LJK Setright from 2003......he is still right
Discussion
Link here - http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/f...
How fast is too fast? I shall not wait for an answer; there is none. All speed limits are implausibly arbitrary, but only once did a former Minister of Transport admit speed limits were for political rather than practical reasons. Speed laws are like all laws: they are a codification of yesterday's practice, and an expression of yesterday's prejudices.
Our basic 30mph limit for built-up areas was introduced in 1935, the year in which Germany opened its first real autobahn. Then, most of the popular cars on our roads would never reach 60, many had no brakes on their front wheels, tyres were made of natural tree-rubber naturally skiddy when wet. Most of our roads were surfaced with glassy bitumen or polished Bridport pebbles and coated with a mix of spilt oil and horse-droppings which made them like a skating-rink.
If the physical conditions then are irrelevant now, what about the attitudes? In those days, one in 55 Britons owned a car; seen as a luxury of the wealthy, it was treated with the same resentment as its owner.
Wherever individualism tends towards anarchy, somebody will try to drive faster than everybody else; wherever democracy tends towards mob rule, everybody will see to it that nobody goes faster than anybody else. To drive at your own comfortable speed, irrespective of how everybody else drives, would mark you as dangerously anti-social.
Speed limits are a tool of repression. That was why the Minister of the Interior for the Grand Duchy of Baden directed Karl Benz, whose first four-wheeler was being readied for the market in late 1893, that it would be subject to a speed limit of 12kph on the open road, half that in towns or around sharp corners. Matters were no better in Britain, where the notorious Locomotives on Highways Act had been so maliciously compounded as to subject the most innocuous of lightweight motor cars to the same costive restrictions (red flag and all) as were applied to the elephantine traction engines of the 1860s. That Act scuppered the steam stagecoach trade, too, all because a lot of our Members of Parliament had strong and profitable interests in the railways.
A century later, our politicians devised and controlled a Road Research Laboratory which enabled them to say there should be a blanket 70mph limit through Britain. The RRL dutifully produced statistics purporting to show the limit saved lives. But the statistics were manipulated and falsified. The result was that the cost to the nation caused by traffic delays was three times greater than the total cost of all motoring accidents, which caused an annual death toll similar to nephritis. Does Government campaign against nephritis?
Speed limits cannot be justified. Logically, there should be only one motoring offence, dangerous use (which covers parking as well as driving) of the highway. Morally, it should probably be an adequate defence if the accused could show that he had endangered none but himself.
The rabble-rousing rant of the politicians is not to be trusted. Speed does not kill. Speed saves. It saves life by saving time, which amounts to the same thing. Alas, there can be no law-abiding driver today under 55 who can have any idea what it was like to drive at over 70mph on British roads. It was practical, sensible, and pleasant. If you can forget Big Brother watching you, it still is.
How fast is too fast? I shall not wait for an answer; there is none. All speed limits are implausibly arbitrary, but only once did a former Minister of Transport admit speed limits were for political rather than practical reasons. Speed laws are like all laws: they are a codification of yesterday's practice, and an expression of yesterday's prejudices.
Our basic 30mph limit for built-up areas was introduced in 1935, the year in which Germany opened its first real autobahn. Then, most of the popular cars on our roads would never reach 60, many had no brakes on their front wheels, tyres were made of natural tree-rubber naturally skiddy when wet. Most of our roads were surfaced with glassy bitumen or polished Bridport pebbles and coated with a mix of spilt oil and horse-droppings which made them like a skating-rink.
If the physical conditions then are irrelevant now, what about the attitudes? In those days, one in 55 Britons owned a car; seen as a luxury of the wealthy, it was treated with the same resentment as its owner.
Wherever individualism tends towards anarchy, somebody will try to drive faster than everybody else; wherever democracy tends towards mob rule, everybody will see to it that nobody goes faster than anybody else. To drive at your own comfortable speed, irrespective of how everybody else drives, would mark you as dangerously anti-social.
Speed limits are a tool of repression. That was why the Minister of the Interior for the Grand Duchy of Baden directed Karl Benz, whose first four-wheeler was being readied for the market in late 1893, that it would be subject to a speed limit of 12kph on the open road, half that in towns or around sharp corners. Matters were no better in Britain, where the notorious Locomotives on Highways Act had been so maliciously compounded as to subject the most innocuous of lightweight motor cars to the same costive restrictions (red flag and all) as were applied to the elephantine traction engines of the 1860s. That Act scuppered the steam stagecoach trade, too, all because a lot of our Members of Parliament had strong and profitable interests in the railways.
A century later, our politicians devised and controlled a Road Research Laboratory which enabled them to say there should be a blanket 70mph limit through Britain. The RRL dutifully produced statistics purporting to show the limit saved lives. But the statistics were manipulated and falsified. The result was that the cost to the nation caused by traffic delays was three times greater than the total cost of all motoring accidents, which caused an annual death toll similar to nephritis. Does Government campaign against nephritis?
Speed limits cannot be justified. Logically, there should be only one motoring offence, dangerous use (which covers parking as well as driving) of the highway. Morally, it should probably be an adequate defence if the accused could show that he had endangered none but himself.
The rabble-rousing rant of the politicians is not to be trusted. Speed does not kill. Speed saves. It saves life by saving time, which amounts to the same thing. Alas, there can be no law-abiding driver today under 55 who can have any idea what it was like to drive at over 70mph on British roads. It was practical, sensible, and pleasant. If you can forget Big Brother watching you, it still is.
I had the fortune recently to take a little 2 seat job to the Isle of Man.
It was a fantastic experience.
In the towns I drove to the speed limits.
Whether or not I agreed with the limits was irrelevant, they were to some degree sensible, and with pedestrians and traffic around I wouldn’t have wanted to go much faster anyhow.
But out on the back roads I could choose my own speed. And I did.
The thing I remember the most was not looking at the speedo all the time.
I didn't have to worry about it, I didn't worry about the camera round the next corner or the covert speed van.
I could just drive, and enjoy driving.
Speed up on the clear sections, slow down for junctions, enjoy the curves.
Oddly enough my co-driver was checking the speed.
Apparently on all but the straightest and clearest sections I wasn't doing much above 60 or 70.
It just felt so much more pleasant though, to not have to constantly check my speed.
It was a fantastic experience.
In the towns I drove to the speed limits.
Whether or not I agreed with the limits was irrelevant, they were to some degree sensible, and with pedestrians and traffic around I wouldn’t have wanted to go much faster anyhow.
But out on the back roads I could choose my own speed. And I did.
The thing I remember the most was not looking at the speedo all the time.
I didn't have to worry about it, I didn't worry about the camera round the next corner or the covert speed van.
I could just drive, and enjoy driving.
Speed up on the clear sections, slow down for junctions, enjoy the curves.
Oddly enough my co-driver was checking the speed.
Apparently on all but the straightest and clearest sections I wasn't doing much above 60 or 70.
It just felt so much more pleasant though, to not have to constantly check my speed.
Snowboy said:
The thing I remember the most was not looking at the speedo all the time.
...
It just felt so much more pleasant though, to not have to constantly check my speed.
I've just returned from my umpteenth trip to the Fatherland...
It just felt so much more pleasant though, to not have to constantly check my speed.
and it's wonderful to drive without spending time checking the speedo.
Drive according to the conditions, not a fixed number.
Sometimes 80kmh in bad weather, sometimes 220kmh in good
conditions.
Of course, this kind of thing will never happen again
in the UK. Far too Nanny State for that.
LJK Setright was undoubtedly the best and certainly the most erudite motoring writer since Cyril Posthumus and Laurence Pomeroy. George Barker was close and Denis Stuart Jenkinson touched with greatness.
But LJKS was on his own as a real force. His tome on ISSIGONIS is wonderfull
Never to this day read more readable motoring reviews. Magnificent.
But LJKS was on his own as a real force. His tome on ISSIGONIS is wonderfull
Never to this day read more readable motoring reviews. Magnificent.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff