104 on the motorway.

[PMKeates]

Do you genuinely think it's a good idea to let all the chavs and inbred morons in this country dictate what speed they believe it's safe to drive their chavved up Saxos or knackered old Escort vans?

That would be my default position, yes. Treating people like idiots is the best way to get people to behave like idiots.

How many more accidents do you believe there will be if this idea is taken up?

I don't know. The difference is, I think it actually needs to be looked in to. My gut feeling is that advisory speeds with increased driver education, awareness and, importantly, responsibility, would improve driving standards. If the conclusion is that, actually, there is no alternative to the current system of speed limitations, then so be it. We have proven it. The restriction is justified. I don't think many people believe that would be the outcome of a genuine and scientific investigation.

Is it worth it?

Improved driving standards, reduced travel times and an increased in freedom works for me.

Do you disagree with every single speed limit set in this country?

I fundamentally disagree with almost every limitation imposed without comprehensive justification (and by that I don't mean a justification like a recent increase in KSI statistics [as this is usually contrary to years of low KSI numbers]).

 

[DM]

The trouble is 90% of drivers are not interested in or dont think they need to do any driver training.

So i cant see an alternative to speed limits to be honest.

 

[Howard]

The difference is, I think it actually needs to be looked in to. My gut feeling is that advisory speeds with increased driver education, awareness and, importantly, responsibility, would improve driving standards. If the conclusion is that, actually, there is no alternative to the current system of speed limitations, then so be it. We have proven it.

And how many people need to be injured or killed before you'd accept that we've "proven it"?

Of course these things would improve standards. It's a no-brainer. In an ideal world. But sadly, this world is far from ideal and thus we need law and order to keep us in check.

 

[lovedaddy]

Can you provide evidence that suggests they aren't necessary?

No, I'm sure the government hasn't thought out every single speed limit. That's why road A isn't 52mph and road B isn't 36.5mph. It's all about balance and compromise. A road with a 40 limit has been given such a limit because it has been deemed not safe to do 20mph more without it being dangerous due to visibility, hazards etc. What's so irrational about that? There isn't time to classify every single road, just like there isn't time to judge every single case of somebody breaking the speed limit.

Can you honestly say you trust every person you see behind the wheel of a car to accurately judge an appropriate speed? I think your whole "freedom" idea is irrelevant when we are in charge of 1 tonne+ metal boxes that could quite easily kill someone.

Possibly the most sensible I've ever seen written on this forum.

 

[End Creditz]

And how many people need to be injured or killed before you'd accept that we've "proven it"?

With luck it'd be an even number of chavs and those immortal types with no concept of a high speed crash involving their F1 driver skilled selves

In reality it'd be normal average men/women driving well within their limits hit by the above

 

[PMKeates]

And how many people need to be injured or killed before you'd accept that we've "proven it"?

Thousands are killed or seriously injured each year in the model of poor driver education and artificial speed limits that, let's not forget, many if not most people do not obey. You are arguing from a standpoint of "increasing speeds increases injuries", yet the absolute link is not one established in science. You would phase a system of no limits out, like you do any nationwide programme of any kind, and begin collecting data and analysing the facts immediately. You would target very low risk areas first, to give more supporting data to your later analyses of more complex and riskier roads. Nobody should be injured if it is implemented properly.

In an ideal world. But sadly, this world is far from ideal and thus we need law and order to keep us in check.

I fundamentally disagree with you. If you believe laws and orders with no justification are necessary, then we can end the debate right here - I understand your position and your preference for a limited existence. It's a preference I do not share. The world is not ideal, but nobody else is going to improve it for us.

 

[DM]

I fundamentally disagree with you. If you believe laws and orders with no justification are necessary, then we can end the debate right here - I understand your position and your preference for a limited existence. It's a preference I do not share. The world is not ideal, but nobody else is going to improve it for us.

Of course they are needed, because you wont get people to improve en masse voluntarily.

I used to like having a fight at football every saturday with like minded nutters 25 years ago.

But i can see why you aint supposed to do it. You cant have self imposed parameters because people being people just wont impose them.

 

[Howard]

You're taking it to extremes somewhat. I do not ever feel like my freedom is being impeded when I drive down a road with a speed limit imposed. Does anyone else?

If you do, then I'd suggest the problem lies with you and not with "the system". Every developed country in the world must have a similar system in place.

I do see where you're coming from with the phasing out gradually, really I do. But it requires so much work it's unreal, and in the grand scheme of things, what we have now is not all that bad. And you, by expecting it to be "implemented properly" are putting a lot of faith in our government that you previously slated me for doing

And don't get me wrong, I, like most people, believe the policing/punishment for speeding offences could do with some improvement. Or maybe re-thinking speed limits on certain roads, whether up or down. But I'm not willing to put my safety in the hands of some 17 year old inexperienced kid who thinks it's safe to barrel along the motorway at 100mph in his mum's Corsa.

 

[snowdog]

You're taking it to extremes somewhat. I do not ever feel like my freedom is being impeded when I drive down a road with a speed limit imposed. Does anyone else?

If you do, then I'd suggest the problem lies with you and not with "the system". Every developed country in the world must have a similar system in place.

Yes.

Except, some other countries have more reasonable speed limits.

And don't get me wrong, I, like most people, believe the policing/punishment for speeding offences could do with some improvement. Or maybe re-thinking speed limits on certain roads, whether up or down. But I'm not willing to put my safety in the hands of some 17 year old inexperienced kid who thinks it's safe to barrel along the motorway at 100mph in his mum's Corsa.

I would easily, it's going fine in Germany, it's going fine in countries like Poland where the limits are higher...


An example of what ****es me off is the A2 ebtween Utrecht and Amsterdam. It used to be 2x3 lanes with a 120 kph limit, they UPGRADED it to 2x5 lanes for the whole stretch and lowered the limit to 100kph ( 60 mph)...

 

[snowdog]

Believe me you wouldnt want you're life in the hands of some of the pricks we got driving here.

I dont care how well it works abroad.

The UK is statistically one of the safest countries in Europe to drive in . The number of deaths are already at an extreme low.

 

[DM]

The UK is statistically one of the safest countries in Europe to drive in . The number of deaths are already at an extreme low.

Yes, because we have speed limits and laws in place that promote that.

Start de restricting our terribly maintained roads and see what happens.

 

[snowdog]

The example I mentioned earlier, the works were not yet done and they could drive 120 kph.
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_3KFoDEx-Yeg/TELkHamjU0I/AAAAAAAAAR4/rBJV452h4iY/s800/DSC03390.JPG
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_3KFoDEx-Yeg/TELkFT5g5rI/AAAAAAAAARs/7Cm1b5-MLjo/s800/DSC03387.JPG

Now with the left 2 lanes open additionally, they may only drive 100, why would anyone think that is logical ?

Bit where is has been opened showing the new lower 100 kph limit in place too:
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_3KFoDEx-Yeg/TELjnTn1CdI/AAAAAAAAARU/eJfjQ4V36Wg/s800/DSC03383.JPG
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_3KFoDEx-Yeg/TELjVrHgk7I/AAAAAAAAAQ0/6bfJKCyOF7g/s800/DSC03377.JPG

 

[L0rdMike]

What about some individuals that have no fear of speed limits, having a 60 sign makes me no safer if some nutter decides to drive in such a way.

 

[D18241]

Hmmm was on my way upto whitby today know i was doing near 100 at one point and there was a cop car sat up at side of road.....awaiting a letter about speeding


Tend to avoid speeding normally as only been driving 2months wonder if ill lose my license

 

[DM]

Well that was a liberty this monrning.

2k fine, 42 day ban, 50 quid costs and 15 quid victim surcharge. Plus 400 quid my solicitor.

Victim my arse, the only victim here is me.

3am NOTHING except me and a copper on the motorway in a 1 year old Porsche, what the **** was i going to crash into.

No driving offences for 20 years to boot, that really has ****ed me off, 3 green grocer ****ers. Magistrates my arse.

 

[NVP]

2 grand!!!!!! D'oh! Unlucky man.

 

[[TW]Fox]

A 2k fine?!?

 

[DM]

A 2k fine?!?

2k yes, the maximum is 2500 quid which he said he was considering the ****er.

 

[DM]

I dont even care about the fine it was the ****ing attitude on the 3 of them.

Some shoplifting ***** before me waltzes out 80 quid, i hate this country at times.

And the ban the maximum is only 56 days i might as well have gone for 170mph and had my moneys worth.

 

[Howard]

:|

That is absolutely bonkers