A modest proposal to abolish speed limits

Have you tried flashing your headlight? This may help.

I'd say the same for drink driving and speeding but they're illegal - I don't bother overtaking as 1) I'm in a car and 2) I'm patient so I wouldn't be bothered if they did it.

I wouldn't put it past them, all it takes is a study and some bored journalist with pages to fill penning a scandal article about the number of deaths caused by 'risky' overtaking.

I don't actually ride, I'm just pointing out that bikes are always gonna be less visible than cars no matter what you do to them, and if you're gonna miss that much audio and visual cues then chances are a flashing yellow light isn't gonna make much difference either. "Think Bike" campaigns are, I suspect, more effective than any such scheme.

Drink driving is a totally different thing. It doesn't matter how sensibly you're driving - you have slower reflexes regardless - and impaired judgement is never a good thing behind the wheel. Before it's pointed out that boy racers could be regarded as having impaired judgement, drink driving is something that applies to every driver, is evidence-based, and quantifiable - therefore it is right that it be banned.
Speeding, on the other hand, is something that is overlegislated - because it is negatively impacting on drivers who would otherwise drive at appropriate speeds for the conditions, rather than arbitrary "safe" speeds which in reality are frequently nothing of the sort, and do nothing in those cases where the speed limit is inappropriate speed except make people think that that speed is appropriate - thus increasing the likelihood of causing an accident. And idiots who want to drive at dangerous speeds will disregard the limit anyway, and slow down just for the speed cameras because they know the area, meaning it has little effect but to criminalise safe drivers who happen to be driving faster than a plastic sign says they should be.

As for overtaking - yes, some people are patient. Others will actually have somewhere to get to in a hurry and will therefore wish to drive faster than the Sunday drivers, and banning overtaking will only serve to increase stress levels and thus likelihood of crashing.

I'm a pretty patient person so overtaking is not really something i'd consider doing even though the car i drive has more than enough grunt to get past almost anything pretty quickly (focus st).

There have been 2 occasions in the past year I can think of where I have had to overtake someone, 1 being on a trip to bournemouth, stuck behind some old dear driving at 30mph on a national speed limit road in day light on a clear dry day.

The other stuck behind a caravan on the A303 which had gathered a pretty huge following of cars due to it going so bloody slow.

Besides those few occasions overtaking isnt really necessary, I do think personally that police officers on the road are a far greater deterant than a speed camera.

If i see a traffic cop, i know im being watched, if i see a camera i slow down until im past it then put my foot down, within limit ofcourse ;)

As above really, just because there's no need for many people to overtake doesn't mean overtaking should be banned, because there're plenty of legitimate reasons people might want/need to get to their destination quicker.. and not least simply not wanting to be stuck behind some smelly truck for an hour, unable to see properly.

+1 on the cop vs camera argument.
 
The thing is mate, without even debating if it would be a good/bad/negligible thing the fact of the matter is it's something you're just not going to get.
It boils down to money and budgets, and traffic plods are just too expensive.

I know mate, I know. It just saddens me as I see the standards on our roads plummet for this very reason. :(

The same way many car drivers when pulling out from side roads,gate ways,etc etc always fail to see twin 55watt headlights of a motorbike coming towards them...

I have similar issues yet I'm driving something thats 53ft long & 14' 6" High yet they STILL don't see me! :confused:

Have you tried flashing your headlight? This may help.

I agree entirely, the point is, he should not have to.

As I say, poor driving standards with no enforcement bar cameras. :(
 
Last edited:
...
Drink driving is a totally different thing. It doesn't matter how sensibly you're driving - you have slower reflexes regardless - and impaired judgement is never a good thing behind the wheel. Before it's pointed out that boy racers could be regarded as having impaired judgement, drink driving is something that applies to every driver, is evidence-based, and quantifiable - therefore it is right that it be banned.

Speeding, on the other hand, is something that is over-legislated - because it is negatively impacting on drivers who would otherwise drive at appropriate speeds for the conditions, rather than arbitrary "safe" speeds which in reality are frequently nothing of the sort, and do nothing in those cases where the speed limit is inappropriate speed except make people think that that speed is appropriate - thus increasing the likelihood of causing an accident. And idiots who want to drive at dangerous speeds will disregard the limit anyway, and slow down just for the speed cameras because they know the area, meaning it has little effect but to criminalise safe drivers who happen to be driving faster than a plastic sign says they should be.
...
Naive nonsense.

I have no doubt that there are many drink drivers who feel that the 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood limit is set far too low; they are quite confident that they have a higher threshold and are quite safe exceeding the limit; they may even be correct but do not have the right to make that judgement for their convenience. On the other hand, there are many safe and sensible drivers who will simply never drink any amount of alcohol and drive. There are also arrogant, selfish and stupid idiots who drink above the limit on the basis that they "know" they are safe drivers and they don't expect to be caught.

The drink-driving limit is NOT based on evidence appropriate to ALL drivers, it is a lower limit. As to blood alcohol level being quantifiable, so is speeding; that is what speed cameras are for.

Speed limits like the blood alcohol limit, are based on a reasonable compromise between not driving at all and no speed limit. Drivers have no more right to exceed the speed limit than to exceed the blood alcohol limit.

As you say, there are many safe and sensible drivers who will not necessarily drive at the relevant speed limit at all times, because they don't consider it safe to do so; they drive at an appropriate speed, within the legal limits. There are also arrogant, selfish, impatient and stupid idiots who happily exceed the speed limit on the basis that they "know" they are safe drivers and they don't expect to be caught.
 
Naive nonsense.

I have no doubt that there are many drink drivers who feel that the 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood limit is set far too low; they are quite confident that they have a higher threshold and are quite safe exceeding the limit; they may even be correct but do not have the right to make that judgement for their convenience. On the other hand, there are many safe and sensible drivers who will simply never drink any amount of alcohol and drive. There are also arrogant, selfish and stupid idiots who drink above the limit on the basis that they "know" they are safe drivers and they don't expect to be caught.

The drink-driving limit is NOT based on evidence appropriate to ALL drivers, it is a lower limit. As to blood alcohol level being quantifiable, so is speeding; that is what speed cameras are for.

Speed limits like the blood alcohol limit, are based on a reasonable compromise between not driving at all and no speed limit. Drivers have no more right to exceed the speed limit than to exceed the blood alcohol limit.

As you say, there are many safe and sensible drivers who will not necessarily drive at the relevant speed limit at all times, because they don't consider it safe to do so; they drive at an appropriate speed, within the legal limits. There are also arrogant, selfish, impatient and stupid idiots who happily exceed the speed limit on the basis that they "know" they are safe drivers and they don't expect to be caught.

Citation needed, because based on the available statistics, that is a load of populist twaddle rather than an evidence based argument.

Drink driving has a demonstratable and statistically significant road safety impact. Exceeding the speed limit does not.

Drink drive accidents account for 16% of road deaths (and used to be higher) (source). This goes against the 3% KSI (which is a broader category) reported for cars exceeding the speed limit (see table 4d of the main PDF for source)

In fact, you might to well to read this government produced document if you wish to learn about road safety and the causes of accidents, and why the proposals I've outlined go a long way to influencing the primary causes of the accidents.
 
Last edited:
404 Error Page - Document not found.

I think that we agreed long, long ago that blood alcohol level can easily be determined after a RTA, the speed leading up to the accident often can not and as a result is not used as an explanation for the accident which is typically described by some intangible.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom