fungus wrote:Your reply indicates you are still missing the point. If a driver is "unable/incompetent to decide what speed etc is safe" imposing a 30 limit instead of 40 does not make their driving safe. That is the very thinking we have been arguing against. Circumstances on any section of road vary from moment to moment requiring reassessment and variation of speed. [Not forgetting position and gear.] There is not one set speed that if not exceeded will be safe for a stretch of road at all times in all conditions.
Better to train, re-educate etc.
In answer to your question..If a driver is genuinely "unable/incompetent" to learn then why have they been allowed to have a driver's licence. For such drivers why stop at 30 why not 5 or 10 or even better 0. An arbitrary speed limit is no answer. Such a person should not be driving.
If drivers are able/competent to learn then they need training to become safer.
While it doesn't make their driving safe, it makes anything they happen to hit less affected. Put it this way, would you rather hit something at 40 or 30? (Not at all isn't an option. ).
The amount of times I've asked my dad to 'slow down', 'get out of the car infront's exhaust' etc is uncountable! I really hate having to get in the car with him driving sometimes..
So the problem here is that your father is either unable to asses a safe speed/following distance etc. or can, but deliberately chooses to over ride his possibly accurate assessment, (it won't happen to me etc).[/quote]
It's this attitude that most people have got. He also will never use high beam.
I hate being thrown around the car when he's going round bends with one hand on the wheel as fast as he can.