Kill a cyclist, get community punishment

Not when it comes to perception that a lot of current road laws are there to raise a bit cash for the council rather than actually stopping dangerous driving. People aren't rational.

No they're not, but you're not going to make them more rational by repeating obvious bloke-in-the-pub-level-bollocks like "going over the speed limit isn't dangerous".

But there are a lot of arbitrary limits i.e. 50mph on a 3 lane carriage way on the way into Sheffield... seriously why is it that slow?

Maybe the road surface is particularly shit when it rains, maybe they want to slow down the traffic to reduce the rate of influx of cars into the city centre. I don't know but, more importantly, neither do you. It's not up to you to make a decision on whether it's arbitrary, and therefore whether you can ignore it. If I accept that you're a good judge of this, I then have to accept that everyone else is too because I have no a priori way of distinguishing their level of competence from yours. That's why we have speed limits (and laws more generally) because we have to account for the lowest common denominator which, in this case, is drivers who think they're awesome but who are, in fact, utterly incompetent.

Nobody is going to do that because everyone wants to get places quickly and 25 mph is really fucking slow on most roads.

I'm not talking about "most" roads, I'm talking about roads with a 30mph limit. Again we're into the fact that most people aren't rational and don't think about the journey time as a whole. 25mph feels slow so people think that voluntarily limiting themselves to 25mph (rather than 30mph) will cost them loads of time. But that's bollocks too. For an urban driving route, most of the time you're not going above 25mph anyway, you're accelerating or decelerating, or stopped at lights or waiting for other cars, pedestrians, bikes, etc. The proportion of the journey for which you even can go above 25mph is so small that limiting yourself to 25mph, instead of aiming for 30mph, makes next to no difference in terms of journey time, but has a really positive effect on safety.

You drive to the conditions. If I am speeding on a straight road with perfect visibility for miles ahead is that dangerous, obviously fucking not.

It's more dangerous than not speeding and it's not your right to impose that additional danger on other road users just because you "feel" that it's not dangerous.

Because it is a 3 lane carriage with excellent visibility and I seen a lot more dodgy roads that allow you to go at national speed limit.

Here

Realistically in most situation going slightly faster than the speed limit or a bit of dodgy parking on a high-street isn't dangerous and the penalties are reflected by how severely you are prosecuted.

now try reading this http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/drivers/speed/inappropriate/

I wouldn't win mate, there was a good reason why I took up and activity that didn't require upper body strength.

Because it is a 3 lane carriage with excellent visibility and I seen a lot more dodgy roads that allow you to go at national speed limit.

And the people who set the speed limit set it for the best possible conditions on that road. They had access to a shitload more information than you, so why do you think anyone should accept your judgement over theirs. On what basis do you claim the right to ignore their decision? Where is it written that everyone has to obey the law, for the good of society, except if they disagree? If you think it's arbitrary, campaign to get it changed.

No, I said your attitude was the problem. At no point did I say or infer you are a cunt. You have conflated problematic attitude with being a cunt.

It's almost.like Lucas make that road sign....

You remember that episode of the Simpsons where Bart is throwing his fists out and says to Lisa, "if you get in the way of these it's entirely your fault"?

You are not winning here either.

That's your opinion, the committee that decided on the limit based on facts clearly disagree. Again, you clearly seem to think that you know best.

EDIT: What ffm said basically.

One thing you failed to realised is that the speed limit is exactly that, not the suggested speed you should drive at.

In a 30mph zones, you're supposed to drive under that (25mph), so if you think it's acceptable to drive over the limit at 33mph, you're already doing 8mph over that what you should be driving at.

This is also why 20mph become the idea norms because people treat the speed limit as a target.

Edit: new pages fail as @ffm already point this out

I didn't say I did it did I. I said I don't think it is massively dangerous.

You are a daft cunt aren't you?

though Bart is a child...

Read this, speeding is dangerous.

http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/drivers/speed/inappropriate/

and this

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/speed_en.pdf

You said the problem is Luke being a cunt like the rest of those fuckers. You are dumping me in with another group to shut down any conversation. It is a cunty tactic.

I never said it wasn't but there are different levels of dangerousness which you keep on saying doesn't exist. Someone who speeds by a few mile an hour is not as dangerous as someone that does double the speed limit. This is reflected by the penalties you receive when caught.

I loosely agree with Lucas on the modern blame culture; knowing all of your rights but none of your responsibilities assuming that is where he was leading to? I step out into the path of an oncoming vehicle, there is a collision, do I entirely blame the other party? How much responsibility do I take?

However, in this developed country and child is knocked over daily either coming or going to school. A bleak stat. How much blame do you place at the door of said child?

Then the broader issue becomes design. Has the the road been made to useable from the most vulnerable road user position? Has the vehicle been designed in such a way that accidents are inherent to the design? Knowing what we know about the DfT's lust for 'motorflow' it's not hard to see why there are accidents in certain places: There's a pelican crossing on tower bridge road that took an eternity to give green man (even if it hasn't been engaged in a long while). It entirely easy to see how someone waiting loses patience, thinking it broken and just crosses anyway. Mix that with someone driving at 33mph, the tesco lorry drop blocking 40% of your visibility and the next time you're using that crossing, it's dead sagging flowers tied to the lamp post with ink run messages on cards.

If you think 25mph is really fucking slow, then you're most definitely dangerous.

Where did I say this?

And this is just a way for you to try and evade these points:
that speeding is dangerous, and yet you appear to condone it
parking seflishly is dangerous and you you appear to condone it

I have not resorted to insults but you continually do and then accuse me of insulting you.

Though I would question your knowledge and intelligence

A few miles an hour's over the limit is already fucking dangerous.

You do know what limit mean, right?

It really is much more dangerous, look at the graph on that WHO report.

If course it is my opinion. I indicated that by saying "I think it is arbitrary". I don't understand why and I can't see a good reason for it ... I dont overly care to find either.

I just drive at the speed indicated.

Are you telling me 31 is massively more dangerous than 30. If so you are a fucking idiot.

Yes it is because you're not suppose to drive at the very limit.

You're suppose to drive under the limit, if you have to drive at/above the limit, then you don't deserve your license.

Can you stop insulting people and inform yourself

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/speed_en.pdf

Are you telling me 31 is massively more dangerous than 30. If so you are a fucking idiot.
Are you telling me 32 is massively more dangerous than 31. If so you are a fucking idiot.
Are you telling me 33 is massively more dangerous than 32. If so you are a fucking idiot.
Are you telling me 34 is massively more dangerous than 33. If so you are a fucking idiot.
Are you telling me 35 is massively more dangerous than 34. If so you are a fucking idiot.
Are you telling me 36 is massively more dangerous than 35. If so you are a fucking idiot.
Are you telling me 37 is massively more dangerous than 36. If so you are a fucking idiot.
Are you telling me 38 is massively more dangerous than 37. If so you are a fucking idiot.
Are you telling me 39 is massively more dangerous than 38. If so you are a fucking idiot.
Are you telling me 40 is massively more dangerous than 39. If so you are a fucking idiot.