Ah good - Some informed debate
There are two main points to my argument on this:
1. The media's narrative on the topic - That is that if you simply slow down everything will be better.
You may think that I'm being simplistic/facetious here but when it comes to getting a certain message across then this is surprisingly accurate. Being in the Navy for some years has shown me time and again that factual accuracy comes a distant second to headline production. This, being an emotive topic, is no different from the media's standpoint.
2. Reduction of the 'Collective risk' as you've succinctly put it.
Collective risk is precisely that - Collective. That meaning that contributory factors are wide reaching and multi-faceted. Whilst it's entirely accurate to say that crap drivers are more dangerous if they can go faster those drivers/road users who aren't crap are punished too. The issue with SH6 is that we've now reached the point where the speed limit, IMHO, actually makes you drive/ride in a less safe manner owing to the sheer boredom brought about by the changes. The behaviours this creates are counter productive.
Then again if the casualty figures are lower (Something the article has steadfastly avoided mentioning - Which supports my desired narrative theory) then the facts provide a stronger argument one way or the other.
As was mentioned in an earlier post people need to know what it is they are doing wrong. Going slower is often a very effective way of masking this and not actually educating people. All of which takes time, money and resource of course.
It's a fascinating topic - Thanks for the debate
Bookmarks