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. Again, it depends on the where, when and...
I really want to see an example.
Just did. Couldn't see anything relevant on the 2 hits for "61mph is always unsafe", the 16 hits for "mph is always unsafe" or the 101 hits for "always unsafe".
No no no no no. That's a complete strawman. The argument, I would suggest, goes like this.
0) There is no such thing as "safe" or "unsafe"
1) At any given speed, on a particular road on a particular day, some proportion of driver-vehicles drawn from the average cross section of users of that road will be reasonably safe and the remainder will not be reasonably safe.
2) It might be that on the A75 between Lochfoot and Springholm, 95% of vehicles would be reasonably safe at 30mph and only 5% would be reasonably safe at 100mph.
3) If the reasonably safe upper speed for a particular driver-vehicle is 75mph, the consequences of exceeeding it by 10mph are likely to be worse than if it was 35mph being exceeded by 10mph
4) Therefore placing an absolute upper limit on speed at an appropriate place on the distribution will filter out many of the worst accidents
5) This does not absolve drivers of responsibility for choosing a reasonably safe speed, it simply says that some speeds are so unlikely to be reasonably safe that a blanket ban is justified.
Now, it's not a perfect argument, but it's nowhere near as stupid as the one you are suggesting is used, and which I have never seen put forward.
Ian --
