What I love was the logic the case was presented with. The average A road user travels at 48mph, therefore a 50 limit will not affect the average user but will slow the ones who tend to drive fast.
NO.
The average user spreads their speed over a much larger range. Even if they dont speed, if you cut the higher limit off at 50 and everyone sticks at 50 max, you’re still going to reduce the average speed from 48. So what is happening is the law abiding citizen is going to be forced to take even longer to get to work on perfectly safe stretches of road, and the non-law abiding will continue to drive at whatever speed they like. And I suspect the number of non-law abiding citizens will increase drastically.
Why they assume that this will reduce the risks people take is beyond me – there will simply be more people overtaking and breaking the law – people speed because they feel the road is safe to do so (rightly or wrongly) – not because there’s a signpost with a target to beat.
The whole problem with government is that they apply rules that blanket treat the whole country instead of allowing people to take personal responsibility for their actions. Instead they try to wrap everyone in wool so they cant possibly hurt each other. I agree with urban speed limits, I’d even lower them in places, but rural roads should be left well alone.