Regularly Travelling At 60 In A 30. No Remorse

[Pan Pan]

Chimune said:

27 mph in a 40 zone..... I just changed my view from angry teenager to troll.

Then you would be entirely wrong.

[anonymous-user]

Pan Pan said:

Then you would be entirely wrong.

Everybody is wrong eh, everybody

[anonymous-user]

Pan Pan said:

Donington! Pembrey! Oulton! Mallory! Silverstone! Who is being elitist now? are you trying to say you have competed at these tracks

Yes.

Pan Pan said:

you sound like a low mileage, low skill Sunday driver, who doesn't care about driving safely, or to a decent standard

See above.

[Chimune]

Pan Pan said:

Chimune said:

27 mph in a 40 zone..... I just changed my view from angry teenager to troll.

Then you would be entirely wrong.

if you think 27 in a 40 is anything other than mildly irritating then ill say again, you need to find a job that doesn't involve 42k mile pa.

However, I suspect you are just having fun with this thread

[anonymous-user]

Chimune said:

if you think 27 in a 40 is anything other than mildly irritating then ill say again, you need to find a job that doesn't involve 42k mile pa.

However, I suspect you are just having fun with this thread

Prolly stuck in traffic

[anonymous-user]

Pan Pan said:

Sunday driver

That's an expression I haven't heard in a while, but it sprang into my head last week.

The majority of drivers now are what used to be termed Sunday drivers. It's that state of mind that says "I'm driving under the limit, so I'm safe. And because I'm safe I don't need to pay attention to what's going on around me, just to the speedometer".

It's not really a step in the right direction, IMO.

[Mave]

Pan Pan said:

Mave said:

Pan Pan said:

And you sound like a low mileage, low skill Sunday driver, who doesn't care about driving safely, or to a decent standard

I don't think anyone who advocates dangerously overtaking someone who isn't going at the speed you want is suitably placed to comment on the safety or standard of anyone else's driving.

`You' are the only one referring to dangerous overtakes, I only overtake when it is safe to do so.

Having a memory problem? YOU introduced the issue of dangerous overtakes on page 6.
You explicitly stated that the following driver "had" to overtake the slower driver, even going so far as citing that I had a poor driving instructor because he instructed me "not to make driving decisions based on impatience or frustration".

Pan Pan said:

Are you really telling me that you have NEVER overtaken another car? That is what it sounds like

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion. I overtake cars all the time.

Pan Pan said:

I try to stay at or within the limits. Do you?

Yes. As do the people you are complaining about.

[Pan Pan]

Mave said:

Pan Pan said:

Mave said:

Pan Pan said:

And you sound like a low mileage, low skill Sunday driver, who doesn't care about driving safely, or to a decent standard

I don't think anyone who advocates dangerously overtaking someone who isn't going at the speed you want is suitably placed to comment on the safety or standard of anyone else's driving.

`You' are the only one referring to dangerous overtakes, I only overtake when it is safe to do so.

Having a memory problem? YOU introduced the issue of dangerous overtakes on page 6.
You explicitly stated that the following driver "had" to overtake the slower driver, even going so far as citing that I had a poor driving instructor because he instructed me "not to make driving decisions based on impatience or frustration".

Pan Pan said:

Are you really telling me that you have NEVER overtaken another car? That is what it sounds like

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion. I overtake cars all the time.

Pan Pan said:

I try to stay at or within the limits. Do you?

Yes. As do the people you are complaining about.

I am not complaining about those who stay within the posted limits, I am complaining about myopic dawdlers who travel at well below the posted limit when conditions allow the low set limits to be achieved and who allow huge queues of other motorists to build up behind them. Those who drive at `Inappropriate' speeds (either too fast, or too slow) on public roads are dangerous drivers.
You seem to be making the mistake of assuming that drivers who overtake a myopic dawdler, `always' do so in a state of anger, and frustration,
If you had read my comments properly, instead of just cherry picking from them, I said that `some; drivers might be induced to carry out an unsafe overtake through anger and frustration. You might also notice that I said, I only overtake when it safe to do so.
But let me enlighten you. A fail in the driving test (and thereby a fail in any subsequent driving) can result from doing any of the following.

Driver travelling at low speed on a clear road
Driver makes makes no attempt to achieve maximum speed within the limit for the road when safe to do so.
Driver reduces speed excessively when conditions do not merit it.
Driver makes slow progress through the gears.
Driver exhibits undue hesitancy at junctions.

The standard of the driving test, and the posted limits are set low to allow the widest spectrum of drivers to use the roads with a reasonable expectation of safety. Anyone who is not capable of maintaining even those very low standards, and limits, must carefully consider whether they are suited to be driving a motor vehicle on public roads.

[Pan Pan]

yonex said:

Pan Pan said:

Donington! Pembrey! Oulton! Mallory! Silverstone! Who is being elitist now? are you trying to say you have competed at these tracks

Yes.

Pan Pan said:

you sound like a low mileage, low skill Sunday driver, who doesn't care about driving safely, or to a decent standard

See above.

Driving on a motor racing circuit is completely different to driving on public roads (indeed some of those who do drive on circuits are not able to drive on public roads) Even if you have raced on the above circuits, what actual relevance does that have to making progress on public roads?
I recently watched an accident at Goodwood caused by a dawdling MG Magnette, so even on a racing circuit accidents can be caused by those who are travelling too slowly compared to the other drivers around them (namely `inappropriate' speed for the road they are on)

[Pan Pan]

Chimune said:

Pan Pan said:

Chimune said:

27 mph in a 40 zone..... I just changed my view from angry teenager to troll.

Then you would be entirely wrong.

if you think 27 in a 40 is anything other than mildly irritating then ill say again, you need to find a job that doesn't involve 42k mile pa.

However, I suspect you are just having fun with this thread

You clearly did not bother to read what I posted. I was taking a woman who was having her baby prematurely to hospital because no ambulances were available, where as it turned out, time was an important factor in enabling both her, and her baby to survive. Road conditions, and oncoming traffic prevented me from getting past an ignorant, arrogant myopic dawdler for nearly two very slow miles, where the dawdler was crawling at between 27 ( and at very best 30 mph) on a 40 mph country road in an a Mercedes C class.
How would you like to see someone (possibly someone you know) with a life threatening medical condition having their risk of surviving compromised by an ignorant myopic dawdler blocking the progress of the ambulance /vehicle they are in. I have witnessed this scenario far too many times for it to be anything like `fun'

[anonymous-user]

Pan Pan said:

Driving on a motor racing circuit is completely different to driving on public roads (indeed some of those who do drive on circuits are not able to drive on public roads) Even if you have raced on the above circuits, what actual relevance does that have to making progress on public roads?
I recently watched an accident at Goodwood caused by a dawdling MG Magnette, so even on a racing circuit accidents can be caused by those who are travelling too slowly compared to the other drivers around them (namely `inappropriate' speed for the road they are on)

You are suggesting that I am 'myopic Sunday driver' and stating 42K miles per year somehow makes you a better driver. Most reps on the road are actually some of the most annoying, useless and dangerous drivers in the country actually, it comes with having to be somewhere all the time on someone else's schedule. I am putting it to you that you don't really have a clue about who you are slating and your sweeping generalizations are nonsense. Despite your mileages you can't make allowances for others and you're the only one moaning about everybody on the road holding you up. It's pretty simple really.

[Pan Pan]

yonex said:

Pan Pan said:

Driving on a motor racing circuit is completely different to driving on public roads (indeed some of those who do drive on circuits are not able to drive on public roads) Even if you have raced on the above circuits, what actual relevance does that have to making progress on public roads?
I recently watched an accident at Goodwood caused by a dawdling MG Magnette, so even on a racing circuit accidents can be caused by those who are travelling too slowly compared to the other drivers around them (namely `inappropriate' speed for the road they are on)

You are suggesting that I am 'myopic Sunday driver' and stating 42K miles per year somehow makes you a better driver. Most reps on the road are actually some of the most annoying, useless and dangerous drivers in the country actually, it comes with having to be somewhere all the time on someone else's schedule. I am putting it to you that you don't really have a clue about who you are slating and your sweeping generalizations are nonsense. Despite your mileages you can't make allowances for others and you're the only one moaning about everybody on the road holding you up. It's pretty simple really.

I am not the one who was caught for speeding, and had do a speed awareness course, despite having to do far more miles on the roads than you do.
What it boils down to is that if people want to drive on public roads they should drive at a suitable speed compared to those around them, and not let large queues of other motorists who LEGALLY want to travel at the posted limit build up behind them.
This is where the `myopic' bit comes in. A reasonable driver would SEE that they are holding up a large queue of other drivers, and would either speed up to the posted limit, or get out of the way.
An unreasonable or incompetent driver either does not see that they are holding up other motorists, or worse still knows that they are there, but nevertheless chooses to carry on driving at an inappropriate speed, regardless of how many other motorists re held up behind them.

[Mave]

Pan Pan said:

If you had read my comments properly, instead of just cherry picking from them, I said that `some; drivers might be induced to carry out an unsafe overtake through anger and frustration.

I did read them properly. I totally understood the point.

The bit I disagree with is the bit where you said the person driving slowly in that circumstance was the dangerous one, rather than the person deciding to perform the unsafe overtake.

You repeatedly castigate and caricaturise the person driving more slowly than you'd like, who hasn't actually done anything dangerous; and yet at no point have you expressed any concern about the driving capability of the person making the unsafe overtake. You even supported their behaviour "they 'had' to make the manoeuvre".

This is not me cherry picking what you said, this is me playing back what you posted. You're happy for people to drive dangerously as long as they're driving at the speed you want, but as soon as they drive too slowly for you they deserve to lose their license. That about sum it up?

[Chimune]

Pan Pan said:

What it boils down to is that if people want to drive on public roads they should drive at a suitable speed compared to those around them, and not let large queues of other motorists who LEGALLY want to travel at the posted limit build up behind them.

Well they arnt. Ever.
So what are you going to do panpan? kvetch and moan how unfair it all is to a bunch of random internet users who couldn't give a stuff?
Or find a way of dealing with it ?

[Chimune]

Mave said:

You're happy for people to drive dangerously as long as they're driving at the speed you want, but as soon as they drive too slowly for you they deserve to lose their license. That about sum it up?

I think its much simpler than that.
if you are in front of panpan, you are too slow and dangerous.
if you are behind, you are just lucky !

[Mave]

Pan Pan said:

This is where the `myopic' bit comes in. A reasonable driver would SEE that they are holding up a large queue of other drivers, and would either speed up to the posted limit, or get out of the way.
An unreasonable or incompetent driver either does not see that they are holding up other motorists, or worse still knows that they are there, but nevertheless chooses to carry on driving at an inappropriate speed, regardless of how many other motorists re held up behind them.

There are 'myopic, people behind as well. A reasonable driver would SEE that they are too close to the car in front, and would either ease off to regain a safe distance, or wait until safe and then overtake.

An unreasonable or incompetent driver either does not see that they are too close, or worse still knows that they are too close but nevertheless continues driving at an inappropriate distance in an effort to intimidate the other driver.

There are far more myopic people in too much of a hurry than in too little of a hurry on our roads, and they are far more dangerous.

[Pan Pan]

Mave said:

Pan Pan said:

If you had read my comments properly, instead of just cherry picking from them, I said that `some; drivers might be induced to carry out an unsafe overtake through anger and frustration.

I did read them properly. I totally understood the point.

The bit I disagree with is the bit where you said the person driving slowly in that circumstance was the dangerous one, rather than the person deciding to perform the unsafe overtake.

You repeatedly castigate and caricaturise the person driving more slowly than you'd like, who hasn't actually done anything dangerous; and yet at no point have you expressed any concern about the driving capability of the person making the unsafe overtake. You even supported their behaviour "they 'had' to make the manoeuvre".

This is not me cherry picking what you said, this is me playing back what you posted. You're happy for people to drive dangerously as long as they're driving at the speed you want, but as soon as they drive too slowly for you they deserve to lose their license. That about sum it up?

FFS slow drivers ARE dangerous, perhaps fortunately not as numerous, or dangerous as those who want to exceed posted limits, or who drive beyond what their vehicle or road conditions would safely allow, but they are dangerous nevertheless. How many times do I have to repeat that `inappropriate' speed is what causes problems on public roads. And driving either too slow, or too fast for a section of road IS driving at an inappropriate speed, doing so elicits a fail on a driving test, and thereby a fail in any subsequent driving.
As for distance behind the car in front, have you not heard of the two second rule? or only travelling at a speed you safely can stop in, in the distance which can be seen?
If you actually believe that slow drivers are not dangerous, then you clearly have not been on the roads anywhere near long enough to see that in reality, they are.
Any activity from brain surgery, to driving requires a certain level of competence to carry out that activity
safely and to a reasonable standard, if people cannot maintain the low set standard of the driving test, and keep to the low set posted limits, they should consider whether they are suited to oeprating a motor vehicle

[Pan Pan]

Chimune said:

Mave said:

You're happy for people to drive dangerously as long as they're driving at the speed you want, but as soon as they drive too slowly for you they deserve to lose their license. That about sum it up?

I think its much simpler than that.
if you are in front of panpan, you are too slow and dangerous.
if you are behind, you are just lucky !

Yet again you would be entirely wrong, If you had read my posts you would see that I stated that if the person in front was travelling at the posted limit, or best speed that conditions allow, I do not overtake, they are doing all that most other road users, or the law could expect of them, cant ask for more.
But if they are travelling significantly lower than the posted limit and with a large queue of other motorists built up behind them, then the slow driver on that section of road is the problem driver.
They should either speed up to the posted limit, and allow those behind them to travel legally at that limit, or if for any reason they cannot do this, pull up at the first safe opportunity and let those behind get past.
To dawdle in front of large number of other road users, who want to legally travel at the posted limit, is just sheer bloody minded, selfish, ignorant arrogance, which has no place on public roads

[Pan Pan]

Pan Pan said:

Chimune said:

Mave said:

You're happy for people to drive dangerously as long as they're driving at the speed you want, but as soon as they drive too slowly for you they deserve to lose their license. That about sum it up?

I think its much simpler than that.
if you are in front of panpan, you are too slow and dangerous.
if you are behind, you are just lucky !

Yet again you would be entirely wrong, If you had read my posts you would see that I stated that if the person in front was travelling at the posted limit, or best speed that conditions allow, I do not overtake, they are doing all that most other road users, or the law could expect of them, cant ask for more.
But if they are travelling significantly lower than the posted limi, and with a large queue of other motorists built up behind them, then the slow driver on that section of road is the problem / dangerous driver.
They should either speed up to the posted limit, and allow those behind them to travel legally at that limit, or if for any reason they cannot do this, pull up at the first safe opportunity and let those behind get past.
To dawdle in front of large number of other road users, who want to legally travel at the posted limit, is just sheer bloody minded, selfish, ignorant arrogance, which has no place on public roads

P.s I would be interested in your reaction if someone you know, or loved died because the ambulance/ vehicle they were in, was baulked for `vital' minutes by a myopic dawdler, as I have seen on a number of occasions.
Do these people not realize that there are in fact, other road users on the roads around them?

[9mm]

Pan Pan said:

Mave said:

Pan Pan said:

If you had read my comments properly, instead of just cherry picking from them, I said that `some; drivers might be induced to carry out an unsafe overtake through anger and frustration.

I did read them properly. I totally understood the point.

The bit I disagree with is the bit where you said the person driving slowly in that circumstance was the dangerous one, rather than the person deciding to perform the unsafe overtake.

You repeatedly castigate and caricaturise the person driving more slowly than you'd like, who hasn't actually done anything dangerous; and yet at no point have you expressed any concern about the driving capability of the person making the unsafe overtake. You even supported their behaviour "they 'had' to make the manoeuvre".

This is not me cherry picking what you said, this is me playing back what you posted. You're happy for people to drive dangerously as long as they're driving at the speed you want, but as soon as they drive too slowly for you they deserve to lose their license. That about sum it up?

FFS slow drivers ARE dangerous, perhaps fortunately not as numerous, or dangerous as those who want to exceed posted limits, or who drive beyond what their vehicle or road conditions would safely allow, but they are dangerous nevertheless. How many times do I have to repeat that `inappropriate' speed is what causes problems on public roads. And driving either too slow, or too fast for a section of road IS driving at an inappropriate speed, doing so elicits a fail on a driving test, and thereby a fail in any subsequent driving.
As for distance behind the car in front, have you not heard of the two second rule? or only travelling at a speed you safely can stop in, in the distance which can be seen?
If you actually believe that slow drivers are not dangerous, then you clearly have not been on the roads anywhere near long enough to see that in reality, they are.
Any activity from brain surgery, to driving requires a certain level of competence to carry out that activity
safely and to a reasonable standard, if people cannot maintain the low set standard of the driving test, and keep to the low set posted limits, they should consider whether they are suited to oeprating a motor vehicle

I don't do it any more but I did do about five years of circa 30,000 miles a year. It made me drive faster than a lot of other people and I was frequently in a hurry. Your posts reek of frustration and intolerance. You can't see it yet but you will in time - if a crash or your blood pressure doesn't get you first. Life emergencies aside, the extreme scenarios you describe are incredibly rare. By that I mean deliberate obstruction by travelling at well below the posted limit. Once you stop driving so many miles and having to keep to a schedule, stress levels diminish dramatically and what did produce red mist produces a groan or a shrug at worst instead.