Forum menu
If you think that merits "PITA" and "horrific" as descriptors, then you're the one with the problem.
Again, what I think of them doesn't make me any part OF the problem though does it, just means I have a problem with them BEING a problem to me. I don't affect them, they affect me. I make damn sure I don't affect others by driving safely, considerately and at a reasonable speed. If I come across a slow driver I give them plenty of room and overtake swiftly and cleanly, causing them no issues (other than maybe to wake them up).
My mother is a careful slow[b]er[/b] driver and isn't an issue, because she too is considerate and tries to keep her effect on others minimal. It's the morons that cause massive queues or pull out poorly into faster moving traffic and don't keep up that are the issue.
Unless they are on two wheels....coffeeking - Member
It's the morons that cause massive queues or pull out poorly into faster moving traffic and don't keep up that are the issue.
Unless they are on two wheels....
If you can't pass a bike safely within 20 seconds of meeting one you're a danger to other road users too, generally, or in heavy traffic which means it's pointless complaining about the slow person anyway. I think the point is more that cyclists CANT do 60 in an NSL road, just about every car can.
My mother is a careful slower driver and isn't an issue, because she too is considerate and tries to keep her effect on others minimal. It's the morons that cause massive queues or pull out poorly into faster moving traffic and don't keep up that are the issue.
You're assuming that because someone is causing a queue, or that other traffic is moving faster, that they are a moron. Again, a descriptor that is symptomatic of someone with an attitude problem.
I don't suppose it's ever crossed your mind that the slower driver may be fully alert, competent, and is driving at a speed they consider to be appropriate. And if you're stuck behind them, why, you may add a whole two minutes to your journey. Quelle horreur!
Coffeeeking - yes it is that simple. Slow drivers do not cause accidents - impatient drivers do. You have just put yourself firmly into the category of dangerous driver by showing your lack of consideration and your impatience.
On a normal two-lane carriageway, with a bike in the proper position on the road and with oncoming traffic, it can easily take more than 20 seconds to get past.coffeeking - Member
> Unless they are on two wheels....
If you can't pass a bike safely within 20 seconds of meeting one you're a danger to other road users too, generally, or in heavy traffic which means it's pointless complaining about the slow person anyway. I think the point is more that cyclists CANT do 60 in an NSL road, just about every car can.
Oh - and remembers that vans and lorries are restricted to 50mph on an NSL road too.
And then, when you do get past they go mental flashing lights at you.
That's funny. I've never had this happen to me. You hadn't just been crammed right up their backside because you perceived them to be travelling too slowly, had you, per chance? Or overtaken them at a dangerous moment purely because of your impatience?
No chance of that at all?
You have just put yourself firmly into the category of dangerous driver by showing your lack of consideration and your impatience.
I'm not biting your trolling further, your arguments make no sense and clearly you're just doing it for the sake of argument. I never, at any point, said I was impatient or showed any lack of consideration, quite the contrary, you just want to provoke an argument.
That's funny. I've never had this happen to me. You hadn't just been crammed right up their backside because you perceived them to be travelling too slowly, had you, per chance? Or overtaken them at a dangerous moment purely because of your impatience?No chance of that at all?
There's a chance, but you're welcome to join me for a drive to see. We've been through this before but you may not have seen the thread, I even posted locations and details and only one minor /possible/ flaw was pointed out in ONE location - which I accepted even though the overtake was done before the possible issue was reached. And no, I don't drive up anyone's arse or overtake in dangerous places, I've no need - I've enough power to hang back and pass cleanly.
Or overtaken them at a dangerous moment purely because of your impatience?
Would that be the horrific, PITA morons he was talking about? No, I'm sure he was perfectly patient and considerate...
No but your attitude shows that you are. You are blaming slower drivers for being dangerous when its you that is causing the danger.
EDIT
Interestingly several of us can see this.
Oh - and the only people I have ever heard call themselves fast drivers are rubbish at it. real fast drivers tend to be self effacing about it.
too much ego
Impatience is usually demonstrated rather than admitted to.
Would that be the horrific, PITA morons he was talking about? No, I'm sure he was perfectly patient and considerate...
Welcome to join me any time 🙂 I'm usually the one who doesn't overtake because I'd rather not in a situation that could turn nasty and gets overtaken by those behind both of us.
o but your attitude shows that you are. You are blaming slower drivers for being dangerous when its you that is causing the danger.
No, I'm saying SLOW drivers are often dangerous. At no point have I said anything that shows *I'm* a danger in any way. Nor can you identify anything about my driving attitude - all you can do is see that I find slow drivers can provide a danger, if you infer from that that I drive up peoples arse, impatiently and too fast that's in your mind, not my actions. If you wish to generalise and make assumptions about me feel free to do so, I don't care ultimately, but don't tritely suggest I'm a danger when you have no evidence except that which you have made up in your mind.
Impatience is usually demonstrated rather than admitted to.
Spare me your platitudes. By making the assumption that I drive dangerously and impatiently because I suggest slow drivers can cause danger just shows how shallow your thinking is.
It's those who choose to do 30 in a 60 and are oblivious to the 30 long queue following them unable to get past.
Are you suggesting that's the major cause of accidents? I remain unconvinced.
I think the people who are oblivious in general are the issue. To people in their blind spot, to cyclists or pedestrians, to the road ahead. And of those people, the ones going faster are more likely to crash (since their is less time to realise they've made a mistake and correct) and when they do crash the results will be worse.
Are you suggesting that's the major cause of accidents? I remain unconvinced.
No. I said they (some of them, in some circumstances) were a danger. I, at no point, said that's the major cause of accidents.
I think the people who are oblivious in general are the issue. To people in their blind spot, to cyclists or pedestrians, to the road ahead.
Finally.
And of those people, the ones going faster are more likely to crash (since their is less time to realise they've made a mistake and correct) and when they do crash the results will be worse.
Clearly.
If you can't pass a bike safely within 20 seconds of meeting one you're a danger to other road users too
Blimey. I'm a danger to other road users then. I wait till I can see the oncoming lane is definitely clear for long enough that I can overtake the cyclist without having to floor it or cut in on them.
Sometimes I don't even bother and just tootle along behind the bike because there is no point overtaking just before lights or a junction.
You know what coffeeking. As I catch up to a queue of 10-12 cars sitting nose to tail behind a slow vechicle (or often just a slow driver in a normal vehicle) I always wonder why the guy directly behind has overtaken?
Do they like driving at 30-35mph on fast well sighted A roads?
Are the not competent at overtaking
Do they have no where they would rather be.
Who are these people who just won't overtake slower traffic and as a result are also responsible for the long snaking queues which we then have to pick our way through, one car, two car and three cars at a time.
Answers above!
Blimey. I'm a danger to other road users then. I wait till I can see the oncoming lane is definitely clear for long enough that I can overtake the cyclist without having to floor it or cut in on them.Sometimes I don't even bother and just tootle along behind the bike because there is no point overtaking just before lights or a junction.
Fair point, it was a mild exaggeration in light of a daft comment 🙂 Point being you don't have to dawdle behind them for half a mile because they're usually small and slow enough to get around safely as per the highway code even on a fairly busy road. Cars doing half the limit are a tad more invasive as they're generally going fast enough to mean overtaking isn't quite so easy but slow enough to present an obstacle in otherwise faster traffic.
There's a reason the traffic rules suggest you should not pull out if it causes significant braking of the traffic flow you are entering to be required.
I've done a lot of driving in that EU' land y'know. It's similar over there this speeding lark, even Germany where the perceived notion is that they're exceptional drivers, they're not in case you didn't know.
The French are rather good, well the ones in the cities are as they're used to cram packed roads with parked cars either side perched on the pavements etc. So the traffics slower and they take care (ok, not all of the time)
In Italy they really don't care that much, for that reason they don't have many speed cameras, death rates are high, always have been, can't see that changing much. Though they do seem to have a second eye on the look out for scooters and cyclists, thankfully.
I'm of the opinion that here in the UK we're pretty poor drivers by all accounts.
I took my right foot off the fast pedal years ago, happy to drive round in slippers and try my best to change lanes when I should/can/can be bothered, can't promise that though.
Don't do speeding, never have though.
The French are rather good, well the ones in the cities are as they're used to cram packed roads with parked cars either side perched on the pavements etc. So the traffics slower and they take care (ok, not all of the time)
French drivers scare me at times. I'm used to fairly hectic traffic conditions but some of the overtakes I've seen in rural france have scared the hell out of me, like bees around honey - completely unpredictable, held out til the last second then squeezed in, drive up yer bum. Not my idea of good driving. That said, in the cities we only saw a few scrapes, bangs and one proper accident in a single trip down to the alps... 🙂
Who are these people who just won't overtake slower traffic and as a result are also responsible for the long snaking queues which we then have to pick our way through, one car, two car and three cars at a time
So would you like someone to do a potentially deadly manoeuvre that they are not confident in doing just for your convenience?
I'm sorry but queue jumpers really boil my piss. I'm next in line, I'll go when I consider it safe. You do not get to barge your way past and take other people's opportunities just because you are impatient.
If you thought some old granny was taking too long at the checkout would you elbow your way past from four people back and force your way through? Of course not. So why the flying F do you think it's ok to do that in a car?
If people have blatantly squandered loads of clear opportunities then maybe, but I'm sick of being forced to stay behind slow cars because some cnt wants through and is prepared to risk life and limb to do it.
Yes, erm well I did clarify the French in the cities. Those in the sticks are, well, odd. I'm used to driving down the Brittany coastline (sailing stuff) towing boats, I've had some interesting moments, but on the whole the rural French are just, well, anxious IMO.
I quite like the city mentality of the French (and the Italians TBH) they just seem to get on with it rather than fanny around like they do here.
I think that's one of my points really.. We just don't seem to "get on with it" we seem to rather dilly dally and meander around. I think that's the problem.
Molgrips - overtaking down queue of car is fine. Common practice in most of Europe
Eh what?
I quite like the city mentality of the French (and the Italians TBH) they just seem to get on with it rather than fanny around like they do here
Every other car in Rome has a dent in it. I'd rather fanny around (ie be sensible and safe) if that's the alternative.
Cant see why so many people are obsessed with speed to be honest. Drive to the conditions is what my instructor always used to say, so that's what I do. If it's a clear road in good conditions and in the right car then I'll happily do 100 + all day. Similarly outside a school sometimes 20 is much too fast.
To be honest I've had more near misses when driving slowly than when driving fast. There's something about speed that makes you more alert, attentive and aware of what's around you. Those drivers that pootle along well within the limit but seemingly unaware of whats around them are far more of a danger than a good, experienced driver driving faster than the limit but well within the limits of their high performance vehicle.
Many drivers resent the Police's focus on speed. That's why headlights are flashed. It's a common understanding. I'm sure the roads would be far safer if instead the police moved their attention to drunk drivers, lack of MOT's and tax, tailgating and general bad driving instead.
Erm, well I didn't comment on the state of the cars did I, no, cos yes some of them do have some interesting "impressions" on them. Though to be fair none of mine have ever had a ding, nor dong.
I once went to That Paris in my SmartCar and it fitted in perfectly with all the others, dam fine bendy bumpers those Smarts, damn fine.
Maybe you are too precious with your car there MrMole.
Many drivers resent the Police's focus on speed. That's why headlights are flashed. It's a common understanding. I'm sure the roads would be far safer if instead the police moved their attention to drunk drivers, lack of MOT's and tax, tailgating and general bad driving instead.
and parking on pavements, not giving cyclists enough room, jumping reds, sitting in cycle boxes, talking on mobiles, blocking yellow boxes at junctions. yeah - I bet motorists would love it if the police concentrated on all those instead.
Why do accidents on roads happen?
I suggest:
- Poor judgement
- Bad decision making
- Lack of concentration
- Distractions
- Inappropriate speed
Speed itself is not dangerous. Speed limits are a arbitrary mechanism to mitigate the risks from the above, and are often inappropriate or badly applied for often genuine reasons, but as much so political. The common theme above is lack of driver skill, and most often I see that displayed by slow or distracted drivers. Speed limits give people a sense that their driving is good because the needle is below the relevant number, i.e. a false sense or security.
There is a certain lack of consideration from 'pootlers'. Their 20 minute trip to the shops doing 30 in a 50 might be fine, but the person behind who's getting frustrated might be half way along a 4 hour journey enduring yet another unnecessary hold up.
I see cameras and speed traps often placed in positions where I feel they are likely to catch drivers out, which to some extent addresses my original points, but I can't help feeling it also maximises revenue. I'd like to see the police truly focus on all aspects of bad driving rather than just speeding.
Myself, nowadays I generally stay within the speed limit except on motorways where I do push it if conditions allow.
Speed itself is not dangerous.
In practical terms it is. The faster you are going, the less time you have to react to ANYTHING unexpected, and the worse the consequences. That to me increases the danger of driving, and consequently must be considered dangerous.
Simply moving at increased velocity in a vacuum is not dangerous, but it's pointless to even talk about it since that doesn't happen unless you are an astronaut.
I see cameras and speed traps often placed in positions where I feel they are likely to catch drivers out, which to some extent addresses my original points, but I can't help feeling it also maximises revenue.
You could claim they want to catch as many people as possible to maximise revenue, or you could be a little less paranoid and consider that it might be to maximise the deterrent. Given that the police don't keep the fine money for themselves but instead it is spent on policing, increasing revenue and deterring criminals are both equally valid aims.
As for focusing on speeding - what's the breakdown of time and effort spent on enforcement versus impact on safety? Seems to me the police are doing the bare minimum for speeding - sticking up a few cameras here and there mostly without any film in them isn't exactly a crackdown is it?
The faster you are going, the less time you have to react to ANYTHING unexpected
True, but it's not the whole picture. What can you see in front of you? What sort of hazards are you observing? Do you have enough time to react given the speed you are travelling at? This is the judgement bit. So I would argue that hitting something due to the speed you are travelling is a problem attributable to lack of judgement, and speed is just a symptom of that lack of judgement. It can be a problem at 20 or 30mph in an urban area as much as it can be at 90mph on a clear motorway.
Seems to me the police are doing the bare minimum for speeding
I think they probably resource speeding about appropriately as it stands, but it seems to be the only issue* they deal with unless something happens, e.g. an accident. This week on my bike I was overtaken by cars leaving less than a metre gap between them and my bar end. They were probably both people who would claim to be good drivers because they don't speed.
On a related note, when people learn to drive is there an element of car handling still? For example, my instructor taught me how to handle a car through a bend, where to brake and accelerate to get the car through in the most controlled manner, and also to drive up to the speed limit. I remember being taught how to safely overtake a cyclist. At the time driving much beneath the limit without reason would have been either a test failure or at least a point, or at least that's what I was told. If it's a 50, aim to drive at 50.
*OK, I'm probably exaggerating. They obviously deal with lots of other issues such as drink driving, but general standards seem to me to be dropping and nothing's being done about it.
So would you like someone to do a potentially deadly manoeuvre that they are not confident in doing just for your convenience?
Who said that? My point is if its safe for me (and its always safe) to overtake two or three cars, why can't the guy in second place overtake one?
I'm sorry but queue jumpers really boil my piss. I'm next in line, I'll go when I consider it safe. You do not get to barge your way past and take other people's opportunities just because you are impatient.
Does it happen a lot to you then have I touched a nerve? Do you do a lot of caravanning? 😀
If you thought some old granny was taking too long at the checkout would you elbow your way past from four people back and force your way through? Of course not. So why the flying F do you think it's ok to do that in a car?
Roads aren't supermaket queues. One is the primary route of communication in this country, the other is where you buy your shopping. I've yet to see a supermarket queue with a dashed white line down the middle.
they had thats why there was a queue of 12 carsIf people have blatantly squandered loads of clear opportunities then maybe,
Thing is there is a lot of single carraigeway roads in Scotland, sometimes the majority of a 100 mile journey can be single carraigeway A-road. Not overtaking could add an hour to a two hour journey
Not overtaking could add an hour to a two hour journey
When did we all become so prissy about overtaking anyway?
Barely anyone does it nowadays, maybe it's just me but I'm sure it used to be a lot more common. It's a valid manoeuvre and perfectly legal when conducted in a safe manner. If you have a faster car you can overtake safely in less space than a slower car and as such have more option to overtake multiple vehicles. It's kind of why you are taught to look in your mirror before starting an overtake.
My point is if its safe for me (and its always safe) to overtake two or three cars, why can't the guy in second place overtake one?
You should let them make that choice, not you. Lots of people do things that I consider not safe, but they do. They might not have as fast of a car as you, they might be less confident doing it. These things all have an effect.
I've seen people tear past queues of cars quite recklessly. They must have thought it was safe, but any other fool could see it wasn't. I've also had people floor it from behind me when there's a small space [i]that I was going to take myself[/i] but they prevented me from doing so.
There's nothing that brings out the utter c0ck in some people more than a queue of cars, and apparently they often invent reasons to justify it too.
As above, there are sometimes situations where you have to overtake two cars when one isn't going to, but there are many more examples of uttery bastardry. Apologies if you are the former not the latter. But I still rankle at the idea that making rapid progress is a basic right, and anyone who is not driving the speed limit is scum.
Does it happen a lot to you then have I touched a nerve?
It does happen a lot because I live in Wales, but I am not the slow driver. I've only taken the caravan out three times, and for a total of about 20 miles on single carriageway roads.
Roads aren't supermaket queues.
A queue of traffic IS a queue of people. They are the exact same thing.
they had thats why there was a queue of 12 cars
There are many many roads where I live that are almost constantly windy. It doesn't take very long for a queue of 12 to build up. I strongly object to at the first straight some arsehole from the back coming tearing by making everyone else miss the opportunity. Very very poor, you cannot defend that.
Donk if you drive down snake pass fast without smoothness you'll come unstuck within 2m's. Its more unforgiving than woodhead in someways... But then you are an internet pugilist and probably an international mans fallic symbol 😉
Speed down there without common sense and Darwin awaits at the drystone walls, damp under trees, undulations, trees or dirt at the side of the road.
If anything there's one long unsighted section that should be double solid white lines as its lethal for overtakers/oncoming.
(Glossop towards Ladybower dipping downhill towards the rightnhander before the pub). Circa 1mile long with two blind bits on the long straight.
Partly related to speed and partly to bad/unobservant driving:
I was on the motorway last weekend and was sitting there quite happily with the cruise control on at an indicated 70mph. Not the fastest car on the road but not the slowest. Traffic was light and anything I needed to overtake I could see well in advance, find a gap and move out, overtake then pull back in. Drove for about 40 minutes without once needing to touch the cruise control.
But there was one car which spoilt it all. He'd overtake at 80, next thing he'd be sitting in the middle lane at 50, then 60, 50, 80, 50, 70. He was all over the road speedwise. I'd overtake at my steady 70, a few minutes later and whoosh, he'd go flying by only for me to see him a few minutes later doing 50. Just sheer bad driving, no attention to anything and seemingly no idea of his actions.
And as for flashing lights to warn people of a speed camera ahead, no. I want them to get caught.
Theres the matter of kinetic energy being proportional to the square of your speed too, so drive twice as fast and it takes four times the distance to stop, and car will do four times as much damage when it hits something.
I'll hit hazards if there's a sheep/parked car due to a motorcyclist off (last week) but never flash to warn of a van. They are adults but I do sometimes see a camera van as pointless and ^ road markings more important on some roads.
True, but it's not the whole picture
Of course it's not, I never claimed it was.
There are a lot of people who look like they are trying to justify speeding by saying other things are also bad. Rubbish arguing. Why worry about Ghadafi? Hitler was way worse.
There are of course many factors that create danger on the roads, but only one of them is easy to check and legislate for. When someone invents a 'not paying attention' camera, I'm sure that'll really help.
Threads should automatically close when someone says the H word
There are a lot of people who look like they are trying to justify speeding by saying other things are also bad. Rubbish arguing.
I think my point is that speeding is a symptom of poor driving where it is inappropriate, but in itself is not necessarily bad. It is illegal, but as we know all things that are illegal are not necessarily bad.
Anyway, our favourite badly moustached dictator has been thrown in to the argument now, so I fear the argument has become unwinnable.
speeding is no where near as bad as using a phone to text while driving
Hitler? Well he did speed through Poland, Belgium and France. Luckily speed cameras of Kent dissuaded him.
I think my point is that speeding is a symptom of poor driving where it is inappropriate, but in itself is not necessarily bad. It is illegal, but as we know all things that are illegal are not necessarily bad
Of course, but again two things:
a) people as a whole aren't good at judging if speed is appropriate or not, especially when ensconced in a nice secure car. You don't notice how fast 70mph is until you have to stop in a hurry.
b) traffic in general flows much much better if everyone is doing about the same speed. A reasonable speed limit would be a good way of encouraging this if people would go no faster or slower.
slow to 50mph for the cameras
Well I want to be in sharp focus with hair and lippy just so.
Yes it is. People driving well below the speed limit are few in number, and cause a minor delay on the rare occassion that you get stuck behind them.
That is just so laughable. I'm glad I don't have to drive to work anymore, people who do this doubled the time it used to take me to drive eight miles to work over the thirteen years I worked in Calne.
When I started I was driving a Chevette, and I could do door to door in twelve minutes, and a Chevette hardly encourages speeding. By the time I left that job I was driving a Puma, and on a fine, clear dry morning it took me twenty five minutes to do the same distance because a line of cars were doing an indicated 35 mph on an indicated 60 stretch. Because there were a couple of accidents caused by frustrated drivers trying to overtake the limit was dropped to 50, and now it's not unusual on that stretch of the A4 to find yourself behind a car doing an indicated 30, which means 27mph in reality.
That's insane, and [i]that's[/i] often what causes accidents, not sheer speed. This I personally observed over thirteen years driving the same route every day, so don't anybody tell me it doesn't happen, because it bloody well does, just like the shithead in front tonight who kept speeding up, then slowing down as soon as the speed got up to 50ish.
That sort of poor driving causes accidents for the same reason; frustration with such idiotic behaviour causes other drivers to attempt to overtake at the first opportunity, not always the[i]best[/i] opportunity.
If drivers did 50 or 60 where that's the limit, that would be fine, but I've followed drivers on a dead straight dry road in sports cars like Merc 230 SLC Kompressors doing 40 in a 60 limit, and it happens lots of times.
Maybe it's a southern thing, perhaps TJ terrifies drivers further north and they drive in a more sensible fashion.
Or maybe, because he doesn't drive a car, he's not in a position to actually notice what other drivers do.