🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 2970@lsl.co.uk, snail@lsl.co.uk () writes:
>As for the kid playing chicken, well that's his/her life in *their* hands,
>you'd still be in a right mess at 20mph or 30mph with such an individual,
>except that they stand more of a chance of killing the driver at higher
>speeds. The driver cannot be held repsonsible for the actions of people
>knowingly doing things that are so blatantly stupid, such as playing chicken
>whilst drunk or sober

   You may be right that the driver *shouldn't* be held responsible, but he will. 
I have always been told that if there is an accident (of ANY sort) on a road, and
your car is moving, YOU are to blame.

>Graham, please present some coherent argument as to why 71 mph is more
>dangerous than 70 mph. 70 mph is a completely arbitary figure. I have not
>once asserted it is a safe speed to drive at. I have stated that I believe,
>that in some circumstances it is no more dangerous to drive at a higher speed
>than 70, than it is to drive at 70. I think the problem you have is that 70mph
>is the law, and thus you cannot address 71mph. If the law said that 80 or
>90 mph was the maximum speed limit on the motorway, would you still be
>arguing this point with me? That is would you be arguing against driving at
>71mph?
  
I think that the 71mph is not really the issue, it's only 71mph as it is over the
limit, and it is unquestioned that driving at high speeds is dangerous.
It is rather pointless arguing over 1mph, as the difference in results is
negligble. Much more difference would be noticed if for instance the speed rose
to  80, 90 or even 100mph.

Richard Peat
ssurpeat@uk.ac.rdg.susssys1