The statistics show nothing of the sort. They show two things only:
1) That 13% of accidents involve speeding motorists.
2) That, at any one time, approximately 50% of people are speeding.
Those statistics cannot be used to draw the conclusion you have, correct or not. Much more information would be required to do so. Personally, for the purposes of this argument, I have no interest in the causes of accidents. The argument boils down to one thing; should there, or should there not be speed limits? The quote below seems to imply you think there should:
"Now that is not defending going at silly speeds, clearly that (amongst everything else) needs addressing."
Anything else beyond this is an argument over the detail and how said limits should be enforced. Correct me if I'm wrong but I have taken your position to be:
"I beleive there should be speed limits but I don't agree with the method of enforcement and think overall road safety policy would be better focussed on other issues"
If that is so, it is a perfectly reasonable position to hold and one I wouldn't entirely disagree with. I would say that, since speed limits do need to exist and we do not have enough police officers, why not enforce said limits with cameras?
Dave
|
|