I'm afraid that all the airbags in the world haven't saved thousands of lives being wrecked or lost on our roads every year, tetley. One of the best, most effective, and most sincere pieces of life-saving equipment would be speed inhibitors on ALL vehicles (bar the emergency services), stopping anyone exceeding the speed limit. I'd also have sensors placed on the variously-timed roads with an onboard receiver, so that looney-tunes couldn't do 70 mph in a 30 mph area, which would be the next game in town after speed inhibition. I imagine our technology, so focussed on fun and frivol, could be bent towards something as socially responsible as that?
I have NO idea why we have legal speed limits for a variety of roads and then deliberately build and sell cars which can exceed them by up to twice the maximum limit. I find that the government bleat 'speed kills' as hypocritical as warning people to 'drink responsibly' and 'smoking kills' while rolling millions in tax into its coffers from what are known to be health destroyers - in excess with drink, and at any rate with nicotine. (And by government, I mean that of any party.)
So that's my offering for safer roads: cut the crap of fining people and making money out of speed cameras. Knock out the ABILITY to speed. Yes, you CAN still maim people at 30 mph, and there's not a great deal of thrill titting along behind granny's little Escort at 29.5 mph because the road sensors won't let you do 31, but I guarantee we'd have far fewer mass prangs and deaths. But there simply isn't the will to try to make cars which don't exceed legal limits - and one wonders why? Cynically, one wonders, does the government make more from its fines than it spends on patching up the injured and treating the dying? I imagine the answer is a resounding 'yes'.
Oops - is no subject safe from my soapbox! :shy: Once again, the curse of the Wandering Topic has struck!
I have NO idea why we have legal speed limits for a variety of roads and then deliberately build and sell cars which can exceed them by up to twice the maximum limit. I find that the government bleat 'speed kills' as hypocritical as warning people to 'drink responsibly' and 'smoking kills' while rolling millions in tax into its coffers from what are known to be health destroyers - in excess with drink, and at any rate with nicotine. (And by government, I mean that of any party.)
So that's my offering for safer roads: cut the crap of fining people and making money out of speed cameras. Knock out the ABILITY to speed. Yes, you CAN still maim people at 30 mph, and there's not a great deal of thrill titting along behind granny's little Escort at 29.5 mph because the road sensors won't let you do 31, but I guarantee we'd have far fewer mass prangs and deaths. But there simply isn't the will to try to make cars which don't exceed legal limits - and one wonders why? Cynically, one wonders, does the government make more from its fines than it spends on patching up the injured and treating the dying? I imagine the answer is a resounding 'yes'.
Oops - is no subject safe from my soapbox! :shy: Once again, the curse of the Wandering Topic has struck!