Pendrainllwyn wrote:What’s safe for one person is not for another. Why can’t we be considerate and accept that not everyone is a confident driver or as capable as those who feel comfortable going at the speed limit all the time? How would the police assess what is safe for the driver?
For example do we really want to take people off the road as soon as their reaction times decline a little or require people to travel at the speed limit all the time as soon as they have passed the test - maybe driving at night for the first time.
Do we want to require people to travel at the speed limit even when travelling to or from a funeral or taking someone in a fragile condition (perhaps yourself) to or from a hospital perhaps with a new born baby or a heavily pregnant lady.
Some might argue it’s inconsiderate to expect everyone to travel at the speed limit all the time without fearing being stopped by the police and being honked by other road users.
It’s clearly subjective, but in my view if you’re not up to driving at the speed limit on a safe, dry, lightly-trafficked road, you’re not safe to drive at all.
Subjective it is!
That bald statement makes little sense to me - what is the context? A "safe, dry, lightly-trafficked road
" in a 30mph urban environment? A "safe, dry, lightly-trafficked road
" which is a winding country lane? A "safe, dry, lightly-trafficked road
" such as a motorway?
In the latter case, if I choose to drive at 50mph in the outside lane there are two clear "safe, dry, lightly-trafficked
" for people to easily go past me. What is the issue?
Surely, not driving at the speed limit on a road is not the same thing as being "not up to driving at the speed limit
". Rather it is exercising choice and judgement.
And, to summarise Spet0789
, whatever happened to tolerance? But then, I don't drive any more.