An epidemic of insanely slow drivers

[irc]

Tommo87 said:

I think some people drive slowly to hold up other road users as some form of power trip.
When you started overtaking they sped in an attempt to continue winning an imaginary prize.

This true. Fortunately rare but true. So when overtaking I tend to assume it might happen and accelerate harder than required so if I get a speeder by the time he reacts I have enough speed advantage he isn't causing me problems.

[The Wookie]

LunarOne said:

See also trains, tubes. People are so self-absorbed and entitled these days that it never crosses their little minds that it's better for everyone to let passengers off at stops before attempting to board.

fking drives me insane that does, I can at least understand how lack of ability can lead to someone being an annoying and incompetent driver but how fking hard is it to work out that you can't get on the full train until you've allowed people to disembark first.

It's just utterly ignorant, selfish fking stupid fkery.

[trails]

The Wookie said:

LunarOne said:

See also trains, tubes. People are so self-absorbed and entitled these days that it never crosses their little minds that it's better for everyone to let passengers off at stops before attempting to board.

fking drives me insane that does, I can at least understand how lack of ability can lead to someone being an annoying and incompetent driver but how fking hard is it to work out that you can't get on the full train until you've allowed people to disembark first.

It's just utterly ignorant, selfish fking stupid fkery.

Was about to post the very same thing...used to be just an issue on the underground, but it's crept out to over ground stations too now.

Dumbasses everywhere.

[fflump]

Tommo87 said:

I think some people drive slowly to hold up other road users as some form of power trip.
When you started overtaking they sped in an attempt to continue winning an imaginary prize.


It’s not unlike some NP&E regulars who jump on every thread to berate others simply, for the same feelings of power.

There are at least as many that are just plain incompetent rather than malevolent.
I regularly drive the A702 from Edinburgh to Abington/M74. Always get caught up in a convoy behind someone not going at the sufficient speed considering by the road and conditions. Quite often the culprit seems incapable of taking any corner or mild curve without dabbing the brakes and crawling round, before finding the accelerator on straight sections, making overtaking a hazardous business. When driving in Ireland I have seen signs telling drivers to pull over if they are causing a tailback. This strikes me as a good idea as ultimately it will improve traffic flow, reduce frustration and lower risks associated with overtaking.

[DonkeyApple]

LunarOne said:

See also trains, tubes. People are so self-absorbed and entitled these days that it never crosses their little minds that it's better for everyone to let passengers off at stops before attempting to board.

Used to just be tourists but it's now the locals who try and barge on like savages. I've never been averse to shoving them back in their place along with verbal instructions. They know what manners are but just can't help their greed and selfishness. Only issue I have these days is that now I'm older you do get a few who have a think about pushing back.

[fflump]

DonkeyApple said:

LunarOne said:

See also trains, tubes. People are so self-absorbed and entitled these days that it never crosses their little minds that it's better for everyone to let passengers off at stops before attempting to board.

Used to just be tourists but it's now the locals who try and barge on like savages. I've never been averse to shoving them back in their place along with verbal instructions. They know what manners are but just can't help their greed and selfishness. Only issue I have these days is that now I'm older you do get a few who have a think about pushing back.

I would not actively shove anyone as they can legitimately accuse you of assault.

[monkfish1]

fflump said:

Tommo87 said:

I think some people drive slowly to hold up other road users as some form of power trip.
When you started overtaking they sped in an attempt to continue winning an imaginary prize.


It’s not unlike some NP&E regulars who jump on every thread to berate others simply, for the same feelings of power.

There are at least as many that are just plain incompetent rather than malevolent.
I regularly drive the A702 from Edinburgh to Abington/M74. Always get caught up in a convoy behind someone not going at the sufficient speed considering by the road and conditions. Quite often the culprit seems incapable of taking any corner or mild curve without dabbing the brakes and crawling round, before finding the accelerator on straight sections, making overtaking a hazardous business. When driving in Ireland I have seen signs telling drivers to pull over if they are causing a tailback. This strikes me as a good idea as ultimately it will improve traffic flow, reduce frustration and lower risks associated with overtaking.

Not sure signs wil be much use. You need to look in the rear view mirror to know there is a queue. Those types almost certainly dont look in the mirror.

Having a nice pleasant drive with nothing in front.

[DonkeyApple]

fflump said:

I would not actively shove anyone as they can legitimately accuse you of assault.

I wouldn't dream of shoving someone!! But some people do walk into me very harshly and require reprimand for their assault on me.

[simon_harris]

Unreal said:

LunarOne said:

M4cruiser said:

bigothunter said:

M4cruiser said:

AlexNJ89 said:

Who was at fault here?
https://twitter.com/one_ernie/status/1770009972853...

Lorry driver should obviously have backed off ...

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

"Unreal"'s comment is relevant. We can't really judge from just 6 seconds of film. You can swing it either way, depending on circumstances. But, given that we have only 6 seconds of film, it does look like the car driver made an initial poor judgment that he/she could speed up and get in front of the lorry, at which point the lorry driver should slow down, and accommodate someone else's mistake, but instead chose to keep at 56mph. Both at fault to a degree, but quite how much is impossible to determine without the full picture.

We CAN judge from 6 seconds of film. In fact we only need two frames. In frame one, the car is not in the path of the lorry on a high-speed road. In the second frame a second or two later, the car is partially in the same lane as the lorry despite there not being space. You seem to be of the opinion that drivers must give way to accommodate the stupidity/bloody-mindedness of others.

In a perfect world, the truck could have made a bit of space by braking to let the car in. But that's assuming that the lorry driver had seen the car driver's idiotic manoeuvre. The camera is pressed up against the glass windscreen of the lorry cab, but that's exactly where the lorry driver's eyes are not. Instead, his or her eyes are mounted in his/her head which is on the right hand side of the cab and a metre to a metre and a half back from the glass where there is a much more restricted view forward. What is happening directly in front of the nearside front wheel is obscured.

And even if the lorry driver had seen the car creep up it's clear there's nowhere near enough space to merge, so the lorry driver would likely not have imagined that the driver was actually going to try to push in.

And even if the lorry driver had had the wildest of wild imaginations, he may not have even had the capacity to slow down suddenly. Lorries have a much-reduced ability to change speed when compared with cars, and sometimes on downhill gradients, they have no ability to slow down at all. That's why on gradients like these, gravel traps exist for drivers to use.

M4 Cruiser, I might guess that you are one of those moronic people who use their indicators to demand that a space opens up in the lane next to you, and if it doesn't, you force your way in anyway. These drivers have still not realised that it's "mirror - signal - manoeuvre" exactly to prevent this kind of thing. Identify a suitable space, signal intent to move into suitable space, and then move into suitable space. You do NOT signal to ask someone to make room for you. And by the way, a suitable space is at LEAST SEVEN car lengths (three in front, three behind, plus your own car), not barely one and a half like we see in that video.

You can judge all right, but that is based on a range of assumptions. I'd make the same assessment as most people based purely on that clip, but I'd have to add the proviso that there might have been other factors at play. A single new piece of information could change that view and prove it to be completely wrong.

We need no judgement at all, the give way line clearly indicates who has right of way and that is not the joining car. Worst case scenario he should have stopped at the line and not attempted to join. I see M4Crusiers moronic attitude at play here, what I am doing is more important that what is legal (or right) so you must accomodate to my actions.

[RaineyDays]

I too have seen an increase, it’s so frustrating

[911Spanker]

trails said:

The Wookie said:

LunarOne said:

See also trains, tubes. People are so self-absorbed and entitled these days that it never crosses their little minds that it's better for everyone to let passengers off at stops before attempting to board.

fking drives me insane that does, I can at least understand how lack of ability can lead to someone being an annoying and incompetent driver but how fking hard is it to work out that you can't get on the full train until you've allowed people to disembark first.

It's just utterly ignorant, selfish fking stupid fkery.

Was about to post the very same thing...used to be just an issue on the underground, but it's crept out to over ground stations too now.

Dumbasses everywhere.

Public transport is bad for your health. To be avoided at all costs.

[irc]

911Spanker said:

Public transport is bad for your health. To be avoided at all costs.

Some truth in this.


https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/dirty-a...

[wc98]

fflump said:

There are at least as many that are just plain incompetent rather than malevolent.
I regularly drive the A702 from Edinburgh to Abington/M74. Always get caught up in a convoy behind someone not going at the sufficient speed considering by the road and conditions. Quite often the culprit seems incapable of taking any corner or mild curve without dabbing the brakes and crawling round, before finding the accelerator on straight sections, making overtaking a hazardous business. When driving in Ireland I have seen signs telling drivers to pull over if they are causing a tailback. This strikes me as a good idea as ultimately it will improve traffic flow, reduce frustration and lower risks associated with overtaking.

This^. I used to drive that road regularly, still do on occasion (fantastic driving/riding road unless you were the poor sod that got a year inside for speeding on his GSXR 750, i would jail all the people involved in doing that to him if i was in charge). I would also have stop lights at the entrance to every village on all A and B roads that would hopefully over time educate the 45 everywhere brigade that are also on the increase.

[DonkeyApple]

irc said:

911Spanker said:

Public transport is bad for your health. To be avoided at all costs.

Some truth in this.


https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/dirty-a...

It's certainly another thing to go spending out money on but the reality is that even regular commuters are not being exposed on a daily basis on the tube for prolonged periods and much of the pm2.5 is organic, being mugwort pollen and human skin etc.

The real air quality issues and risks are in people's homes which is where they typically spend between 12 and 24 hours a day breathing toxic air that is often far dirtier than the air outside.

But there is no money to be taken for pointing out the poor lifestyle choices of most people in their domestic environment.

[bigothunter]

DonkeyApple said:

It's certainly another thing to go spending out money on but the reality is that even regular commuters are not being exposed on a daily basis on the tube for prolonged periods and much of the pm2.5 is organic, being mugwort pollen and human skin etc.

Metallic particles too.

Cambridge University said:

The London Underground is polluted with ultrafine metallic particles small enough to end up in the human bloodstream, according to University of Cambridge researchers. These particles are so small that they are likely being underestimated in surveys of pollution in the world’s oldest metro system.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/london-underground-p...

[DonkeyApple]

bigothunter said:

DonkeyApple said:

It's certainly another thing to go spending out money on but the reality is that even regular commuters are not being exposed on a daily basis on the tube for prolonged periods and much of the pm2.5 is organic, being mugwort pollen and human skin etc.

Metallic particles too.

Cambridge University said:

The London Underground is polluted with ultrafine metallic particles small enough to end up in the human bloodstream, according to University of Cambridge researchers. These particles are so small that they are likely being underestimated in surveys of pollution in the world’s oldest metro system.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/london-underground-p...

And what is their risk?

And how does that risk when time exposure adjusted compare to domestic pollution of known carcinogens?

We do need to step back from the particulate propaganda and engage some common sense. For example, can you find the TfL pm2.5 data that is ex organics? And then the data on the toxin carrying ability of the non organic share? No you can't. We can work it out, as we have been able to since the invention of the SEM and so so in almost any research facility so why doesn't TfL data do this?

As for domestic air quality, chuck in VOCs, plastics off gassing, closed windows, hob cooking, gas boiler, some twunt vaping, the loser cat and dog epidemic and the general slovenliness of the typical punter and you have people breathing toxic soup for 20 hours a day and crapping themselves about mugwort and lime tree particulates outside which the human lungs have evolved millions of years ago to process harmlessly, along with most inorganic particulates in light load. And then we have the lunacy of deliberately hindering traffic flow as well as LTNs overloading main thoroughfares but a bit of skin and iron ore down in the tube is what's going to get people.

You're also less likely to get your lungs open up by some child of the damned on the Tube than on the bus or pavement because there are pricing and security hurdles that keep most of the feral scum out.

[The Wookie]

911Spanker said:

Public transport is bad for your health. To be avoided at all costs.

To be fair choosing any means of transport to get into London or most UK city centres is a bit like choosing which orifice you’d prefer to have a red hot poker inserted into

Driving - Misery, expensive, stupid limits, engineered congestion, unpredictable Uber pilots looking to crash into you at every turn

Cycling - Misery, wet in the winter, hot in the summer, sore arse, sweaty when you arrive, not practical for arriving from any significant distance

Train/Tube - Misery, negotiating swarms of fkwits, catch any lurgy that’s circulating, about as reliable as a governmental party manifesto

Bus - Misery, slow, noisy, uncomfortable, possibility of getting stabbed

[Hoofy]

The Wookie said:

911Spanker said:

Public transport is bad for your health. To be avoided at all costs.

To be fair choosing any means of transport to get into London or most UK city centres is a bit like choosing which orifice you’d prefer to have a red hot poker inserted into

Driving - Misery, expensive, stupid limits, engineered congestion, unpredictable Uber pilots looking to crash into you at every turn

Cycling - Misery, wet in the winter, hot in the summer, sore arse, sweaty when you arrive, not practical for arriving from any significant distance

Train/Tube - Misery, negotiating swarms of fkwits, catch any lurgy that’s circulating, about as reliable as a governmental party manifesto

Bus - Misery, slow, noisy, uncomfortable, possibility of getting stabbed

Nice summary. The only thing is that with a car, you're in your own private space and you can lock the world out. Plus you get from door to door depending on where you're going.

[popeyewhite]

Hoofy said:

The Wookie said:

911Spanker said:

Public transport is bad for your health. To be avoided at all costs.

To be fair choosing any means of transport to get into London or most UK city centres is a bit like choosing which orifice you’d prefer to have a red hot poker inserted into

Driving - Misery, expensive, stupid limits, engineered congestion, unpredictable Uber pilots looking to crash into you at every turn

Cycling - Misery, wet in the winter, hot in the summer, sore arse, sweaty when you arrive, not practical for arriving from any significant distance

Train/Tube - Misery, negotiating swarms of fkwits, catch any lurgy that’s circulating, about as reliable as a governmental party manifesto

Bus - Misery, slow, noisy, uncomfortable, possibility of getting stabbed

Nice summary. The only thing is that with a car, you're in your own private space and you can lock the world out. Plus you get from door to door depending on where you're going.

Locking the world out also means not being poisoned by fumes from other traffic, brake dust. rubber carcinogens etc, as when on a pushbike. Which is the reason I don't cycle.

[M4cruiser]

LunarOne said:

You seem to be of the opinion that drivers must give way to accommodate the stupidity/bloody-mindedness of others.

Well sometimes that is true, yes. When a collision is approaching, every driver has a duty to try to avoid it, no matter who is causing it. With respect to lorries, the new Highway Code Hierarchy applies:-

"But those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others. This principle applies most strongly to drivers of large goods and passenger vehicles, vans/minibuses, cars/taxis and motorcycles."

LunarOne said:

In a perfect world, the truck could have made a bit of space by braking to let the car in. But that's assuming that the lorry driver had seen the car driver's idiotic manoeuvre.

Sometimes the left mirror can show the car approaching. The car appears at first to be accelerating ahead of the lorry but starts to slow - that's odd yes.

LunarOne said:

And even if the lorry driver had had the wildest of wild imaginations, he may not have even had the capacity to slow down suddenly.

Actually he did slow down suddenly after the crash.

LunarOne said:

M4 Cruiser, I might guess that you are one of those moronic people who use their indicators to demand that a space opens up in the lane next to you, and if it doesn't, you force your way in anyway.

No, I'm not.

LunarOne said:

You do NOT signal to ask someone to make room for you.

Well, sometimes you do. If you are running out of acceleration lane, you can ask, but can't assume your request will be accommodated.