Donna Ferentes said:This is a fatuous point. You cannot absolutely judge the optimum so the law does so in a simple and straightforward manner, providing an easy-to-remember limit. The alternative is for people to be allowed to make up their own minds or for the limit to alter by the weather conditions, which would be wholly impractical.
You know very well that it's not the case that (say) 62 is "safe" but 65 is "unsafe". 65 is less safe than 62 which is less safe than 59. Speed limits are compromises between the needs of the public for safety and the convenience of travellers in getting from A to B. Of which, two obvious points: first, the the former is by far the more important of the two, second, the latter is about the god of society as a whole and not about the desire of people to go faster because they like it.
A great deal more impartial than selfish would-be speeders, and a great deal more socially responsible.
So, out of interest, do you think that the current limits should be "set in stone" because the people 30 years ago were somehow privy to THE absolutely correct limits for all conditions, and anyone who suggests any change is irresponsible? Or what?
Giles..