Quote:
Could you tell us why you think that the arteries of the nation, through which the life blood of the economy is trying to flow, should be blocked by people wandering about the roads meandering between 20 and 30?
The arteries of the nation are not 30mph speed limits. They are 60 and 70mph speed limits.
Quote:
But putting a burning cigarrette into a waste bin of paper leads directly to fire.
Blocking a fire exit, in a fire, leads directly to harm.
Putting a high speed onto a car does not lead directly to accidents, neither does it lead to collisions.
You missed the point I'm afraid. Putting a burning cigarrette into a paper bin does not directly lead to a fire. I've done it before with no raging inferno spreading. Driving at speed does not lead directly to accidents. I never said it did. What I said was that when an accident happens, the speed at which it happens, decides the outcome.
When a fire happens (however it started), having the fire exits blocked is a bad thing. It could lead to lives being lost. When a car accident happens travelling at high speeds is a bad thing, it could lead to lives being lost.
Quote:
The law expects drivers to safely select appropriate speeds up to 70mph on motorways and dual carriageways, both of which can have "pedestrians" on them, and even pedestrians, cyclists, animals, and cars "parked, not only on the side of the road, but in the middle of it.
It also expects drivers to safely select the correct speed up to 60mph on all kinds of roads, in all kinds of conditions, with other cars on the same carriageway going in the opposite direction, possibly far in excess of 60, with pedestrians, parked cars, animals (more, and more variety, than in towns), children, and even residences!
So how come they suddenly lose that ability if you stick up a 50, 40 or 30 sign?
So effectively, you are saying that there shouldn't be speed limits because the law expects us to safely select an appropriate speed? Or at least the maximum speed on all roads should be 70 and drivers should be expected to safely select an appropriate speed within that? I don't see how I've stated that drivers have the ability to select a safe speed in a 70 zone but not in a 30 zone.
Quote:
But the speed limits are supposed to be an aid to prosecuting people driving markedly in excess of the safe speed for the road and conditions.
Not for automatically prosecuting anyone exceeding them by any amount.
The speed limit is a limit on the speed you are allowed to travel at. What is the point of having a limit, if you allow people to exceed it by certain amounts? It is no longer a limit. If you allow someone to drive at 35 on a straigh 30mph road, with low traffic, good weather, low resedential, at day time, bla bla bla...why not just make the limit on the road 35 and have done with it?
Quote:
I'd always rather be missed at 40 than hit at 30.
And I'd rather hit something at 30 than at 40.