I agree that it is impossible to set a speed and say: "Drivers below this limit are safe - drivers above it are unsafe". I accept that without reservation. I do, however, believe that it is plain commonsense to say, "This road, at this point, pbuttes through a village. Within this village are residents, children, a garage, and junctions. It is clearly not safe for vehicles to travel through this village at the same speed as they would travel outside of the village. We cannot trust motorists to choose a safe speed for themselves because we know from experience that this does not work. Many *would* travel at a safe speed - but equally many wouldn't. For those reasons we will create a speed limit through the village. It is not possible to create varying speed limits to cater for varying conditions - and so we will reach a compromise. The compromise is a speed that does not inhibit reasonable progress but will still help to reduce the risks within this hazardous zone. Unfortunately the compromise will mean that in certain circumstances the limit may be a little low - but that is a small price to pay for the increased levels of safety overall."
Now what is wrong with that approach?
Kev
