Freedom and its (speed) limits
Friday, April 6, 2007 
"Speeding is endemic in Britain with around half the country's motorists regularly flouting the limit, according to figures released by the Department for Transport yesterday" (Daily Telegraph, April 6th). Only half? That beggars belief. Drive on any motorway in Britain and most drivers exceed the limit on a regular basis. And why not? Many of our current speed limits were set in the 1960s when the average family saloon struggled to go much faster than 70mph. (Even in the 80s my first 'proper' car, a sky blue Mini Metro, felt as if it was about to take off if I put my foot down and went anywhere above 80.) Braking distances are much improved too.
Now, I don't condone speeding in built up areas. On motorways, however, the national speed limit (70mph) is frankly ridiculous. Speed limits should be set in accordance with road conditions. Just as I expect to reduce my speed significantly through contraflows and roadworks, or in driving rain and fog, why can't I drive my Porsche (just joking!) at 100mph or more through Cumbria on a dry, deserted M6 at two o'clock in the morning?
These days we are bombarded with all sorts of electronic messages on overhead gantries: 'Long delays ahead', 'Don't drink and drive' etc etc. Why can't the same message boards be used to advise us of changes to the speed limit? The London Orbital (aka the M25) does this. However their definition of flexible is always down, never up. Instead of using technology to liberate us, it is used to restrict our freedoms.
There was talk, before the last election, that the Tories would increase the speed limit on motorways to 80mph. At least one police force was said to be in favour. Sadly, in Dave Cameron's brave new world, the idea has disappeared without trace. Most people understand the need for restrictions in a small, crowded island, but there has to be a great deal more give and take. In their eagerness to legislate and dictate, politicians have forgotten the need to treat the majority of us in accordance with what we are - responsible adults.
Reader Comments (7)
The law should be about justice and nothing else. The law becomes unworthy of respect the minute it is used for anything other than justice. Unfortunately it has been used to attempt to enforce arbitrary moral and safety standards for decades. Hence it is no longer respected to the degree it once was. And the more arbitrary the laws the less respect they will have.
Speeding laws are supposedly there to increase safety but when someone breaks a speeding law he has not caused damage to persons or property and so feels it is unjust to be penalized. Where any kind of damage occurs it is right and proper that the law be used to make the victim whole as far as possible.
If the intention were to cut down accidents then penalizing those who have accidents makes sense. It should be costly to injure persons or property and those who do so should have to at least fully compensate the victims if possible.
If my memory serves me well the claim that speed is a significant factor in traffic accidents is much inflated and has a lesser claim than falling asleep at the wheel.
Bernie's points are well made - but what really gets my goat is that when laws are used to influence our social behaviour they are usually based on false premises and highly dubious if not contradictory statistics. Junk science is used to make junk laws.
I agree that in urban areas speed limits and cameras have an important role to play - as they do on the open road in so-called accident blackspots. However, I find the talivans lurking on the bridges over motorways or the average speed "vultures" somewhat offensive.
I think it's well established that these measures are little more than revenue generators targetting the already overtaxed motorist.
On a side note, if the government were serious about reducing congestion, rather than just taxing the motorist even more ruthlessly, then our motorways offer a good clue as to the real source of congestion; freight. There are FAR too many lorries on our roads these days and their effects on traffic are obvious, especially when one moves out to overtake another to create what I have nicknamed a "mobile roadblock".
Having been snapped doing 35 mph in a 30 mile limit, I was bemused to be sent a letter from the police offering me the option to pay £67 and attend a 3 hour speed awareness training session rather than opt for the £60 fine and 3 penalty points. The rationale given was that they want to educate, not prosecute although it didn't state whether the £67 represented the cost of the training session or was a fine! Given the driving conditions and non built up location of my "offence" no self- respecting traffic officer would have batted an eyelid at 35 mph. Needless to say, when driving down the motorway shortly afterwards no police were in sight to pull up the tailgaters and those whizzing past me at 100+.
Driving a few mph over a speed limit does not make someone a bad driver. The difficulty I find is that to drive modern vehicles at 30 mph is extremely difficult and the number of people that say to me they are constantly watching their speedo so as not to get caught speeding, but are then far less aware of what is going on around them, is amazing. I quite understand, I do the same.
Hasn't anyone twigged yet that driving sensibly and being aware of your surroundings (pedestrians, cyclists, children, etc) is far more responsible and important than needing to watch your speedo for fear of a fine and penalty points!
I am all for reckless drivers being done for speeding and/or dangerous driving, but very few of these seem to be caught by comparison with the ordinary motorist doing a measly 3 to 5 mph over the limit - but then the cameras can only catch those that go past them, whereas more police on the roads, where they should be, is far more likely to reduce accidents as then the reckless and bad drivers would be caught for really putting lives in danger.
Of course, this kind of thinking is logical and far beyond the scope or capability of mere governments!
The national speed limit was brought in as a temporary measure during the oil crisis . since this was back in the early 70's does this make it the longest temporary measure of all-time? Sadly NO! this prize goes to income tax!
We are specialize in Nike shox,this kind of shoes are suitable for sport ,when we do some outside execises ,we can prepare one ,it’s the newest fashion ,many star like it vey much ,if you like sport , if you are pursuing fashion ,we are the best ,and we have a lots styles for you to choose , Nike air Max 90 Nike air Max 2009 and so on …the high quality cheap max ,,there are a lot of air max wholesaler ..its worthy to purchase