One for Peter 1200

Why 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 always "unsafe" - compared to sitting at home and reading a good book, say. The question is whether it is acceptably or justifiably (un)safe.

The other way round, surely? It's because drivers are believed to be incapable of judging a safe speed that speed limits are used.

I don't agree.

That depends on the argument that 61mph in a 60 zone is seen as unsafe, and I think that's a straw man.

That doesn't follow at all. A Cessna 172 has Vne of 160kt but pilots do not consequently infer that all speeds below that are inherently safe.

Please remember, by the way, thatIam not making these claims. I just think it's worth scotching the "people claim that all speeds below the limit are safe" which is simply not true and a statement only made by the I-wanna-go-faster brigade. Can you produce a quote of reference from anyone, anywhere, seriously claiming that a) any speed in excess of the speed limit is dangerous and b) any speed under the speed limit is safe?

I think there are good arguments both for (simple, easily understood, easily enforced) and against (inflexible, seen as targets, too easily enforced) foxed speed limits, and I think both sides of the debate deserve to be listened to carefully, and not to have their positions misrepresented. As I probably just did with the "I-wanna-go-faster" reference, yes, I know!

Ian