I agree about the need to raise speed limits on Motorways, however, there needs to be a review of all speed limits, as there are many 30's that for many years were 40's & 50's with no accidents occuring.

If Speed limits were sensible, that would be a great start.

Current speed limits do not take onboard the improvements in vechicle braking system over the last 40/50 years

Currently speed limits seem to be set about 10-15mph under the speed they want you to drive, with the expectation that everyone will speed! Often I am driving in a 40 zone and see signs which say 'slow down (for a corner) max speed 50mph'!

Where I live the mobile speed cameras are only out near the schools on a Saturday and Sunday?

The speed limit for motorways and dual carriageways should be raised (to 85mph and 70 mph, respectively). The speed limit for residential side roads should be reduced to 20 mph with double fines for speeding in the vicinity of schools and playgrounds(24/7). Fines raised from speeding offences should be used to pay for road safety and maintenance.

Speeding in a 30mph zone should have the larger penalty, the current fines don't work, we should look at autobarns they have no speed limit and very few accidents. If we are forced to drive slower on motorways we'll have alot more ppl falling asleep behind the wheel due to boredum

I don't necessarily disagree with increasing the speed limit, but some people are still driving cars that will not stop as quickly or drive as quickly as newer ones. Therefore you are increasing the differential of speed between the fastest cars (85 mph) and the slowest cars (50 - 60 mph). This increases the chances or accidents due to drivers no being able to determine the speed differential.

Also, I am not overly green, but increasing the speed will also increase our carbon footprint as cars burn fuel quicker as cars require much more power to meet those speeds. I have no numbers to know how much, but I know its not linear.

There should not be speed limits on motorways and dual carriageways - what is important is if you are driving safely or not. If the police think you are driving unsafely then they should bring their evidence to court and let a magistrate decide. Speed alone is never enough to justify unsafe driving on an open road. Totally agree that speed should be lower and penalties stiffer around schools and hospitals etc.

Advancement in cars from when the highway code was made has come along way... I think the whole speed restrictions should be updated....
Although with the state of some of the roads around britain you cant even do the speed limit.

Not in favour of raising the limit, but the rest looks good.

Raise the speed limit on motorways but dont impose higher penalties for residential as I think they're high enough already.

Speed cameras must be justifed.

Look at the example of Blackpool.

It has one of the highest numbers of cameras around. They are not there for public protection as the number of accidents around the areas of the cameras have actually increased rather than been reduced. They are there to make money. A small number of them were damaged a while back and not repaired. Oddly, the number of accidents dropped again.

I have no problem with cameras as long as they are actually there for a reason other than as a revenue source.

I agree with this, and only wish we could see these kind of priorities reflected in the current siting of speed cameras.

In Wrexham, there are well known speed cameras that are sited in opportunist spots where people are either naturally still going a little faster having come off a main road (Wxm FC), or are naturally speeding up in the approach towards a safe road (Mold Road).

Meanwhile there are schools experiencing problems with speeding drivers, no crossing attendants and not a speed camera in sight (Pen y Bryn). When we are told that cameras are not revenue raising, we are being lied to, what other reason is ther for the siting choices?

Increase Motorway to 80mph.
Decrease Residential Roads and Shop Car Parking Areas to 20mph.
Review all accident free 40 and 50mph out of town restrictions as a lot are unneccesary 'blanket' restrictions. Mark individual crossroads and corners if you feel people do not have the common sense to recognise and react to everyday hazards.

We should work towards removing speed limits altogether, with motorways as the first step.

Careless driving should of course remain an offence.

I'd welcome a review of the laws - although I don't agree entirely with the full body of the original posting, I'd like to see speeding limits overhauled.

There should be stricter penalties for people who speed, especially in areas where there are larger numbers of those more vulnerable.

But more importantly, we should have evidence based restrictions on speed. That boils down to higher limits on motorways and some other major roads, but lower limits in urban areas.

There used to be a simple system that areas with street lights were 30 mph, ordinary roads 60 and dual carriageways 70. Now there is total confusion. Limits go from 40 to 30 to 20 with no obvious reason. 30 limits extend long distances outside built up areas. The result is that with the best will in the world it is easy to make a mistake while driving perfectly safely. Anyone driving round the ring road in Cambridge will have seen people completely confused and know what I mean! Once people start to think there is no sense in the rules it brings those rules into contempt and you have lost it. And everyone I know hates those signs which flash up and tell you you are doing 31 miles an hour when your car says you are doing 30 - it smacks of bullying.

The speed limit for motorways and dual carriage ways is already 70mph unless otherwise stated. I agree that these high speed roads should have limit increased to 85mph or 90mph (If a flat change across all motorways is not agreeable, then possible a variable speed limit - as on the M25 depending on the time of day and traffic levels)

Fixed speed cameras offer no value and from what I have seen can often nearly cause accidents as vehicles see them last minute and slam on their breaks etc. If you truly want to reduce people's speed then average speed cameras are the only solution - although I would be totally gutted as I don't buy into any speed cameras.

I'm in favour of increasing motorways speeds significantly. Let those with fast cars enjoy them, buy more fuel (paying more tax), and help the economy. Perhaps the only limit would be the level of traffic on the motorway which could be managed by having the advisory boards in the middle suggest what would be a safe speed.

Imogen: I know of those flashing signs, and know your pain.. I ride a motorcycle, and because of it's shape, get some strange readings off of them.

However the subject is speed limits, and I think there should be a review, to relaxing them. The current system is based on old outdated rules that need to be rewritten.

For many years it seems that the government has allowed flawed research to be used to dictate ever lower speed limits..The TRRRL conclusion that hit a child at 30 and he dies , hit a child at 20 and he lives has been the mantra spouted by organisations such as Brake ( largely consisting of traumatised and therefore irrationally bereaved people) to demand the introduction of 20 mph limits everywhere..Thsi fails to account for the fact if you are driving at 30 and a child runs out in front of you,in nearly all cases there will be braking before a collision meaning that the impact speed will already be less than 20mph..I know this after years of dealing with road traffic accidents the vast majority of which were not fatal or even serious injury.. On TV the other morning they had some doctor discussing lowering limits after claiming he had been involved in a 20mph collision with a child..he stated that the child ran out in front of him some 25yds ahead, and yet he managed to knock the child a further 15 yards???? well either he never bothered to touch the brakes as the stopping distance in the highway code ( something else that needs overhauling from its 1960s technological position) is only 40 feet (13 yards) so he should have been stopped before the child was even close, and even if his reactions were slow, he should never have had the remaining speed to knock a child 15 yards..so eother he should surrender his licence for being incompetent or he was lying about his speed..allowing such people to determine or influence government policy is absurd...If we have lower limits in places of need, there should be an acceptance that in other places a higher speed than currently allowed should also be possible..I hope the millions of sensible drivers that currently exceeed the limits without incident get listened to with as much vigour as the single issue pressure groups currently do..

Consider the French system where a higher motorway speed limit is applied when the weather is dry and the limit is reduced when it rains.
Also apply a minimum speed limit for the outer lanes of motorways and dual carriage ways.

Too many of you are making the assumption that speed-limits are solely for safety reasons. Remember that faster traffic creates more noise, wears out road surfaces faster and uses up fuel more than in a direct proportion to the speed.
I am opposed to any increase in speed limits anywhere, in fact I'd like to see the current limits enforced, perhaps with a ban kicking in at 6 or more points. That could remove some traffic from our grossly over-crowded roads.
If you need to get somewhere earlier, then set off earlier!

Whilst I agree with the raising of speed limits on the motorways along with harsher penalties outside schools etc. Speed itself is not the problem, it is peoples inability to drive safely at speed. Successive governments have cited speed as a major cause of accidents as their excuse for speed cameras etc. Cameras should not be placed willy nilly where they are not needed as they in themselves are a cause of accidents. Nonsense speed limits should be reviewed such as 30 to 60 to 40 all in the space of a few hundred meters. Or single track roads with a national speed limit. Cameras in the same location when the road involved has been radically changed should be removed. They no longer serve their purpose.

It is perhaps a sign of the levels of ignorance that people supposedly with an interest in this subject can post comments like this from a poster ^^^
"The speed limit for motorways and dual carriageways should be raised (to 85mph and 70 mph, respectively)."

The speed limit for Dual carriageways is already 70 mph..perhaps this ignorance explains why so many drivers are crawling along unecessarily especially while hogging the ooutside lane, adding to congestion and frustration for others.
Raise the speed limits where its safe, reduce them ONLY where it is PROVEN that the current limit has led to accidents..

PS if so many people support 20mph limits why aren't they already driving along at 20?? living near Portsmouth with its blanket 20mph limits I can assure you that no-one is driving at 20 for more than a few feet..all those calling for blanket urban 20 limits should go out and try and practice what they are preaching...I bet they dont do it for long.

Given that we should always drive according to the road and weather conditions, I believe that all speeding restrictions should be removed. This would save millions on signage, cameras, and the administration costs of prosecuting motorists. Ideally cars should be developed to monitor speeds throughout a journey. In the event of an incident, the motorist's speed at the time of the incident could be accessed, and used in any subsequent action.

Speeding is not just about safety, it is also an environmental issue.

We should lower the speed limits on motorways because:-

Reducing higher speed greatly increases fuel savings.

Making car journeys take longer encourages the use of public transport for longer journeys.

DISSAGREE

Increasing the motorway speed limit is a bit pointless. If you drove the entire length of the M6 at 70mph it'd take you about 3h15. If you did it at 85mph it'd take you half an hour less. That's not much of a saving over quite a distance, most journeys aren't anywhere near that long and it presumes you're able to drive the entire length of the M6 at the speed limit.

Increasing the speed limit is likely to cause more slowdowns in traffic. The speed difference between fast moving vehicles and slow moving vehicles will be greater, resulting in more breaking which in turn results in slow moving patches of motorway. You know when you're in a bit of a jam that suddenly disappears with no reason? Someone breaked, the people behind breaked and then you've got a slow-spot for no apparent reason.

I'm not sure about double points near schools, etc. If 20 limits are imposed (they're widespread round schools now) then the penalty should reflect the percentage over the limit speeders are found to be doing. If you go at 30mph in a 20 limit that's 50%, equivalent to 105mph on the motorway.

I do agree with speed cameras not needing reasons.
So what if they're revenue generating? It's really easy not to get caught by a speed camera. All you have to do is obey the law.

Around 3,000 people are year are killed in traffic accidents in the UK every year ( http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208 ). If people stopped thinking that they have some God-given right to drive how they want and instead obeyed the highway code maybe we'd save a few lives.

Speed laws should be changed: they should be REDUCED.

All scientific evidence proves that speed kills. The argument that cars have improved is a fallacy, given that cars are driven by the same human beings and human error is the primary cause of most accidents.

Additionally, reducing the speed limits by 10 mph will immediately reduce pollution, without significantly adding to average journey times. (Yes, there is evidence to back this up, too).

Static speed cameras should be scrapped and replaced by average speed cameras, as these are far more effective.

All residential roads should have a maximum speed limit of 20 mph.

im sorry, i had to give you a 1-rating .... what do you mean police do not have to justify speed traps. If the police can put on their sirens and blaze around my local neighbour while rushing to the takeaway or bcos someone dropped littler, what example are they setting??? and why shouldn't i be allowed to drive at a speed i am comfortable with, without someone else forcing 'their' idea of a 'comfortable speed' down my throat.
Speed is relative, and not absolute - if you have good reason and are very competent driver at slightly higher speeds, why shud some 'hypocritical' dictate to you, what they know they can't stick to.
My solution was to have a separate test for proficient drivers allowing us to be freed of the constant 'prosessions' behind incompetent drivers.
If that cannot be done, then the law might as well prosecute EVERYONE that drives at 31 mph in a 30 zone, or 72 mph on the motorway, then everyone's happy and there's no HYPOCRISY !!!

I'd suggest the opposite - if we reduced motorway speed to 65 or even 60, you'd notice a massive lump of money magically appear in your wallet due to your car working much more efficiently

I think 70mph on motorway is enough, maybe change it from 2-5am in the morning as it quieter. The driving ability of most drivers is bad enough and until we all drive properly, "mirror signal manoeuvre", not just "manoeuvre, brake, change lane" and do what i want mentality is better...but it won't happen as we all think we drive perfectly.....

Agree with WillWorkForFood.

Driving at speed does not kill. Driving badly does. Also 20mph is an incredibly polluting speed to drive at as the residents of the streets of Oxford are discovering.

Speed limits don't work!

The Police need to prosecute unsafe driving instead, whether this is doing 30mph outside a school at 8:30am, or 70mph down a motorway in the fog.

A recent report by the Road Safety Foundation (UK arm of NCAP) states that
•A third of all fatal and serious crashes happen at junctions
•Single roads carry six times the risk of motorways and twice that of dual carriageways
This seems to back up the call for less speed trapping on good roads and more policing of road safety and speed in built up areas. Taking a straw-poll of friends and relatives on their speeding points though, and it seems all of them are cuaght on the motorway!

I would welcome the raising of speed limits on motorways and dual-carriage A roads to 80mph - however, many peoples driving standards still leave alot to be desired and are still a danger to themselves, other road users and pedestrians (in urban areas).

Give them 80mph and they would start to do 90mph or more; if its raining they would still believe doing 80mph in the wet is still safe. Many would still tailgate, cross 1 or 2 lanes at the last minute approaching a junction - need I go on??

They other thing to consider is pollution. The faster a vehicle goes, the more pollution it omits! Many drivers are complaining of the rising cost of fuel, but its the very same drivers that are doing 75mph or more on motorways and A roads and thus wasting their fuel and causing increased pollution.

Nobody yet has spoken about making the motorist's life easier. Roads, and their systems of signs, signals and road markings are designed to slow the driver down to such a point in some cases as to cause road rage. There should be a review, this is true!!! In my opinion, all 3 lane motorways should have a maximum speed limit of 100mph and a minimum limit of 50 - 60mph for cars and motorbikes. Two lane motorways, and dual carriageways should be 80mph with a minimum of 50mph. And don't even get me started on the ridiculouly low speed limits for lorries (40mph on A roads) and buses/coaches (50mph on A roads)!!! I am an articulated lorry driver and can drive just as safely, if not more so than other road users at our currently limited motorway speed of 56mph on A roads, whereas I should be doing 40mph really. All speed limits for large vehicles also need to be seriously looked at with a view to increasing the limits to 70mph on motorways and 60mph on A roads and dual carriageways!!!
BUT, where schools/colleges, hospitals and old people's homes are concerned, a maximum limit of 20mph should be enforced, but in the case of educational establishments this should only be enforceable during school hours i.e. between 8am and 4:30pm, after which, the 30mph limit should apply.
From a safety point of view, ALL current 30 and 40mph limits should be re-assessed. Both the above should be decreased by 5 mph... this will save lives, and make our urban roads safer.
Finally, there should be a new classification of road too... I refer to the bypass type of road. This should have a minimum speed limit of 50mph, and be banned for the likes of tractors/JCBs and small engine motorcycles (where alternative routes are available), as all these vehicles do is hold cars and large vehicles up and cause frustration for the average driver and increases journey time generally (yet another source of frustration for the average driver!!).
A radical rethink of our roads and the road traffic act is needed!!! It's about time that journeys were thought about in terms of "how safely can I get from A to B in the shortest possible time??"

A better approach would be to simply review speeds. 80 on a dual carriageway, 90 on a motorway are far more sensible. Cars in the past (when 70 was set) were for more unstable, so there's no reason not to set them to more sensible limits.

But cars must have better speedo's. The current "approximation" means you simply don't really know what speed your doing, this is nuts. Give us proper speeds on our dashboards, then fine if you go above.

If you have limits folk agree on, they'll stick to them.

Speed doesn't kill. Bad drivers do.

Speed limits really do need reviewed.Now that we have the technology would it not be possible to alter limits to match the road conditions and the time of day. Why on earth should anyone be caught on camera and fined for 'speeding' at three o'clock in the morning on a deserted dual carriagway.

Also traffic lights on islands should be turned off between 11pm and 5am.

With increasing road users, Britain's roads are clogged and polluted with idle cars. We should adopt a variable speed limit, thus reducing road traffic accidents whilst keeping Britain's traffic moving as quickly and safely as possible.

In my view the entire road system needs a review. I fully support higher motoway speeds of up to 100mph in the outside lane only, 80 on the inner two lanes.

However, the biggest threat to safety and congestion on motorways are those who hog the middle or outside lane. There has been plenty of reference to the Highway Code in earlier posts which describes these lanes as for 'overatking' only. If action against these drivers is not to be taken then allow us to pass either side as they do elsewhere. I travel along a 10 mile dual carriageway going to work each morning and frequently sit the entire distance behind someone in the outside lane who is travelling below the speed limit with no-one in front or on their inside, simply because they are turning right at the roundabout at the other end !!! These are the dangerous congesting baffoons we need to legislate against.

Our rural and urban A and B roads are an anomalie too; why is it we can drive at 20 through a well lit, straight village road but then turn off onto a narrow, dark twisting B road and be allowed to do 60mph? The blanket application of speed limits is entirely inappropriate, they should be set locally by those who know the roads best.

I'm in favour of the strict enforcement of speed limits near schools and other vulnerable sites but believe 20 is too slow and as someone else pointed out, too polluting.

Regarding the final point in the original post - cameras - when driving on unknown roads I find I spend more time thinking about what the speed limit is and are there any cameras or police about, than paying attention to the traffic ahead or other potential dangers on the road. Signage needs to be much clearer, limts posted more prominantly, and cameras only used where there is a proven danger spot. I also agree that any funds generated through fines should be ploughed back into improving the road network.

There should be a thorough review of speed limits, sometimes raising (motorways to 85) sometimes lowering (it is daft soft rural single lane roads have a 60 limit).

Stop the erroneous propaganda about "speed kills". No one believes it. If it were true why are the traffic police trained to drive at 140mph? Are there higher death rates amongst traffic police? No, they are better trained, so we need more stress on driver training, with incentives, probably via insurance rates, for regular (5-yearly) advanced training. Improve road junctions and signage. Too many roundabouts on through routes. Too many pointless signs. JJ Leeming, in his book "Road Accidents: Prevent or Punish" gives the example of a sign near Basingstoke that said something like "A moment's inattention can cause an accident", which itself had caused a moment's inattention. Leeming often challenged the need for a speed limit. He wrote "It has many times been said to me when I have asked why a limit has been wanted, and what was the danger: ‘Oh, well, we know it won’t stop accidents, but it will enable the police to prosecute motorists!’" Too many speed limits are set on emotional, not scientific, grounds. Most (not all) motorists drive sensibly, within their capabilities, the capability of their cars and the state of the road they are on. Monitor the average speed of motorists on a stretch of road and that is probably the appropriate limit.

Increase the number of speed notifiers, especially before cameras, so people know what speed they're doing.

Improve pedestrian training. If someone steps in front of a car who gets the blame for the pedestrian's injury? The evil car driver, when in fact the pedestrian is at fault.

Get rid of 24/7 20mph limits outside school. The limits need to be variable for when children are around and when they are not (like 3am on an August Sunday morning).

WilliamNB wrote "All scientific evidence proves that speed kills." classic evidence of buying into the myth....its not speed that kills it is inappropriate driving that kills (evidenced by the millions of journeys carried out every day at speeds above the limit that do not lead to incident or accident)...no doubt those calling for lower limits are already driving around town at 20...( having raised this with a local council demanding a 20 limit it was found that not one of the councillors making the demand was actually doing this)..Why? because they know its unsustainable for more than a few yards, leads to loss of concentration from boredom and because it also strains a car engine and leads to poorer economy and heavier engine wear from labouring in higher gears or wasting fuel by being driven in lower gears...If you think 20 works visit Portsmouth to se that it doesn't..

I don't think leaving it up to people to judge whether it's good driving conditions to do 85mph is a smart idea.

Why is it that 61mph in a 60mph road is seen as unsafe and thus worthy of a 3 point penalty and £60 fine when in fact it is often the design and condition of the road that causes accidents and not the speed an individual is driving at? Most drivers drive to the conditions and not to a maximum speed limit. The name of the agencies monitoring speed should be renamed Revenue Collection Agency instead of Safety camera partnership.

Agreed - and put average speed cameras everywhere. The problem with speed limits at the moment is that they are set in the knowledge that many people don't respect them, so if you want people to stay under 40 you set a 30 limit. Make the published limit the actual target and ruthlessly enforce it.

If the speed limits were more sensible, more people would be willing to abide by them. 50MPH limits in rural areas on long straight roads makes little sense. It just gives the impression that the Police have more excuse to set up speed cameras and earn more money.

I cannot believe how accomodating our laws are to the "top gear" anti-camera brigade! How on earth can we allow companies to sell map books and sat-navs that include data on speed cameras clearly with the sole intention of allowing people to speed in between them? I think cameras should be hidden and moved on a regular basis. The publication in any form of data on their whereabouts should be illegal. Drivers need to grow up and take responsibility for their own actions. This isn't a game. The law applies to the whole road, not the 50 metres adjacent to a speed camera. You might not like the law, so argue against it. But for now it's the law. And if the police are making money out of motorists from speeding fines, who's fault is that? Stick to the limit and console yourself with the fact that you aren't lining the pockets of the local constabulary.

Not all rural roads are solely for cars - hence 40 limits make sense in a lot of cases. Cars blazing by at 60+ makes for very unpleasant conditions for horse riders, walkers, cyclists.

That said, on dual carriageways & where adequate alternative provision is made for other users, higher limits may be appropriate.

I have no respect for any speed limits seeing as so many of them are ridiculous (eg. 40 limits on dual carriageways in non-built up areas). Abolish speed limits altogether - it is still illegal at all times to drive dangerously, without due care and attention, without consideration for other road users, etc.

Speed doesn't kill - inappropriate speed kills (I know someone who did over 100mph once and didnt die)

Institute of Advanced Motorists teach drivers to drive to the conditions of the road/weather.

There are plenty of situations where 100mph+ is prefectly safe, but conversly there are situations where 30mph can be very dangerous.

I have been in situations where driving at 70mph on a motorway in heavy rain was actually highly dangerous and a sensible speed was below 60mph.

I think we should look at variable speed limits on the motorway system. No limit during the night, a raised limit during the day, but a lower limit during rush hour and poor weather conditions.

As for residential areas I'm 100% for a 20mph limit for side roads and I do drive at this speed while traveling through housing estates as 30mph can be too fast.

Speeding doesn't kill. I've done 150MPH round a bend while tucked up behind the car in front. I was on a race circuit but I still survived.

The government needs to turn their focus on to the overall standard of driving.

Bad drivers kill people no matter how fast they're going

I agree speeding laws need to be reviewed, but believe that speed cameras DO need to be justified - they should require a sign and a sign should only be up where there IS a speed camera. On motorways the speed limit should be raised to 85mph and I agree that in residential areas the speed limit should be 20mph. We need to improve overall driving standards and allow people to use their common sense to judge the appropriate speed.

Variable speed limits and can we have something to fine the idiot drivers who think it is ok to tail-gate at 80+mph on a motorway

I support the principle of raising motorway speed limits and some major road limits as well as reducing limits in residential areas. In order to manage this safely, we need to get some of HGV traffic off the roads and manage the roads better.
On the Continent speeding is managed by incremental financial penalty (not points) if you keep speeding the penalty goes up. This ought to provide a suitable detterant to most people and would satisfy the government need for revenue.
In Germany all HGV's are barred from the roads from midnight on Friday to midnight on Sunday as well as holidays unless special dispensation is given. This would improve the flow of traffic on our road network hugely over weekends and holidays

High time this was done.

Agree wholeheartedly.

End automated enforcement and bring back discretion and real traffic policemen.

I have tagged this as "motoring" so ASENNA (the 'motoring' troll) can find it. This discussion's far too civilised.

As with a lot of other motoring problems it started with the lack of enforcement and then people objecting when they were caught and penalised and someone else wasn't

Surely lack of enforcement would lead to people not getting caught?

ask the people with a referendum

ask the people with a referendum

ask the people with a referendum

ask the people with a referendum

Do remember whilst pushing for higher speed limits that this will actually lead to more congestion due to the road in question being less able to cope with the traffic flow volumes.
It's a case of the "Mark / Space" ratio or the carriageway length occupied by a vehicle to the space between them. The road space is actually best used at around 56 MPH (just happens to be the speed limiter value for HGV's as well !!!)

If the road is congested then the traffic will slow, so it's self limiting.

I rarely drive along thinking "I wish the speed limit was higher" and "damn this congestion" at the same time.

I agree with most of this. However: -

'Police/councils should NOT have to justify speed traps/cameras'. - I do not agree with this. There is a strong suspicion that Police often use these in places likely to generate funding, rather than where they are truly needed.

Also: -

'We should look at autobahns they have no speed limit and very few accidents.' - Interesting idea, though I'd like to see the accident statistics first.

'Consider the French system where a higher motorway speed limit is applied when the weather is dry and the limit is reduced when it rains.' - Another good idea.

'Now that we have the technology would it not be possible to alter limits to match the road conditions and the time of day. Why on earth should anyone be caught on camera and fined for 'speeding' at three o'clock in the morning on a deserted dual carriageway.' - Good point.

Also, replace the national speed limit signs with signs that clearly state the speed. With many people crawling along so far under the speed limit, they obviously don't know what it means.

Too simple. Not all residential roads have a maximum safe speed of 30. Some with wide grass verges can be safe for 45, others with parked cars and doors opening onto the street are safe for 15. Equally not all motorways have a maximum safe speed of 85. Every road should be reassessed using 85th percentile (see other thread on this). Driving by numbers needs to be discouraged and driving so that one can safely stop in the distance guaranteed to be clear should be encouraged. That is the only rule that matters, the numbers are irrelevant.

On Motorways I wouldn't say that speed kills.

You can drive at 80mph for example in good conditions leaving a sensible distance and by keeping aware of your surroundings without hurting yourself or anyone.

However, idiots do kill people.

Idiots who want to drive at 110mph swerving in and out of all three lanes to get ahead of the traffic.
Idiots who drive too fast when the weather conditions dictate a slower pace is preferable.
Idiots who tailgate.
Idiots who don't use their indicators to change lanes.
Idiots who don't use their mirrors before changing lanes.

I drive nearly 200 miles a day and see examples of the above all the time.

I wish that the Police would spend more time trying to get these idiots off the roads instead of penalising others for driving above the limit in a safe and reasonable manor.

How this is done fairly I have no idea.

I don't see speed limits as being particularly important. I, like many, feel that many are too low, especially the 70mph motorway limit.

Why not simply enforce speed limits with discretion such that only dangerous or irresponsible infringements are prosecuted? Our current attitude towards driving gives them far too much importance - this needs to be changed such that drivers concern themselves less with 'driving by numbers' and concentrate more, think more about hazard recognition and risk management and have better vehicle control skills.

Perhaps a shift in road safety policy to address these issues more and provide subsidised driver training/improvement schemes would help, alongside more intelligent law enforcement.