handy wrote:
I do not agree with PeterE - he has missed the point of the word "limit", hence my repetition.
I am well aware what the concept of a "limit" means, thank you very much.
However, the current speed limits are, in general, only limits in a narrow legal sense. They obviously aren't credible as limits to safe or responsible behaviour.
Indeed, on most types of roads, the speed limit represents a comfortable cruising speed in good conditions, and even law-abiding drivers are operating for much of the time at the margin of legality. Given this, drivers cannot be expected to treat the current limits as upper limits.
If you genuinely want that, then the limits must be set at least 50% above their current levels, in some circumstances more. But I suspect that would leave many lower-skilled drivers floundering as to speed choice.
My belief is that a more pragmatic view is needed, and we accept that a limit is only a limit in a strict legal sense and effectively represents a speed above which you *may* be prosecuted on a strict liability basis, if your behaviour is risky as well as technically illegal.