Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me283
My argument on reducing speed limits is purely that if speed is such a hazrd, then more could be done to reduce that hazard. I personally don't think it is such a hazard, but you obviously do?
I like the wording of "in theory at least"... sadly that's the biggest problem here... we all know, or are fairly certain, that it isn't the case. If it were, perhaps we wouldn't feel so miffed about it.
|
Well we can agree on something again
I do think that the fact that speeding revenue is not reinvested in highway safety/public transport is a legitimate gripe. But at the end of the day speeding is an offence (whether you agree with it or not) and the only way of successfully cutting off that revenue stream is not to speed.
And it is excess speed that is the issue - the hazard - not speed in itself, so reducing limits is not the point as such. I certainly do think excess speed is a hazard because I see it every day on the urban roads around where I live and see my and the lives of my partner and, particularly children, threatened by impatient, adrenaline fuelled selfish idiots.
On Russd's case I'm interested to hear he was pulled for doing 80 on a motorway. I think the significantly lower risk of travelling at speed on motorways is reflected by the scarcity of GATSOs on them; the only place I can think of where fixed site cameras are used on motorways to any great extent is the M25 variable limit area (and they are there to help/force drivers to ease congestion as much as anything).