weepej wrote:
Mole wrote:
And there was me thinking "those proposing it" was the government! Just as an aside though, what would you want evidence of and what level of evidence would you consider acceptable?
The government?
By that do you mean bona fide car loon "I don't like it when cyclists get in my way" Phillip Hammond, who used ridiculously selective and out of whack reasons in an attempt to justify it?
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2011/1 ... mph-limit/A bit of silly drum bashing, that was all it was.
Nice link - lots of adverts for all the books on trains that he's written... almost makes me think he might be a bona fide (anti) car loon?
Anyway, for what it's worth, I thought the arguments they (he?) put for increasing the motorway speed limit sounded pretty tenuous too - but then, what would I know?! I'm always being told the government knows best! (or is that only when they're talking about further reductions of speed limits and even more rigorous enforcement of them)?
Personally, I couldn't see what would have been wrong with saying:
(a) it would bring us into line with most of the rest of Europe and
(b) it would bring some vague improvement in the public's respect for the law by making it less likely that more than half of them would routinely exceed it.