Firstly it would be impossible to create a machine that could determine whether speed was excessive or inappropriate for the conditions - and the number of officers required to effectively police speed limits in that fashion would be unacceptable to the rate payers. Secondly - the limit has to be set at some point. Same for drink driving. You could argue - is the driver who is one point over the legal limit likely to be less safe than the driver who is one point under the legal limit? In fact - someone who can 'take his drink' may be safer just over the limit than someone who can't take his drink who is just under. But a limit has to be set. I agree that speed limits are a crude tool - but they are essential. There is not a civilised country in the world that does not use them. If all speed limits were removed tomorrow the roads would undoubtedly be dramatically less safe. If they are necessary (and they are) - then they must be enforced.
FWIW, and I have stated this many times, I do consider many speed limits to be inappropriate and I would welcome an independent national review of all speed limits. Until that happens, however, I make sure that I don't get booked for speeding.
I'm sure that you are not alone - and you are not alone in being mistaken either.
Anyone who thinks this is a good way to go
See above. Speed limits are essential and hence must be enforced.
Kev
