Yes I know what that sign means, but some lorries still struggle to hit40 when their loaded with enormous steel girders or oil rig machinery. when they are going down a hill they do 40 easily but accelerating away from a roundabout they take well over a minute to get to 40 and going up a hill even on a stright bit of road they slow down to 25-30, now either the vehicle is struggling or the driver is being a tool and holding up the roads on purpose which is it? and if you read my post properly I was not having a go at the lorry drivers doing 40 as they are requiered to, but the car drivers who sit nose to tail behind the lorry not wanting to overtake but making it more difficult and dangerous for those who do and getting angry at being overtaken
The motorways section of the Highway Code doesn't mention a minimum speed (other than that you musn't stop, unless in an emergency or directed to do so by Police or HA).
Minimum speed limit sign:
/proxy.php?image=http://www.ukmotorists.com/highway_code/The%20Highway%20Code_files/signs73.gif&hash=bf8838e49c8c13e6c6f5577a3124863b
However, it does say that:
Tractors should be banned from public roads at peak times on weekdays! 
I agree on A Roads, between 7AM and 9.30AM then again from 4PM until 6.30PM.Same for caravans.
I disagree. Caravan towing should incur its own tax altogether. Same for 4wd vehicles, seeing as they are a bigger contributor to damaged roads than 2wd.
Controversial? Yes.
Off topic a little but it's not as if the road tax paid is ever directly spent on the upkeep of the roads...good idea about taxing caravans though!
No, it's not a road tax at all. It should be abolished and put on to the price of petrol (1p) to tax on a fair and equitable basis: the number of miles one chooses to drive. But governement chooses to ignore this, eh?
Isn't it a bit nuts that I could drive 5 miles a year, but pay £215 road tax, or drive 50'000 miles a year and still pay £215 road tax? Absurd.
Controversial?
No offence, but I'd just call it plain wrong.
Weight and tyre size has more bearing on road wear than the number of wheels driven.
There are many 2wd cars weigh more than 4wd cars.
There are also many 4wd cars that are only 2wd most of the time.
So slapping any extra charges on 4wd is just daft.
Which is why, I would venture, the government haven't done it.
They realise taxation based on Co2 is fairer all round.
So the person in a massive S-class Merc (2wd) pays more than the person in the small 4wd (like a Subaru Justy).
Naturally some common sense would be required.
Non-standard tyre sizes from manufacturer's spec should affect 'road tax' anyway, as it can increase/decrease your vehicle emissions. The new 'Eco' cars were meant to come out with a stipulation that meant they were only tax exempt where the low rolling resistance tyres were used for the life of the car. Whether or not that happens, is a different matter.
Weight should definitely play more of a part in an actual road tax (for road maintenance), but that's never going to happen. We've all seen the state of our roads.
The amount of driven torque should also be taken into consideration too, but again, never going to happen.
Road tax is flawed, we can see that - because it's not a road tax in any way shape or form.
But 99% of 4x4 owners have no need for one. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Those that need one (agriculture etc) should be exempt of course.
Taxation based on CO2 doesn't work at all. A car putting out 255g/km pays £405 a year. A car putting out 600g/km also pays £405 a year.
How exactly is that fair? It isn't. In any form whatsoever.
As I said before: taxing on CO2 emissions (which are measured in a very specific state) is simply wrong - there is no doubt about it and this cannot be disputed.
Again, if I put out 125g/km according to the rules and obtain 65 mpg over 10'000 miles, and someone else also falls into the 125g/km band and obtains 40 mpg over 10'000 miles, why are we both paying the same road tax based on emissions?
It's obvious that in my example, I am far more efficient, and thus in turn, churning out fewer gases. So why should I pay the same amount of tax as someone driving with 50% less efficiency?
CO2 tax is a joke. Like I said: slap 1p onto fuel and you are taxed solely for the amount you drive.
Efficient car? Less tax paid. Inefficient? More tax paid.
That is fair and equitable, which is what the current CO2 tax is anything but.
I agree that roadtax should be based on road usage.
But until they do that, if they ever will, I think Co2 is the fairest way.
99% of people may never need 4wd, but that's covered by the fact that many of these vehicles aren't full-time 4wd.
In which case, they're just a higher/bigger 2wd car.
In which case, totally unfair to tax them extra.
You can't tax people extra just because you consider their choice superfluous.
Otherwise, where does it stop?
Who decides what's superfluous and what's not?