|
TallbutBuxomly
11,848 posts
85 months
|
FLGirl said: ^ This ^ or whatever the new +1 is  People who are exceptionally slow/timid on the roads are a hazard because they are not actually concerned with planning ahead, anticipation, acute observation or any other element of 'good driving'. They are simply protecting themselves. 'Good' driving is (IMHO) having a level of awareness not just for your own safety, but how you are driving impacts all the other users we share the roads with. Although I can understand the OP's argument, the problem with the driver he has described is they are likely to be so concerned with their own safety they are not accurately reading the road/conditions/traffic etc, they are simply avoiding anything and everything they perceive as Danger, which is very different and quite often actually relatively hazardous to those around them. Nice summation.  They have a little zone around them and that's it.
|
|
|
Ray Luxury-Yacht
6,374 posts
85 months
|
Interesting thread.
Well, let's take my late Father as an example I am familiar with...
Drove his cars, but also Buses too. Not commercially, but he was into his older, classic Buses since before I came along - and had a 1946 ex- London bus (an AEC RT, for the PH bus anoraks) which he drove regularly, and attended bus rallies etc.
Because of this huge Bus experience, and his interest in driving and vehicles in general, he considered himself to be a more professional road user.
This was demonstrated not by fast driving, exploring the limits of handling, track days or any of that - but by being careful, courteous, non-reactionary (i.e. never losing his temper with other road users) and very forward - looking and observational. Kinda like IAM driving, but with a hint of a slower road speed.
Often, when in a car with him, I felt that the road and the prevailing conditions warranted a higher speed. Don't get me wrong, he wasn't a 'monospeeder' like the bad drivers cited in the OP - he was careful with limits but also exploited higher limits when possible - but maybe didn't exploit them to the degree that I would have done.
But the history speaks for itself. He drove an awful lot, and for 25 years of my life that I knew - drove from our home in the South Coast to his job in North London every day. So a solid 6 or 700 miles a week, for all those years. You can't dismiss that - loads of time on motorways, loads of time in central London.
So, despite my often slight frustration at his slower progress than I would have liked when having a lift - in my 39 years on this planet, the Man was not involved in a single accident - not even at low speed, or even parking. I've never known his car to suffer so much as a scratch.
I can only deduce that, despite what some drivers (me included) think they can do with regard to safely doing whatever speeds, I know I've had a few scares and near misses, coupled with the odd bit of damage. Compare that to my slower Dad with nothing, and maybe the OP has a point...
|
|
|
Bezza1969
621 posts
17 months
|
Simonium said: And the type of people I know who are enthusiastic about cars generally drive like pillocks because they're "good at it". Quite a few of them have PH stickers to indicate their advanced level of ability.
I would rather follow a frustratingly slow drive than be followed by an enthusiast. Absolutely totally agree with this one, I hate being followed by some tailgating numpty, "trying to make progress" (usually in a built up area) in their Impreza/3 series BMW/Alfa 156/Seat Leon Cupra/VW Golf GT TDI, etc.... (delete as appropriate).
|
|
|
Ari
Original Poster
7,205 posts
84 months
|
OldSkoolRS said: But when you get behind someone who is frustratingly only doing 40 in a 60 limit, but then continues at 40 in a 30 or even 20 limit, does that count as a 'good' or 'bad' driver in the OP's example?  That would count as a "bad" driver in the OPs example. That's someone who simply doesn't think or care at all either way.
|
|
|
Ari
Original Poster
7,205 posts
84 months
|
bqf said: This post is utter drivel. Are you from BRAKE or something? Are you a Driving God or something? 
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Ari
Original Poster
7,205 posts
84 months
|
TallbutBuxomly said: The sort of person described by the op is a bigger danger and risk than the "bad" driver. They will be exceptionally timid and will spend a lot of time second guessing themselves and everyone else.
They will also most likely have a very low grasp of the rules of the road or road etiquette.
They are a liability and they should be removed from the road.
I strongly suspect the majority of accidents are caused by people like this though they may not actually be involved personally. But here's the question. If everyone drove like that, and as a result there were few deaths and serious injuries, would you still define them as a liability? 
|
|
|
Ari
Original Poster
7,205 posts
84 months
|
FLGirl said: ^ This ^ or whatever the new +1 is People who are exceptionally slow/timid on the roads are a hazard because they are not actually concerned with planning ahead, anticipation, acute observation or any other element of 'good driving'. They are simply protecting themselves. 'Good' driving is (IMHO) having a level of awareness not just for your own safety, but how you are driving impacts all the other users we share the roads with. Although I can understand the OP's argument, the problem with the driver he has described is they are likely to be so concerned with their own safety they are not accurately reading the road/conditions/traffic etc, they are simply avoiding anything and everything they perceive as Danger, which is very different and quite often actually relatively hazardous to those around them. Same again really, If everyone drove around timidly avoiding danger, would that be better or worse than everyone trying to "make progress"?
|
|
|
Ari
Original Poster
7,205 posts
84 months
|
Ray Luxury-Yacht said: Interesting thread.
Well, let's take my late Father as an example I am familiar with...
Drove his cars, but also Buses too. Not commercially, but he was into his older, classic Buses since before I came along - and had a 1946 ex- London bus (an AEC RT, for the PH bus anoraks) which he drove regularly, and attended bus rallies etc.
Because of this huge Bus experience, and his interest in driving and vehicles in general, he considered himself to be a more professional road user.
This was demonstrated not by fast driving, exploring the limits of handling, track days or any of that - but by being careful, courteous, non-reactionary (i.e. never losing his temper with other road users) and very forward - looking and observational. Kinda like IAM driving, but with a hint of a slower road speed.
Often, when in a car with him, I felt that the road and the prevailing conditions warranted a higher speed. Don't get me wrong, he wasn't a 'monospeeder' like the bad drivers cited in the OP - he was careful with limits but also exploited higher limits when possible - but maybe didn't exploit them to the degree that I would have done.
But the history speaks for itself. He drove an awful lot, and for 25 years of my life that I knew - drove from our home in the South Coast to his job in North London every day. So a solid 6 or 700 miles a week, for all those years. You can't dismiss that - loads of time on motorways, loads of time in central London.
So, despite my often slight frustration at his slower progress than I would have liked when having a lift - in my 39 years on this planet, the Man was not involved in a single accident - not even at low speed, or even parking. I've never known his car to suffer so much as a scratch.
I can only deduce that, despite what some drivers (me included) think they can do with regard to safely doing whatever speeds, I know I've had a few scares and near misses, coupled with the odd bit of damage. Compare that to my slower Dad with nothing, and maybe the OP has a point... Very interesting and honest post, thank you.
|
|
|
SlipStream77
1,627 posts
60 months
|
Simonium said: I would rather follow a frustratingly slow drive than be followed by an enthusiast. Agreed, I saw something relevant to this thread a couple of days ago. An enthusiastic driver stuck on the tail of a slow car, very close and I think they had a couple of 'looks' at overtaking. The slower driver obviously was aware of this, and at the next roundabout, they did a lap before turning off to get this car off their tail. The slower driver in this case was wiser in several respects.
|
|
|
Froomee
694 posts
38 months
|
I think it's important to note that someone who "pushes the limit" here and there will be less likely to panic in the event of a hazard and more likely to be able to avoid a crash.
All too many times I have seen accidents where avoidance may be a possibility only for the person to slam on the brakes and subsequently crash (one example).
Some "careful" drivers are actually people who just don't care about driving and can often been seen not using their mirrors when changing line and so forth.
Although equally iv seen people push their car way beyond the limit, spin and crash too so I don't think either driver is "safer" and each individual can be better or worse at any moment in time.
|
|
|
BIANCO
1,527 posts
86 months
|
Ari said: So you've got to ask, given that, ultimately, safety (for themselves and for other road users) surely has to be the most important over-riding criteria by which we judge any public road user, who's really safer/better behind the wheel? Mr. Dab Of Oppo, or Mr. White Knuckle I'm So Scared I'm Going To Drive Slower And Leave Big Gaps? I disagree surly the ultimate goal of any form of transport is getting to a decantation as quickly and as efficiency as possible with a expectable level of risk. The tricky thing is what’s a expectable level of risk?. One persons exactable level of risk is to another totally unacceptable and irresponsible but whose right?. I personally feel the UKs social risk level is for to low and continues to fall not just on the roads but thought-out out lives in general. We are a becoming a society of risk averse soft wimps. The UKs roads are some of the safest roads in the world but we continue reduce speed limits in the name of safety. So yes these people are probably safer but in my opinion are stifling progress, productivity and efficiency. Sorry for getting all philosophical.
|
|
|
RWD cossie wil
1,845 posts
42 months
|
Ari said: Something that occurred to me recently whilst following something dreary from Nissan at about 2/3 the speed limit. This guy was never going to go anywhere near the limits of his car or the road he was on. He was leaving massive gaps between him and the car in front, and was waiting for a 1/4 mile gap in traffic before pulling out. It struck me that he'll probably never ever crash because the safety margins he was giving himself were huge and he would take absolutely no risks.
Now I know the standard response is "ah but they hold other drivers up, who then take risks overtaking", and I sympathies with that, but that's not his fault, that's the other driver's fault. If someone gets frustrated and takes a chance on an overtake then that is surely their responsibility and theirs alone.
Thing is, we read all the time on PH about self styled expert drivers "hooning" and turning the traction control off because it "allows them to slide the car around a bit".
And we've got a thread a mile long full of "ooh look at my smashed up Porsche/Evo/Scooby/GTR/S2000/whatever".
So you've got to ask, given that, ultimately, safety (for themselves and for other road users) surely has to be the most important over-riding criteria by which we judge any public road user, who's really safer/better behind the wheel? Mr. Dab Of Oppo, or Mr. White Knuckle I'm So Scared I'm Going To Drive Slower And Leave Big Gaps? Mr slow will undoubtably be paying very little attention, merely bumbling along in his/her merry little world, without reading the road or anticipating actions of other users. Highly likely to be involved in a large smash where they have not got a clue what happened.....
|
|
|
g3org3y
6,799 posts
60 months
|
RWD cossie wil said: Mr slow will undoubtably be paying very little attention, merely bumbling along in his/her merry little world, without reading the road or anticipating actions of other users. Highly likely to be involved in a large smash where they have not got a clue what happened..... Inclined to agree with this. That kind of driver genuinely has little awareness of their surroundings. The reason they drive so slowly is probably because they are only capable of looking as far ahead as the end of their bonnet. They might not directly be involved in an accident but suspect a trail of destruction will be left in their wake!
|
|
|
busta
4,456 posts
102 months
|
BIANCO said: Yes these people are probably safer but in my opinion are stifling progress, productivity and efficiency. Precisely this. Everyone has an acceptable level of risk. For some, this rules out things like overtaking that are part of everyday driving for others. In very simple terms (ignoring driver attitudes and skill), the slower we all go the lower the risk of having an accident. If that is your measure of 'better driving' then slower drivers will always appear better. But factor in progress, productivity and efficiency and our slow and steady driver isn't actually very good at all. The thing that bugs me is slower drivers that don't acknowledge others who wish to travel faster. I have no problem with someone wanting to do 40 in a 60, but when there's a queue of 5 cars behind them showing a little courtesy by pulling over would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Burbleboy
134 posts
79 months
|
FLGirl said: TallbutBuxomly said: I strongly suspect the majority of accidents are caused by people like this though they may not actually be involved personally. ^ This ^ or whatever the new +1 is People who are exceptionally slow/timid on the roads are a hazard because they are not actually concerned with planning ahead, anticipation, acute observation or any other element of 'good driving'. They are simply protecting themselves. 'Good' driving is (IMHO) having a level of awareness not just for your own safety, but how you are driving impacts all the other users we share the roads with. Although I can understand the OP's argument, the problem with the driver he has described is they are likely to be so concerned with their own safety they are not accurately reading the road/conditions/traffic etc, they are simply avoiding anything and everything they perceive as Danger, which is very different and quite often actually relatively hazardous to those around them. 
|
|
|
8potdave
1,163 posts
82 months
|
Would said driver be able to anticipate a motorcycle travelling at high speed before he pulls out straight into his path? Would he expect a child to run out behind that parked car? Will he perform a proper shoulder check when changing lanes on the motorway? ( or will he hog the middle lane!)
I suspect not to all 3 so could quite easily cause a catastrophic accident!
|
|
|
bga
7,131 posts
120 months
|
mrmr96 said: Don't confuse "safe driving" with "lower aggregate payout costs". The insurers don't care about safety, they care about costs of claims they have to pay out. Driving below the speed limit, and not cornering, accelerating or braking hard would tend, I guess, to be congruent with lower claim costs. If lower claim costs are a result of less overall damage caused to vehicles, people & property then it could be argued that the driving is better.
|
|
|
Nick M
3,137 posts
92 months
|
Cards on the table - I enjoy driving and that can involve wanting to 'make progress' where it's sensible to do so. And while I might want everyone else on the road to have that same approach, the fact is that they don't. So I have to modify my driving accordingly. I might not like it, but that's *my* problem.
One thing I have noticed is that slow, sensible drivers are far rarer than slow, inconsistent drivers - the latter seeming to lack the basic confidence required to be on the road around other vehicles. These are the ones who can suddenly brake for no apparent reason, turn without indicating, find themselves in the wrong lane on a roundabout, etc.
Often I suspect this is because they break each journey down into a series of distinct and separate events which aren't connected in any meaningful way.
For the majority of the time I suspect they get from A to B without any issues, but to me it's more by luck than judgement, rather than because they are fundamentally safer.
Cause and effect I suppose - do they have less accidents because they're actually driving more safely, or are they simply considered safe because they have fewer accidents.
Sadly the brain-washing around speed which has been prevalent in the UK for so long has probably convinced the majority of drivers that slower is safer, when in reality little or nothing has been done to improve the overall level of driving skills on our roads.
|
|
|
Nick M
3,137 posts
92 months
|
bga said: mrmr96 said: Don't confuse "safe driving" with "lower aggregate payout costs". The insurers don't care about safety, they care about costs of claims they have to pay out. Driving below the speed limit, and not cornering, accelerating or braking hard would tend, I guess, to be congruent with lower claim costs. If lower claim costs are a result of less overall damage caused to vehicles, people & property then it could be argued that the driving is better. To me that is two different arguments. Lower claim costs simply show that the net result of accidents at slower speeds is a reduction in the overall cost of the accident. Better driving standards might have helped to avoid the 'accident' in the first place.
|
|
|
MarJay
1,716 posts
44 months
|
Hmm, I think the definitions of the words in the thread title need a little clarification: OP, 'bad' is not necessarily the same as 'slow' and 'good' is not necessarily the same as 'fast' A good driver is able to make good judgements and decisions, anticipate and react well to hazards and assure his own and other road users safety in all conditions. Whether that means they go fast or slow depends entirely on the situation. There, I've managed to sum it up in two sentences!
|
|
