En-Phantomation...Why bother?

To those already questioning the made up word 'phantomation' think of it as two words in one: phantom (Something apparently seen, heard, or sensed, but having no physical reality; a ghost or an apparition.) and ation (Action or process). Additionally, when the term 'en' is inserted, this action or process is apparently inflicted upon someone/thing else. The rest of the title you can figure out for yourself including its applicability to my previous post.

So in reply to a particular 'Scribbler', my post was rudimentary for the sole reason of establishing good foundations - I particularly liked how you touched on my audience being next to none - because the basics, especially politically as I am not a political person, allow for evolution of sophistication. I do however share your thoughts because of the applicability to the issue at hand; it would have been much more simpler if I had mentioned my view on abolishing speed limits up front. Additionally, paragraph structure has been edited - although I did warn all of its lengthiness, a suitable structure would help

To this extent, I would metaphorically like to 'grind to a halt' all issues relating to speeding in society temporarily and suggest the new age Safe Speeding - The abolishment of speeding being against the law and the introduction of acceleration laws. A quick google search for any similar thoughts was diminished by the niche market, so as to speak, I had catastrophically created - not one person, according to Google's first few pages of results after entering Speeding vs Acceleration, has created a website to publish their views.

I find that the following quote sums up my research into the field nicely (but also annoyingly as it has taken such time whilst this website has held empirical research for some time!):
"As such speed variance and not average travel speed influences the level of crash involvement. If all the traffic was flowing at 140-150 km/h the risk of a crash would be alot less than the traffic flowing at 105 km/h with several drivers weaving through the traffic at 140 km/h."
The quote above was simply extracted, without breaching Copyright I hope, from the Safe Drive Training institute that has offices in several countries - http://www.sdt.com.au excusing the potentially immature partial-dyslexism 'The Scribbler'- however I would like to make special note of the fact that the site in which I have used as basis of my research today, has not got a hyperlink to it from the main homepage (or from any page under the domain sdt.com.au for that matter); possibly suggesting that such a reputable organisation does not want the public to know the truth behind speeding.

More so,
"Some research has shown that travelling 20 km/h slower than the surrounding traffic is just as dangerous as travelling 40 km/h faster. In fact low speed drivers are more likely to cause and be involved in an accident than high speed drivers. This has led to a call for both minimum and maximum speed limits to be set and enforced!"
Although not quite at my conclusion, a deviated but similar justification of the fallacy Speeding Kills is evident 'out there' already. Although titles are over-rated in my view, the title of the page includes "THE FACTS" suggesting that the truth has possibly been clouded by intervention of a 3rd party.

"Dr. Ingo Kallina the head of safety research for Mercedes Benz has found "no link between speed and injury outcome..."
"In Germany we have autobahns with unlimited speed and they are the safest"
"A recent study by the British Transport Laboratory has found that excessive speed was a factor in fewer than 5% of more than 3000 traffic accidents analysed. Driving associations in Britain are in uproar as these findings were ignored by the government that went onto speed £ 34 million on the "Kill your Speed" campaign launched in January 1999."

I am still to officially suggest this radical change to the appropriate authorities however I would like people to show their support/agreement in any form (by email, by comments on this/last post etc.) - I do not believe in rallies/protests nor will I ever result in such a manner for this cause.

In summing up, my ammendments would look something like this:
1. Acceleration limits are more important than Speed Limits - note the word selection
2. Both maximum and minimum values would be put into place varying on road conditions
3. Advertising of both the old and new protocols be rationed for simplicity and correct resource allocation
4. More to follow!!!!

-Adam