at the same time though country roads wouldnt be set at 60mph if it wasnt safe to do so, at least in parts. if the government or councils found one TINY reason that 60mph wouldnt be safe then it would be down to 40 before you could even ask why. so a road that has been deemed safe to drive on at 60mph is surely safe to do 60, so why are so many (mostly old people lets be honest) so insistent that 60mph is far too dangerous and 30mph is the fastest safe speed?
im sorry but if youre too scared to drive on certain roads at the speed limit then in my opinion that equates to being unfit to drive on them. in the last few days ive had to anchor on when doing 50 on country roads round my girlfriends way that i know well to be safe as houses to do at least 60 on, because people pull out of a junction into my road and wont accelerate past 35. now come on if that isnt dangerous what is?
since having my licence ive had to do trailer licence (b+e) as a requirement for a signals technician in the army. this is done by bsm so it was back to driving to test standards after - at the time - 3 years of driving, and remarkably i only got praise form the instructors for driving to proper standards... however i was advised because i was towing a trailer to do 29mph on the test as the examiners HATE squaddies for speeding, so i did.
now in my main test years ago i got 2 minors, on my trailers test i got 9... 8 of which were for "TOO HESITENT" because i was doing 29mph.
now im not talking about people who wanna do 130 on the motorway, thats just ridiculous. i think if the motorway limit was raised to 80 or 90 people wouldnt go much faster, theyd just not be breaking the law. i dont think people that massively speed think "im going to do 40mph over the limit so il do 110" as over 30mph above the limit its licence gone anyway, i think they just want to do 110 lol.
i mean speeders as in 10 or 20mph over the limit where its not reckless to do so but its socially taboo, despite the fact so many people do it. i just hate the fact that the government find it so easy to say "anyone who speeds in any circumstance is dangerous and all accidents are their fault" rather than really look into what causes accidents.
i had a crash last year, my own fault for buying an mg i suppose lol, i was bombing down an open straight country road when i sneezed, foolishly i had my foot over the brake and the jerk of sneezing had me stamp on the brake and it spun (one wheel locked as the abs decided to try and kill me) and i went backwards into a tree. all the police saw was a young driver and even TOLD ME that the reason i crashed was because i went round the "corner" too fast and lost control.... the "corner" in question i passed about 500m previously, i crashed on a straight section of the road, it was just an accident by any other name. ok i was doing 70, in the same circumstances i would have still crashed at 60 but like i say, all they care about is "speeding" and hope that they can justify having another camera put in to make more revenue.
yet i dont considder what i was doing to be dangerous at any point, i was under complete control until i stamped on, which even at the time i thought "oh no what did i just do!?" but in the end im glad because i lost the mg and got a coupe so speeding is surely good
hahaha
but seriously my point is that mild speeding doesnt slow people down, mild speeding doesnt cause road rage. ok it gives you less reaction time, but taking into account braking distances were worked out on ancient cars with paper maché brakes, the overall stopping distance is probably the same, maybe still a little less. im not asking for the s[peed limits to be raised, i think people some people will still speed regardless, and noone will ever agree to the changes anyway. all im asking is that people ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that slow drivers are AS dangerous if not MORE SO by indirect means.