Another fffing speeding ticket

[Spacecadet]

Therefore good driving at speed should be perfectly safe and legal. I don't think anybody here is going to demand the right to drive past a school at 40MPH at kick out time. Arbitary speed limits policed by cameras are not the way to go.

Take 2 drivers.

One drives 50MPH through a 40MPH zone on a bright sunny day with high visibility.

One drives 40MPH through a 40MPH zone during a blizzard on a foggy day with visibility of approx 2 metres, there large patches of ice on the road and it has not been gritted.

Which one is the danger who should be stopped and fined?

both

[tay]

Which one is the danger who should be stopped and fined?

Both

[Spacecadet]

jinx!

[BrilloPad]

I am interested to hear the logic whereby doing 31 mph is unsafe whereas 30 mph is not. Why is it safe to drive within a speed limit of 70 at 70 in wet hazardous conditions on a motorway whereas it is "unsafe " to do 71 mph on an empty motorway at 3.00 am in the morning.

Speed limits are arbitrary and bear no relation to safety whatsoever. They are there simply because it enables some sort of control to be legally enforced, so in other words for the benefit of the enforcers. What is happening is that the system is being abused in order to raise revenue. I am quite happy to discuss speed limits in respect of how to impose a law to curb speed, and I am also happy to accept the "getting caught" argument. But please dont expect me to accept any sort of pious morality over breaking a speed limit.

It is definetly a tax. But conservatives would not do anything different and it is a two party system.

I am organizing a local (400 houses) road saftey campaign. We get no money and have no chance of getting money. Government wants speedding tax to be used for covering up their economic incompetance.

[Ardesco]

Absolute carp, and barely deserves an answer. Limits need to be there or else a significant majority of drivers would see nothing wrong with driving at full speed everywhere on any road.

Agreed, 70mph does seem a bit slow on an empty motorway, however the police generally won't do anything up to 79mph (unless they're having a zero tolerance clampdown)

What about national speed limit roads in country areas? As we all know nationl speed limit roads allow you to do up to 60MPH. I grew up in a country area where all roads were national speed limit, even so all of us young drivers did not drive down them all at a constant 60 because that would be suicide. The roads generally speaking had parts where only one car could get through, some very sharp turns with no idication that a sharp turn was coming up and you always had the risk of a tractor being parked in the road just around the corner.

According to your arguments the majority of people going down these roads would be doing 60 which is absolutely not true. Instead people drove at a speed that took into account the road conditions and the accident rate was no higher than anywhere else.

[DodgyAgent]

Absolute carp, and barely deserves an answer. Limits need to be there or else a significant majority of drivers would see nothing wrong with driving at full speed everywhere on any road.

Agreed, 70mph does seem a bit slow on an empty motorway, however the police generally won't do anything up to 79mph (unless they're having a zero tolerance clampdown)

So why are limits set at 30, 40, 50, 70?

why are they not set at 29, 31, 43.00096789?

You are agreeing with my point by saying that they are there to exert some sort of control over how we drive. I am going further by saying that they bear no relationship to safety per se.

The good thing about speed limits is that police and courts can exercise discretion as to whether someone who breaks a speed limit is driving dangerously. With speed limits they can do this. Speed limits are nothing more than boundaries that if broken can be used to prosecute drivers either as a deterrent to others or as a punishment for breaking a law. They are not arbiters of what constitutes dangerous driving.

I know some of you cannot function without clearly defined boundaries, but those of you who believe in "a rule is a rule" no matter what, may well find yourself sharing unattractive characteristics with your average golf club committee member.

[AtW]

So why are limits set at 30, 40, 50, 70?

Why there is 1.609344 kilometers in a mile? Just obey the law and stop whining.

[DodgyAgent]

both

Yes but one is not breaking the law. You cannot have it both ways. If someone breaks the speed limit and is therefore a danger to society no matter the circumstances or the amount then conversely if they are driving within the letter of the law they are not constituting any danger whatsoever.

[AtW]

the letter of the law they are not constituting any danger whatsoever.

Letter of law is that posted speed limits are MAXIMUMS allowed - you might be breaking law driving at 30 mph on 40 mph road if this driving is dangerous, say if people crossing the road.

[DodgyAgent]

Letter of law is that posted speed limits are MAXIMUMS allowed - you might be breaking law driving at 30 mph on 40 mph road if this driving is dangerous, say if people crossing the road.

If they choose to cross a road when there are cars travelling on it within the speed limit then they should and probably would be prosecuted for dangerous walking.