Speed Kills - or does it?

[Pitbull]

Look at it this way - should the person traveling 160 be charged with murder (if he survives) if the occupants in the vehicle traveling 20km/h are all killed?

On a highway in South Africa where traffic is flowing, the minimum speed is 60km/h and the maximum is 120. If the speed limits were followed (head on collisions are not good examples of speed kills comparison to be fair), fewer fatal accidents will happen.

Yes he should.

The reason I mentioned this is per the article posted by bwana.

 

[stoke]

Argument z states that for every km/h of speed that you go over the speed of 80km/h, your chances of survival diminishes exponentially.

The star safety rating is performed at 60 or 80 km/h, not at 120km/h.

So ... in effect, once you go over 80, you are looking for trouble, 100, 120, 140, 160, 180, what's the difference?

The difference is that at hight speeds more vehicles pass a point in the road leading to less traffic congestion.

What's disappointing about road users now days is that they cannot even adhere to the 120 km/h speed limit in the outside lane, causing traffic congestion.

 

[koffiejunkie]

Look at it this way - should the person traveling 160 be charged with murder (if he survives) if the occupants in the vehicle traveling 20km/h are all killed?

He will be, even if he didn't cause the accident.

Someone hitting and killing a pedestrian on a highway will be charged with culpable homicide, regardless of speed. Even though it is illegal to walk on a highway, and the pedestrian is clearly at fault.