Why speed _limits_ suck

[sobrique]

Well, my previous post about speed cameras has also crossed over to a discussion of speed limits.

So -

Why speed limits suck:

* The motorways in the UK are some of the safest roads in the country, indeed even in Europe. The average speed tends towards 80/90 mph, somewhat above the posted speed limit.

* There is no arbitrary transition between safe as opposed to dangerous. At an absolute level, 5mph is safer than 30. However, when you're on a road where traffic is travelling at 60 miles an hour (regardless of posted limit) then being notably slower is _you_ causing a hazard to other drivers.

* The national speed restrictions in this country were introduced due to fuel consumption. Nothing to do with safety. Vehicle and material technology has improved greatly over the last 50 years, such that a new car at 90 is safer than a 50 year old car at 60.

* Safe driving is awareness of hazards, and objects around you. Velocity of vehicle is a primary causitive factor in 6% of accidents, and a 'secondary' factor in 7.3% (DoT report), information found http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Facts&Figures/Facts&Figures_Home.htm
The greater ones being failure to judge other person's vector, and carelessness/thoughtlessness/recklessness.
One can argue that exceeding a posted limit counts as recklessness, but I remain unconvinced.

So how about we simply remove the national speed limit, and maybe ditch quite a few of the higher speed dual carriageway restrictions, and apply prosecutions under the basis of 'dangerous/careless driving' instead.

Comments

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

So you would penalise the good for the actions/inaction of the arsehole few?

Sounds like an average government* policy to me - have you thought of running for Prime Minister?

Point is, if people didn't break the law, we wouldn't be having ths argument. I happen to agree with the law (have you ever SEEN the results of a smash on a motorway at over 100 mph? - I have, when I lived in Germany - let's just say, no mater how good the car is, no-one walks away), you don't. However, legally I am in the right, and you are a criminal. Fact. If you want the law changing, lobby your MP. In the meantime, don't complain when you are caught, penalised and charged money for breaking the law.


* any government, not just the current one

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Isn't that the point of a law? If everyone were 'reasonable sorts' then there'd be no need for it at all. Therefore by it's very nature, the police exist because of the 'arsehole minority'.

If I were to point out, that by the letter of the law, this wasn't a legal speed restriction, would that change matters? Then I _wouldn't_ be a criminal, and yet I still have to go to an awful lot of effort in order to prove it.

Section 85 p 4 of the road traffic act:

(3) Subject to paragraphs (4), (5) and (6) and to direction 9, a sign to which this direction applies shall be placed on the relevant road at or as near as practicable to the point referred to in paragraph (2) -

(a) where the relevant road has only one carriageway, on each side of that carriageway; or

(b) where the relevant road has more than one carriageway, on each side of each carriageway in relation to which the restriction, requirement, prohibition or speed limit begins.

I may not be able to contest this in court, simply because legal costs are liable to be high.

So, shall we start the 'letter of the law, vs. the spirit of the law discussion again? :)

[veremit.livejournal.com]

1) If you wish to contest this matter do so - it is your legal and human right to do so. If you don't have the money - go get it. No excuse Ed.
I am currently in legal disputes (indirectly) with an agent marketing a product (supposedly) and I have no money, and nor does the guy who's actually progressing the dispute.

2) All persons who place traffic signs on the public highway have to go on a (Tedious) course to learn how to do. (nuts huh?!) This doesn't excuse the cowboys who forget, or those signs that get blown over, but their legal obligation (and license to so place such signs) means that those signs are at one time placed. I therefore wish you luck .... !

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

"So you would penalise the good for the actions/inaction of the arsehole few?"

Isn't that [i]precisely[/i] what speed limits do? Particularly those enforced by speed cameras rather than coppers?

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

Eh?

A speed limit is a law.

The only ones penalised by speed cameras are those who break the law.

How on earth does that relate to my comment? Sorry, but I'm completely at sea on this one. Perhaps you can explain?

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

Speed limits exist because some people drive dangerously. But are applied to all people and at all times. That is exactly what you just decried.

[veremit.livejournal.com]

The assumption therefore holds that travelling above the limit constitutes driving dangerously - or is that just too straight-forward.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

But that promotes the assumption that travelling below the limit isn't.
There's no binary state point at which you suddenly flip from 'safe' to 'dangerous'.

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

No. Speed limits exist because road planners are in possession of calculations which tell them what is a safe speed at which to travel on a given type of road, not because some people are arseholes.

Germany. Famous for motorways without speed limits.

Do they really have no speed limits? Actually, no, they have lots of speed limits, in fact, anywhere where the road planners feel they are necessary. I have driven on stretches of motorway where the speed limit is 70 kph. i.e. slower than on a British motorway. Why? Cos its a bendy, twisty stretch in an exposed location and therefore liable to black ice, surface water, crosswinds etc etc. Or any number of other perfectly valid reasons.

I'm afraid yours is possibly the least sensible comment I have seen in this discussion so far.