The limits are there for a reason....

Inactive

tomstickland wrote: »

Driving at 60mph on a national limit A road is not being in a hurry.

I don't recall saying it was.

DaveMacD

tomstickland wrote: »

Cars hitting trees is quite common in the early hours and often involves a lack of judgement and ignoring existing limits.

It usually involves the driver suffering from fatigue, and loosing control. And there isn't a speed limit in the world that's going to solve that particular problem.

DaveMacD

newfoundglory wrote: »

A lot of roads which are 30 should be 20 (it doesn't feel safe or right to do 30 down them)

While I agree with the point you are making, you don't have to do 30 in a 30 zone if it's blatantly not safe. So don't.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

newfoundglory wrote: »

When you are driving there feels to be a big difference between 50 and 60 so maybe it will make some difference?

I have noticed that a lot of roads don't seem to have the correct speed limit - particularly in London.

A lot of roads which are 30 should be 20 (it doesn't feel safe or right to do 30 down them)

And a lot of roads which are 20 should be 30 (it feels wrong to be doing 20 when you could easily and safely do 30).

How they have worked some of those out is bizarre.

When I did my driving test I unfortunately got the route that was mostly 20mph. I would say keeping to 20mph for almost half an hour was the hardest part of the test.

And this post is the end result of the fallacy that the best way to achieve safe roads is by setting arbitrary limits.

You set your speed according to the prevailing conditions, nothing else.

Inactive

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

You set your speed according to the prevailing conditions, nothing else.

If all drivers were capable of, and willing to do that there would not need to be any speed limits, alas we all know that they are not.