
I'm not against speed limits as long as they are sensible, but to me, this plan seems the height of mediocrity: It's an ill conceived, reactionary proposal designed to do nothing more than appeal to the very shallowest of voter sympathies... because who would rather see some poor kid run over at 30 mph instead of 20? Of course, some roads do warrant reduced speed limits - reducing the speed limits around schools has been proven to be very successful in reducing fatalities and there are plenty of twisty rural roads (mostly B-roads) that should generally be driven at only 40 to 50 mph - but that doesn't make a banket speed limit reduction right.
Lower speed limits entirely ignore the root of the issue. We are constantly being brainwashed with the message 'speed kills' but the fact is, it isn't the speed, or even the car, it's the driver (or sometimes even the pedestrian!) that's at fault. A gun is a dangerous weapon but it can't pull its own trigger. I believe that irresponsible and inconsiderate driving is far more dangerous than speed, not only causing accidents but also contributing to congestion (which is a contributing factor in numerous other accidents). Reducing speed limits is also likely to result in more convictions for speeding, while poor driving will continue to go unpunished, I might add. Surely, the police have better things to do with their time?
I am in favour of lowering speed limits where those limits are justified but I am unwilling to support these proposals. It's yet another example of the UK government punishing road users and it will no doubt cost millions to implement. It's about time people took responsibility for their own behaviour. We don't need the nanny state to wrap us up in yet another layer of cotton wool!
No comments:
Post a Comment