"Similarly, controlling speed on the roads is a specific strategy to reduce death on the roads, in the same way the "Think Bike" campaigns were a specific strategy to reduce motorcycle accidents."
"controlling speed seems to be one way of reducing the aftermath of an accident if nothing else."
I stopped short of mentioning speed cameras purely because, in my mind, the method of enforcement is irrelevant to the argument at hand. I stopped short of saying controlling speed reduces the chance of an accident because people always come back with the "bad driving" argument. Nobody can argue against the fact that reduced speed equates to a less severe accident.
I was merely arguing against the premise that bad driving causes accidents. Using the same logic that others have used to state that it is not speed but bad driving that causes accidents, I could easily claim it is not bad driving that causes accidents but poor decision making in general that causes accidents and we should stop the human race from making poor decisions.
Whilst controlling speed may not be the most effective strategy and is certainly not the most comprehensive, it is at least a strategy of some merit. Using your "Ian is fat analogy", it's the equivalent of you reducing your beer consumption as a method for losing weight, as opposed to the more complete reduction of calorific intake coupled with regular exercise (a more complete strategy but not without a significant cost, if only to your current lifestyle).
At least controlling speed is doing something, claiming to want to stop "bad driving" does nothing at all. It's a ploy used by politicians all the time to appear to be saying the right thing without really saying anything at all (which was the premise of my post; I wasn't discussing the merits of speed control in any way).
We're on the same side here.
Dave
|
|