You didn't say it. But your implication was quite clear.
So I’ve said nothing of the sort then.
This “implication” is entirely your own projection, presumably from a feeling of inadequacy. That’s your issue, not mine.
You still seem to be missing the point. There are some people who perhaps shouldn't be on the road (using your criteria) but they are not likely to be removed from it any time soon. Some of these are less able to "deconflict" in a planned and safe manner than others.
That is you trying to twist your way out of a self created hole.
It remains of prime importance that drivers be able to quickly, accurately and continually assess those around them so as to be able to drive safely in what is inherantly an activity that involves constant and risky interaction with others. Instruction and examination centre on this assessment.
You may be happy with some having poor standards at doing that, or indeed as you stated, its not important at all in comparison to projecting views onto others, but I again suggest that is your problem not mine.
I think you'll find it was rather because back in the 60s there were a number of very serious accidents on the newly built motorways which were principally caused by some cars travelling at excessive speeds whilst they were among other drivers who were either unwilling or unable to match those speeds. This is the problem, you see - the UK's roads have to accommodate a wide variety of vehicles driven by people of a wide range of capabilities. So a regulatory balance had to be devised which is somewhere between 0mph (the safest but most inconvenient) and 250mph (perhaps the most dangerous but certainly more convenient). It had nothing to do with people in shiny sports cars (with the possible exception of the boss of AC Cars, who, so the story goes, seemed to treat the unrestricted M1 as the company's test track). Of course you may say that these incidents were not caused by speed but by driver error or ineptitude. You may be right, but the country's road network has to accommodate such drivers and minimise the risk that their errors or ineptitude may cause. Pretty well unarguable is that a Ferrari travelling at 150mph in the outside lane which collides with an old granny who pulls into that lane in her Metro because she is seemingly inept, will cause far more mayhem than if it had been limited to 70mph. Perhaps, as you suggest, the granny should not have been on the road. But I would argue that neither should the driver of the Ferrari as such an excessive speed makes the result of other drivers' inevitable ineptitude so much more serious.
Nope. They picked a number above that which would impact many people at the time but would create an effect to mitigate the high speeds some could and were driving at.
If you did the same thing now you’d pick somewhere 100-120 based on what cars can get to and that the vast majority don’t drive at that speed.
It’d not be a particularly sensible policy approach imho but it was what they did for obvious political reasons at the time. The same reason we have a NSL of 60 applying to many roads you’d do half of that on.
As for Grannies, Metros and Ferarris that’s your own very stereotypical world and I can’t see what value it adds.
Noting again you put words in my mouth suggesting grannies should not drive. Why do you keep doing this?
Can I do the same and criticise you for things it looks good to criticise someone for regardless whether they’ve said anything even remotely like it?
As an aside, what do you propose as an alternative to the law which you suggest is held in such contempt?
Ahhh the old “you have to solve it or you can’t have an opinion on it” approach. Ironic on a
discussion forum. There are lots of alternatives, all are politically “courageous” which is why nothing has changed or is likely to. I suppose I could dedicate my life to trying to right the poor law but I’ve many more interesting things I want to do so I just ignore it and get on with them. As the vast majority of people do. That’s called facts and life.
But there has not been the same staggering advances in the technology of the person behind the wheel. People may be able to react more quuickly than in the past (e.g. witness how people have become more profficient at computer games), but there is still a lot of risk placed on the shoulders of the driver.
True, but that forms a sub argument if you were to try and set a limit based on the same or modified approach. It doesn’t change the fact that as cars have evolved, such speeds are very easily reachable and sustainable and cars handle and above all, brake, far, far more reliably and effectively etc. You could argue that actually now people are not being constrained by the original technology and aren’t the limit. Since equally as you say ref gaming experience/reactions; after decades of exposure to this that their ability has changed through training, experience and a world in which this travel and speed are routine - just as we see kids are au fait with technology their olders struggle to master. It should not be a surprise that a generation brought up as childrrn in vehicles moving at 60-70+ are more adept at doing that themselves than their forebears who lacked that formative experience.
There’s always going to be risk of course, I’m not sure it is “placed”, as risk is outcome x probability - responsibility is what I presume you mean? I’d personally argue higher speeds are low risk but there seems a very backward looking shouty brigade who will insist they aren’t, depsite apparantly never having done it themselves and thus having no experience to base that view on…
Indeed, my assertion based on experience that its less stressful at 90 in the outside lane vs 60-70 constantly moving around the other lanes is dismissed by people who’ve never done it. A bizarre approach to understanding anything if you ask me as I find it a very interesting fact that I know to be true, but then these idiots also make things up when they can’t find any other fault so hey ho there is probably little to be gained from them as they hurl their invented brickbats about the place.
Er... no? The vast majority of drivers are willing and capable of following the law, which is provided for everyone's safety, and are rightly contemptuous not of said law but of people like you who hold such an idiotic and counterproductive opinion regarding road safety.
That’s a lovely soap box you’ve got, but it’s very ignorant view as even a little bit of driving about will show you.
I sincerely hope I don't come across you on the roads if you are not able to cope with ordinary motorway driving conditions.
And I’ve said that where? Or are you another who when you can’t find fault with someone, just makes something up? Do you work for the Post Office by any chance?