hexhome wrote:It is a public road system which caters for people of differing abilities. If we don't have rules, then there can be no basis to set standards by. Sadly IMHO, your idea which does have merit, will not work. During your 130mph blast down the dual carriageway, how did you plan avoiding any pedestrians who happened to be crossing?
An interesting question. Let me first ask another in response, to illustrate the fallacy contained within the question.
An average human being can run at about 10 mph for a reasonable distance, faster if sprinting for a short distance. That's about 15 feet per second. The average A road width in urban areas in the UK is 11.2 metres (36 feet). Let's assume a generous pavement width of 12 feet. So, to reach the centre of the nearest lane from the centre of the pavement a pedestrian would have to travel 15 feet, which he could do in one second. A car travelling at 30 mph will cover 44 feet in one second. The thinking distance for an alert driver will be 30 feet. If the pedestrian decides to dart out in front of your car and gets the timing right (wrong) you cannot avoid hitting him. So, whenever you are driving down a normal urban road where there are pedestrians on the pavement, in normal light traffic flow conditions, do you slow down to 20 mph, or 15 mph in case a pedestrian decides to do something stupid, causing a collision it would be impossible for you to avoid?
In my case, the road was for all practical purposes empty. It was daylight, visibility was good, weather was fine. The locale was agricultural, with no likely location for pedestrians to appear. By maintaining a very high level of concentration I could anticipate and thus observe in good time any likely hazard to a sufficient degree as to be sufficiently safe to drive at the speed I did.
But we can all bring our bag of whatifs. as you, and now I, have illustrated.
I do actually accept that speed limits, sensibly set, are a necessary evil, but they shouldn't be regarded as the perfect solution. The only complete solution is a much higher standard of driving. And for those who have suggested that the primary goal for advanced drivers is to make progress, I would point out that it is correctly stated as to make progress where is is safe to do so.
Pacifists cannot accept the statement "Those who 'abjure' violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.", despite it being "grossly obvious."