I think you're too quick to dismiss RoadRat's point. Certainly, the extra distractions cannot be accepted as an excuse for speed or poor driving, but if we're looking at ways to make the roads safer rather than having a pointless argument, his position has some validity.
More uniform speed limits with less variability over short distances is a good idea. Less road signs is a good idea (for many reasons).
I don't buy into the "it's not speeding that kills it's poor driving" argument because it's an argument with no substance. They soon seem to lump speeding in with their "poor driving". Further, it has to be accepted that there will be a certain number of poor drivers on the road, so their arguments bring no new ideas to the table to help reduce the number of poor drivers.
In my view, the only currently reasonable position to take is that, accepting that poor drivers will be on the road, accepting that people have to get on with their lives and accepting that poor drivers are more dangerous at speed and we can't generally tell them apart from good drivers, it is only sensible to limit speeds such that when an accident does happen the consequences are kept to a minimum. The method of enforcement is largely irrelevant to the argument.
Finally, and going back to RoadRat's point, since poor drivers are going to be on the road, perhaps we should make things as easy for them as is practical?
|
|