Hypocrisy and the Law

notsoblue

rhext wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

"My information is that the general speed [on Blackfriars Bridge] is nearer 12 miles an hour, therefore a speed limit of 20 mph isn't necessary

That's typical politician bull***t. I'd counter that by asking 'if the general speed on Blackfriar's Bridge is 12MPH then the general motorist won't be affected by a 20MPH speed limit will they? So you might as well impose one and make life safer for pedestrians and cyclists using the bridge on those rare occasions when the traffic frees up enough to give people a bit of space to floor the accelerator'.

Exactly. The average speed on Putney Bridge might be a crawl, but trying to get from NKR to LRR via this bridge at night when the roads are clear is a nightmare. Having to change lanes while going up a rise, and dealing with cars doing >40mph coming from Fulham is pretty dangerous.

spen666

rhext wrote:

spen666 wrote:

rhext wrote:

...So what is your point then?

I don't support the mantra 'speed = accidents'. My position is 'all other things being equal, the faster you drive the higher the probability of an accident'.

All other things are not equal though, so its no use people pretending they are

I don't think we are pretending that they are. That's why we have different speed limits for different types of road, and sometimes even for different traffic conditions on those roads. All I'm saying is that

a) it's appropriate (indeed necessary) to assign a relatively arbitrary speed limit to a given section of road.

b) it's not inappropriate to enforce that speed limit, even if that enforcement doesn't necessarily remove all of the possible factors which cause increased risk to the driver and to other road users.

So what are you "biting" about then?

What you are saying is not at cross purposeswith what I have said, in fact it is on adifferent issue altogether

Confusedboy

Clearly no longer confused* boy but now full on rent boy?-The Beginner....

Not one you'll ever be able to afford, mate.

Most motor vehicles dese days have satnav, and the GPS technology these depend on is the key to the end of all arguments about speeding. It is not going to be long before all motor vehicles are going to fitted with GPS as standard, and then, with a governor fitted to each engine, maximum speeds can be determined and enforced by the relavent authorities at will-and there will be no need for traffic lights.

How cyclists and pedestrians fit into this scenario is another question, although a GPS transponder on a bike would allow illegal activity to be traced, monitored, and punished.

Then, at last, we can stop all this silly arguing.....


*the 'confused' is a reference to my technoincompetence, famous among those who know me.