Hi all,
I was reading the 1/3 lie on the website and, as we all know, accidents attributed to exceeding a posted limit are probably only 2% or thereabouts then I thought well how would the speed have CAUSED the accident. Maybe it was a contributing factor but I can't see how speed itself can CAUSE the accident therefore I think it is safe to say 0% of accidents are CAUSED by exceeding a posted limit. Maybe the authorities should say that breaking a posted limit CONTRIBUTES to the severity of 2% of accidents.
With regards to KSI figures spouted to justify cameras:
What about the distinction between:
(1) car accident on its own (no injuries)
(2) Multiple car accident (no injuries)
(3) Same as both above but with injuries
(4) Accident only involving pedestrian
(5) Accident involving both cars and pedestrian (no injuries to driver)
(6) As above but with driver and pedestrian injuries
(7) As above with deaths involved
(8) cyclists involve
(9) and all the rest
It is quite obvious that simply saying injuries or deaths does nothing to show all the contributing factors above, which is only a fraction of what could be considered. If it was mainly drivers that were being killed then it is unfair to target speed cameras at reducing say pedestrian deaths ot cyclist deaths where the driver death was caused by, inexperience, drink/drugs, tiredness, car thief/chase etc. none of which a camera can prevent.
Andrew
|