so many more OTHER causal aspects to SAFETY on the road, which in their blinkered approach Ian and Tangler are just absolutely refusing to consider.
How can we have a decent conversation on road safety, one that potentially can result in a common policy, when clearly there seems to be an agenda on one side, whereas on the other there is complete openness?
How can blanket lowering the National Speed limit make the roads safer when we're all agreed that even under the NS limit there are UNSAFE situations?
Now put the gun back in the holster and the bottle back in the drinks cabinet gents and THINK properly! Please!
Dan
|
|