Exceed the speed limit? Ever?

[Kawasicki]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Kawasicki said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Kawasicki said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

No driver is going to get prosecuted for travelling at the legal posted limit, but it is possible (though it does not happen nearly enough) for a driver who is deliberately baulking the traffic behind them to be pulled over, and be spoken to.
A driver who is travelling slowly with a line of vehicles built up behind them is clearly driving without due care and attention, and can be prosecuted for doing so.
If a line of traffic is being backed up by a dawdling driver, it is immediately obvious which part of the line of motorists represents the problem vehicle.

what if a driver is deliberately driving at the speed limit with a line of traffic built up behind them?

If a driver is travelling at the posted limit, the only vehicles which would LEGALLY be able to overtake, would be the police and other emergency service vehicles. Any one else doing so would be driving illegally, but that of course, would be their choice.

Yes, but what if the traffic is being backed up behind the driver who is driving at the limit.

I'm interested because I have been caught speeding twice. The second time I was caught I thought I would try actually driving to the speed limit for a couple of days. I often had a queue of people behind me, some of them overtook in dubious situations. I actually thought I was creating a hazard, even though I was driving legally.

If traffic is being backed up by a driver travelling at the posted limit, it probably means the posted limit is lower than it should be for that section of road (but we all know that is the case on so many roads in the UK). But if a driver is travelling at the posted limit, that is all that the drivers behind can actually expect of the driver in front.
If they wish to go faster, then knowing that by doing so, they will be driving illegally, is their choice to make, and pay for if caught by the authorities.
Pressuring the driver of the vehicle in front to break the law and exceed the posted limit is not really on, but expecting drivers to at least travel at the low set legal limits where conditions allow is.
Anyone who cannot, or does not want to travel at the low set legal posted limits, when those around them legally wish to do so, should consider whether they are suited to operating a motorized vehicle on public roads at all, where most of those around them wish to travel at the legal posted limit, (and as discussed above, in some cases in excess of it)

OK, that all makes sense. One question...say one of the drivers that overtook me as I was driving at the limit crashed into oncoming traffic, would I be 100% not to blame, even if it seemed like the speed I was travelling at was unreasonably low (hence the queue of cars behind me).

[Pan Pan Pan]

Kawasicki said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Kawasicki said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Kawasicki said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

No driver is going to get prosecuted for travelling at the legal posted limit, but it is possible (though it does not happen nearly enough) for a driver who is deliberately baulking the traffic behind them to be pulled over, and be spoken to.
A driver who is travelling slowly with a line of vehicles built up behind them is clearly driving without due care and attention, and can be prosecuted for doing so.
If a line of traffic is being backed up by a dawdling driver, it is immediately obvious which part of the line of motorists represents the problem vehicle.

what if a driver is deliberately driving at the speed limit with a line of traffic built up behind them?

If a driver is travelling at the posted limit, the only vehicles which would LEGALLY be able to overtake, would be the police and other emergency service vehicles. Any one else doing so would be driving illegally, but that of course, would be their choice.

Yes, but what if the traffic is being backed up behind the driver who is driving at the limit.

I'm interested because I have been caught speeding twice. The second time I was caught I thought I would try actually driving to the speed limit for a couple of days. I often had a queue of people behind me, some of them overtook in dubious situations. I actually thought I was creating a hazard, even though I was driving legally.

If traffic is being backed up by a driver travelling at the posted limit, it probably means the posted limit is lower than it should be for that section of road (but we all know that is the case on so many roads in the UK). But if a driver is travelling at the posted limit, that is all that the drivers behind can actually expect of the driver in front.
If they wish to go faster, then knowing that by doing so, they will be driving illegally, is their choice to make, and pay for if caught by the authorities.
Pressuring the driver of the vehicle in front to break the law and exceed the posted limit is not really on, but expecting drivers to at least travel at the low set legal limits where conditions allow is.
Anyone who cannot, or does not want to travel at the low set legal posted limits, when those around them legally wish to do so, should consider whether they are suited to operating a motorized vehicle on public roads at all, where most of those around them wish to travel at the legal posted limit, (and as discussed above, in some cases in excess of it)

OK, that all makes sense. One question...say one of the drivers that overtook me as I was driving at the limit crashed into oncoming traffic, would I be 100% not to blame, even if it seemed like the speed I was travelling at was unreasonably low (hence the queue of cars behind me).

I would have to say that like it or not (and many do not) the law is the law, and if the posted limit is say 40mph (even if the road is clearly suitable and possibly was once a safe 50-60 mph road) then 40 mph is the speed that drivers `should' be driving at, where road conditions allow.
But this goes back to my original point. Speed limits are already low set to give the widest spectrum of drivers a reasonable expectation of safety. To deliberately travel even slower than the already low set limits, and baulk most drivers around them who wish to travel at the legal limit (especially if they have hundreds of miles to cover, and need to be at a place at a specified time) is both perverse, and anti social.

[mph1977]

Pan Pan Pan said:

I would have to say that like it or not (and many do not) the law is the law, and if the posted limit is say 40mph (even if the road is clearly suitable and possibly was once a safe 50-60 mph road) then 40 mph is the speed that drivers `should' be driving at, where road conditions allow.
But this goes back to my original point. Speed limits are already low set to give the widest spectrum of drivers a reasonable expectation of safety. To deliberately travel even slower than the already low set limits, and baulk most drivers around them who wish to travel at the legal limit (especially if they have hundreds of miles to cover, and need to be at a place at a specified time) is both perverse, and anti social.

ah we get to the thrust , which typically for PH , revolves around the OPs belief they are so much more important than everyone else

[Kawasicki]

mph1977 said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

I would have to say that like it or not (and many do not) the law is the law, and if the posted limit is say 40mph (even if the road is clearly suitable and possibly was once a safe 50-60 mph road) then 40 mph is the speed that drivers `should' be driving at, where road conditions allow.
But this goes back to my original point. Speed limits are already low set to give the widest spectrum of drivers a reasonable expectation of safety. To deliberately travel even slower than the already low set limits, and baulk most drivers around them who wish to travel at the legal limit (especially if they have hundreds of miles to cover, and need to be at a place at a specified time) is both perverse, and anti social.

ah we get to the thrust , which typically for PH , revolves around the OPs belief they are so much more important than everyone else

I don't understand how you get to that conclusion.

[Pan Pan Pan]

mph1977 said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

I would have to say that like it or not (and many do not) the law is the law, and if the posted limit is say 40mph (even if the road is clearly suitable and possibly was once a safe 50-60 mph road) then 40 mph is the speed that drivers `should' be driving at, where road conditions allow.
But this goes back to my original point. Speed limits are already low set to give the widest spectrum of drivers a reasonable expectation of safety. To deliberately travel even slower than the already low set limits, and baulk most drivers around them who wish to travel at the legal limit (especially if they have hundreds of miles to cover, and need to be at a place at a specified time) is both perverse, and anti social.

ah we get to the thrust , which typically for PH , revolves around the OPs belief they are so much more important than everyone else

How do you manage to twist the fact that most people want to travel at the LEGAL posted limit into something, where wishing to do so makes them more important than anyone else?

[Pan Pan Pan]

mph1977 said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

I would have to say that like it or not (and many do not) the law is the law, and if the posted limit is say 40mph (even if the road is clearly suitable and possibly was once a safe 50-60 mph road) then 40 mph is the speed that drivers `should' be driving at, where road conditions allow.
But this goes back to my original point. Speed limits are already low set to give the widest spectrum of drivers a reasonable expectation of safety. To deliberately travel even slower than the already low set limits, and baulk most drivers around them who wish to travel at the legal limit (especially if they have hundreds of miles to cover, and need to be at a place at a specified time) is both perverse, and anti social.

[/quote

ah we get to the thrust , which typically for PH , revolves around the OPs belief they are so much more important than everyone else

I would say that your comment is a*rse about face. It is the dawdler who believes they are more important than everyone else on the road around them.
Most drivers want to travel at least at the low set posted legal limits, (and if truth be told judging by the number of speed limits/signs, speed cameras etc, many want to travel faster than the low set posted limits if they could do so legally)
But No, the dawdlers approach is `I'will dawdle at below the posted limit, and I don't care how many other drivers around me I baulk, who want to LEGALLY travel at the posted limit, drivers who may have many more miles than me to cover, to reach their destination, whereas I am just bumbling a few miles to the shops, so I can take all the time in the world.
THAT is the selfish, ignorant, arrogant anti social approach to driving speeds.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Friday 8th April 23:45

[mph1977]

Pan Pan Pan,

oh dear me, as Von or Reg has previously pointed out if this were the case there would be more minimum speed limits in place ...

it's a Limit not a target.

[vonhosen]

Pan Pan Pan said:

vonhosen said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

vonhosen said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

No, consideration in the first place, is trying to travel at the legal posted limit wherever that is possible. Baulking someone, and then trying to justify baulking someone, by saying a gap will be left for someone who wishes to overtake/ travel at the legal posted limit is a*se about face.
It requires them to carry out the (potentially dangerous) maneuver of overtaking, which they would not even have had to, had the driver in front been travelling at the legal posted limit. Someone overtaking another driver who is already travelling at the posted limit? Yes that would be illegal, and antisocial.

If it was as you suggest we'd have far more minimum speed limits than we do.
There is no suggestion of baulking & then trying to justify.
There is no offence committed where a driver who decides to travel below the speed limit shows consideration by leaving others opportunity to pass.
You are just trying to foist your personal views as societal views.
You started off with an erroneous statement about motorised vehicles being about the fastest means from A to B & have gone on from there.
It isn't the sole or even primary mover you suggest, but in fact only one of many considerations. Cost is probably more of a primary mover than speed for many. Cost is a reason that people may legitimately choose to temper their speed.
Tomorrow I am travelling 100 miles. I am doing it in the car & will mostly use motorways & dual carriageways.
Next month I am doing a couple of thousand miles journey, I am purposely avoiding motorways & dual carriageways as much as possible.
If speed were the primary mover I'd be flying (& flying would have been cheaper too as it happens). Fastest or cheapest means from A to B in no way figures in the choices involved in that journey.

There is no problem with using roads for fun driving at any speed. But they are not your personal playground. If you are baulking someone who clearly wishes to travel legally at the posted limit, and who may have pressing reasons and a lot more ground to cover than you have, then you are driving in a selfish, anti social manner.
if you do not want to travel at the posted limit, then pull over and let those who do wish to do so go by. That would be the considerate thing to do, and would let both parties travel at the speed they wish / need to. If you can / do wish to travel slowly, then pulling over for those who want to travel at the posted limit, is hardly going to be a problem for you.

People use the roads for a variety of reasons & objectives in doing so, not just yours. Why are their reasons any more selfish than yours? Why should they have to unduly compromise their choices so that you don't have to compromise yours?

When fuel prices rise we see average speeds fall, people's choices change & mpg choices rise over progress choices. The roads & the speed limits haven't changed though.

All you can reasonably ask of people is that if they don't want to overtake or travel at the speed limit then they shouldn't unduly or unreasonably hold you up whilst maintaining their choices.
If they pulled over every time somebody was behind them, that would be an unreasonable compromise for them.
Sure if they are travelling slowly & large queues form behind them then they should pull over at regular intervals & allow others to pass (the highway code says so). However, there is nothing that says they have to pull over simply because they are travelling slower than the limit & there is a vehicle behind.

If they've left sufficient gap in front of themselves for you to pull in to on an overtake they've made sufficient provision/compromise to allow for your progress. it's up to you to take it when safe to do so.

No driver is going to get prosecuted for inconsiderate driving doing what I've said above, it's you that's out of kilter.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 8th April 12:52

No driver is going to get prosecuted for travelling at the legal posted limit, but it is possible (though it does not happen nearly enough) for a driver who is deliberately baulking the traffic behind them to be pulled over, and be spoken to.
A driver who is travelling slowly with a line of vehicles built up behind them is clearly driving without due care and attention, and can be prosecuted for doing so.
If a line of traffic is being backed up by a dawdling driver, it is immediately obvious which part of the line of motorists represents the problem vehicle.

And i've said already, long queues where they are travelling considerably slower than the speed limit then yes they should pull over, but that's not what you were limiting it too. You were intimating anyone travelling lower than the limit where you believed it safe to be travelling at the limit was being inconsiderate. That view doesn't stack for a Sec 3 RTA.
What you consider to be unreasonable the law/society does not.
Your wishes & ideals don't trump other's wishes & ideals.
There has to be compromise on both parties in regard to their ultimate desires, it's not all one way traffic in your favour.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 8th April 23:55

[Kawasicki]

mph1977 said:

Pan Pan Pan,

oh dear me, as Von or Reg has previously pointed out if this were the case there would be more minimum speed limits in place ...

it's a Limit not a target.

But as the limits get lower and lower, and roads become more congested, at some point it is reasonable to expect that, conditions allowing, the limit is actually the recommended speed, rather than a maximum.

If I drive with a queue of cars behind me at 20 mph in a 30 mph zone, with perfect conditions, I am being selfish. I should either drive at the limit or pull over and allow others to pass.

[Pan Pan Pan]

vonhosen said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

vonhosen said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

vonhosen said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

No, consideration in the first place, is trying to travel at the legal posted limit wherever that is possible. Baulking someone, and then trying to justify baulking someone, by saying a gap will be left for someone who wishes to overtake/ travel at the legal posted limit is a*se about face.
It requires them to carry out the (potentially dangerous) maneuver of overtaking, which they would not even have had to, had the driver in front been travelling at the legal posted limit. Someone overtaking another driver who is already travelling at the posted limit? Yes that would be illegal, and antisocial.

If it was as you suggest we'd have far more minimum speed limits than we do.
There is no suggestion of baulking & then trying to justify.
There is no offence committed where a driver who decides to travel below the speed limit shows consideration by leaving others opportunity to pass.
You are just trying to foist your personal views as societal views.
You started off with an erroneous statement about motorised vehicles being about the fastest means from A to B & have gone on from there.
It isn't the sole or even primary mover you suggest, but in fact only one of many considerations. Cost is probably more of a primary mover than speed for many. Cost is a reason that people may legitimately choose to temper their speed.
Tomorrow I am travelling 100 miles. I am doing it in the car & will mostly use motorways & dual carriageways.
Next month I am doing a couple of thousand miles journey, I am purposely avoiding motorways & dual carriageways as much as possible.
If speed were the primary mover I'd be flying (& flying would have been cheaper too as it happens). Fastest or cheapest means from A to B in no way figures in the choices involved in that journey.

There is no problem with using roads for fun driving at any speed. But they are not your personal playground. If you are baulking someone who clearly wishes to travel legally at the posted limit, and who may have pressing reasons and a lot more ground to cover than you have, then you are driving in a selfish, anti social manner.
if you do not want to travel at the posted limit, then pull over and let those who do wish to do so go by. That would be the considerate thing to do, and would let both parties travel at the speed they wish / need to. If you can / do wish to travel slowly, then pulling over for those who want to travel at the posted limit, is hardly going to be a problem for you.

People use the roads for a variety of reasons & objectives in doing so, not just yours. Why are their reasons any more selfish than yours? Why should they have to unduly compromise their choices so that you don't have to compromise yours?

When fuel prices rise we see average speeds fall, people's choices change & mpg choices rise over progress choices. The roads & the speed limits haven't changed though.

All you can reasonably ask of people is that if they don't want to overtake or travel at the speed limit then they shouldn't unduly or unreasonably hold you up whilst maintaining their choices.
If they pulled over every time somebody was behind them, that would be an unreasonable compromise for them.
Sure if they are travelling slowly & large queues form behind them then they should pull over at regular intervals & allow others to pass (the highway code says so). However, there is nothing that says they have to pull over simply because they are travelling slower than the limit & there is a vehicle behind.

If they've left sufficient gap in front of themselves for you to pull in to on an overtake they've made sufficient provision/compromise to allow for your progress. it's up to you to take it when safe to do so.

No driver is going to get prosecuted for inconsiderate driving doing what I've said above, it's you that's out of kilter.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 8th April 12:52

No driver is going to get prosecuted for travelling at the legal posted limit, but it is possible (though it does not happen nearly enough) for a driver who is deliberately baulking the traffic behind them to be pulled over, and be spoken to.
A driver who is travelling slowly with a line of vehicles built up behind them is clearly driving without due care and attention, and can be prosecuted for doing so.
If a line of traffic is being backed up by a dawdling driver, it is immediately obvious which part of the line of motorists represents the problem vehicle.

And i've said already, long queues where they are travelling considerably slower than the speed limit then yes they should pull over, but that's not what you were limiting it too. You were intimating anyone travelling lower than the limit where you believed it safe to be travelling at the limit was being inconsiderate. That view doesn't stack for a Sec 3 RTA.

By travelling at below the legal posted limit, the dawdler is more likely to be the cause of an RTA, than a driver travelling at the legal posted limit.
A dawdler can cause queues of traffic to build behind them, to the point where one or more drivers in that queue, may make a dangerous over taking maneuver, in order to be able to carry on with their journey at the legal posted limit.
If the driver in front is doing the legal limit, that is all those behind can expect them to do. If the dawdler was not there, they would have no need to carry out a potentially dangerous overtake of one, or even several vehicles. especially if the dawdler has incompetent drivers directly behind them, who do not overtake when a safe opportunity presents itself.
No. Dawdlers are a menace on the roads, and if they cannot handle the low set speed limits in a modern car, when road conditions allow, they should consider whether they are suited to driving on public roads, with other drivers around them.

[Pan Pan Pan]

mph1977 said:

Pan Pan Pan,

oh dear me, as Von or Reg has previously pointed out if this were the case there would be more minimum speed limits in place ...

it's a Limit not a target.

That comment is quite meaningless, just like the speed kills mantra loved by some politicians.
Please show me where minimum speed limits are applied, Even doing up to 52000 miles a year I cannot really say I have ever been in one.

[vonhosen]

Pan Pan Pan said:

By travelling at below the legal posted limit, the dawdler is more likely to be the cause of an RTA, than a driver travelling at the legal posted limit.
A dawdler can cause queues of traffic to build behind them, to the point where one or more drivers in that queue, may make a dangerous over taking maneuver, in order to be able to carry on with their journey at the legal posted limit.
If the driver in front is doing the legal limit, that is all those behind can expect them to do. If the dawdler was not there, they would have no need to carry out a potentially dangerous overtake of one, or even several vehicles. especially if the dawdler has incompetent drivers directly behind them, who do not overtake when a safe opportunity presents itself.
No. Dawdlers are a menace on the roads, and if they cannot handle the low set speed limits in a modern car, when road conditions allow, they should consider whether they are suited to driving on public roads, with other drivers around them.

No matter how many times you repeat your values they don't trump alternate values.
Your values don't shape the law or societal values, they don't reflect it either.
Each driver is responsible for their own actions, a dangerous overtaker is responsible for their own dangerous overtake.
The overtaken vehicle would be culpable where they actively blocked another's overtake (i.e. speeding up with intention to leave the other driver stranded offside with traffic towards), not because they chose to travel in a manner I described in previous posts.

[vonhosen]

Pan Pan Pan said:

mph1977 said:

Pan Pan Pan,

oh dear me, as Von or Reg has previously pointed out if this were the case there would be more minimum speed limits in place ...

it's a Limit not a target.

That comment is quite meaningless, just like the speed kills mantra loved by some politicians.
Please show me where minimum speed limits are applied, Even doing up to 52000 miles a year I cannot really say I have ever been in one.

http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=File:A12_Blackwall_Tunnel_Northern_Approach_Minimum_Speed_Limit_-_Coppermine_-_151.JPG

You won't see many because people aren't generally required to travel at a minimum speed, just as they aren't required to travel at the speed limit where they potentially could.

[Kawasicki]

vonhosen said:

Your values don't shape the law or societal values, they don't reflect it either.

I've been in court when a truck driver was convicted of driving without due care and attention, for driving at 45mph on an A-road.

[Pan Pan Pan]

vonhosen said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

By travelling at below the legal posted limit, the dawdler is more likely to be the cause of an RTA, than a driver travelling at the legal posted limit.
A dawdler can cause queues of traffic to build behind them, to the point where one or more drivers in that queue, may make a dangerous over taking maneuver, in order to be able to carry on with their journey at the legal posted limit.
If the driver in front is doing the legal limit, that is all those behind can expect them to do. If the dawdler was not there, they would have no need to carry out a potentially dangerous overtake of one, or even several vehicles. especially if the dawdler has incompetent drivers directly behind them, who do not overtake when a safe opportunity presents itself.
No. Dawdlers are a menace on the roads, and if they cannot handle the low set speed limits in a modern car, when road conditions allow, they should consider whether they are suited to driving on public roads, with other drivers around them.

No matter how many times you repeat your values they don't trump alternate values.
Your values don't shape the law or societal values, they don't reflect it either.
Each driver is responsible for their own actions, a dangerous overtaker is responsible for their own dangerous overtake.
The overtaken vehicle would be culpable where they actively blocked another's overtake (i.e. speeding up with intention to leave the other driver stranded offside with traffic towards), not because they chose to travel in a manner I described in previous posts.

They are not `my' values, they are the values of the majority of motorists who LEGALLY wish to travel at least at the posted limits, (and who in fact would probably travel faster if the law allowed)
Fortunately it is the dawdlers who are in the (more dangerous) minority. If a limit is 30mph or 40 mph or whatever, what legal right does a dawdler have to prevent another motorist from legally doing those speeds? The overtaken dawdler is directly culpable in an accident, because if they had been doing the legal limit, there would be no need or legal way for a following driver to overtake them.

[ashleyman]

I've posted this before but I'll post it here. It's a little off topic but I'd be keen to get opinions.

With the rise of dash cams and the very realistic threat of public humiliation and shame if you're caught driving questionably do you find that you're more careful with what manoeuvres you pull on the road?

I ask this because the other week I was driving along a normal single lane road which was a posted 40. The guy in front was doing 25. I caught up pretty quickly and I felt vulnerable as I could see cars trundling down the road in the distance knowing they'd be with me in a matter of a minute or so. I was preparing to commit to an overtake, the road was clear, road markings allowed the manoeuvre, I could accelerate safely and pull in with plenty of time - it was just us two on the road for about 1/4 mile in each direction.

Just as I went to indicate right to perform this move, I noticed a dash cam sitting proudly underneath his rear view mirror. Seeing this made me cancel my ideas of overtaking and just behind him until the lanes split about a mile up ahead. I was scared of being put on YouTube and shamed for overtaking someone.

You've guessed it, car comes speeding up behind me at 40 and is now tailgating me due to the guy in fronts bad driving.

What would you do?

[vonhosen]

Pan Pan Pan said:

vonhosen said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

By travelling at below the legal posted limit, the dawdler is more likely to be the cause of an RTA, than a driver travelling at the legal posted limit.
A dawdler can cause queues of traffic to build behind them, to the point where one or more drivers in that queue, may make a dangerous over taking maneuver, in order to be able to carry on with their journey at the legal posted limit.
If the driver in front is doing the legal limit, that is all those behind can expect them to do. If the dawdler was not there, they would have no need to carry out a potentially dangerous overtake of one, or even several vehicles. especially if the dawdler has incompetent drivers directly behind them, who do not overtake when a safe opportunity presents itself.
No. Dawdlers are a menace on the roads, and if they cannot handle the low set speed limits in a modern car, when road conditions allow, they should consider whether they are suited to driving on public roads, with other drivers around them.

No matter how many times you repeat your values they don't trump alternate values.
Your values don't shape the law or societal values, they don't reflect it either.
Each driver is responsible for their own actions, a dangerous overtaker is responsible for their own dangerous overtake.
The overtaken vehicle would be culpable where they actively blocked another's overtake (i.e. speeding up with intention to leave the other driver stranded offside with traffic towards), not because they chose to travel in a manner I described in previous posts.

They are not `my' values, they are the values of the majority of motorists who LEGALLY wish to travel at least at the posted limits, (and who in fact would probably travel faster if the law allowed)
Fortunately it is the dawdlers who are in the (more dangerous) minority. If a limit is 30mph or 40 mph or whatever, what legal right does a dawdler have to prevent another motorist from legally doing those speeds? The overtaken dawdler is directly culpable in an accident, because if they had been doing the legal limit, there would be no need or legal way for a following driver to overtake them.

They are your values, they don't reflect the law.
They have every legal right to drive how I described, they commit no offence.
They are not culpable driving in that manner if you perform a dangerous overtake & crash.
It's you who will risk prosecution & your insurance that will be dealing with it, not theirs.

[vonhosen]

Kawasicki said:

vonhosen said:

Your values don't shape the law or societal values, they don't reflect it either.

I've been in court when a truck driver was convicted of driving without due care and attention, for driving at 45mph on an A-road.

What was the lack of care & attention?
I've seen people convicted of without due care & attention at all manner of speeds, the speed wasn't the deciding factor.

[vonhosen]

ashleyman said:

I've posted this before but I'll post it here. It's a little off topic but I'd be keen to get opinions.

With the rise of dash cams and the very realistic threat of public humiliation and shame if you're caught driving questionably do you find that you're more careful with what manoeuvres you pull on the road?

I ask this because the other week I was driving along a normal single lane road which was a posted 40. The guy in front was doing 25. I caught up pretty quickly and I felt vulnerable as I could see cars trundling down the road in the distance knowing they'd be with me in a matter of a minute or so. I was preparing to commit to an overtake, the road was clear, road markings allowed the manoeuvre, I could accelerate safely and pull in with plenty of time - it was just us two on the road for about 1/4 mile in each direction.

Just as I went to indicate right to perform this move, I noticed a dash cam sitting proudly underneath his rear view mirror. Seeing this made me cancel my ideas of overtaking and just behind him until the lanes split about a mile up ahead. I was scared of being put on YouTube and shamed for overtaking someone.

You've guessed it, car comes speeding up behind me at 40 and is now tailgating me due to the guy in fronts bad driving.

What would you do?

If a safe legal overtake, overtake.
What's else is the camera going to record if that's what it was?

[Pan Pan Pan]

vonhosen said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

vonhosen said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

By travelling at below the legal posted limit, the dawdler is more likely to be the cause of an RTA, than a driver travelling at the legal posted limit.
A dawdler can cause queues of traffic to build behind them, to the point where one or more drivers in that queue, may make a dangerous over taking maneuver, in order to be able to carry on with their journey at the legal posted limit.
If the driver in front is doing the legal limit, that is all those behind can expect them to do. If the dawdler was not there, they would have no need to carry out a potentially dangerous overtake of one, or even several vehicles. especially if the dawdler has incompetent drivers directly behind them, who do not overtake when a safe opportunity presents itself.
No. Dawdlers are a menace on the roads, and if they cannot handle the low set speed limits in a modern car, when road conditions allow, they should consider whether they are suited to driving on public roads, with other drivers around them.

No matter how many times you repeat your values they don't trump alternate values.
Your values don't shape the law or societal values, they don't reflect it either.
Each driver is responsible for their own actions, a dangerous overtaker is responsible for their own dangerous overtake.
The overtaken vehicle would be culpable where they actively blocked another's overtake (i.e. speeding up with intention to leave the other driver stranded offside with traffic towards), not because they chose to travel in a manner I described in previous posts.

They are not `my' values, they are the values of the majority of motorists who LEGALLY wish to travel at least at the posted limits, (and who in fact would probably travel faster if the law allowed)
Fortunately it is the dawdlers who are in the (more dangerous) minority. If a limit is 30mph or 40 mph or whatever, what legal right does a dawdler have to prevent another motorist from legally doing those speeds? The overtaken dawdler is directly culpable in an accident, because if they had been doing the legal limit, there would be no need or legal way for a following driver to overtake them.

They are your values, they don't reflect the law.
They have every legal right to drive how I described, they commit no offence.
They are not culpable driving in that manner if you perform a dangerous overtake & crash.
It's you who will risk prosecution & your insurance that will be dealing with it, not theirs.

If a driver is so incompetent or bloody minded that they cannot handle the low set legal limits when road conditions allow, they need to consider whether they are suited to driving a motor vehicle on public roads at all.
I try to drive to the legal limits, so my values do reflect the law, it is those who choose to impede traffic on a public highway who do not reflect the law.
I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for travelling at the legal limit, I have heard of people being prosecuted for dawdling, and holding up other road users.