That argument puts forth a logical fallacy. The more correct version would be:
"Those of us have been crossing roads for years know that the biggest danger is that car drivers don't see you. Hence the (much needed) Think Pedestrian and more recently "Take longer to look for Pedestrian" campaigns."
Regardless, most people seem to be taking an either or approach to road safety. Yes, many people wrap it up in the argumentatively agreeable "I'm for better education", yet they attempt to use this more than reasonable position as an argument against speed limits and the enforcement thereof. It is intellectually dishonest to do so.
The argument regarding speed limits is a simple one. Should there, or should there not, be speed limits on the road? I have yet to see a single solid argument against speed limits. All the arguments tend to boil down to the arrogant position of "I'm good enough to know when it's safe" yet neglect to accept that:
a) You're probably not, and certainly not good enough to deal with the unexpected.
b) Everyone else thinks the same.
Sure, it's great to say we should focus on the causes of accidents, but they all boil down to one thing, people make mistakes. Always have done, always will do; whether it be an error in judgement or a lapse of concentration. No amount of education will solve this and as such, it is preferable that accidents take place at a lower speed, albeit with the trade-off of practicality in mind.
Dave
|
|