Earl Purple wrote:
I disagree slightly - you can't trust drivers to use their judgement. Maybe you and I can, but not everyone can.
And I know speed limits are not supposed to be targets, but on the whole they are, and a road (not dual carriageway) is safer when all the traffic is doing the same speed because overtaking on such roads is generally a dangerous manoeuvre.
Please don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that speed limits are bad -- just that they should be advisory and not mandatory. Exceeding a marked speed limit should most certainly be a factor in the assessment of whether a motorist was driving carelessly or dangerously, but it should never be the entire picture.
WRT speed limits becoming targets: in the '60s and '70s speed limits were reasonable maxima given the capabilities of the vehicles of the day. Frequently it was dangerous to travel at the speed limit and motorists used of their own judgement. For example, it was common for cars to travel at about 50mph in the (then) 70-limit of single carriageways.
However, todays cars are capable of much higher speeds in safety. Road holding and braking have both improved. Notwithstanding that, speed limits have reduced. The national speed limit has reduced from 70 to 60, many zones have had their limits reduced by 30 or even 40 mph. We now even have 20 mph zones.
Such low limits mean that (given no traffic or adverse weather) it is rarely dangerous to drive at the speed limit in a modern car. So, it is hardly surprising that motorists consider that a speed limit declares that speed to be safe even when actual road conditions dictate otherwise. IOW, motorists are no longer inclined to use their own judgement and (IMO) that has to be bad news for road safety.