- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
Nobody is arguing that inappropriate speed is safe."However, car drivers are much more likely to be injured in collisions at higher speeds."
Nobody is arguing that inappropriate speed is safe."However, car drivers are much more likely to be injured in collisions at higher speeds."
You want evidence that, in a collision, 20 is safer than 30? And to think I was accused of trolling..
I'm not ignoring anything. It doesn't negate the fact that being in a collision at 20mph is magnitudes safer than one at 50mph.Why do you try to ignore important elements of driving psychology?
Of course it is. Losing concentration and causing a collision generally has a better outcome at 20 rather than 50. I can't understand what is so controversial about that.It isn’t better if the side effect is a loss of concentration or over compensation
I can't understand what is so controversial about that
I disagree.Because, blanket-enforcing 20mph is disproportionate for the evidenced level of risk of higher speed limits on appropriate roads.
You need an example? Really?You should have no trouble posting an example up then.
I disagree.
Without evidence
Try reading what mbk says !No.
Carman stated that [others have claimed that a collision at 30 is safer than one at 20].
#782
I said that if this was true, he should have no trouble posting up an example.
Fwiw, I suspect he doesn't mean what he typed, but inferring gets short shrift so I have took him at his word.
Why not 10 mph then?
5 mph?
Ban all motor vehicles altogether?
It's safer. But is it better ?Why not 10 mph then?
5 mph?
Ban all motor vehicles altogether?
You need an example? Really?
Rospa.
I'm not going back to dig it out.An example of someone saying "a collision at 20 is more damaging than one at 30", like you claimed some poster(s) on here had said.
Like I said, as you claimed.