Rusty, do you actually bother to *READ* what people have written?
Yes Grahamm, even what you write. 
And yet still you fail to comprehend.
There are times and places and situations where even doing 70mph is going to be much too fast for the prevailing road conditions, yet drivers still use such inappropriate speeds because they think "Well, I've passed my test, so I can drive" not "should I be using this speed in these conditions?"
Now perhaps it my lack of *comprehension*, but does all this woffle about prevailing conditions and of how 70mph is often too fast constitute in your mind the answer to my question? Which was do you believe vehicles should be capable of greater than the national maximum speed limit?
Yes, Rusty, it *is* your lack of comprehension (unless, of course, you've swallowed the Government's argument that "Speed kills" as if it's a fact).
What matters is not absolute speed, but inappropriate speed for the conditions. Come, answer me this: is 30mph less dangerous than 70mph? If so, is doing 30mph past a school when the kids are leaving less dangerous than doing 70mph on an empty motorway?
Would limiting vehicles to 70mph make doing 30mph past that school safer? No, of course not.
Would limiting vehicles to 70mph make it safe to do that speed on a crowded and wet motorway in driving rain in the dark? No, of course not.
Would limiting vehicles to 70mph make it safe to drive at that speed in the fog? No, of course not.
Restricting speed in that way does nothing for road safety, it is *inappropriate* speed for the *conditions* that is really what is dangerous.
If you have road users who fail to adjust their behaviour to the prevailing conditions because they blithely think that "well I've passed my test so I can drive" that is where the danger exists and that's why I said it's nonsense.
I thought you would be aware of this, but perhaps I was mistaken.
And does your sudden willingness to incorporate links to terms you've just learned into your reply explain why you haven't yet addressed any of the other points I raised in my last post?
Lol! Oh deary me, Rusty, I think you might find I've been using terms such as Straw Man, False Dilemma, Ad Hominem and many others for a *LONG* time now
Look, here's one from the old Foc-U Yuku forums back in 2007 and if I could be bothered to find a link to let me search for the old Common Room echo of the Fidonet Bulletin boards on Usenet from 20 years ago, I could show you an example from that too.
So should all people be considered guilty until they are proven innocent Grahamm? As you said here. See I do read your posts.
But, yet again, you fail to comprehend.
The Right of Presumption of Innocence (you could try searching on that term linked to my name too, BTW, and find that it's a Right I strongly support) is to do with Criminal Law, it has nothing to do with the *privilege* (it's not a Right) of being allowed to be in control of a vehicle on the road.
Do you know THIS word Grahamm?
Do you know the
Political Compass site, Rusty? FYI on that site I score -0.3 on the Left Wing/ Right Wing scale, but -7.75 on the Authoritarian/ Libertarian scale.
I am entirely willing to stand up for Rights, but I always remember that there are also Responsibilities to consider too. If you are going to be in control of a vehicle, you have the *responsibility* to control that vehicle in a way that does not risk harm to others. As such it is, similarly, your responsibility to ensure that your skills are adequate to doing so. Unfortunately not everyone considers this and thus it becomes necessary to enforce those responsibilities.
We already have such enforcement, for example when someone is banned from driving and then has to take another test to prove(!) that they can act responsibly on the roads again. Do you disagree with this? Do you think that they should not be required to take another test because "well, they've passed one already"?
If not then it is only a matter of degree that we are arguing about.
