Lootman wrote:XFool wrote:Spet0789 wrote:I think if you are driving at the speed limit, that’s at most inconsiderate.
How "
driving at the speed limit" can be "
inconsiderate" is pretty mind boggling to me - assuming you are not, for instance, blocking emergency vehicles.
A limit is a compromise number that is assumed to be a safe'ish speed for traffic in normal or average conditions. So if there is a designated 30 mph stretch then 40 mph might be perfectly safe at 6 a.m. on a sunny summer Sunday morning. Whilst on a foggy icy night in February 20 mph there might be too fast.
Ideally limits would be variable and dependent on conditions, like we see displayed electronically on some motorways. Absent that limits can be contrived, arbitrary and not relevent.
Most roads have "natural" speeds which will be the speed of prevailing traffic, which may be more or less than the limit. I can show you roads where everyone is 10% or 15% over the limit. In those cases, if a granny driver regards the limit as over-literal and sticks to it precisely, then she is paradoxically causing more of a hazard and a danger to herself and others than if instead she just "went with the flow" a few mph over.
Of course even worse is the driver who sticks to the limit in a snide attempt to police others to do the same. Not your job.
Rules is rules but the most important qualities for driving safety are awareness, judgement and reasonableness, not pedantry and dogmatism.
We will never agree on this - as in the previous debate on the matter
Your whole thesis rests on value judgements concerning the road and the time - human nature being what it is people will, and do, push the boundary which then tips into what would in any sober reckoning be risky driving, depending very much on the principle that nothing expected will happen.
That's why we have agreed limits (a blunt weapon, I agree) and why it is an offence to go over them regardless of your arguments about rationalising why you shouldn't.
And is it always about safety anyway? I used to walk up a stretch of road which had a 20mph limit (reduced recently from 30). It was a fast straight road tempting to speedsters (often middle aged people, but that's another subject) and thundering lorries. Even if it wasn't unsafe it felt it if you were walking, and was also jolly unpleasant and noisy unless the speed were kept to 20 mph. Pedestrians have rights to consideration too, something which road users seem to ignore - until they too try walking around our suburbs or country roads. Incidentally, as regards the latter, what were quiet country roads with scarcely any traffic and now race tracks for delivery drivers from Amazon etc who seem to treat them as though they are dual carriageways. Another reason to hate internet shopping.
On a slightly tangential point, I've often wonder what speed the authorities are expecting when within a limt they put a "slow" warning sign on the road. I take that as less than the limit, or are they warning people going over the limit that should really take note now?
How sensible in NZ where they put up a recommended speed for each major bend so one knows what to expect. I dare say over here the authorities wouldn't want to take responsbility, or they would be frightened of the "we have too much regulation already" lobby.
Arb.