And so are lorry drivers who exceed their hours - and restauranters who don't handle food properly. It is called 'Preventative Legislation'.
So you would be quite happy with a complete free for all, with the only people being prosecuted, those who have caused accidents?
Nonsense. There are many other categories. Many drivers are wholly incompetent (I know loads of women drivers who admit that they would never reverse into a car park space because they are not confident of being able to do it without hitting one of the cars either side). There are drivers who miss opportunity after opportunity to merge out into traffic, or to overtake, because they are too timid. They most likely never have an accident - but they are not competent.
But there would be many more dangerous drivers without speed limits because without a shadow of a doubt, if you remove speed limits - people will drive too fast for the conditions.
And I am saying that many who are potentially dangerous are only held in check by speed limits - and once you remove those limits then you free the reigns.
I believe the majority of them would.
Speeding is *not* per se dangerous - in the same way that a lorry driver exceeding his hours is not per se dangerous. Speed limits and drivers hours legislation are merely an attempt (which works) to reduce the likelihood of accidents - a likelihood which increases as speed increases.
That's a possibility - but without the means to enforce additional laws - they would be unworkable.
Kev
