Forum menu
everyone else drives so horrifically slowly you wonder how anyone gets anywhere.
Coffeeking is AWEsome.
I regularly get overtaken when on my motorbike, in really dangerous ways, when doing an indicated 35 in 30 zones. Never a ****in plod around, the other classic is people trying to overtake in 30 zones just before i get to a 60. Couple of weeks ago i was overtaken/cut up (stupid cow in discovery nearly hit me) in 20 zone.
everyone else drives so horrifically slowly you wonder how anyone gets anywhere
they leave earlier, you should try it sometime.
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 that's often what causes accidents,
While I can appreciate that the catalytic effect of the slow driver, the fault of any accident caused in the case you mentioned is caused by the frustrated driver.
You and only you are responsible for the your driving. Regardless of what you are stuck behind, where you are going, how quickly you want to get there. You and only you only have control over your actions. So if you overtake in a dangerous manner it is not the person being overtaken that is at fault. IMO anyone who cannot see that should have their licence removed as they are clearly unfit to be in charge of a vehicle that has the potential to kill.
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.
Yes you can defend that. It's frustrating as hell when you want to get somewhwere to see that despite being a perfectly legal manoeuvre, most other drivers seem to have a built in fear of overtaking these days. Either that or they have an inbuilt hatred of other people overtaking them and will flash their lights at you for a perfectly safe overtake - but that's another topic.
If I were to sit behind this queue of 12 cars then the likelyhood is that no–one will overtake and I'll never get past the slow moving lorry that's holding everything up etc. Even at the first sign of a perfectly safe overtaking oppeortunity, often the zombies infront will just sit there and do nothing. So the only option left is to overtake a long line of traffic (or in your eyes to queue jump). I have a very fast car so this can be done safely in the minimum possible time.
Because my car is quicker than most then it opens up oppertunities to safely overtake that other cars can't make use of. So again that's not queue jumping is it?
Maybe just chill out next time and realise that to make the most of an overtaking opportunity you actually do have to take that opportunity. It's no good sitting there being indecisive and then moaning that someone else took 'YOUR' opportunity that was staring you straight in the face.
I'm talking about when I am sitting behind a car, waiting to go, and looking like I am about to go, and someone else forces their way through.
It's rude, and morally wrong, because it is queue jumping and cannot be defended.
If I were to sit behind this queue of 12 cars then the likelyhood is that no–one will overtake
Like fk, you think that we won't to justify your queue jumping.
Maybe just chill out next time and realise that to make the most of an overtaking opportunity you actually do have to take that opportunity
I take plenty of opportunities. As I said, I live in Wales, overtaking is something you do constantly. What I don't like is waiting patiently for my chance and then someone else taking it away from me. Like I say that is indefensible. I don't care how fast your **** car is, you wait your bloody turn.
I'll never get past the slow moving lorry
OH DIDDUMS!
We could never have that, could we? You clearly deserve so much more!
As I said - it's people forcing me to miss my opportunities that I hate. When I'm signalling and about to pull out and I can't because someone else is bombing past.
I also hate it when people jump the queue further back. If I'm in car 5 waiting patiently, some **** muscles in and oh look I'm car 6. Now I'm car 7. There's nothign I can do about that. If I tried to queue jump too then the whole thing would become a stupidly dangerous scrap.
There'd be fights if this happened anywhere else.
People resent speed cameras because they feel that it's just revenue raising at the cost of actual policing,
Been burgled...sorry cant attend..too busy.
Bike nicked....can't attend..too busy
Involved in an accident..can't attend..too busy
But go for a drive.. and they're all hiding behind a bush with a speed camera, a lot of people feel there are other issues that the plod could be dealing with rather than topping up the coffers with speeding fines....
I'm talking about when I am sitting behind a car, waiting to go, and looking like I am about to go, and someone else forces their way through.It's rude, and morally wrong, because it is queue jumping and cannot be defended.
Well if I'm preventing you from overtaking by overtaking the whole queue, that means you've not been using the opportunity to overtake. The person in front [b]always[/b] gets the opportunity to overtake first, so you should already be pulling out - or at least indicating right - before I get to you. I'm quite happy to let somebody else in front overtake and won't try and force my way past if they're doing so - if others are overtaking then the supermarket queue analogy holds, and it's their turn first. If the people in front aren't overtaking (as determined by the fact they haven't done anything at the point the overtake becomes safe for me), then it is no longer a supermarket queue, as they aren't actually trying to be served.
"If I were to sit behind this queue of 12 cars then the likelyhood is that no–one will overtake"
Like fk, you think that we won't to justify your queue jumping.
Seriously? You say you experience a lot of queues when driving, and you've really never experienced the queue of people none of whom is overtaking despite plenty of decent opportunities? Are you telling me that you'll only ever overtake when you're directly behind the car at the front of the queue? You can't do that much overtaking apart from when you encounter single cars.
Of course there are c*cks who go before it's safe and force their way past, but I overtake whole queues without doing that, so don't tell me what I'm doing is wrong because of them.
"I'll always flash my lights to warn others as I feel speeding is nowhere near as major crime as shoplifting. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's no real crime at all"
And we let idiots like this have access to the outside world! 👿
All crime is wrong. Speeding kills. And more to the point hurts others. If you kill yourself then thats great. One less idiot in the gene pool. What about the innocent.
Why does this uselss country condone crime. How about a whopping ban and a decent fine instead. 3 points and 60 quid isn't even a slap on the wrist. What about £5000? That would slow a few down!
When I'm signalling and about to pull out and I can't because someone else is bombing past.
Ever use your mirrors? 'cos if you did you'd see 'someone else bombing past' so shouldn't be signalling & be about to pull out until the other vehicle was past you.
Speeding kills
No it doesn't. Just watched qualifying for the Chinese G.P. Lots of cars 'speeding' & no-one was kiled.
People resent speed cameras because they feel that it's just revenue raising at the cost of actual policing
Been burgled...sorry cant attend..too busy.
Bike nicked....can't attend..too busy
Involved in an accident..can't attend..too busy
But go for a drive.. and they're all hiding behind a bush with a speed camera, a lot of people feel there are other issues that the plod could be dealing with rather than topping up the coffers with speeding fines....
They may feel that way, but they should probably get their facts straight. Cameras cost more to maintain and operate than the 'revenue' they generate. And they're generally not operated by police officers. So there's two of your myths blown out of the water.
Educate yourself.
Have a look at the criteria needed to have a static gatso camera set up: at least 3 [i]speed[/i] related deaths, or very serious injury on a short stretch of road within a limited amount of years. 2 [i]speed[/i] related deaths needed to have a mobile camera put in place.
Those sites are all too often campaigned for (not against) by the local residents who have been affected by those deaths first hand, and/or generally feel the road to be unsafe.
I haven't seen a copper in a bush with a speed camera for about 10 years. They don't waste their time with that shit anymore. Technology has moved on.
Have a look at the criteria needed to have a static gatso camera set up: at least 3 speed related deaths, or very serious injury on a short stretch of road within a limited amount of years. 2 speed related deaths needed to have a mobile camera put in place.
Not true. Even when those rules were in place (when it was required to retain the revenue - there has never been any absolute accident requirement for a camera, otherwise how do you explain cameras on brand new stretches of road?), it was actually accidents within a given distance - they didn't have to be on the same road. Hence injuries and deaths in an urban 30 limit could be used to justify a camera on the accident free 70 limit bypass.
Speeding kills.
As I've been done for speeding twice, you mean I've killed people without even noticing? 😯 Given most people speed every time they drive, it's amazing how they keep the carnage quiet.
The most recent was for 57 in a 50. On a bit of road that used to be a 70, and is perfectly safe at that speed - I'm fairly sure that particular stretch has had no accidents (though the bit a few miles further down where it had been a 50 for a lot longer has dodgy junctions, and hence gets accidents - which bit do they enforce the speed on?)
Not true. Even when those rules were in place (when it was required to retain the revenue - there has never been any absolute accident requirement for a camera, otherwise how do you explain cameras on brand new stretches of road?), it was actually accidents within a given distance - they didn't have to be on the same road. Hence injuries and deaths in an urban 30 limit could be used to justify a camera on the accident free 70 limit bypass.
I've never seen cameras on brand new stretches of road, personally.
I'm sure there are loopholes. And I'm sure at times they are abused. And I'm sure the the wording of my post will not stand up in a court of law. But I don't intend to go scouring through papers so I can cite the law word for word. Not for a discussion on STW. Not today anyway, I have a bike waiting to be ridden 😉
But that info was largely true when I last checked, not very long ago. And I also know the very legitimate history behind the speed cameras near to me, which back it up.
Long story short....there's a big difference between the facts and general public perception.
I'm talking about when I am sitting behind a car, waiting to go, and looking like I am about to go, and someone else forces their way through.
How are you looking like you want to go? Have you actually pulled almost fully out into the opposite lane to check properly for traffic from the other direction? Are you indicating whilst doing so? Can other drivers be in no doubt that you are commencing your manouvre? Or are you still thinking about going and just assume that because you are directly behind the slow moving vehicle then it's your automatic right to go first?
It's rude, and morally wrong, because it is queue jumping and cannot be defended.
Perhaps you ought to read the highway code?
I also hate it when people jump the queue further back. If I'm in car 5 waiting patiently, some **** muscles in and oh look I'm car 6. Now I'm car 7. There's nothign I can do about that.
And what's wrong with that? Sometimes it's unsafe to overtake the whole queue of traffic infront and it's safer to do it in stages. Again this suggests that if you are the one who wanted to overtake and were further up the queue why haven't you taken the oppertunity that was there infront of you? Maybe you could do with a faster car?
Most people aren't sociopaths, so they flash their lights to let other people know that the speed cameras are up ahead. Society as a whole benefits.
Fewer people speeding = fewer speeding fines and accidents caused by speeding.
there's a big difference between the facts and [s]general public[/s] my perception.
FTFY
Very clever, aracer. An enlightening contribution you've offered there. Tell me why it's not true. Show me the evidence. I'll look forward to it when I get back.
Either that or they have an inbuilt hatred of other people overtaking them and will flash their lights at you for a perfectly safe overtake - but that's another topic.
People who flash you after you've overtaken them are just venting their impotent rage caused by a lack of self esteem. By overtaking you are demonstrating your huge motor-genitals, proving that you are the alpha male. You are faster, better, more important, doubly so if you drive a better car than them. You might as well have fingered their wife.
They may feel that way, but they should probably get their facts straight. Cameras cost more to maintain and operate than the 'revenue' they generate. And they're generally not operated by police officers. So there's two of your myths blown out of the water.
Rubbish! Most are operated by the police round here...I have eyes....The man in van type things seem to be getting scarcer and the police van-car-2 motorbikes scene is common...
Educate yourself
🙄
I haven't seen a copper in a bush with a speed camera for about 10 years. They don't waste their time with that shit anymore. Technology has moved on
Technology may have moved on but the same principle applies IMO..
People will resent speed cameras while they feel other aspects of policing are being neglected,
This might be of interest...
http://www.speedcameras.org/speed_cameras_guidelines.htm
Selective reading would justify either side of the argument however it does confirm the number of fatalities as just one of several potential criteria.
PS the site supports removal of certain cameras so don't click on the link if this is likely to make you foam at the mouth 🙂
CountZero 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.
You need to do some basic maths - average speeds do not drop that much when maximums are reduced for whatever reason. Unless you were speed ridiculously then no way on earth does a slow driver double your time. Do the maths
a
nd 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 that's often what causes accidents, not sheer speed.
utter nonsense -what cause the accidents is impatient fools overtaking / speeding inappropriately Why are you so important / in such a hurry?
People resent speed cameras because they feel that it's just revenue raising at the cost of actual policing,
Been burgled...sorry cant attend..too busy.
Bike nicked....can't attend..too busy
Involved in an accident..can't attend..too busy
But go for a drive.. and they're all hiding behind a bush with a speed camera, a lot of people feel there are other issues that the plod could be dealing with rather than topping up the coffers with speeding fines.
How many people get killed in burglaries
How many people get killed when having their bikes stolen
How many people get killed as a result of road traffic accidents
where should police concentrate their efforts?
where should police concentrate their efforts?
On the main factors which result in people being killed?
On the main factors which result in people being killed?
speed then?
speed then?
7% is "main"?
Dunno depends what the other percentages are. I would say if.your too unobservant to see the sins for the speed limit or signs for the camera or even the camera then you deserve points and a fine and it'll still catch many a crap driver.
You been caught much?
This thread is amazing. Some of the contorted logic and absolutely laughable attempts at logical arguments really do take the cake. Like this one:
As I've been done for speeding twice, you mean I've killed people without even noticing? Given most people speed every time they drive, it's amazing how they keep the carnage quiet
Honestly, get a grip ffs.
Well if I'm preventing you from overtaking by overtaking the whole queue, that means you've not been using the opportunity to overtake
Nope. An opportunity comes along, the person in front goes, and the person 8 cars back passes three cars. The cars in 5, 6, and 7 haven't had the chance to pass yet, because they are back in the queue. That's how queues work. I can't see why you can't see a problem here.
Have you actually pulled almost fully out into the opposite lane to check properly for traffic from the other direction? Are you indicating whilst doing so? Can other drivers be in no doubt that you are commencing your manouvre?
Yes! That's why I get annoyed! Alright I'm not fully in the opposite lane but I'm on the white line craning my head around the car looking down the road. I start to signal, look in my mirrors and bam, Mr ****face is charging through, outta my way you scumbags.
Honestly, get a grip ffs.
I think the person saying "speed kills" is the one who needs to get a grip. I've done 600mph without dying, so it's plainly incorrect.
Look at me look at me I'm stupid........... Your funny......tell us some other things you've done.
'speed kills' is such a weaselly, disingenuous phrase.
Inappropriate speed is often be a causal factor in an accident.
A percentage of drivers habitually break the speed limits, and a percentage occasionally do so. So a percentage of accidents will have speed as a 'factor' purely statistically. It is automatically assumed that because it present it was contributory; but there is a difference between 'was a speeding driver involved' and 'did a speeding driver cause it'. However,
In an accident, the faster you are travelling, the more severe the consequences are likely to be.
Eg, I go skydiving, and the parachute fails. I hit the ground at (ho ho) terminal velocity. Splat, dead. Conclusion: speed kills; if I'd been going slower, I'd have barely felt it. Whilst true, it misses the point that the cause of the accident was that my parachute failed.
Whilst the 'speed kills' campaign should be applauded for attempting to reduce the [i]consequences [/i]of accidents, I think that their efforts would be better spent teaching people how to avoid having them in the first place.
OK - let's say I'm number 8 in the "queue" to overtake. Its been a while and no one has gone, so I decide, seeing a good opportunity, to go for it. How am I supposed to know which of the drivers ahead of me is (a) planning to overtake, (b) happy to sit in the queue? Surely, once I'm committed to the manoeuvre, it's safer for me to pass everyone cleanly and not be trying to cut in between each car in order to wait a while and suss out if that driver is wanting to overtake?
If I've been able to overtake safely from 8 cars back, then the drivers who [i]do[/i] want to overtake and I then pass are either not paying attention or have positioned themselves so badly behind the preceding vehicle that their view is impaired.
Incidentally, veering dangerously back on topic,
Isn't flashing lights to warn people of speed traps actually illegal? I'm sure people have been done for it, 'perverting the course of justice' or some such, perhaps.
Indeed couger but the fact remains if the police focus on speed they catch a significant number of unobservant and over confident and impatient morons so its all good.
Last I heard, being a moron wasn't against the law.
More's the pity.
As someone already said - think of it as a "poor observation" fine. As regards regards headlamp flashing, doesn't the Highway Code say something about flashing only to be done to alert other road users to your existence?
I think the person saying "speed kills" is the one who needs to get a grip. I've done 600mph without dying, so it's plainly incorrect
Dear me.
Nobody is saying that simply increasing your speed causes death. It's so obvious that I can't believe you think that we are saying that. Why are you even bothering to type out things like that? You are being ridiculous.
The 'speed kills' slogan is NOT a basic statement of physical fact, quite bloody obviously (and we've been over this time and time again). It is a warning against driving too fast for the conditions.
Many people can drive fast and it wouldn't be dangerous. 90mph on an empty motorway is not dangerous.
The problem is that people are not good at judging what speeds are appropriate, so we need speed limits. I can't believe you don't get this.
You know we didn't have speed limits on motorways originally, and they imposed them because of all the accidents. People were not satisfactorily able to control their speed. You may feel invincible and that you can make better decisions than anyone else, but that's not the point. The law needs to be egalitarian.
Seriously, the speeding thing is not difficult. Just don't speed, drive well, and there's no problem. If you start thinking you ought to be able to go faster then you'll start getting annoyed at speed limits.
Some of you people are like spoiled children being told they can't have ice cream for breakfast.
Oh yeah - back to the flashing lights thing. It slows people down at that exact point, yes, but it lessens the overall deterrent. So you might help speeds for 100 yards or so but that's not the point. The threat of a fine should be stopping you speeding all the time.
Speed is not a right. Neither is using the roads for that matter. So I don't see it as unreasonable that conditions are imposed on your use of the roads.
We didn't used to have speed limits out of town. The NSL sign really meant "end if speed limit". It wad changed to reduce fuel consumption, not accidents.
Some of you people are like spoiled children being told they can't have ice cream for breakfast.
ice cream for breakfast what a great idea!
It wad changed to reduce fuel consumption, not accidents
Sceptical.
The 'speed kills' slogan is NOT a basic statement of physical fact, quite bloody obviously (and we've been over this time and time again). It is a warning against driving too fast for the conditions.
You're right, but, that's not what it says. The slogan should be "inappropriate speed kills". That's why I said I thought it was disingenuous. It's almost as though it's intentionally misleading, hm?
You know we didn't have speed limits on motorways originally, and they imposed them because of all the accidents.
That's not true, I'm afraid. Speed limits were introduced on motorways because motor manufacturers were using the M1 as a test track.
EDIT for fact checking. It was officially introduced as a temporary measure due to fog causing accidents, but AC testing the Cobra at silly speeds was almost certainly a contributory factor (as reported by the media at the time).
I used to drive a lot for work, about 200k miles in 4 years.
Every single time I got in the van I broke the speed limit, sometimes I ate food/drink while driving, and even used the phone!!!!!!!!1111oneoneone
When I left that job, I had 0 points and had only been involved in one incident.
This was with a woman reversing into the front bumper/wing of my van while I was stationary in a car park, because she was too busy faffing around with her make up while her dog jumped around in the back seats.
Outside of work I did several trackdays in my own car, which involved reaching speeds of over 70mph (where fluffy bunnys, kittens and small children died), these were again incident free.
Now either I have godlike driving skills (perhaps), or in actual fact, I am able to perform the task of driving while undertaking some of the other items depending on the conditions at the time which I have judged to be suitable.
The problem is that some people are unable to understand basic physics and judge the conditions for themselves, remember all those morons doing 60mph in the snow because they have a 4x4 which can get enough grip to go, but can it stop, fat chance. Or the people wheel spinning down the road rather than using some throttle control.
The UK is full of idiots fueled by the media, see the latest fuel "shortage" for evidence of this.
Glad I left and can't say I'm missing it much.
Yes! That's why I get annoyed! Alright I'm not fully in the opposite lane but I'm on the white line craning my head around the car looking down the road. I start to signal, look in my mirrors and bam, Mr ****face is charging through, outta my way you scumbags.
Ah then that's your problem. How can someone 12 cars back see that you are craning your neck if you're not even positioned correctly across the white line. They are not mind readers. Ideally for an overtake you want to be almost fully over to the opposite side of the road before you commit to going for it. Only that way can you see all the hazards to the right and left of the vehicle you are about to overtake. If it's good then you go for it. If it's not then you just slot back where you were on the left hand side.
How can someone 12 cars back see that you are craning your neck if you're not even positioned correctly across the white line
They should be waiting their turn. I pull out when it's safe and right.
Jesus Christ. I know how to fin well do it.
I can't believe you are sticking up for people you don't even know, are not on the thread, and have no idea how they act.
I think in the "people vs molgrips" case, you're arguing about different situations.
In a queue of slow moving traffic where people are passing the obstruction when safe to do so, then some hooray further back 'jumping the queue' is a selfish tosser, which I think is what Molgrips is getting at. However, if several passing places have come and gone and no-one's made any attempt to overtake, I'd say it's wholly justified to start moving up the ranks.
Ie, the 'wait your turn' approach is the correct thing to do, but it falls apart if more than just the lead vehicle is perfectly happy trundling along at a third of the limit.
In an ideal world, it'd be nice if something only capable of doing 20mph on a NSL single carriageway would pull over once in a while to allow the tailback to clear. It does happen occasionally but rarely; the only time I've really seen that sort of driving with any regularity is on the rural backroads of Scotland.