On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:38:10 +0100, Ian Dalziel
It probably would. What I'm saying is that there's a great deal of evidence that they're not actually capable of getting that right. Sometimes you do have to legislate for the lowest common denominator.
In any event it seems to me advocating abolition of speed limits is a solution without a problem. Yes, the Government would like to have us believe that "speed kills", but in reality, I suspect the number of incidents of accident and-or baneity, where the sole cause of the accident was the driver exceeding the "safe" limit for the conditions, but driving within the speed limit, is pretty small. Certainly smaller than the number that would result if people were left to determine a safe limit for themselves.
The main argument against speed limits seems always to come from those who don't like the camera-revenue angle, and who use it to shoehorn the safety angle into where it doesn't really need to be.
And as for the sockpuppet thing, I actually don't like speed limts much either. But I'm not holding my breadth for someone to come up with a workable, practical solution that benefits everyone, rather than the few who think they don't need them.
If it were up to me, I'd make it much harder to pbutt a driving test, and insist that people were re-tested periodically, but there would be plenty who would argue against that. I would also insist that people should have to pbutt a test the same number of times that they've failed it, before being given a licence. Anyone who can fail a test 20 times, or more, is always going to be a liability on a road, even if they eventually pbutt.
Brian
