On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 19:08:06 +0000, bert wrote:

Just because you think it shouldn't be that speed limit doesn't mean
there are no good reasons for it to be there.

When the default urban limit hits the 80th anniversary and the default
dual-carriageway limit the 40th anniversary next year, followed by the
the default extra-urban limit the 50th anniversary in 2015 - without
any review at all in that time, despite massively different road
conditions - it's kinda difficult sometimes to agree with that
argument.

ESPECIALLY when so many roads are having politically lowered limits,
apparently shotgun-style.

But the level of traffic has also increased considerably during the
same time.

Which part of "despite massively different road conditions" did you fail
to read?

Which bit of traffic safety don't you understand - oh none of it.

I think you miss my point - which was that you were just repeating
something in the post you were replying to. But that's beside the point.
I understand road safety just fine. I just don't happen to think that a
relatively random number set before _any_ current driver started to drive
is a good definition of it. I happen to prefer it being the
responsibility of me and the people around me.

Yes, traffic levels have risen. But speed limits should be set for clear
roads.

I don't think you've thought that through.

One of us hasn't, that's true.

Traffic levels are one factor that drivers should take into account when
deciding if the speed limit is an appropriate speed to drive at.

Why should I rely on the competence of other drivers for my personal
safety.

Unless the speed limit can be guaranteed to be a safe and appropriate
speed for ALL traffic and weather conditions, then you already _have_ to,
and always have had to.

So... are you suggesting that the speed limit is always safe and
appropriate? Because, if you are, then I invite you to drive past my
front gate at the speed limit. As regularly as you like. So long as you
don't mind me selling tickets.

OTOH, road surfaces have improved (yes, improved) massively. Vehicle
capabilities have improved massively. Road user perceptions and
expectations have improved massively.

Reaction time - and distance travelled within it - is very much the
same.

Is it? Really?

Look at the number of young drivers esp male being involved in fatal
accidents.

I rather suspect that, in the video-game era, that utterly disproves the
relevance of reaction time. B'sides, look at the HC stopping distances,
and what a small part the thinking time/distance is.