Well, it IS for me to decide what's dangerous, as i have ton's of 60mph roads near me that you'd have to literally be suicidal to do 60mph on, but i have other 60mph roads near me as wide/flat/straight as a runway. Why are they both 60mph? Because it's an arbitrary number rather than a reflection of how hazardous the road is.
You're confusing driving below the limit with above the limit. Of course you can't go 60 all the time on the roads, even if it is the limit.
I probably will get caught out one day. But the difference is, i am able to judge what is appropriate for a given road, in given conditions, but a sign post is not. I respect 30 and 40 limits and never drive quickly along these roads, but when there an NSL which is clear, why shouldn't i drive to how hazardous it is? Try and answer this one without the usual "BUT IT'S THE LOR!11!!!" and use your own head and think about it.
So are you saying it's OK to speed on a NSL road? i.e. go over 60 mph when you feel it's safe? That's not driving in accordance with your license and yes, you would get caught. It will help subsidise the police force.
It failed to protect 28,567 in 2008. Yet only circa 6% (IIRC) (Source: DfT) of these were caused by excess speed?
That doesn't prove anything, and if you're correct in your guess, over 1700 people died because of speeding. Acceptable risk?
I don't like them, because they're pointless. The government is using a blunt instrument to try and tackle a problem....like always.
What do you suggest? I think it's clear not everyone can be trusted on their own. Perhaps speed limiters in cars working with GPS? Then you couldn't exceed the imposed limit. Giving people who aren't fully informed on how dangerous a road is, or know the possible consequences of driving dangerously, a choice will result in abuse of the system. Once again, if there were no accidents there would be no need to impose arbitrary limits.