And if you think speeding in the UK is restricted to motorways then you're completely uninformed or delusional.
Personally, I'd be all in favour of people campaigning to raise speed limits - nobody EVER does. But to expect, allow, or ignore people breaking a limit is just stupid and a bad precedent to set. And yet everyone thinks that's fine.
No, it's stupid but entirely predictable. There is a large demographic who think speed limits are fine or even too small. There's a large demographic who want to see them decreased. The status quo is political because you can't increase the limit due to one group and can't enforce the current limit due to another group.
It's a bit like drugs like weed. There have been informal policies not to police possession of small quantities for years in some places, but the law can't be changed to make possession illegal because no politician wants to piss off anti-drug voters.
Two things about this, one, slower vehicles are much easier to avoid for careless kids and two, speed kills, every extra ten miles an hour exponentially increases the likelihood of the pedestrian being killed when hit.
So set speed limits at 10mph, or 5mph, or ban cars entirely if decreasing fatalities is always a justification for decreasing a speed limit, because if it isn't then you need a more credible case.
In the UK the normal speed limit in a residential area is 30mph. 20mph limits in the vicinity of schools are becoming more common. In general UK speed limits are quite relaxed, and especially on non-urban roads policing of moderate speeding is very limited; It is not at all unusual to find traffic averaging 80+mph on UK motorways (interstates) which have a 70mph limit, and you could comfortably do 90mph if traffic is flowing with no real risk of a ticket.
All of this should make the UK a very dangerous place for pedestrians if speed limits alone were a primary driver of road fatalities, but they aren't. The UK averages 3.6 fatalities per billion kilometres driven. The US average (where limits are on average lower) is 7.1, which is effectively double. It seems much more likely that issues like car quality, driver certification, road design, car design etc are far more influential.
I have yet to see a piece of equipment that can stand up to repeated freeze/thaw cycles from a New England winter.
Thank god you've thought of snow, I bet everyone involved in these products had completely forgotten that water existed and wasn't even aware that it could freeze!
Just out of interest where in France is New England, because I have to assume you are that self-centric that you have to bring up areas relevant with you even when they have fuck all to do with the area being discussed?
What about the fact that as they wear, the surface texture is gone and they do indeed become slick as glass
The fact you can come up with such an obvious question should be a pretty easy hint that smarter people who've been involved in this already had...
Also, there can't be any traffic on the road because vehicles will block the sunlight, greatly reducing the amount of electricity generated.
I'm sure there are lots intelligent questions about this that it would be interesting to know the answers to, ones about cars blocking light are not one some of them.
The driver who is aware of their surroundings but drives in places with crazy drivers will break a lot and sometimes hard, but not cause accidents
Citation needed, or are you just making stuff up because it 'sounds right' to you. Our drivers do the best part of a million hours driving a year so I'll base my position on the results of that data, and the fact that our insurers discount based on exactly the factors you're claiming would increase accidents thanks.
One must be able to go to where the assembly is taking place, if air travel is the only reasonably way to get there due to say time constraints, the government cannot prevent a citizen from traveling by air, without due process of law.
This seems like an arbitrary line to draw, especially as an example of why it is wrong to draw an arbitrary line counting privacy as part of the right. Surely requiring people have a driving license would breach your definition, how else could they reasonably reach a remote location within time constraints... One of the issues with treating defined rights as guidelines on what is allowed, no matter how openly interpreted, is that it's too open to different interpretations and abuse by those who control what interpretation is used. Much better to focus on what the government has the explicit right to do instead. Thus the question should be how do they have the authority to do this?
Breadth-first search is the bulldozer of science. -- Randy Goebel