Slow drivers on country lanes

[jmorgan]

Bonefish Blues said:

Pan Pan said:

For a person to go onto roads with the intention of holding up other road users, who legitimately want to travel at the posted limit, simply because, they fancy a nice drive, and want to look at the scenery is not on.
Many drivers may have huge distances to to cover, or may need to be at a destination point at a specific time. If a driver for whatever reason is not able to cope with travelling at the (set low) posted limit/s, or at the best speed dictated by road conditions, they should really think hard about whether they should be on the roads (in a vehicle they are driving themselves) at all.
limit

Clearly they don't set out to do that.

Clearly they have the right to use the road for their purposes, too.

I think you have to step back and look at what other people may expect in life. The road is there for many uses. It may irritate us when we are held up, but someone out for a drive and admiring the scenery is hardly commiting a hanging offence.

[9mm]

Pan Pan said:

FiF said:

Pan Pan said:

FiF said:

Pan Pan said:

saaby93 said:

Are we missing the point here somewhere
You dont have to use the roads to go as quick as you can from A to B. If you have the time it's ok to go out for a nice drive enjoying the differing scenery that the road passes through.
If someone comes up behind wanting to make progress, just let them by and all will be well with the world

Looking at the scenery is Ok for passengers, but not so welcome on the part of the driver, who should be focusing on the road. I like being a passenger at times, as it is only then that I get the chance to look at the scenery.

However the point is still valid when slightly modified.

It's not all about getting down a road as fast as possible. Different people may wish to travel at different paces.

As long as each party recognises this and those who are slower than others assist an overtake when possible and those who are quicker are patient and adopt a proper following position and contact position only when a genuine overtaking opportunity is likely.

Too often we see the the follower adopting a bullying position and the followee drifting past many opportunities to pull in.

That's before we get to those who drive on the basis of knowing the road and at best only account for their own braking distance and nothing for any opposing traffic.

The sort that says I'll really slow down for this unsighted bend as I know it's a square 90 right, but this next unsighted bend I'll keep my foot in the bucket as it's only a 30 left opens.

These people, to put it bluntly, are aholes.

Being considerate to other road users is important, but I would contend that those who drive down certain roads at speeds well below the posted limit, with a huge queue of frustrated motorists (some of whom may have many miles to do to get to their destination) behind them are also a*seholes. If someone is doing the (set low) speed limit, and also travelling a a reasonable speed for the road conditions, there really is not much point in overtaking, but if they are dawdling, and with no cars in sight in front of them, and a large queue built up behind them, they constitute the dangerous driver on that section of road, not those who legitimately want to travel at the posted limit.

Possibly agree.

If it's a road where overtaking is not possible and they refuse to assist then yes.

If overtaking is possible and the queue is caused by someone who fails to do so when it's perfectly possible but by their positioning they prevent someone getting past them and on past the leader then who's the bigger ahole?

Then what about someone who is sticking to an unreasonable limit. Say a 40 where 50 or even 60 would be acceptable? They aren't aholes in my book but it doesn't stop people adopting positions to try and bully them into going faster or to try and let them past.

For a person to go onto roads with the intention of holding up other road users, who legitimately want to travel at the posted limit, simply because, they fancy a nice drive, and want to look at the scenery is not on.
Many drivers may have huge distances to to cover, or may need to be at a destination point at a specific time. If a driver for whatever reason is not able to cope with travelling at the (set low) posted limit/s, or at the best speed dictated by road conditions, they should really think hard about whether they should be on the roads (in a vehicle they are driving themselves) at all.
limit

I don't think a significant number set out to do that. It does however seem to wind up lots of following drivers if the person in front doesn't drive at or above the speed limit.

If the journey is really that important and time sensitive then why not leave more margin and choose more suitable roads?

[FiF]

jmorgan said:

Bonefish Blues said:

Pan Pan said:

For a person to go onto roads with the intention of holding up other road users, who legitimately want to travel at the posted limit, simply because, they fancy a nice drive, and want to look at the scenery is not on.
Many drivers may have huge distances to to cover, or may need to be at a destination point at a specific time. If a driver for whatever reason is not able to cope with travelling at the (set low) posted limit/s, or at the best speed dictated by road conditions, they should really think hard about whether they should be on the roads (in a vehicle they are driving themselves) at all.
limit

Clearly they don't set out to do that.

Clearly they have the right to use the road for their purposes, too.

I think you have to step back and look at what other people may expect in life. The road is there for many uses. It may irritate us when we are held up, but someone out for a drive and admiring the scenery is hardly commiting a hanging offence.

Agreed they don't set out with the intention of holding others up.

My point is that when they do realise they are holding people up and then don't take appropriate action to stop that when a clear opportunity presents then that is a line crossed.

Equally there seems to be a significant element on this thread who are not prepared to accept any other road users who don't nail it every yard of the way within legal boundaries.

[jmorgan]

FiF said:

Agreed they don't set out with the intention of holding others up.

My point is that when they do realise they are holding people up and then don't take appropriate action to stop that when a clear opportunity presents then that is a line crossed.

Equally there seems to be a significant element on this thread who are not prepared to accept any other road users who don't nail it every yard of the way within legal boundaries.

Yeah, but the thing is we have to accept that drivers in the main are not all the same. I have had some awful encounters with slow driver and no chance to pass, I can let my blood pressure get to the point that I have to scream about it on a forum or put it down to life and get on with it. And I can think that one day, in my dotage, I will probably be the same........

I must admit that a few years ago my blood pressure would have been up.

[Pan Pan]

FiF said:

jmorgan said:

Bonefish Blues said:

Pan Pan said:

For a person to go onto roads with the intention of holding up other road users, who legitimately want to travel at the posted limit, simply because, they fancy a nice drive, and want to look at the scenery is not on.
Many drivers may have huge distances to to cover, or may need to be at a destination point at a specific time. If a driver for whatever reason is not able to cope with travelling at the (set low) posted limit/s, or at the best speed dictated by road conditions, they should really think hard about whether they should be on the roads (in a vehicle they are driving themselves) at all.
limit

Clearly they don't set out to do that.

Clearly they have the right to use the road for their purposes, too.

I think you have to step back and look at what other people may expect in life. The road is there for many uses. It may irritate us when we are held up, but someone out for a drive and admiring the scenery is hardly commiting a hanging offence.

Agreed they don't set out with the intention of holding others up.

My point is that when they do realise they are holding people up and then don't take appropriate action to stop that when a clear opportunity presents then that is a line crossed.

Equally there seems to be a significant element on this thread who are not prepared to accept any other road users who don't nail it every yard of the way within legal boundaries.

The posted limits are already set low to allow the widest spectrum of drivers to negotiate roads with a reasonable expectation of safety, and even some of those were applied when vehicles had cable, or rod operated brakes,and solid tyres.
Legislation that does not keep pace with the technology it seeks to govern is doomed to failure. I am disturbed at the way some here seem to believe that travelling within the posted limit, is tantamount to `screaming everywhere' or `nailing it' everywhere, when it is nothing of the sort.
Any driver who cannot travel safely at, or within the already low set posted limits, or to road conditions, should seriously consider. whether they should be driving a motor vehicle at all.

[9mm]

Pan Pan said:

FiF said:

jmorgan said:

Bonefish Blues said:

Pan Pan said:

For a person to go onto roads with the intention of holding up other road users, who legitimately want to travel at the posted limit, simply because, they fancy a nice drive, and want to look at the scenery is not on.
Many drivers may have huge distances to to cover, or may need to be at a destination point at a specific time. If a driver for whatever reason is not able to cope with travelling at the (set low) posted limit/s, or at the best speed dictated by road conditions, they should really think hard about whether they should be on the roads (in a vehicle they are driving themselves) at all.
limit

Clearly they don't set out to do that.

Clearly they have the right to use the road for their purposes, too.

I think you have to step back and look at what other people may expect in life. The road is there for many uses. It may irritate us when we are held up, but someone out for a drive and admiring the scenery is hardly commiting a hanging offence.

Agreed they don't set out with the intention of holding others up.

My point is that when they do realise they are holding people up and then don't take appropriate action to stop that when a clear opportunity presents then that is a line crossed.

Equally there seems to be a significant element on this thread who are not prepared to accept any other road users who don't nail it every yard of the way within legal boundaries.

Any driver who cannot travel safely at, or within the already low set posted limits, or to road conditions, should seriously consider. whether they should be driving a motor vehicle at all.

What does this last sentence mean? Who decides what constitutes driving 'to road conditions' within a speed limit?

[Pan Pan]

9mm said:

Pan Pan said:

FiF said:

jmorgan said:

Bonefish Blues said:

Pan Pan said:

For a person to go onto roads with the intention of holding up other road users, who legitimately want to travel at the posted limit, simply because, they fancy a nice drive, and want to look at the scenery is not on.
Many drivers may have huge distances to to cover, or may need to be at a destination point at a specific time. If a driver for whatever reason is not able to cope with travelling at the (set low) posted limit/s, or at the best speed dictated by road conditions, they should really think hard about whether they should be on the roads (in a vehicle they are driving themselves) at all.
limit

Clearly they don't set out to do that.

Clearly they have the right to use the road for their purposes, too.

I think you have to step back and look at what other people may expect in life. The road is there for many uses. It may irritate us when we are held up, but someone out for a drive and admiring the scenery is hardly commiting a hanging offence.

Agreed they don't set out with the intention of holding others up.

My point is that when they do realise they are holding people up and then don't take appropriate action to stop that when a clear opportunity presents then that is a line crossed.

Equally there seems to be a significant element on this thread who are not prepared to accept any other road users who don't nail it every yard of the way within legal boundaries.

Any driver who cannot travel safely at, or within the already low set posted limits, or to road conditions, should seriously consider. whether they should be driving a motor vehicle at all.

What does this last sentence mean? Who decides what constitutes driving 'to road conditions' within a speed limit?

Ever tried driving at 30 mph (on a 30mph limit road) which is covered by 600mm of snow, or in 300mm of flood water?

[coppice]

Some comments above are utterly risible ; the limit on my local roads is 60 but you would have to be insane to drive at 60 on nearly all of them. Sure,it's a pain if somebody interrupts your journey by daring to drive more slowly than you but the hair trigger outrage at people minding their own business by driving a bit slower than is felt appropriate is intolerant and selfish in equal measure .

[Pan Pan]

coppice said:

Some comments above are utterly risible ; the limit on my local roads is 60 but you would have to be insane to drive at 60 on nearly all of them. Sure,it's a pain if somebody interrupts your journey by daring to drive more slowly than you but the hair trigger outrage at people minding their own business by driving a bit slower than is felt appropriate is intolerant and selfish in equal measure .

Wanting to drive at the legal posted limit is neither intolerant, or selfish, wanting to drive at speeds significantly above or below the posted limit is.

[9mm]

Pan Pan said:

coppice said:

Some comments above are utterly risible ; the limit on my local roads is 60 but you would have to be insane to drive at 60 on nearly all of them. Sure,it's a pain if somebody interrupts your journey by daring to drive more slowly than you but the hair trigger outrage at people minding their own business by driving a bit slower than is felt appropriate is intolerant and selfish in equal measure .

Wanting to drive at the legal posted limit is neither intolerant, or selfish, wanting to drive at speeds significantly above or below the posted limit is.

Do tractors, vehicles being towed, abnormal loads, horse boxes, learners, hearses, emergency vehicles and vehicles with a malfunction all get special exemption status in your world?

[9mm]

Pan Pan said:

9mm said:

Pan Pan said:

FiF said:

jmorgan said:

Bonefish Blues said:

Pan Pan said:

For a person to go onto roads with the intention of holding up other road users, who legitimately want to travel at the posted limit, simply because, they fancy a nice drive, and want to look at the scenery is not on.
Many drivers may have huge distances to to cover, or may need to be at a destination point at a specific time. If a driver for whatever reason is not able to cope with travelling at the (set low) posted limit/s, or at the best speed dictated by road conditions, they should really think hard about whether they should be on the roads (in a vehicle they are driving themselves) at all.
limit

Clearly they don't set out to do that.

Clearly they have the right to use the road for their purposes, too.

I think you have to step back and look at what other people may expect in life. The road is there for many uses. It may irritate us when we are held up, but someone out for a drive and admiring the scenery is hardly commiting a hanging offence.

Agreed they don't set out with the intention of holding others up.

My point is that when they do realise they are holding people up and then don't take appropriate action to stop that when a clear opportunity presents then that is a line crossed.

Equally there seems to be a significant element on this thread who are not prepared to accept any other road users who don't nail it every yard of the way within legal boundaries.

Any driver who cannot travel safely at, or within the already low set posted limits, or to road conditions, should seriously consider. whether they should be driving a motor vehicle at all.

What does this last sentence mean? Who decides what constitutes driving 'to road conditions' within a speed limit?

Ever tried driving at 30 mph (on a 30mph limit road) which is covered by 600mm of snow, or in 300mm of flood water?

No, I wouldn't even try. I still don't understand what point you are trying to make.

[aka_kerrly]

Having glanced through this thread one thing that strikes me is that a lot of people don't appear to know what a country lane is.

An A road that can comfortably fit 3 cars wide is not a country lane, a 2 and a half car wide B road is not a country lane, a country lane is 1 and half cars wide with passing points.

Often they have high hedges, blind corners, no kerbs, no lighting, not especially good surfaces, animals, and can be covered in mud from local farmers for example:

If you really try hard you might be able to obtain 60mph briefly, being more realistic even 30mph can be considered inappropriate depending on conditions.

[Webber3]

Pan Pan said:

Wanting to drive at the legal posted limit is neither intolerant, or selfish, wanting to drive at speeds significantly above or below the posted limit is.

Are we still talking about NSL country lanes?!

There are lanes near me that you'd not want to drive on at more than 30mph and no more than 20mph on the zero visibility bends. I'd argue that the Unimog doing 40mph that clipped my stationary vehicle on a local lane, ripping my rear bumper off was being a tad selfish and the white van I saw that almost hit 2 horses a few weeks ago was more than a bit selfish travelling at 30mph on single track road into blind bend.

[Bonefish Blues]

Webber3 said:

Are we still talking about NSL country lanes?!

There are lanes near me that you'd not want to drive on at more than 30mph and no more than 20mph on the zero visibility bends. I'd argue that the Unimog doing 40mph that clipped my stationary vehicle on a local lane, ripping my rear bumper off was being a tad selfish and the white van I saw that almost hit 2 horses a few weeks ago was more than a bit selfish travelling at 30mph on single track road into blind bend.

Hare hare.

[Fastdruid]

interloper said:

Back on topic, when I was young I used to terrorise the Lanes of Berkshire with forays into Hants and Oxfordshire in my 998cc Mini. I knew what the NSL was and did my best to exceed it, when ever safe-ish to do so (not easy with just 45 bhp!). I'm a bit surprised reading comments from people on PH about pottering on country lanes, whats wrong with you? Have you no petrol in your veins?!

I'm afraid you are rather behind the times, now it's more diesel than petrol in the veins and the important thing is economy not speed and handling.

[MC Bodge]

Maybe Rural roads would be a more accurate description?

I think that most people understand what the thread is about.

[Fastdruid]

Even then it depends on the location, I've seen some "rural" roads where you could easily do 120+ and others where 20+ would be fast (and one or two where 5mph was scary )

[jmorgan]

Pan Pan said:

The posted limits are already set low to allow the widest spectrum of drivers to negotiate roads with a reasonable expectation of safety, and even some of those were applied when vehicles had cable, or rod operated brakes,and solid tyres.
Legislation that does not keep pace with the technology it seeks to govern is doomed to failure. I am disturbed at the way some here seem to believe that travelling within the posted limit, is tantamount to `screaming everywhere' or `nailing it' everywhere, when it is nothing of the sort.
Any driver who cannot travel safely at, or within the already low set posted limits, or to road conditions, should seriously consider. whether they should be driving a motor vehicle at all.

Do you mean at the limit at all times? Wording is not so clear.

If so I think perhaps not. One bit of technology that will never be updated is the nut behind the wheel, and in this world it is something we must consider. I have no qualms for Mr and Mrs Old Dears taking their time as long as it is within reason, and many younger drivers will as well. Of course there is a point where spurs must be hung up or wonder how the test was passed but perhaps we are not the best judge of that.

[Pan Pan]

Fastdruid said:

Even then it depends on the location, I've seen some "rural" roads where you could easily do 120+ and others where 20+ would be fast (and one or two where 5mph was scary )

Absolutely, it all comes down to travelling no faster than the distance you can see, and that you can stop in.
But going onto the roads in a car, knowing that a person will deliberately not travel at the speeds most of those
around them want to travel at, is the equivalent of a person jumping into a public swimming pool, knowing they have a case of the back door trots, and knowing they will sh*t the place up for everyone else. as noted before, selfish intolerant, and perverse behavior.
It is true that some vehicles cannot travel at the speed of others e.g tractors, traction engines etc, but these are not primarily intended for use on the roads, therefore their limited use on roads should be kept to the minimum. and consideration given to allowing vehicles which have built up behind the slow vehicle to get by at the first reasonable opportunity. The problems occur when those who have to/want travel slowly do not do this.

[Pan Pan]

9mm said:

Pan Pan said:

9mm said:

Pan Pan said:

FiF said:

jmorgan said:

Bonefish Blues said:

Pan Pan said:

For a person to go onto roads with the intention of holding up other road users, who legitimately want to travel at the posted limit, simply because, they fancy a nice drive, and want to look at the scenery is not on.
Many drivers may have huge distances to to cover, or may need to be at a destination point at a specific time. If a driver for whatever reason is not able to cope with travelling at the (set low) posted limit/s, or at the best speed dictated by road conditions, they should really think hard about whether they should be on the roads (in a vehicle they are driving themselves) at all.
limit

Clearly they don't set out to do that.

Clearly they have the right to use the road for their purposes, too.

I think you have to step back and look at what other people may expect in life. The road is there for many uses. It may irritate us when we are held up, but someone out for a drive and admiring the scenery is hardly commiting a hanging offence.

Agreed they don't set out with the intention of holding others up.

My point is that when they do realise they are holding people up and then don't take appropriate action to stop that when a clear opportunity presents then that is a line crossed.

Equally there seems to be a significant element on this thread who are not prepared to accept any other road users who don't nail it every yard of the way within legal boundaries.

Any driver who cannot travel safely at, or within the already low set posted limits, or to road conditions, should seriously consider. whether they should be driving a motor vehicle at all.

What does this last sentence mean? Who decides what constitutes driving 'to road conditions' within a speed limit?

Ever tried driving at 30 mph (on a 30mph limit road) which is covered by 600mm of snow, or in 300mm of flood water?

No, I wouldn't even try. I still don't understand what point you are trying to make.

The point I was trying to make is that if someone is not suited to a particular activity, be it driving, flying a jet fighter, carrying out brain surgery etc to a required standard, they should perhaps consider whether they ought to be undertaking that particular activity.