is doing 45 in a 30 zone "safe"?! The only possibility I can think of it perhaps, maybe just, a dual carriageway going through a forested area that also happens to house a massive grave yard, which is 30 and used to be 40.
The BBC article is here.
Other than those oddities (and in those cases, you have to accept that the law's the law), 45 in a 30 zone is NOT safe, not matter what the enlightened Paul Smith of "Safe Speed" might think. The mind boggles that someone can actually say something like that.
Increasing the number of points people get for speeding offences is a fine (boom boom) idea - if someone (like me) gets 3 points for creeping up to 35mph in a 30 zone as he reached the top of a steep hill in his banger car, yet someone doing 45 or 50 in a 30 zone also gets 3 points, how is that fair, or right?
Both should be punished for sure, but one is dangerous, the other is not, and there ought to be better reflection of this. Drivers that drive too fast should be able to be banned after just two offences.
Also, Mr Smith says "we all know exceeding the speed limit isn't automatically dangerous," but it does automatically break the law, and it remains that in 99.9% of the cases, 45 in a 30 will be dangerous.
Answer: it's not. Bring on increased fines for dangerous drivers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment