One for Peter 1204Ian Johnston Dunno... "Although the number of people end in highway crashes has increased slightly since 1995, the highway baneity rate, an...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:23:12 UTC, Mark Foster
There has to be, in any legally enforceable system. That cut off point may vary from driver to driver, or day to day, but if the system ultimately is going to have a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict then there has to be a maximum permitted speed.
Fine. But that doesn't mean it's bad, does it? It might be a reasonably pragmatic solution.
Incidentally, do you believe that those who support an 80mg-ml limit for alcohol are claiming that 79mg-ml is invariably safe? Not that it is, of course, but do you think that's what they claim?
I'm sorry about that. My position is, at the moment, that a) speed limits are not going to go away b) they have the merits of simplicity and enforceability against the demerit of unfairness c) and are far too low at the moment d) so campaigning for reform of the system is likely to be more productive than demanding that all limits be abolished, 'cos that ain't gonna happen.
And improved crashworthiness. And more stringent MOTs. And lower totting up limits for inexperienced drivers.
Incidentally, my view is probably coloured by living in an area with none of those stupid 60-50-60-40-60-... shifting limits which make driving in, for example, Buckinghamshire such a royalk pain in the arse.
Ian
