On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:21:41 +0100, "Uno Hoo!"
IMO better, because they would be forced to make their *own* decision - and their decision-making ability would thereby improve with practice.
I would not advocate removing limits from *all* roads, but restrict speed limits to roads that present a danger to non-motorists.
As it is, I may be driving along a road that has a speed limit sign that says "50" closely followed by a road marking that says, "SLOW". Do I buttume that 50MPH is considered slow enough? If that is not a valid inference, why are the authorities telling me on the one hand that I may travel at 50MPH and on the other hand telling me that I must drive slower than that? After the reason for the "SLOW" marking has been pbutted, there is no road marking that says, "FAST".
Sure, I know what it all means when I think about it rationally, but when I am driving along, the road signs affect my *subconcious* decision making rather than causing me to work through all the whys and wherefores.
When I leave a 30MPH area and the sign tells me that 60MPH is now legal, the *very strong* inference is that it is now OK to increase my speed to 60MPH. If it is not OK to do so, why make the new limit that high? Having no limit imposed OTOH sends the message "We're no longer recommending any particular speed for you - you're on your own now."
-- Cynic
