Driving Too Slowly Is Dangerous
Discussion
threespires said:
My classic cruises at 45mph
What classic do you have that can only cruise at 45mph on the motorway? A friend has a 2 stroke Trabant with 25bhp, it can cruise at 50mph quite easily.Let's cut to the chase with classics going extremely slow on the motorway - many are driven by elderly bimblers with egg shells under the accelerator. Excessive slowness in such situations are usually caused by the driver not the car.
Foss62 said:
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.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.
RedSwede said:
The sense of entitlement in this thread is unbelievable. Obviously some people are pointlessly inconsiderate, but directing such vitriol at other motorists, simply because you cannot consider why they are doing something (driving at 29 in a 30) that may seem appropriate to them, is a recipe for poor decisions.
Let me recount a couple of occasions when I was on the receiving end of the impatience - because the other driver did not have the patience or imagination to understand the situation:
1. Just the other day, accelerating from a 30 (I was doing at least 30...) into a national at light/medium throttle, not hanging about, an oncoming car moves into a central right-turn lane ahead. I had the feeling he could cut across in front of me. I lift for a few seconds while I asses it, so I would be in a better position to brake if required. He doesn't turn, but the car behind comes right up close and flashes me. They had made a different assessment of the risk to me.
2. Driving one of the more heapy old heaps, it starts running rather badly (moisture in the distributor, it turns out). Too much throttle, and it conks (spark too weak), too little, it conks. So, pretty much the only option was to continue through the town centre at a steady 20/25 where it would still run. Or I could have just abandoned it, stuck on the hazards and created a 3 mile tail-back.
3. New car. I didn't know that 30 on the dial was actually about 26, 27 if I'm lucky.
If someone is doing 55 in a 60, it's my responsibility to overtake. If someone is doing 28 in a 30, it is really going to make naff all difference to my arrival time. If someone is doing 40 in a 60 on a busy Saturday with no overtake, that is maybe time to get a little narked. But I find that is truly rare.
Mostly agree, but I rarely consider an overtake at 55 in a 60 (although my regular roads don't have many long clear overtaking spots). I normally look for a 10+mph difference otherwise I'm spending a lot of effort looking for overtaking opportunities, most of which won't be viable, and that isnt much fun when 55 is still fairly good progress.Let me recount a couple of occasions when I was on the receiving end of the impatience - because the other driver did not have the patience or imagination to understand the situation:
1. Just the other day, accelerating from a 30 (I was doing at least 30...) into a national at light/medium throttle, not hanging about, an oncoming car moves into a central right-turn lane ahead. I had the feeling he could cut across in front of me. I lift for a few seconds while I asses it, so I would be in a better position to brake if required. He doesn't turn, but the car behind comes right up close and flashes me. They had made a different assessment of the risk to me.
2. Driving one of the more heapy old heaps, it starts running rather badly (moisture in the distributor, it turns out). Too much throttle, and it conks (spark too weak), too little, it conks. So, pretty much the only option was to continue through the town centre at a steady 20/25 where it would still run. Or I could have just abandoned it, stuck on the hazards and created a 3 mile tail-back.
3. New car. I didn't know that 30 on the dial was actually about 26, 27 if I'm lucky.
If someone is doing 55 in a 60, it's my responsibility to overtake. If someone is doing 28 in a 30, it is really going to make naff all difference to my arrival time. If someone is doing 40 in a 60 on a busy Saturday with no overtake, that is maybe time to get a little narked. But I find that is truly rare.
As you say for your 30 examples 55 isn't going to make much difference to journey times.
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.
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.
I'm trying to move the debate away from the danger being only perceived as one driver against another. I'm also trying to take the 'fault' out of the debate. Then it has a different perspective. An abnormally slow car creates circumstances of higher risk, much as a horse is in the same circs, or perhaps a cyclist.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.
The same is true of any overtake. It must generate higher risk. The overtaking car has fewer options to deal with the unexpected when it is alongside the overtaken car.
A lane change on the motorway brings higher risk etc etc.
Bert
Olivera said:
threespires said:
My classic cruises at 45mph
What classic do you have that can only cruise at 45mph on the motorway? A friend has a 2 stroke Trabant with 25bhp, it can cruise at 50mph quite easily.Let's cut to the chase with classics going extremely slow on the motorway - many are driven by elderly bimblers with egg shells under the accelerator. Excessive slowness in such situations are usually caused by the driver not the car.
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.
Having been there and done that (I avoided the M11 and A14 as much as possible) I would like to think that I could spot the car running on 3 wheels and a saucer. But I'm sure you are right, the people that I see day in, day out driving at 50mph on the M11 are just really unlucky and get a puncture daily necessitating the use of the space saver spare wheel. They don't however, do the sensible thing and take the next exit from the motorway and use the less busy and slower back roads.MKnight702 said:
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.
Having been there and done that (I avoided the M11 and A14 as much as possible) I would like to think that I could spot the car running on 3 wheels and a saucer. But I'm sure you are right, the people that I see day in, day out driving at 50mph on the M11 are just really unlucky and get a puncture daily necessitating the use of the space saver spare wheel. They don't however, do the sensible thing and take the next exit from the motorway and use the less busy and slower back roads.Bearing in mind heavy vehicles are permitted to travel at 56mph and speed limited I might suggest that driving at 50, say, when the vehicle is capable of more is perhaps rude and inconsiderate in making drivers of vehicles change lanes etc, but that's as far as I'm prepared to go on that.
Pointing out the admittedly rare situation of driving on a space saver and being legally restricted to 50 is simply to raise the issue that people claiming they are so incapable of dealing with a slower moving vehicle that it's very dangerous are simply exposing their own inadequacies. In fairness it is an observable phenomenon, if that's the correct word which it probably isn't, that when encountering a significantly slower moving or stopped vehicle in a live lane, unless observation is kept up at a very good level it can be surprising just how quickly one closes on said vehicle. This is simply the fault of the faster driver.
Also just to say I support what has been written on this thread by vonhosen. It's the overtaking driver's responsibility to make sure they can do so safely, if not apply some restraint and wait, don't get annoyed, deal with it. The level of entitlement which goes against those views are simply staggering.
The only thing that makes any slow-moving vehicle dangerous is the lack of anticipation and low driving standards of other road users. Every driver should be prepared for anything up to and including a totally stationary obstacle, and should have given themselves the required space and time to be able to deal with that. If they are not then that is down to their own shortcomings.
Yes, when you're driving, there will be multiple obstacles/slow moving vehicles etc that you can encounter when out on the road, and you should be able to deal with that competently. There are many, many reasons why someone might be slow - or even stationary - in your path.
But the annoyance is people driving far too slowly because they're just a bit dozy/useless/unobservant/self-righteously trying to "manage" other traffic etc.
For all the need for drivers to work around what other traffic is doing, if an element of that traffic is not behaving in the manner that would normally be expected and fitting in with everyone else, it does create a situation of increased risk. Might be mildly increased, might be quite a bit more significant.
Not recogmising that you could encounter such risk factors, accounting for them, and dealing with them sensibly is poor driving.
Creating more of them for no good reason is also poor driving.
Driving a vehicle capable and permitted of driving safely at the same pace as other traffic, and then driving significantly below that such that it affects other road users, is poor driving.
But the annoyance is people driving far too slowly because they're just a bit dozy/useless/unobservant/self-righteously trying to "manage" other traffic etc.
For all the need for drivers to work around what other traffic is doing, if an element of that traffic is not behaving in the manner that would normally be expected and fitting in with everyone else, it does create a situation of increased risk. Might be mildly increased, might be quite a bit more significant.
Not recogmising that you could encounter such risk factors, accounting for them, and dealing with them sensibly is poor driving.
Creating more of them for no good reason is also poor driving.
Driving a vehicle capable and permitted of driving safely at the same pace as other traffic, and then driving significantly below that such that it affects other road users, is poor driving.
eccles said:
My Peugeot 304 cabriolet isn't very happy over 50mph. Try driving at that speed one day, go just try it on a busy motorway and see how safe you feel.
The book top speed of your car is 90 or 92mph depending on google source. It's also got 65bhp, so I'd be astounded if it couldn't cruise at 55mph. Put the foot down.InitialDave said:
Yes, when you're driving, there will be multiple obstacles/slow moving vehicles etc that you can encounter when out on the road, and you should be able to deal with that competently. There are many, many reasons why someone might be slow - or even stationary - in your path.
But the annoyance is people driving far too slowly because they're just a bit dozy/useless/unobservant/self-righteously trying to "manage" other traffic etc.
For all the need for drivers to work around what other traffic is doing, if an element of that traffic is not behaving in the manner that would normally be expected and fitting in with everyone else, it does create a situation of increased risk. Might be mildly increased, might be quite a bit more significant.
Not recogmising that you could encounter such risk factors, accounting for them, and dealing with them sensibly is poor driving.
Creating more of them for no good reason is also poor driving.
Driving a vehicle capable and permitted of driving safely at the same pace as other traffic, and then driving significantly below that such that it affects other road users, is poor driving.
Nail. Head.But the annoyance is people driving far too slowly because they're just a bit dozy/useless/unobservant/self-righteously trying to "manage" other traffic etc.
For all the need for drivers to work around what other traffic is doing, if an element of that traffic is not behaving in the manner that would normally be expected and fitting in with everyone else, it does create a situation of increased risk. Might be mildly increased, might be quite a bit more significant.
Not recogmising that you could encounter such risk factors, accounting for them, and dealing with them sensibly is poor driving.
Creating more of them for no good reason is also poor driving.
Driving a vehicle capable and permitted of driving safely at the same pace as other traffic, and then driving significantly below that such that it affects other road users, is poor driving.
You could fail you're driving test for driving too slowly, which in some cases can deemed to be dangerous:
From: https://www.theaa.com/cars/news/hot-topics/driving...
Drive slow and steady
To avoid speeding or driving dangerously, you may think it wise to keep at a slow pace well below the speed limit on your test. Being hesitant and driving too slowly can actually lead you to fail your test, as it can be dangerous. Examiners pass positive drivers, not negative or risk-taking ones. Driving too slowly can also signal that you don’t know what the speed limit is, which the examiner will view as you being unfit to drive.
and:
From: https://www.wimbledondrivingschool.com/how-you-can...
You will be marked down
By driving slowly you are likely to be marked down by your examiner, who will be able to tell that you lack competence. You might be driving slowly to ensure that you pass your test, but this is misguided, since where you drive hesitantly your examiner will see a lack of skill.
Believe it or not, slow driving is likely to be marked as a fail-worthy driving fault, in the same category as stalling the engine or mounting the pavement. This is only where the slow driving is persistent and a danger to other road-users. However, it is better to drive the requisite speed than to risk dipping below what the examiner deems acceptable.
If slow driving can be deemed a danger to other road users on your driving test, then it stands to reason that it remains a danger to other road users after you have passed your test.
From: https://www.theaa.com/cars/news/hot-topics/driving...
Drive slow and steady
To avoid speeding or driving dangerously, you may think it wise to keep at a slow pace well below the speed limit on your test. Being hesitant and driving too slowly can actually lead you to fail your test, as it can be dangerous. Examiners pass positive drivers, not negative or risk-taking ones. Driving too slowly can also signal that you don’t know what the speed limit is, which the examiner will view as you being unfit to drive.
and:
From: https://www.wimbledondrivingschool.com/how-you-can...
You will be marked down
By driving slowly you are likely to be marked down by your examiner, who will be able to tell that you lack competence. You might be driving slowly to ensure that you pass your test, but this is misguided, since where you drive hesitantly your examiner will see a lack of skill.
Believe it or not, slow driving is likely to be marked as a fail-worthy driving fault, in the same category as stalling the engine or mounting the pavement. This is only where the slow driving is persistent and a danger to other road-users. However, it is better to drive the requisite speed than to risk dipping below what the examiner deems acceptable.
If slow driving can be deemed a danger to other road users on your driving test, then it stands to reason that it remains a danger to other road users after you have passed your test.
ks.4rephill said:
You could fail you're driving test for driving too slowly, which in some cases can deemed to be dangerous:
From: https://www.theaa.com/cars/news/hot-topics/driving...
Drive slow and steady
To avoid speeding or driving dangerously, you may think it wise to keep at a slow pace well below the speed limit on your test. Being hesitant and driving too slowly can actually lead you to fail your test, as it can be dangerous. Examiners pass positive drivers, not negative or risk-taking ones. Driving too slowly can also signal that you don’t know what the speed limit is, which the examiner will view as you being unfit to drive.
and:
From: https://www.wimbledondrivingschool.com/how-you-can...
You will be marked down
By driving slowly you are likely to be marked down by your examiner, who will be able to tell that you lack competence. You might be driving slowly to ensure that you pass your test, but this is misguided, since where you drive hesitantly your examiner will see a lack of skill.
Believe it or not, slow driving is likely to be marked as a fail-worthy driving fault, in the same category as stalling the engine or mounting the pavement. This is only where the slow driving is persistent and a danger to other road-users. However, it is better to drive the requisite speed than to risk dipping below what the examiner deems acceptable.
If slow driving can be deemed a danger to other road users on your driving test, then it stands to reason that it remains a danger to other road users after you have passed your test.
And a risky overtake is still a quicker road to a likely fail than a bit of driving below the speed limit where it was safe to travel at the limit.From: https://www.theaa.com/cars/news/hot-topics/driving...
Drive slow and steady
To avoid speeding or driving dangerously, you may think it wise to keep at a slow pace well below the speed limit on your test. Being hesitant and driving too slowly can actually lead you to fail your test, as it can be dangerous. Examiners pass positive drivers, not negative or risk-taking ones. Driving too slowly can also signal that you don’t know what the speed limit is, which the examiner will view as you being unfit to drive.
and:
From: https://www.wimbledondrivingschool.com/how-you-can...
You will be marked down
By driving slowly you are likely to be marked down by your examiner, who will be able to tell that you lack competence. You might be driving slowly to ensure that you pass your test, but this is misguided, since where you drive hesitantly your examiner will see a lack of skill.
Believe it or not, slow driving is likely to be marked as a fail-worthy driving fault, in the same category as stalling the engine or mounting the pavement. This is only where the slow driving is persistent and a danger to other road-users. However, it is better to drive the requisite speed than to risk dipping below what the examiner deems acceptable.
If slow driving can be deemed a danger to other road users on your driving test, then it stands to reason that it remains a danger to other road users after you have passed your test.
Yes, you can attract faults or even ultimately fail for driving too slowly, but it'll need to be extreme in regard to the defined outcomes. Examiners don't tend to have a congruent view of what amounts to so slow as to justify a driving fault as that expressed by some people here.
Olivera said:
The book top speed of your car is 90 or 92mph depending on google source. It's also got 65bhp, so I'd be astounded if it couldn't cruise at 55mph. Put the foot down.
I'll have you know it's the 'S' model so it's got 73bhp! 
Yes, that's the book speed, but it's all original with nearly 100k on the clock and it's not really designed for long periods of high rpm, hence me saying that's the speed it's happy at.
JimSuperSix said:
The only thing that makes any slow-moving vehicle dangerous is the lack of anticipation and low driving standards of other road users. Every driver should be prepared for anything up to and including a totally stationary obstacle, and should have given themselves the required space and time to be able to deal with that. If they are not then that is down to their own shortcomings.
Meanwhile back in the real world that's complete rubbish and completely unrealistic on the busy roads of today.Using those criteria we'd be having people literally crawling around country roads so they can stop in the distance that they can see.
On motorways you can only react to the distance you can see and that can be a relatively short distance if you are behind a larger vehicle.
eccles said:
JimSuperSix said:
The only thing that makes any slow-moving vehicle dangerous is the lack of anticipation and low driving standards of other road users. Every driver should be prepared for anything up to and including a totally stationary obstacle, and should have given themselves the required space and time to be able to deal with that. If they are not then that is down to their own shortcomings.
Meanwhile back in the real world that's complete rubbish and completely unrealistic on the busy roads of today.Using those criteria we'd be having people literally crawling around country roads so they can stop in the distance that they can see.
On motorways you can only react to the distance you can see and that can be a relatively short distance if you are behind a larger vehicle.
Then don't sit close behind large vehicles, you don't have to!
It'd be comical if it weren't so sad that this view of it's not possible to choose a safe option & still get to your destination at a decent time persists.
It IS possible in the real world.
vonhosen said:
eccles said:
JimSuperSix said:
The only thing that makes any slow-moving vehicle dangerous is the lack of anticipation and low driving standards of other road users. Every driver should be prepared for anything up to and including a totally stationary obstacle, and should have given themselves the required space and time to be able to deal with that. If they are not then that is down to their own shortcomings.
Meanwhile back in the real world that's complete rubbish and completely unrealistic on the busy roads of today.Using those criteria we'd be having people literally crawling around country roads so they can stop in the distance that they can see.
On motorways you can only react to the distance you can see and that can be a relatively short distance if you are behind a larger vehicle.
Then don't sit close behind large vehicles, you don't have to!
It'd be comical if it weren't so sad that this view of it's not possible to choose a safe option & still get to your destination at a decent time persists.
It IS possible in the real world.
eccles said:
vonhosen said:
eccles said:
JimSuperSix said:
The only thing that makes any slow-moving vehicle dangerous is the lack of anticipation and low driving standards of other road users. Every driver should be prepared for anything up to and including a totally stationary obstacle, and should have given themselves the required space and time to be able to deal with that. If they are not then that is down to their own shortcomings.
Meanwhile back in the real world that's complete rubbish and completely unrealistic on the busy roads of today.Using those criteria we'd be having people literally crawling around country roads so they can stop in the distance that they can see.
On motorways you can only react to the distance you can see and that can be a relatively short distance if you are behind a larger vehicle.
Then don't sit close behind large vehicles, you don't have to!
It'd be comical if it weren't so sad that this view of it's not possible to choose a safe option & still get to your destination at a decent time persists.
It IS possible in the real world.
vonhosen said:
eccles said:
vonhosen said:
eccles said:
JimSuperSix said:
The only thing that makes any slow-moving vehicle dangerous is the lack of anticipation and low driving standards of other road users. Every driver should be prepared for anything up to and including a totally stationary obstacle, and should have given themselves the required space and time to be able to deal with that. If they are not then that is down to their own shortcomings.
Meanwhile back in the real world that's complete rubbish and completely unrealistic on the busy roads of today.Using those criteria we'd be having people literally crawling around country roads so they can stop in the distance that they can see.
On motorways you can only react to the distance you can see and that can be a relatively short distance if you are behind a larger vehicle.
Then don't sit close behind large vehicles, you don't have to!
It'd be comical if it weren't so sad that this view of it's not possible to choose a safe option & still get to your destination at a decent time persists.
It IS possible in the real world.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff