safetyman wrote:
What drivel and utter nonesense you write, the ruth is that using the speed limit in the way it is designed to be used as a MAXIMUM speed and a starting point from which to base your estimation of the safe speed does no harm at all.
No-one with a brain would presume as some of you have chosen to do that I advocate sticking to the limit at all times, I advocate the limit OR slower!!
Of course if you start to accept the stuipidity of the argument that others will go faster and so a dangerous line of traffic will form with the impatient forced to make dangerous overtaking manouvers, this forces you to conclude that any speed is acceptable, IF the limit was enforced by hidden cameras, that are placed anywhere then this would not happen as the people that cannot keep to the law would soon be banned, any-thing else is just anarchy.
Oh dear, you have come here, as many do, assuming a point of view that we really don't hold, and proceed to argue against a case that
no one here is making! (happy guys?
)
Speed limits are, of course, a vital tool in the road safety box, but they are just one of many. These days we see limits set artificially low, on the back of arguments such as "everyone speeds down our road, we want a lower limit". Once you start to accept the stupidity of the argument that a lower limit will make those that were speeding anyway drive slower, this forces you to conclude that improperly set limits are not improving road safety. If limits do not improve road safety, what purpose do they serve?
Now, if someone was poorly informed or weak on reasoning, they may conclude that this standpoint was a tacit approval for anyone to drive at whatever speed they like, wherever they like. Not so! Speed limits were traditionally set at the 85th %ile of the free-flowing traffic speed. That is to say, the speed at which the statistically safest proportion of drivers chose for the road and conditions, discounting those who drove at the extremes of speed or lethargy.
This approach to speed limit setting was coupled with a common sense approach to enforcement. The police were not hampered with 'performance targets', which focus more on measuring that which is easily measurable than that which is important, and the roads were not littered with discretionless automatons, suitable only for measuring a very minor output of the driving process. Thus those that strayed safely a couple of miles over the limit in ideal conditions were ignored. Those that were pushing the limit a little were stopped then and there, and informed of the error of their ways. Those that were driving at truly excessive speeds, with no consideration for conditions or other road users were stopped immediately, and removed from the roads at once, rather than allowed to continue on their dangerous way, and sent a letter with a bill a fortnight later!
These tools were coupled with judicious use of others; engineering the roads to reduce conflict between traffic, and safely allow greater speeds, rather than engineering in additional hazards in some misguided belief that this would somehow make the roads safer. Building new roads, to take traffic that simply wanted to clear an area and be on it's way as quickly as possible away from the local traffic that was bimbling to the shops. Educating drivers on judging the conditions and hazard density of the roads, and exalting good driving, whilst maintaining popular distain for what was truly dangerous driving.
The powers-that-be did a good job in making drink-driving socially unacceptable, chiefly because it does pose a real danger on the roads. Unfortunately they have subsequently set their sights on a far less significant target (examine the DfT's own figures for the veracity of this statement) and thus have lost the public support, and their credibility. Of course they will always have some gullible accolytes, some of which are very vocal, but like all who's point of view is handed to them on a platter, their lack of understanding of the subject soon causes them to come unstuck.
Waver away dear chap!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
You would probably miss seeing the warning triangle sign in the vegetation on the left, which the authorities have allowed to become overgrown!
- but one with sense/knowledge 
She was safe.. not near Shap or ping area. But this upset her.. the fact she had to accelerate to keep safe. Wildy is a Swiss rebel .. but she's still Swiss be genetic programming 
