Oh, dear, oh, dear. I sometimes despair: I didn't say that various safety devices DIDN'T save lives, or people from injuries, did I? Does anyone bother to read posts? I said that IN SPITE OF such safety devices, thousands of lives were still lost every year - just check the damn statistics, people! That doesn't mean there shouldn't be any safety devices, just because they don't stop thousands of deaths.
I agree that laws appear to be required to save us from ourselves, BUT... the best life-saver is to stop reckless speed by stopping people being ABLE to speed. Tetley, we're all very pleased you survived, but I've driven past enough fatal crashes in and out of Brighton on a regular basis to know that airbags and safety belts are NOT enough when cars leave the road at high speeds.
Okay, here goes: a couple of years or so ago, an 18 year-old boy drove a BMW from Crawley to Brighton, with three young friends on board. According to eyewitness drivers, he tailgated even those already speeding, driving at what was estimated by the Police to be over 100 mph, when the BMW left the southbound A23, flew over the central reservation "like a missile" according to one aghast driver, and straight into a northbound 4x4 coming out of Brighton. The death toll was EIGHT, all the kids in the BMW, the female driver of the 4x4, a BABY, the father of the baby, and a man who died later of the injuries sustained. Attending services were traumatised by the sight of people flung all over the road and broken to bloody bits.
Did airbags save them? No. Did seat belts save them? No. Did excessive speed kill them? Yes, partially, but the main killer was stupidity. Stupidity in buying or loaning a teenage kid a powerful BMW, stupidity on the part of the teenage driver.
Since we are unable to test for stupidity, then at least we could stop driving beyond speed limits, with a bit of sincerity towards a REAL speed reduction programme. The way to do this is to put speed inhibitors in vehicles. The way to carry on with carnage on our roads is to lecture about speeding and to fine speeders whenever they can be caught - and going by the cars whacking past me at over 100 mph, this is not a successful programme - but to not actually DO anything to restrain a vehicle's ability to go faster than is legal is perverse and hypocritical.
IT IS ILLEGAL TO EXCEED SPEED LIMITS AS POSTED, and yet all we have is a system of handing out relatively small fines, light jail sentences for killer drivers, and the occasional and usually temporary loss of a licence. Yet stupid driving kills thousands of people every year, frequently by speeding and losing control, and cars are condoned that can go well over the legal limits. WHY? Why waste millions of pounds on 'speed kills' campaigns, stupid cameras, speed bumps and humps, etc., etc., and yet permit drivers to drive cars capable of reaching illegal speeds? Can anyone tell me how that is reasonable, rational, or even slightly sensible? It has nothing to do with personal freedom or choice.
There was a good deal of heat and very little light generated on the subject of cocaine on the Brian Wright thread. Fantasy got in the way of fact, yet enough people went off on how dreadful the drug was, and how many died as a result of its use - actually, darn few people die from using it, but never let the facts get in the way of a good bit of tub-thumping. Now, here we have a very serious problem every single year, the facts are known to the public, driving organisations, hospitals, the Police, the lot. We CAN do something to stop the illegal practice of engaging our stupidity and speeding if we wish. And do I hear the clamour of assent? Do I bollox. I'm beginning to get the whiff of a double standard here: leave us to speed as we think fit in our cars, but for God's sake put the drug dealers in jail for decades. And to the grieving mothers of youngsters mashed in cars by stupid, arrogant drivers? "Well, he won't be out for at least 18 months... " Give me a break!
Clearer now?
