So do you really think, given the rate at which the car ownership has grown in the last two decades at least, that if, let's for argument's sake say, we'll reduce the speed limit by 10mph overall and as a consequence slow everyone down by bunching them up, do you think in a few years time we won't have to spend money to increase THE PIPE in order to release the gridlock created now because we (maybe) fixated on the wrong approach?
Why does everything have to come down to money? Can you put a price on life? I know DfT does, but it is calculated based on how much it costs to have the inquiry/insurance-payout/road-remedy/etc. and averaged out. And if it has to be down to money, couldn't we find alternatives which can self finance and still achieve the desired outcome: save lives, make the road system more efficient, less polluting and safer for everyone?
And I mean for everyone, those that choose to drive slowly and solely at the weekend, those that enjoy the luxury of solitary travelling to and from work, as well as those who have to travel a little bit faster in order to multi-drop, visit many locations to fix/sell/buy things?
Instead so far you chose to narrow mindedly focus on speed, in spite that even the DfT statistics state that only in a minority of RTA's speed is a CONTRIBUTORY factor (and in an even smaller minority speed IS the MAIN factor). To me it is like changing the colour/shape of the door handle in order to make sure the door closes properly, without oiling/checking the hinge or the catch etc.
Dan
|
|