Safe Speed Forums

Yeah, after I replied to Handy I wished that I had asked him to specify the flaw. Of course there isn't a flaw, and Handy appears to have called it 'boring' because he cannot otherwise find fault with it.

what evidence do you want? A photo of a car travelling at, gosh, 60mph on an empty motorway? I could provide hundreds, if I felt so inclined to fit a camera that could see both my speedo and the road ahead.

So you're the one causing all the traffic jams?!

Some urban 40 areas have become 30 for "consistency"

yeah, right, you got me, it's me.

Is that the best you can do?

you trot this out too often, it's getting boring now

... However, I do also feel that this would set free the boy racers who would then take it upon themselves to drive unsafely.

Actually, no. But it still surpasses

the flaw is already pointed out. Limit and Target mean VERY different things.

So I've called it boring not because I can't find fault with it (because it's a very easy flaw to spot), but because you can't accept that a FACTUAL flaw, supported by learned (and peer reviewed) documents such as, oh, the Oxford English Dictionary might disagree with your opinion therefore it cannot be right, so you quote the same old response that does not actually make any sense unless you interchange the two words.

Isn't that what they do anyway? Presumably they wouldn't be "boy racers" if they didn't?

In all other respects, we agree completely though. More DISCRETIONARY enforcement with no stupid targets to "cloud" the officer's judgement. I was doing an indicated 85 on the M6 up Shap the other evening (very light traffic) with a patrol car following me for a while, then I followed him for a while after he passed me. Never a cross word spoken, no safety issues to address. He knew it, I knew it. Had it been wet or foggy on the other hand, I'd expect to have been doing "porridge" by now! That's the kind of policing I'd like a return to.

On the back foot? WHAT "evidence"?

Having trouble with our quotes today?

the flaw is already pointed out. Limit and Target mean VERY different things.

Limit and target certainly mean the same thing when getting taught to drive and sitting your test. On bike training the mantra is 32mph, quick up to 32. If you go much below this for no reason you will fail your bike test. Same on the motorway. If you don't attain the limit/target of 70-74mph for no good reason, you will fail.

We will change the way in which speed limits are indicated where enforcement takes place, so that people are clear about the speed at which they ought to be driving.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Speed limits CANNOT be set correctly - or at least if they were set at such high thresholds that reasoanable men would never exceed them, then they would do no good.



So the problem is that even if we set the speed limit for 'good' conditions, it will still be way too low for 'ideal' conditions which are obviously present from time to time.

It's especially bad with national speed limits - applied equally to narrow busy bendy roads with novice drivers in crappy vehicles and to wide deserted straight roads with experienced drivers in high-spec vehicles.

The ONLY solution that I can propose is discretionary enforcement. Otherwise we're unavoidably telling some drivers to drive far too fast in poor conditions.

the flaw is already pointed out. Limit and Target mean VERY different things.

So I've called it boring not because I can't find fault with it (because it's a very easy flaw to spot), but because you can't accept that a FACTUAL flaw, supported by learned (and peer reviewed) documents such as, oh, the Oxford English Dictionary might disagree with your opinion therefore it cannot be right, so you quote the same old response that does not actually make any sense unless you interchange the two words.

Perhaps that is the reason why he is the FORMER roads minister?
He would have better served his cause if instead of

....he had said...
'We will change the way in which speed limits are indicated where enforcement takes place, so that people are clear about the speed which they SHOULD NOT BE EXCEEDING'.

I almost missed Handy's apparent sophistry here...

gosh, that's rich, coming from a site BUILT on sophistry and specious reasoning.

now I really must log off and hit the road

"whilst temporarily passing through our revenue collection point"

...and totally ignoring our warnings thus making us richer by another £60..