I think I'll drop out of this thread now because we seem to be going around in circles. I have to say, however, Alastair, that I think you have shot yourself in the foot - banely - on a couple of occasions in relation to this issue. You started off by stating quite unequivocally that in your opinion the roads would be safer without any speed limits at all. You claimed that this would be the case because motorists are capable of choosing an appropriate speed for the conditions without reference to speed limits. Unfortunately (for you), you then undermine this argument by alleging that drivers use speed limits as 'targets' and also, just recently, that you would have no objection to speed limits in areas where there are hazards. Now you cannot have it both ways - either motorists are capable of driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions - or they are not. First of all you state that they are - then you say they use speed limits as targets and that they need speed limits in hazardous areas!! It's worth pointing out that there is no such thing as a hazard-free road. Bends, junctions, blind summits, poor road surfaces, other traffic, cyclists, tractors, stray animals, spilt diesel, etc. etc. etc. all form hazards and there are very few totally straight roads with none of those hazards about. The faster you go the less chance you have of dealing with those hazards succesfully - that's a fact. I was a police officer for 30 years, spent much of my time on traffic as a PC, a Sergeant, and an Inspector. I attended literally hundreds of road accidents and stopped and dealt with hundreds more motorists. I *know* beyond a shadow of a doubt that removal of speed limits would be a disaster - for everyone.
Kev
