I am becomming a middle lane hogger, are you?
Discussion
spookly said:
vonhosen said:
See, your value is inconvenience & you think that should be the universal priority.
It may not be their priority (as we have to put up with a degree of inconvenience anyway).
Your priority doesn't trump theirs, although of course in your head it will.
Nice way to twist what I was saying It may not be their priority (as we have to put up with a degree of inconvenience anyway).
Your priority doesn't trump theirs, although of course in your head it will.
I have still not said that my priority trumps theirs.
I have said that they inconvenience me when it is not at all necessary to do so. If I am in the way of someone who wants to go faster than me then I get out of their way as soon as possible and safe, as I am not an inconsiderate asshat.
I'm not saying they're not mildly inconsiderate, just that you are too, so you are no better.
Inconsideration isn't only equated to impeding another's progress, it can be the level of progress you wish to make that is inconsiderate to others values. Even driving a car will be considered inconsiderate to some people who have anti car views/values.
The government express what is an acceptable societal compromise through legislation.
spookly said:
vonhosen said:
Speed tends to increase risk (risk being a function of both the likelihood of the adverse outcome & also the severity of it should it happen)
What you may be happy to accept (even if it's minimally more), others may not be happy for you to in their presence.
You don't care about actions affecting their values as long as it's not causing inconvenience which is your value.
Which is why I drive well within the capabilities of my car, the conditions, visibility, etc... I don't speed through blind bends, don't drive at a speed in which I can't stop before an actual or potential hazard, don't speed past blind junctions, and I do not carry excess speed near other road users. I actively ensure that my decisions don't impact on others. If I was a muppet who blindly speeds regardless of conditions and hazards you might have a better point to make.What you may be happy to accept (even if it's minimally more), others may not be happy for you to in their presence.
You don't care about actions affecting their values as long as it's not causing inconvenience which is your value.
I said I do not pass with big speed differentials, which shows I do care about them and their values. Maybe because I am not an inconsiderate asshat.
After all people who get convicted of careless/dangerous driving at a contested hearing will be saying what they were doing wasn't dangerous or careless, yet others & the court disagreed with them.
Your view (as mine is) is skewed by our own personal experiences/values etc.
It isn't a case of your view being the prime view &/or others aren't to be considered.
spookly said:
vonhosen said:
Of course I don't behave in a manner that accommodates everybody's or societal values. I break rules. I just get less wound up than you about other's failings because I accept we all have them..
You're blinded to it by self import filtering.
Reality is that your values/views are of no more import than theirs, except to you of course, but that's a narrow field.
I'm not wound up. I am trying to make you see the absurdity of not realising this isn't about relative values, it is about people stating they are happy to inconvenience others when they do not need to. That is plain inconsiderate.You're blinded to it by self import filtering.
Reality is that your values/views are of no more import than theirs, except to you of course, but that's a narrow field.
We don't have to do it, because we don't have to drive. We choose to drive for our own convenience & when we do that affects others convenience because of our passage.
You see plain inconsideration from some people's actions because you relate them to how you see yourself being impeded (your values)
They perhaps see you being plain inconsiderate because of your actions relative to their values (which you don't share).
spookly said:
Perhaps a better way to express the view of the MLM is "It is too much hard work, to pull in to sizeable gaps in lane 1 and pull out only to overtake, so I will knowingly get in the way of many other cars and clog the motorway network because I am too selfish/lazy/inconsiderate/slow".
If we had unrestricted motorways like the autobahn, then lane discipline would be more critical for safe legal progress.Our limits result in it being less critical for safe legal progress. The authorities are not going to be concerned in catering for your wish to make illegal progress.
Sure I witness some mild inconvenience/inconsiderate driving when trying to make safe legal progress, but it's not a huge problem.
But then I'm guilty of mildly inconsiderate acts in my driving, as you will be too (because the perfect driver doesn't exist).
As I said let who is without sin cast the first stone.
spookly said:
vonhosen said:
You are going a bit Goodwin with the murder bit.
We are looking at relatively minor traffic matters V relatively minor traffic matters.
The societal outlook is that speeding is a legislated specific offence, lane discipline isn't.
On that basis the societal view is that compliance with the limit is more important & your values by placing lane discipline above it are more out of kilter.
I'll assume you mean "Godwin"?We are looking at relatively minor traffic matters V relatively minor traffic matters.
The societal outlook is that speeding is a legislated specific offence, lane discipline isn't.
On that basis the societal view is that compliance with the limit is more important & your values by placing lane discipline above it are more out of kilter.
No, you might need to look at what Godwin's law is. I am making an extreme example to highlight what you seem to be failing to comprehend. You are equating two things as relative because they both break rules. I agree they are both breaking rules, but the impact and necessity is different in each case.
You aren't only making an extreme example to highlight problem. You're exaggerating everything including the problem.
As I said I was comparing like for like (small traffic matter V small traffic matter), you are doing ridiculous extremes.
spookly said:
The *legal* outlook is that speeding is a legislated specific offence, don't equate legal with societal they really are not the same thing. I'd wager that most people think the speed limits are ridiculous outside urban areas, with no coherence, and no relevance.
Motorways are limited to 70mph and I can't be trusted to decide appropriate speed... then I can go on an unclassified road not wide enough for 2 cars and it is a 60mph NSL where I could have a 120mph head on collision without either car breaking the speed limit.
The laws are an expression of societal values, put in place by those we elect to deal without societal ills.Motorways are limited to 70mph and I can't be trusted to decide appropriate speed... then I can go on an unclassified road not wide enough for 2 cars and it is a 60mph NSL where I could have a 120mph head on collision without either car breaking the speed limit.
If something is seen as a societal problem legislation is placed on the statutes to address that problem, often following public pressure.
The laws are an expression of what is a societal acceptable compromise allowing for an amalgamation of all our views/wishes. They aren't static & they are in a state of flux because we are all free to campaign for change as our values/beliefs change.
You are expected to be able to & choose an appropriate speed for the conditions at all times & you are licenced/permitted to do that within the legal limits set.
spookly said:
How about you go and put a poll on the main page of general gassing and ask which people find more acceptable. Driving at 65mph in the 2nd lane and never moving, or exceeding the speed limit on a motorway, lets call it 85mph to give you a fighting chance.
For what purpose?That's not going to be representative of the population or even the nations drivers, it's representative of the PH demographic (a small specialised sub group of the population or nation's drivers).
spookly said:
MLMs and the congestion they cause means we'll all end paying more tax to build wider/more roads to keep traffic moving. or we face gridlock. None of the European countries seem to have a problem with pulling back in, so why do we have MLMs and not them? Is it a uniquely British thing?
I've driven all over Europe & other continents. Where volumes of traffic are on the same levels as the UK's arterial routes I've often seen it as worse, not better.I've been held up on the autobahn by vehicles that didn't want to move over when there was space to.
You as I say are exaggerating the problem as you are with most things.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 20th August 13:35
vonhosen said:
But you are an inconsiderate asshat if you speed where others don't want you to, you aren't showing considerations for their wishes values, you believe yours trumps theirs.
I'm not saying they're not mildly inconsiderate, just that you are too, so you are no better.
Inconsideration isn't only equated to impeding another's progress, it can be the level of progress you wish to make that is inconsiderate to others values. Even driving a car will be considered inconsiderate to some people who have anti car views/values.
The government express what is an acceptable societal compromise through legislation.
What I do when I am nowhere near anyone else has NO DIRECT EFFECT on them. Their feelings are just that, feelings.I'm not saying they're not mildly inconsiderate, just that you are too, so you are no better.
Inconsideration isn't only equated to impeding another's progress, it can be the level of progress you wish to make that is inconsiderate to others values. Even driving a car will be considered inconsiderate to some people who have anti car views/values.
The government express what is an acceptable societal compromise through legislation.
MLMs have a DIRECT AFFECT on my progress and hold up many people getting to where they want to be. One is a potential effect that could happen, the other is a directly realised effect which is almost inevitable on anything but an empty road.
vonhosen said:
You say you don't, others will no doubt disagree with your assessment that you never do those things or what equates to those things.
After all people who get convicted of careless/dangerous driving at a contested hearing will be saying what they were doing wasn't dangerous or careless, yet others & the court disagreed with them.
Your view (as mine is) is skewed by our own personal experiences/values etc.
Your view is not the prime view & others aren't to be considered.
See above. Views and feelings are irrelevant. One is a potential effect I can have on them.... I'm not overly concerned for feelings. The effect an MLM has on me, and other road users, is an actual effect which is realised on a regular basis.After all people who get convicted of careless/dangerous driving at a contested hearing will be saying what they were doing wasn't dangerous or careless, yet others & the court disagreed with them.
Your view (as mine is) is skewed by our own personal experiences/values etc.
Your view is not the prime view & others aren't to be considered.
I'd agree that the way some people speed recklessly does cause that risk to be realised. There was a guy using the 40mph dual carriageway into town today weaving in and out. Given the traffic volume, despite never breaking the speed limit by more than a few mph, I would say that he caused risk to almost every car he came near.
But there are just as many people who speed, especially on motorways, with due regard for every one else's safety.
vonhosen said:
We all inconvenience each other on the roads, just by our presence there.
We don't have to do it, because we don't have to drive. We choose to drive for our own convenience.
You see plain inconsideration from some people's actions because you relate them to how you see yourself being impeded (your values)
They see you being plain inconsiderate because of your actions relative to their values (which you don't share).
If we had unrestricted motorways like the autobahn, then lane discipline would be more critical for safe legal progress.
Our limits result in it being less critical for safe legal progress. The authorities are not going to be concerned in catering for your wish to make illegal progress.
Sure I witness some mild inconvenience/inconsiderate driving when trying to make safe legal progress, but it's not a huge problem.
But then I'm guilty of mildly inconsiderate acts in my driving, as you will be too (because the perfect driver doesn't exist).
As I said let who is without sin cast the first stone.
We do all inconvenience each other. It would be lovely to have the roads all for ourselves, but we don't.We don't have to do it, because we don't have to drive. We choose to drive for our own convenience.
You see plain inconsideration from some people's actions because you relate them to how you see yourself being impeded (your values)
They see you being plain inconsiderate because of your actions relative to their values (which you don't share).
If we had unrestricted motorways like the autobahn, then lane discipline would be more critical for safe legal progress.
Our limits result in it being less critical for safe legal progress. The authorities are not going to be concerned in catering for your wish to make illegal progress.
Sure I witness some mild inconvenience/inconsiderate driving when trying to make safe legal progress, but it's not a huge problem.
But then I'm guilty of mildly inconsiderate acts in my driving, as you will be too (because the perfect driver doesn't exist).
As I said let who is without sin cast the first stone.
So part of sharing the road network is showing consideration for everyone else on the road. Driving in a way that prevents other traffic from making progress because you are too lazy, or find it too hard, to drive how you are meant to... well that can also be prosecuted.
With speeding, as long as it is not done aggressively or near others (tailgating, racing up behind, passing excessively fast etc) then it has NO DIRECT EFFECT ON OTHER DRIVERS. How they feel about it is really not a concern.
MLMs on the other hand cause the motorways and dual carriageways to slow to a crawl and DIRECTLY OBSTRUCT people from getting on with their journey.
vonhosen said:
Yes a typo.
You aren't only making an extreme example to highlight problem. You're exaggerating everything including the problem.
As I said I was comparing like for like (small traffic matter V small traffic matter), you are doing ridiculous extremes.
Yes, as I said, I was exaggerating to show just how you don't seem to be understanding the argument I am making.You aren't only making an extreme example to highlight problem. You're exaggerating everything including the problem.
As I said I was comparing like for like (small traffic matter V small traffic matter), you are doing ridiculous extremes.
I am saying: Direct Effect does not equal No Direct Effect.
You are saying: They are equal because both are breaking rules. I think this is silly, because you are picking on the one way in which they are the same, rather than exploring why they are different.
You are also saying: The effects of speeding might include their feelings (Indirect impact - you're clutching at straws with that one), a potential increase in risk (Indirect impact too - If nobody hits them then risk has not been realised).
vonhosen said:
The laws are an expression of societal values, put in place by those we elect to deal without societal ills.
If something is seen as a societal problem legislation is placed on the statutes to address that problem, often following public pressure.
You are expected to be able to & choose an appropriate speed for the conditions at all times & you are licenced/permitted to do that within the legal limits set.
I've driven all over Europe & other continents. Where volumes of traffic are on the same levels as the UK's arterial routes I've often seen it as worse, not better.
You as I say are exaggerating the problem as you are with most things.
Awwww. You really believe that? Did you say that with a straight face?If something is seen as a societal problem legislation is placed on the statutes to address that problem, often following public pressure.
You are expected to be able to & choose an appropriate speed for the conditions at all times & you are licenced/permitted to do that within the legal limits set.
I've driven all over Europe & other continents. Where volumes of traffic are on the same levels as the UK's arterial routes I've often seen it as worse, not better.
You as I say are exaggerating the problem as you are with most things.
Do you actually think that most of the laws that get put in place are there to protect and serve us? Speed cameras too? Are politicians not subject to ridiculous amounts of lobbying by special interest groups, big businesses etc? Next you'll be saying you actually believe all the government clap trap about needing to intercept all the data on everything we ever do to prevent terrorism. Light hearted article on that subject - no I don't normally read HuffPo, but the sentiment is about right
Yes, we are all expected to be able to select an appropriate speed for the conditions. But then have artificially low limits in some areas, like motorways. We then have the equivalent of almost no limit in others (you won't go 60 on most of these roads without very high risk)... like unclassified rural NSL roads.
I've found, as I've heard lots of others say, that they see a lot less MLM behaviour in Europe. YMMV because you are an MLM so don't recognise it :-P
I think the other issue with speed limits in general, and some MLMs, is the attitude that I'm going under the speed limit so I'm driving safely. When your brain is processing less, as it does at lower speeds, you are far more likely to be paying less attention. Probably why so many of them don't see people coming up behind them.
C70R said:
You know what, I actually have some sympathy. I drive pretty actively, and move lanes according to my (reasonably constant) speed, in a bid to keep left as much as possible.
However, on busy routes (not necessarily peak time, just busier than average), it requires an almost-constant state of alertness, which is tough to maintain for hours on end even for the best of drivers.
If you're not capable of maintaining a state of constant alertness, I'd suggest you shouldn't be driving. However, on busy routes (not necessarily peak time, just busier than average), it requires an almost-constant state of alertness, which is tough to maintain for hours on end even for the best of drivers.
spookly said:
vonhosen said:
But you are an inconsiderate asshat if you speed where others don't want you to, you aren't showing considerations for their wishes values, you believe yours trumps theirs.
I'm not saying they're not mildly inconsiderate, just that you are too, so you are no better.
Inconsideration isn't only equated to impeding another's progress, it can be the level of progress you wish to make that is inconsiderate to others values. Even driving a car will be considered inconsiderate to some people who have anti car views/values.
The government express what is an acceptable societal compromise through legislation.
What I do when I am nowhere near anyone else has NO DIRECT EFFECT on them. Their feelings are just that, feelings.I'm not saying they're not mildly inconsiderate, just that you are too, so you are no better.
Inconsideration isn't only equated to impeding another's progress, it can be the level of progress you wish to make that is inconsiderate to others values. Even driving a car will be considered inconsiderate to some people who have anti car views/values.
The government express what is an acceptable societal compromise through legislation.
MLMs have a DIRECT AFFECT on my progress and hold up many people getting to where they want to be. One is a potential effect that could happen, the other is a directly realised effect which is almost inevitable on anything but an empty road.
Our use of the roads is a compromise that is about more than just our interaction with other road users.
The fact you don't think about or consider more than what you see yourself as having direct contact with is just further evidence of inconsideration for the effects of your driving on others.
spookly said:
vonhosen said:
You say you don't, others will no doubt disagree with your assessment that you never do those things or what equates to those things.
After all people who get convicted of careless/dangerous driving at a contested hearing will be saying what they were doing wasn't dangerous or careless, yet others & the court disagreed with them.
Your view (as mine is) is skewed by our own personal experiences/values etc.
Your view is not the prime view & others aren't to be considered.
See above. Views and feelings are irrelevant. One is a potential effect I can have on them.... I'm not overly concerned for feelings. The effect an MLM has on me, and other road users, is an actual effect which is realised on a regular basis.After all people who get convicted of careless/dangerous driving at a contested hearing will be saying what they were doing wasn't dangerous or careless, yet others & the court disagreed with them.
Your view (as mine is) is skewed by our own personal experiences/values etc.
Your view is not the prime view & others aren't to be considered.
I'd agree that the way some people speed recklessly does cause that risk to be realised. There was a guy using the 40mph dual carriageway into town today weaving in and out. Given the traffic volume, despite never breaking the speed limit by more than a few mph, I would say that he caused risk to almost every car he came near.
But there are just as many people who speed, especially on motorways, with due regard for every one else's safety.
Just because you view your actions as careful & competent, if others take an alternate view you end up with a conviction.
How others view/interpret your actions is ultimately of greater import than how you do when it comes to your licence & liberty.
How you view your actions is ultimately only of greater import in determining how you intend tol act.
spookly said:
vonhosen said:
We all inconvenience each other on the roads, just by our presence there.
We don't have to do it, because we don't have to drive. We choose to drive for our own convenience.
You see plain inconsideration from some people's actions because you relate them to how you see yourself being impeded (your values)
They see you being plain inconsiderate because of your actions relative to their values (which you don't share).
If we had unrestricted motorways like the autobahn, then lane discipline would be more critical for safe legal progress.
Our limits result in it being less critical for safe legal progress. The authorities are not going to be concerned in catering for your wish to make illegal progress.
Sure I witness some mild inconvenience/inconsiderate driving when trying to make safe legal progress, but it's not a huge problem.
But then I'm guilty of mildly inconsiderate acts in my driving, as you will be too (because the perfect driver doesn't exist).
As I said let who is without sin cast the first stone.
We do all inconvenience each other. It would be lovely to have the roads all for ourselves, but we don't.We don't have to do it, because we don't have to drive. We choose to drive for our own convenience.
You see plain inconsideration from some people's actions because you relate them to how you see yourself being impeded (your values)
They see you being plain inconsiderate because of your actions relative to their values (which you don't share).
If we had unrestricted motorways like the autobahn, then lane discipline would be more critical for safe legal progress.
Our limits result in it being less critical for safe legal progress. The authorities are not going to be concerned in catering for your wish to make illegal progress.
Sure I witness some mild inconvenience/inconsiderate driving when trying to make safe legal progress, but it's not a huge problem.
But then I'm guilty of mildly inconsiderate acts in my driving, as you will be too (because the perfect driver doesn't exist).
As I said let who is without sin cast the first stone.
So part of sharing the road network is showing consideration for everyone else on the road. Driving in a way that prevents other traffic from making progress because you are too lazy, or find it too hard, to drive how you are meant to... well that can also be prosecuted.
With speeding, as long as it is not done aggressively or near others (tailgating, racing up behind, passing excessively fast etc) then it has NO DIRECT EFFECT ON OTHER DRIVERS. How they feel about it is really not a concern.
MLMs on the other hand cause the motorways and dual carriageways to slow to a crawl and DIRECTLY OBSTRUCT people from getting on with their journey.
The last time an increase in the motorway limit was looked at, IIRC a large part of why it wasn't raised was because of environmental factors (including noise) & because that would directly affect people who happen to live near those roads.
spookly said:
vonhosen said:
Yes a typo.
You aren't only making an extreme example to highlight problem. You're exaggerating everything including the problem.
As I said I was comparing like for like (small traffic matter V small traffic matter), you are doing ridiculous extremes.
Yes, as I said, I was exaggerating to show just how you don't seem to be understanding the argument I am making.You aren't only making an extreme example to highlight problem. You're exaggerating everything including the problem.
As I said I was comparing like for like (small traffic matter V small traffic matter), you are doing ridiculous extremes.
I am saying: Direct Effect does not equal No Direct Effect.
You are saying: They are equal because both are breaking rules. I think this is silly, because you are picking on the one way in which they are the same, rather than exploring why they are different.
You are also saying: The effects of speeding might include their feelings (Indirect impact - you're clutching at straws with that one), a potential increase in risk (Indirect impact too - If nobody hits them then risk has not been realised).
The rules are there for reasons.
Your risk taking does directly affect others (remember risk from speed is a function of potential likelihood & potential severity of outcome).
If you do higher speed when there is nobody else on the road, there is increased noise for those in earshot.
If you do higher speed when there is somebody else on the road you are involving them in the extra risk that higher speed introduces. You may consider that risk small, but you can still be taking that extra risk contrary to & inconsiderate of their wishes.
The laws are part of the defined acceptable compromise in relation to the above.
spookly said:
vonhosen said:
The laws are an expression of societal values, put in place by those we elect to deal without societal ills.
If something is seen as a societal problem legislation is placed on the statutes to address that problem, often following public pressure.
You are expected to be able to & choose an appropriate speed for the conditions at all times & you are licenced/permitted to do that within the legal limits set.
I've driven all over Europe & other continents. Where volumes of traffic are on the same levels as the UK's arterial routes I've often seen it as worse, not better.
You as I say are exaggerating the problem as you are with most things.
Awwww. You really believe that? Did you say that with a straight face?If something is seen as a societal problem legislation is placed on the statutes to address that problem, often following public pressure.
You are expected to be able to & choose an appropriate speed for the conditions at all times & you are licenced/permitted to do that within the legal limits set.
I've driven all over Europe & other continents. Where volumes of traffic are on the same levels as the UK's arterial routes I've often seen it as worse, not better.
You as I say are exaggerating the problem as you are with most things.
Do you actually think that most of the laws that get put in place are there to protect and serve us? Speed cameras too? Are politicians not subject to ridiculous amounts of lobbying by special interest groups, big businesses etc? Next you'll be saying you actually believe all the government clap trap about needing to intercept all the data on everything we ever do to prevent terrorism. Light hearted article on that subject - no I don't normally read HuffPo, but the sentiment is about right
Yes, we are all expected to be able to select an appropriate speed for the conditions. But then have artificially low limits in some areas, like motorways. We then have the equivalent of almost no limit in others (you won't go 60 on most of these roads without very high risk)... like unclassified rural NSL roads.
I've found, as I've heard lots of others say, that they see a lot less MLM behaviour in Europe. YMMV because you are an MLM so don't recognise it :-P
I think the other issue with speed limits in general, and some MLMs, is the attitude that I'm going under the speed limit so I'm driving safely. When your brain is processing less, as it does at lower speeds, you are far more likely to be paying less attention. Probably why so many of them don't see people coming up behind them.
Your brain processes with engagement in the task it doesn't have to drop off because you go slower, you might allow it do so, but it doesn't have to. For example a learner driver will often run at 100% processing capacity & attention at very slow speeds result in burn out very quickly & Police drivers on an advanced pursuit course travelling at high speed can do the same. Which do you think carries the risk of greater damage/injury?
If you can only generate sufficient attention/engagement through high speed you're a danger & shouldn't be on the roads.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 20th August 14:42
spookly said:
And I'm out.
Enjoy being an MLM. I'll give you a flash or five if I see you
i'm not a MLM, I'm just saying you are exaggerating the problem they cause to safe legal progress whilst at the same time ignoring the problems you cause others with your choices.Enjoy being an MLM. I'll give you a flash or five if I see you
It's not all about you & your desires.
If you want change to reflect your values campaign as others have campaigned so that their values are reflected in the statutes.
otolith said:
I would not be at all surprised if those who are obsessed with the importance of speed limit compliance privately consider lane hogging to be a public service. Personally, I suspect that the congestion it causes contributes to the occurrence of collisions.
Undoubtedly there are some who will adopt a lane with an attitude that they are travelling at the limit so others behind have no legal right to pass, so they aren't going to concern themselves with those who wish to pass.What causes collisions is drivers getting too close to things that they can't safely deal with. Even in congested conditions you can generally get sufficient space to remain safe if you are minded to.
I think it is very easy from the written word to talk at cross purposes about what constitutes good or inconsiderate driving. The only way to be confident you are talking about the same sort of driving is to be in the car together.
I am fortunate that I have a calm and logical temperament, and that I hardly ever allow the driving of other road users to bother me.
BTW, my model of good multi-lane driving includes keeping a comfortable bubble of safety around my car, not causing other road users any surprises, and not holding up other road users except in circumstances which I consider reasonable (there, how many questions does that raise?!?!). I often drive in the middle lane although the left lane is available.
I am fortunate that I have a calm and logical temperament, and that I hardly ever allow the driving of other road users to bother me.
BTW, my model of good multi-lane driving includes keeping a comfortable bubble of safety around my car, not causing other road users any surprises, and not holding up other road users except in circumstances which I consider reasonable (there, how many questions does that raise?!?!). I often drive in the middle lane although the left lane is available.
vonhosen said:
Undoubtedly there are some who will adopt a lane with an attitude that they are travelling at the limit so others behind have no legal right to pass, so they aren't going to concern themselves with those who wish to pass.
What causes collisions is drivers getting too close to things that they can't safely deal with. Even in congested conditions you can generally get sufficient space to remain safe if you are minded to.
Collisions have multiple causative factors. I would argue that congestion is often one of them. The fact that you can drive safely in congestion isn't the point - you can drive safely well in excess of the speed limit too. Many don't. The combination of the traffic conditions and their behaviour leads to the collision. What causes collisions is drivers getting too close to things that they can't safely deal with. Even in congested conditions you can generally get sufficient space to remain safe if you are minded to.
SteveTTT said:
Blakewater said:
Switch on adaptive cruise control, switch off brain and let the car do the driving.
I passed an Angry Dad type today with his family in a Vauxhal Zafira who was quite happily pootling along in the middle lane. A little further on I came up behind a cluster of traffic overtaking a mix of HGVs and caravans in lanes one and two, headed by someone who wouldn't switch his cruise control from 65mph to get on with his overtake.
Angry Dad enters the outside lane further back, tailgates a couple of people out of his way and starts tailgating me. No thought for letting those people back out if the outside lane speeds up, despite the fact they've just overtaken him. We're all making progress, albeit slowly, in the outside lane and I'm staying alongside gaps before I have a clear run to get ahead of the next vehicle in the middle lane because I don't want to linger alongside vehicles and get pinned against the central reservation if someone doesn't see me when they move out.
When the traffic clears I resume the speed at which I overtook Angry Dad, but he still has to pass me to try and prove I was holding him up. I move to the middle lane and he sits in the outside lane behind me like my wingman until a van moves out in front of me and he uses a downhill stretch to get past. Once in front he slows because he doesn't like going that fast and I pass him again.
Further on, I move over to exit the motorway and, just to get in front again, he passes me and cuts through a closely packed line of traffic straight from the middle lane to the sliproad. Everyone else is driving safely and making allowances for other traffic and he's greatly increasing his speed, sitting in the outside lane when he can't overtake, taking risks with his family and conflicting with other drivers because he thinks people have passed him and slowed down just to annoy him and a bit of a slow down in the progress of traffic is justification for him to aggressively police his idea of lane discipline which involves everyone else having to part like the Red Sea for him.
Angry Dad must be the same chap who, when driving his company's speed-limited van, becomes the outside lane hogger maintaining a steady 68mph with a mile of traffic backed up behind him, all trying to pass the 65mph MLHs on cruise! (On almost any m-way you care to mention but especially M27 Portsmouth area every day of the week!). Although I do feel sorry for those who have to suffer these working conditions.I passed an Angry Dad type today with his family in a Vauxhal Zafira who was quite happily pootling along in the middle lane. A little further on I came up behind a cluster of traffic overtaking a mix of HGVs and caravans in lanes one and two, headed by someone who wouldn't switch his cruise control from 65mph to get on with his overtake.
Angry Dad enters the outside lane further back, tailgates a couple of people out of his way and starts tailgating me. No thought for letting those people back out if the outside lane speeds up, despite the fact they've just overtaken him. We're all making progress, albeit slowly, in the outside lane and I'm staying alongside gaps before I have a clear run to get ahead of the next vehicle in the middle lane because I don't want to linger alongside vehicles and get pinned against the central reservation if someone doesn't see me when they move out.
When the traffic clears I resume the speed at which I overtook Angry Dad, but he still has to pass me to try and prove I was holding him up. I move to the middle lane and he sits in the outside lane behind me like my wingman until a van moves out in front of me and he uses a downhill stretch to get past. Once in front he slows because he doesn't like going that fast and I pass him again.
Further on, I move over to exit the motorway and, just to get in front again, he passes me and cuts through a closely packed line of traffic straight from the middle lane to the sliproad. Everyone else is driving safely and making allowances for other traffic and he's greatly increasing his speed, sitting in the outside lane when he can't overtake, taking risks with his family and conflicting with other drivers because he thinks people have passed him and slowed down just to annoy him and a bit of a slow down in the progress of traffic is justification for him to aggressively police his idea of lane discipline which involves everyone else having to part like the Red Sea for him.
If they can't get past someone with flat out speed they'll try to get the jump on them at a junction by cutting across traffic to exit at the last second or trapping them behind other traffic joining the next motorway or pushing them to move over in heavy traffic.
zarjaz1991 said:
davepoth said:
If a motorway is actually empty (in that I can see no other road users) I'll drive in lane 2 - mainly because it's usually very late at night and if a deer was to run out onto the carriageway I'd like to have opportunities to swerve in either direction. As soon as I see someone else then I'm back in L1.
That's got to be the lamest excuse for middle lane tardness I've ever heard.A deer? Really? How many times has that happened to you then?
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/collision-car-deer-...
Advanced driving doctrine would dictate that you use all of the road when there's nobody around for your driving to affect - straight lining roundabouts is perfectly acceptable, for example. How is this any different? As I mentioned, if there are any other road users within sight I'd be in L1.
waremark said:
BTW, my model of good multi-lane driving includes keeping a comfortable bubble of safety around my car, not causing other road users any surprises, and not holding up other road users except in circumstances which I consider reasonable (there, how many questions does that raise?!?!). I often drive in the middle lane although the left lane is available.
Now that it's an offence, if plod ever gets round to enforcing it, what would you say to him if he tickets you?mybrainhurts said:
waremark said:
BTW, my model of good multi-lane driving includes keeping a comfortable bubble of safety around my car, not causing other road users any surprises, and not holding up other road users except in circumstances which I consider reasonable (there, how many questions does that raise?!?!). I often drive in the middle lane although the left lane is available.
Now that it's an offence, if plod ever gets round to enforcing it, what would you say to him if he tickets you?vonhosen said:
mybrainhurts said:
waremark said:
BTW, my model of good multi-lane driving includes keeping a comfortable bubble of safety around my car, not causing other road users any surprises, and not holding up other road users except in circumstances which I consider reasonable (there, how many questions does that raise?!?!). I often drive in the middle lane although the left lane is available.
Now that it's an offence, if plod ever gets round to enforcing it, what would you say to him if he tickets you?You can get a Fixed penalty for a number of things. The problem is that they really don't seem to be interested in policing them. I'd far rather they concentrate on these things than speed, it might just get the roads moving a bit better.
I particularly agree with these being prosecuted, as if you do it in front of dibble then you are also clearly not paying enough attention either.
CaptainSensib1e said:
It's not 'fast lane' and 'slow lane'. Middle lane and right hand lane are overtaking lanes, the speed your going does not dictate what lane you should be in. If you're not overtaking, keep left. It really is that simple.
Perhaps you might like to also mention the RLH gang.You know the type, dual carriageway, you are in the left hand lane, nothing behind you as far as the eye can see. And what do you see approaching for a mile back down the outside lane at some speed, yep a RLH.
And as they pass you with nothing in front of you for quite some distance, do they move over to the left, no of course not, they are a fully paid up member of the RLH club.
There is no reason for them to be there, as they are not overtaking. They just fancy being there, doing exactly the same as the MLH gang.
spookly said:
vonhosen said:
mybrainhurts said:
waremark said:
BTW, my model of good multi-lane driving includes keeping a comfortable bubble of safety around my car, not causing other road users any surprises, and not holding up other road users except in circumstances which I consider reasonable (there, how many questions does that raise?!?!). I often drive in the middle lane although the left lane is available.
Now that it's an offence, if plod ever gets round to enforcing it, what would you say to him if he tickets you?You can get a Fixed penalty for a number of things. The problem is that they really don't seem to be interested in policing them. I'd far rather they concentrate on these things than speed, it might just get the roads moving a bit better.
I particularly agree with these being prosecuted, as if you do it in front of dibble then you are also clearly not paying enough attention either.
All that is about is making Sec 3 RTA an offence for which FPNs can be issued (no new offences), so offering the Police another disposal option for Sec 3 RTA.
The reason that they aren't ticketing people for it is because most of the time it's observed there isn't sufficient evidence for a Sec 3 to warrant it.
i.e.
There isn't sufficient inconvenience caused because it's possible for people to pass them in another lane safely &/or they are travelling at or close to the speed limit where the only people they'd be holding up are those looking to exceed the speed limits (as in they aren't actually impeding those other driver's legal progress) &/or they could reasonably argue that the gap to the left isn't large enough (in that it's less than a minimum 4 second gap at that speed).
If you have somebody in an overtaking lane doing 70 & somebody doing 80 passes them then it's more likely the person doing 80 will be stopped. They are committing a specific offence & there is insufficient evidence against the former for a Sec 3.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 21st August 10:35
PF62 said:
Perhaps you might like to also mention the RLH gang.
You know the type, dual carriageway, you are in the left hand lane, nothing behind you as far as the eye can see. And what do you see approaching for a mile back down the outside lane at some speed, yep a RLH.
And as they pass you with nothing in front of you for quite some distance, do they move over to the left, no of course not, they are a fully paid up member of the RLH club.
There is no reason for them to be there, as they are not overtaking. They just fancy being there, doing exactly the same as the MLH gang.
They shouldn't be there either, but the key point to all this is whether said vehicles are impeding the progress of those behind unnecessarily. If they are not, although I find their behaviour mystifying, I pass them and forget about them.You know the type, dual carriageway, you are in the left hand lane, nothing behind you as far as the eye can see. And what do you see approaching for a mile back down the outside lane at some speed, yep a RLH.
And as they pass you with nothing in front of you for quite some distance, do they move over to the left, no of course not, they are a fully paid up member of the RLH club.
There is no reason for them to be there, as they are not overtaking. They just fancy being there, doing exactly the same as the MLH gang.
cmaguire said:
They shouldn't be there either, but the key point to all this is whether said vehicles are impeding the progress of those behind unnecessarily. If they are not, although I find their behaviour mystifying, I pass them and forget about them.
Unfortunately their behavior tends to influence the MLH.Someone with nascent MLH tenancies finds that, for example on a dual carriageway when they come up behind a truck and need to move right to overtake and pass, they find RLHers barreling down the outside and they get a bit upset at needing to slow. So simpler to join the MLH club stay in the outside (or middle) lane.
After all, if the RLH doesn't need to move left, then why does the MLH.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff