And....
That argument takes us nowhere. So what if you can be below the speed limit and still be driving too fast for the conditions? That is no argument against the existence of speed limits in the first place. In fact, if reducing RTA's is the desired result the only logical conclusion to your argument is that speed limits are currently too high, eventually leading to the conclusion that motorised vehicles are too dangerous and the speed limit should be 0mph.
I have yet to see one argument that says speed limits should be removed, only that people don't like what some of those limits are, where some of those limits are and - the totally illogical argument - that they don't like how they are enforced (speed cameras). As such, arguing whether speed can ever be the sole cause of an accident is an intellectual irrelevance.
Whilst speed alone can never be the SOLE factor in the cause(s) of an accident, it certainly can be the SOLE DETERMINING factor, all other factors being equal. As Itpro has stated, any argument to the contrary is nothing more than sophistry and does says nothing about the affects of speed in relation to road safety.
|
|