Originally Posted by Nasher
Sorry Jimbo, but over 40 in a 30 in a built up area = Wanker as far as I'm concerned.
No need to apologise, I don't take it personally!
I understand your point entirely, and can see where you're coming from. However:
Originally Posted by Nasher
I break the speed limits with the rest of them, but 30 limits in built up areas are there to protect kids like mine and yours.
So what are the speed limits you break there for? Whenever you take a decision to break a speed limit, that is down to you, and you alone. Either you are driving carelessly, or you have made a decision based on your knowledge of the road, your weather conditions, and your car's handling, as to what is and isn't a safe speed.
If there were no speed limits, would you drive below 30mph in all
areas that are currently 30mph zones?
If you are involved in an accident on a road which, by your own admission, you are breaking a speed limit, and it could have been prevented by driving slower, are the kids that are potential involved in that accident any more or less important than the kids playing in the road? 30mph limits may be there to help prevent accidents in built up areas, but surely the design of the speed limits on the roads where you break the limits are designed to prevent accidents also? And surely your compelling argument of "think of the children" is just as valid on any road? In your case, it's even valid when there are no other cars involved, as you are likely to have your kids in the car.
Unfair then, to call Bob a wanker for breaking a speed limit on the grounds that it endangers others, when by your own admission you do the same. Unless of course you're saying that when you break the speed limit it's ok, because you've assessed what is and isn't a safe speed? In which case, is it ok for you to make that assessment and not Bob?
I don't break speed limits anymore. I don't break 20mph, 30, 40, 50, 70 etc, if that's what the signs say. This is because I decided my license is more valuable than a few minutes, my fuel economy is better when I do 65 rather than 90, and I have no wish to become another young driver statistic. I used to drive very fast, because I thought my reactions were fantastic and my control of the car impeccable (it still is
) and have 3 points on my license to prove it, but if you're going to not break speed limits on the grounds that it endangers people, is it really down to you to decide which are more dangerous, and dictate who is and isn't a wanker based on simply the speed limit figure, rather than the overall circumstances?
I'm not saying all speed limits are wrong/right, but if speed limits are there (note: limits not cameras) they are there because somewhere along the line someone decided they were safe, perhaps altered the flow of traffic, prevented noise, and encouraged motorists to see and plan for more hazards. So, I don't see how you can agree emphatically with one limit, but disregard others.