like they were saying :
One for Peter 1202Why? No. It depends on where and when it is being used. 2mm in torrential rain is less safe than 0mm in the dry. No...
One for Peter 1201I really want to see an example. Just did. Couldn't see anything relevant on the 2 hits for "61mph is always unsafe", the...
I didn't say it did. I said it was the same *line* of logic.
Speed limits are there for safety, allegedly. To exceed speed limits is unsafe, allegedly.
This line of logic takes no account of conditions or vehicle. It is a firm line. 61mph is *always* unsafe.
That's patently untrue. 90mph in Alastair's Alpina is safe FAR more of the time than 90mph in a three-wheeler Reliant would be.
If that limit is lowered, with no other change in conditions, then 41mph is now deemed unsafe, even though 60mph would have been acceptible and - if conditions allowed - safe.
One for Peter 1200Why else would they be there? Says who? Where? Can you point me to a posting or publication which says that? And what do you mean by "unsafe"? In one sense, 61mph is...
If speed limits are required for safety, then it naturally follows that drivers cannot be trusted to set a safe speed for themselves. Yet, by claiming that the reverse is NOT true - that drivers *must* be able to accept and recognise that a given speed below the limit is not safe, you instantly have a logical problem.
If drivers can recognise when a speed below the limit is unsafe, why can they not recognise when a speed above the limit is safe? Obviously, they can. So - by claiming that a speed in excess of the limit is always unsafe, you are inherently claiming that no driver is capable of determining the point at which a speed below the limit becomes unsafe - and that therefore, all speeds below the limit are automatically safe.
Which is, obviously, a big pile of bollocks.
