Driving Too Slowly Is Dangerous

[vonhosen]

lyonspride said:

vonhosen said:

lyonspride said:

RedSwede said:

(And to the title of this thread, a slow driver should not prove a danger to another competent driver.)

Oh really? Because I was once run off the road by someone overtaking a slow driver on an NSL road at night. The only person who stopped was the car directly behind the slow driver, he told me the fool had been doing 25mph for the last 5 miles and there had been several near misses already.

That driver's inability caused you the problem because they chose to overtake where there was insufficient vision.
That's dangerous.
Whatever slow mover you are behind, whether it be car, moped, cyclist or horse, you've got to wait for sufficient vision before you go.

No it's the slow drivers fault for causing that mess in the first place.

So if it had been a pedal cyclist or a horse it would have been their fault for having the temerity to be on the road?

No wonder the government gets ever more draconian in taking responsibility away from drivers !

[BertBert]

eccles said:

RedSwede said:

(And to the title of this thread, a slow driver should not prove a danger to another competent driver.)

There's not much a competent driver can do when they encounter a very slow driver on a slip road to a motorway or dual carriageway, and that driver can be put at considerable risk by joining the carriageway at a slow speed due to no fault of their own.

There are many circumstances where a 'slow' driver creates higher risk aka danger. Viewing it as competent driver dealing with slow driver is very one dimensional.

A driver on a motorway who is driving very slowly in comparison with the flow of traffic is causing more risk than if they were driving at a speed not too different from the slow traffic. The other drivers should be able to cope with it, but it creates more risk.

Bert

[TwigtheWonderkid]

lyonspride said:

vonhosen said:

lyonspride said:

RedSwede said:

(And to the title of this thread, a slow driver should not prove a danger to another competent driver.)

Oh really? Because I was once run off the road by someone overtaking a slow driver on an NSL road at night. The only person who stopped was the car directly behind the slow driver, he told me the fool had been doing 25mph for the last 5 miles and there had been several near misses already.

That driver's inability caused you the problem because they chose to overtake where there was insufficient vision.
That's dangerous.
Whatever slow mover you are behind, whether it be car, moped, cyclist or horse, you've got to wait for sufficient vision before you go.

No it's the slow drivers fault for causing that mess in the first place.

So had you actually collided with the overtaking driver, and the slow driver had just carried on going and no one had his details, you wouldn't have claimed off the overtaking driver who hit you. After all, by your own admission, it wasn't his fault!

[EU_Foreigner]

BertBert said:

eccles said:

RedSwede said:

(And to the title of this thread, a slow driver should not prove a danger to another competent driver.)

There's not much a competent driver can do when they encounter a very slow driver on a slip road to a motorway or dual carriageway, and that driver can be put at considerable risk by joining the carriageway at a slow speed due to no fault of their own.

There are many circumstances where a 'slow' driver creates higher risk aka danger. Viewing it as competent driver dealing with slow driver is very one dimensional.

A driver on a motorway who is driving very slowly in comparison with the flow of traffic is causing more risk than if they were driving at a speed not too different from the slow traffic. The other drivers should be able to cope with it, but it creates more risk.

Bert

Gets very close to the "crash for cash" schemes with someone doing something that is so unexpected. Where do you draw the line.

[RedSwede]

BertBert said:

There are many circumstances where a 'slow' driver creates higher risk aka danger. Viewing it as competent driver dealing with slow driver is very one dimensional.

A driver on a motorway who is driving very slowly in comparison with the flow of traffic is causing more risk than if they were driving at a speed not too different from the slow traffic. The other drivers should be able to cope with it, but it creates more risk.

Bert

I guess it depends what is meant by "slow drivers". Doing 25 in a 30? Slow driver, should not be a safety risk. 50 on a motorway, slow driver, again should not be a safety risk.

A selfish overtake is the fault of the overtaker.

Joining a motorway at 15mph, well, I suppose you could just call them a slow driver, but I would just say that's dangerous driving and not actually what has mostly been discussed in this thread.

[lyonspride]

RedSwede said:

I guess it depends what is meant by "slow drivers". Doing 25 in a 30? Slow driver, should not be a safety risk. 50 on a motorway, slow driver, again should not be a safety risk.

Disagree, driving slower than HGVs on a motorway isn't "slow driver", it's a f**king death wish. It's a brilliant way to end up in a HGVs blindspot and then get crushed against the armco.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

lyonspride said:

RedSwede said:

I guess it depends what is meant by "slow drivers". Doing 25 in a 30? Slow driver, should not be a safety risk. 50 on a motorway, slow driver, again should not be a safety risk.

Disagree, driving slower than HGVs on a motorway isn't "slow driver", it's a f**king death wish. It's a brilliant way to end up in a HGVs blindspot and then get crushed against the armco.

You could only be in their blind spot if they'd overtaken you, in which case they would know you were there. Sounds like it take a pretty useless HGV driver to do that.

[threespires]

My classic cruises at 45mph, often I notice ditherers behind causing a hold up as they won't overtake me. At times like this I pull in and let the queue behind get on their way.

But then on the other hand, often I'll get idiots overtaking me and then jamming on the brakes as we approaching red traffic lights.

Trying to stop a classic on drum brakes in a shortened braking distance can cause heart stopping moments. That's happen to me MANY times.

[MKnight702]

lyonspride said:

RedSwede said:

I guess it depends what is meant by "slow drivers". Doing 25 in a 30? Slow driver, should not be a safety risk. 50 on a motorway, slow driver, again should not be a safety risk.

Disagree, driving slower than HGVs on a motorway isn't "slow driver", it's a f**king death wish. It's a brilliant way to end up in a HGVs blindspot and then get crushed against the armco.

The increasingly common phenomena of the idiot driving at 50mph on a clear motorway may not be directly dangerous, but it certainly increased the risk of being rear ended by an HGV not believing anyone could be that stupid. Plus it also means that you get HGVs pulling out into the overtaking lane to pass the idiot (who has a 50:50 chance of rousing themselves long enough to try to speed up sufficiently to stop the overtake), this means that all the faster traffic in the overtaking lane has to slow to accommodate the HGV joining with all the knock on impacts that that has. So yes, driving too slowly does increase the danger level, not necessarily for the bumbling idiot that claims never to have had an accident (but that has seen loads).

[FiF]

That 'idiot' driving at 50 on a motorway, may very well be a so-called 'idiot' who has had a puncture, stopped in an emergency refuge area, changed for the space saver wheel, and is now driving at the legally mandated max of 50mph simply to the next exit in order to exit the motorway to get away from the superior types who think he's an 'idiot' but are blind totheir own failings.

[prand]

[quote=Torquey]
Over 5 miles there were 3 incidents of people tooting and tailgating to hurry up.

It doesn't bother him in the slightest. Just frustrating for everyone around and his passengers!

My Dad's like this. He's always complaining that people toot at him for no reason, even pulled into a garage forecourt for a discussion with a van driver once. With my kids in the back of the car. Total liability....

Combined with his incurable "jerky-lift-off-the-accelerator" habit which makes everyone car sick, I refuse to be a passenger when he's driving any more.

[Olivera]

FiF said:

That 'idiot' driving at 50 on a motorway, may very well be a so-called 'idiot' who has had a puncture, stopped in an emergency refuge area, changed for the space saver wheel, and is now driving at the legally mandated max of 50mph simply to the next exit in order to exit the motorway to get away from the superior types who think he's an 'idiot' but are blind totheir own failings.

Yes that accounts for 1 motorist of 1000 travelling at 50mph. The rest are bumbling incompetents inconveniencing all other motorway traffic when conditions are good.

[Solocle]

vonhosen said:

So if it had been a pedal cyclist or a horse it would have been their fault for having the temerity to be on the road?

No wonder the government gets ever more draconian in taking responsibility away from drivers !

I certainly find cycling to be more pleasant when you can maintain the same speed as the flow of traffic. But that's obviously impossible for the most part, outside of cities.

So yeah, driving slowly unnecessarily is creating a hazard. But if that's all your vehicle can achieve, for whatever reason, that's your right, and other road users should be able to accommodate that (e.g. overtake). Hell, I've been in the position where I've overtaken bimbling motorists on my bicycle. And that's with 20 bhp / tonne.

I think the ability to safely overtake should be on the driving test. The problem is that, for the vast majority of people taking their test, they don't encounter a situation where they are interacting with, say, a cyclist.

[vonhosen]

Solocle said:

vonhosen said:

So if it had been a pedal cyclist or a horse it would have been their fault for having the temerity to be on the road?

No wonder the government gets ever more draconian in taking responsibility away from drivers !

I certainly find cycling to be more pleasant when you can maintain the same speed as the flow of traffic. But that's obviously impossible for the most part, outside of cities.

So yeah, driving slowly unnecessarily is creating a hazard. But if that's all your vehicle can achieve, for whatever reason, that's your right, and other road users should be able to accommodate that (e.g. overtake). Hell, I've been in the position where I've overtaken bimbling motorists on my bicycle. And that's with 20 bhp / tonne.

I think the ability to safely overtake should be on the driving test. The problem is that, for the vast majority of people taking their test, they don't encounter a situation where they are interacting with, say, a cyclist.

But as far as the overtaker is concerned their responsibility doesn't change in relation to a safe overtake.

What i mean is, it isn't the case that if the overtaker cocks up an overtake on a pedal cyclist, horse, milk float etc that it is the fault of the overtaker, yet it suddenly isn't his fault if the vehicle in front on this occasion happens to be one that potentially could travel faster but isn't. The overtaker in both cases simply has somebody travelling slower in front of him than the speed he wishes to travel at. His responsibility in both cases is to pass them safely (if he wishes to pass them) & no amount of crying if he cocks that up off loads that responsibility on the slower vehicle that he was trying to pass.

All day long I encounter vehicles in front of me that are travelling slower than I want to, they are just a part of driving that we are expected to deal with in a safe & competent manner. If it's safe & legal to pass them I will, if it's not I'll wait until it is & then do it. I can't just tut, throw my arms in the air & caution to the wind, then proclaim it's all their fault simply because I can't display the caution & competence that was expected of me in that situation.

[lyonspride]

MKnight702 said:

lyonspride said:

RedSwede said:

I guess it depends what is meant by "slow drivers". Doing 25 in a 30? Slow driver, should not be a safety risk. 50 on a motorway, slow driver, again should not be a safety risk.

Disagree, driving slower than HGVs on a motorway isn't "slow driver", it's a f**king death wish. It's a brilliant way to end up in a HGVs blindspot and then get crushed against the armco.

The increasingly common phenomena of the idiot driving at 50mph on a clear motorway may not be directly dangerous, but it certainly increased the risk of being rear ended by an HGV not believing anyone could be that stupid. Plus it also means that you get HGVs pulling out into the overtaking lane to pass the idiot (who has a 50:50 chance of rousing themselves long enough to try to speed up sufficiently to stop the overtake), this means that all the faster traffic in the overtaking lane has to slow to accommodate the HGV joining with all the knock on impacts that that has. So yes, driving too slowly does increase the danger level, not necessarily for the bumbling idiot that claims never to have had an accident (but that has seen loads).

Actually you raise a good point, because HGVs overtaking bimbling drivers who then speed up, is how these fools end up getting side swiped by a HGV. The HGV drivers pulls out to pass, thinks they've cleared them (blind spots), starts to pull back in only to find they've sped up.

[vonhosen]

lyonspride said:

MKnight702 said:

lyonspride said:

RedSwede said:

I guess it depends what is meant by "slow drivers". Doing 25 in a 30? Slow driver, should not be a safety risk. 50 on a motorway, slow driver, again should not be a safety risk.

Disagree, driving slower than HGVs on a motorway isn't "slow driver", it's a f**king death wish. It's a brilliant way to end up in a HGVs blindspot and then get crushed against the armco.

The increasingly common phenomena of the idiot driving at 50mph on a clear motorway may not be directly dangerous, but it certainly increased the risk of being rear ended by an HGV not believing anyone could be that stupid. Plus it also means that you get HGVs pulling out into the overtaking lane to pass the idiot (who has a 50:50 chance of rousing themselves long enough to try to speed up sufficiently to stop the overtake), this means that all the faster traffic in the overtaking lane has to slow to accommodate the HGV joining with all the knock on impacts that that has. So yes, driving too slowly does increase the danger level, not necessarily for the bumbling idiot that claims never to have had an accident (but that has seen loads).

Actually you raise a good point, because HGVs overtaking bimbling drivers who then speed up, is how these fools end up getting side swiped by a HGV. The HGV drivers pulls out to pass, thinks they've cleared them (blind spots), starts to pull back in only to find they've sped up.

When I'm driving an LGV or PCV & I overtake a vehicle, I don't think 'Oh that's been long enough to clear that vehicle' & pull in. I check before pulling back in that I have actually cleared it.

[Solocle]

vonhosen said:

But as far as the overtaker is concerned their responsibility doesn't change in relation to a safe overtake.

What i mean is, it isn't the case that if the overtaker cocks up an overtake on a pedal cyclist, horse, milk float etc that it is the fault of the overtaker, yet it suddenly isn't his fault if the vehicle in front on this occasion happens to be one that potentially could travel faster but isn't. The overtaker in both cases simply has somebody travelling slower in front of him than the speed he wishes to travel at. His responsibility in both cases is to pass them safely (if he wishes to pass them) & no amount of crying if he cocks that up off loads that responsibility on the slower vehicle that he was trying to pass.

All day long I encounter vehicles in front of me that are travelling slower than I want to, they are just a part of driving that we are expected to deal with in a safe & competent manner. If it's safe & legal to pass them I will, if it's not I'll wait until it is & then do it. I can't just tut, throw my arms in the air & caution to the wind, then proclaim it's all their fault simply because I can't display the caution & competence that was expected of me in that situation.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

MKnight702 said:

The increasingly common phenomena of the idiot driving at 50mph on a clear motorway may not be directly dangerous, but it certainly increased the risk of being rear ended by an HGV not believing anyone could be that stupid.

But not half as stupid as an HGV driver, who whilst travelling at a max speed of 56, crashes into the back of a car doing 50.

[eccles]

threespires said:

My classic cruises at 45mph, often I notice ditherers behind causing a hold up as they won't overtake me. At times like this I pull in and let the queue behind get on their way.

But then on the other hand, often I'll get idiots overtaking me and then jamming on the brakes as we approaching red traffic lights.

Trying to stop a classic on drum brakes in a shortened braking distance can cause heart stopping moments. That's happen to me MANY times.

One of mine cruises at 45-55mph that's why I'll be getting rid of it next year.
I'm just not happy on the busy motorways or dual carriageways cruising at that speed and have had a few near misses from idiots.
It's a shame really as growing up me and my Dad would happily travel the country in his pre war sports car cruising at 50 and using hand signals with no problems at all. I've now got a classic that with cruise at 70, though some days that feels like you're standing still!

[Foss62]

threespires said:

My classic cruises at 45mph, often I notice ditherers behind causing a hold up as they won't overtake me. At times like this I pull in and let the queue behind get on their way.

But then on the other hand, often I'll get idiots overtaking me and then jamming on the brakes as we approaching red traffic lights.

Trying to stop a classic on drum brakes in a shortened braking distance can cause heart stopping moments. That's happen to me MANY times.

This can be as much of a problem when you are on a bicycle. Some people think they must get past you even when the situation in front means that you will be passing them again in a matter of seconds. Near the top of my list of driving ‘crimes’ is passing a narrow vehicle only to then immediately stop for a vehicle coming in the other direction.