Quote: No doubt many of our roads are poorly maintained and are continuing to deteriorate, however the correlation between that and dangerous driving is a far fetching comment. The science behind your first point in true, however you add speed, distractions and inexperience into this situation and collectively they cause crashes.
To your next point "pulling out in front of an oncoming vehicle is one of eleven categories with just over 1500 crashes occurring this way in 2016.
Speed is not the sole factor that kills, however it contributes to a vast majority of crashes. Denying statistics and facts that have been provided by governments and various other institutions is ignorant. To further progress my point you cannot simply put out a blanket statement which has no evidence to support this claim. If you can highlight how speeding doesn't kill, provide a reason and statistics instead of just your perception.
According to NSW Transport speed is a factor in over 40% of crashes, if you deny this you are in fact contributing to the problem and the poor culture of todays society.
At no point did I deny that there were not other factors, of course there are. It would be preposterous to state otherwise.
I don't disagree with your point, there should be much stricter and stringent testing and courses relating to getting you license.
Every single day I drive on the road I get passed by 95% of traffic.....why....because they are speeding. Speeding is a cultural issue that through statistics can be proven as a worthy issue on our roads. The people who highlight it as a profitability are the ones who are getting caught, the ones who slow down for speed camera and speed up once past, the ones who ignore the primary issue pertaining to driving crashes and the primary ones who blame the roads not the human beings driving and in control of the vehicles.
Spped, as you have pointed out, will always be involved, however only because you have to actually be moving.
What about the argument,
"If i just went a few Klm/hr faster, I wouldn't have been where the car pulled out at all"
How many accident have been avoided because the car was further down the road than it would have been had it not been speeding?
This is an extrapolation on the illogical argument govco uses to blame speeding.
If the guy in the example had been going faster, he would have been past the guy pulling out before he got to the intersection.
Is this not logical?
You say 95% of driver pass you and you are doing the speed limit, Thats fair enough, no problem.
When I drive with my boat on the back of my car, I travel at what I consider a safe speed.
Usually slower than the posted speed limit and never over 100klm/hr.
This is my choice based on pulling a 1, 1/2 ton boat behind a less than 1 ton of car.
But, if 95% travel faster than you, at the speed limit.
If speed kills why are these 95% of drivers not crashing all over the road?
Why are you not surrounded by carnage?
Because speed itself is not a major factor.
INAPPROPRIATE SPEED IS.
And inappropriate speed can be and often is the posted speed limit under certain conditions.
So, where does that leave us?
Inappropriate speed is the real killer, but its dependent on the conditions and ability of the driver.
This is far too hard for govco, so they look at the lowest common denominator.
Then they post a sped limit without taking into account the other factors.
Therefore they are remiss in not considering these factors.
Then they look at a means by which they can make revenue from the deaths of these people.
Bingo, speed cameras.
To your first point to apply this to every situation is absurd, which is the reason why I have not. However every kilometre makes a difference, I support this point through scientific research and scientific tests. I will explain how that guy who pulls out in front could either get cleaned up or be missed. If the listed speed was, for arguments sake 60km/hr and an individual was speeding doing say 80km/hr. It would take 24 metres longer to stop, 24 metres that that one car behind may not have. No doubt I am not denying speed is the primary or sole factor but please do not deny that slowing down a few kilometres won't make a difference. It is proven empirically. Explain that to families who have lost their children or family members on the road, in cases it does happen, your point is logical in some circumstances.
To your second point. I have stated it in this post and others. Please don't put words in my mouth. I have stipulated it is a primary causer of road accidents, highlighted through 40% of road accidents being attributed to by speed. Your statement is similar to a proposition such as this "95% of people I saw today were fathers.....that means 95% are domestic violence perpetrators.
I do agree with you that yes inappropriate speed is also a factor, a major factor. I pose this....if you are doing nothing wrong on the roads why are speed cameras a concern. If they slow down one idiot from 100km/hr to 60km/hr, well I say it is worth it. Precaution is necessary.