'toffeetucker'
There is slightly more to my thinking than that. The limits don't need to be raised all that far, they just need to be (in some cases) raised to be closer to what people think is reasonable.
If a limit is just slightly slower than you believe is appropriate for the road then there is psychological 'validation' for that limit and you're more likely to follow it, it will have *some* effect at least. While there are so many limits that are blatantly stupid people will continue to disregard the whole lot and there will be no benefit.
The way I look at it is that the gulf between risk buttessment and risk actuality needs to be closed. If your local street had three lanes of traffic moving at motorway speeds (60-90mph) then there is no way on earth you would walk along the pavement. On the other hand, if a motorway driver found his-her way onto a street with a limit of 70 but also pavements and people there is no way they would drive at that speed. So, at the extremes the risk buttessment already works.
The trouble arrives when we start talking about the middle ground, is that street safe to do thirty miles an hour or forty. Is the pavement and grbutt verge so wide that you could safely do fifty? If it became apparent that questions like that were being asked prior to the imposition of a limit then I (for one) would begin to have some respect for it all.
As it is, with the blanket (city wide) thirties and forties, I just drive at a speed I think is safe and pay no attention to the limit. I have on occasion realised that the limit is correct, and sometimes I have even misread the (real life) signs of risk and caught myself driving too fast. This would not have happened if they got it right most of the time as I would have paid some attention to their advice. Instead they apparently go all out to reduce vehicular motion to a sluggish crawl, regardless of common sense.
Dave J
