Speed Limits are they constitutional given they are mostly disobeyed ?

Question

When driving on the M40 and M6 in recent months I noticed that most drivers ignored the speed limit by a big margin.
Given that the law in a democracy is based on consent where is the consent to speed limits when they are disobeyed?

Paul, If the majority disobey the law, where is the law?

I take your point gonemanyes but no I am not advocating anachy. I am saying that the law should reflect common practice. There is little point in enacting a law which will not be obeyed and I say out elected representatives should be mindful of that. Inappropriate speed kills just as much as boredom on a long journey hence the need to take breaks

Our constitution is an unwritten one and enshrined in common law which is the law the average well informed citizen thinks it is. The man on the Clapham Bus.

If we had a written constitution every half baked government would try to amend it to suit themselves at least with an unwritten one it can be argued and in it's way keeps a check on the excecutive

Answer 1

First, the UK is not a democracy.

Second, the term "unconstitutional" only applies to laws in countries with constitutions, such as the U.S.

Third, "consent" to a law is given by voting for representatives (MP's) who vote for the law. If the majority of the UK voted for MP's who opposed speed limits, then the speed limit would be abolished. But the majority of the UK do not vote for MP's who oppose speed limits, and consent to speed limits by either voting for MP's who do not oppose speed limits or consent to speed limits by not voting.

Answer 2

Well, Something can only be constitutional if we had a written constitution. We haven't, so it isn't.

The fact that many people break a law doesn't mean they are right, it just means many people will pay the price if caught.

The consent in in the fact that this is a speed limit, based on the law of the land, supported and even promoted by a duly elected government.

If this was to change, you would need to lobby one of the parties to promote a change to the roads policy in the UK along the lnes of (say) the German motorway system, where about 60% have no upper speed limit.

This would be a meaningless change, but I would expect it to have little chance of passing through the Commons and Lords and becoming law, as no one would ewant to be seen to be in favour of a non-green proposal seen (mistakenly I think) as a licence to crash / kill / waste fuel)

The fact that this would be regularising a common practice (I normally cruise at between 80-90 on the Bike, and I'm going with the flow of traffic for safety) it could not be practically increased.

I think the word has come down to turn a blind eye to creeping-up speeding and concentrate on the dodgy driving and Lewis-hamilton-wannabes doing 130+ through traffic that are really dangerous.

Ever wondered why there are very few motorways with traffic cameras? If they had them on the M1 traffic would never move again, half the population would lose their licence in a week, and all those damn lorries wouldn't be able to stock London's shops. They know they need to keep the M roads open, they can't do it by Rail anymore.

Answer 3

Where is the consent to any law when it is disobeyed?

Speeding isnt a bad thing in the right conditions anyway. Travelling along the M6 toll a few sunday nights ago for example, it was totally dry, there wasnt another car in sight so whats the harm in going a hundred?
If the speed limit was abolished between 11pm and 5am on all dual carriageways and motorways, that may help our congestion problem to

Answer 4

What difference does it make if they are "mostly" disobeyed? Are you saying that any law that is mostly disobeyed is invalid? That would be anarchy, not democracy.