A question of good progress

[willibetz]

An interesting debate about making progress and adherence to speed limits. However, may be the single biggest issue (as yet not fully explored) is how "law-abiding" and "speeding" drivers act when sharing our roads. This consideration influences my driving in a couple of ways:

- when considering an overtake, I'm mindful of whether I'll be frustating the driver that I pass in the next town or village

- I'm occasionally pushed by frustrated drivers in limits, who then fail to make progress after the GLF's (do people still use that term?)

[Fat Audi 80]

willibetz said:

An interesting debate about making progress and adherence to speed limits. However, may be the single biggest issue (as yet not fully explored) is how "law-abiding" and "speeding" drivers act when sharing our roads. This consideration influences my driving in a couple of ways:

- when considering an overtake, I'm mindful of whether I'll be frustating the driver that I pass in the next town or village

- I'm occasionally pushed by frustrated drivers in limits, who then fail to make progress after the GLF's (do people still use that term?)

GLF's

I don't care about others, in the sense that I will over take in a GLF area and then do 30 in a village. That is my choice, if the don't like it tough. Advice I was given on my advanced driving course...

Cheers,

Steve.

[TripleS]

Fat Audi 80 said:

willibetz said:

An interesting debate about making progress and adherence to speed limits. However, may be the single biggest issue (as yet not fully explored) is how "law-abiding" and "speeding" drivers act when sharing our roads. This consideration influences my driving in a couple of ways:

- when considering an overtake, I'm mindful of whether I'll be frustating the driver that I pass in the next town or village

- I'm occasionally pushed by frustrated drivers in limits, who then fail to make progress after the GLF's (do people still use that term?)

GLF's

I don't care about others, in the sense that I will over take in a GLF area and then do 30 in a village. That is my choice, if the don't like it tough. Advice I was given on my advanced driving course...

Cheers,

Steve.

...but would you agree that it is best to avoid doing your NSL (alias GLF) overtake too close to the point at which you will be slowing for the 30 limit, i.e. right in front of the overtakee?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[ipsg.glf]

TripleS said:

Good evening Mr glf I trust you're well.

You make one or two fair points there if I may say so.

I do feel that BFF's approach is not going to help get the youngsters on board, and that does need doing I think.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

PS. Cough, cough - video tapes? Perhaps sometime....?

Hi Dave

Thanks for the reminder - We should have another run out soon. I can then return the videos you lent me. I've acquired a copy of the Organ Donor run done in the late 90's in the Rover SDi - It makes interesring viewing. You are welcome to borrow it, if you like.

As the thread appears to have turned to GLF....

Just in case anyone is wondering about the username:

I = Information
P = Position
S = Speed
G = Gear

GLF = Go like phuck

[ipsg.glf]

TripleS said:

Fat Audi 80 said:

willibetz said:

An interesting debate about making progress and adherence to speed limits. However, may be the single biggest issue (as yet not fully explored) is how "law-abiding" and "speeding" drivers act when sharing our roads. This consideration influences my driving in a couple of ways:

- when considering an overtake, I'm mindful of whether I'll be frustating the driver that I pass in the next town or village

- I'm occasionally pushed by frustrated drivers in limits, who then fail to make progress after the GLF's (do people still use that term?)

GLF's

I don't care about others, in the sense that I will over take in a GLF area and then do 30 in a village. That is my choice, if the don't like it tough. Advice I was given on my advanced driving course...

Cheers,

Steve.

...but would you agree that it is best to avoid doing your NSL (alias GLF) overtake too close to the point at which you will be slowing for the 30 limit, i.e. right in front of the overtakee?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I agree, Dave.

We always need to be mindful of the other driver's perception of our actions. If I know I am approaching a limit change (down) I, generally, would not overtake but get 'em on the the other side (the limit change up)

[TripleS]

ipsg.glf said:

TripleS said:

Good evening Mr glf I trust you're well.

You make one or two fair points there if I may say so.

I do feel that BFF's approach is not going to help get the youngsters on board, and that does need doing I think.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

PS. Cough, cough - video tapes? Perhaps sometime....?

Hi Dave

Thanks for the reminder - We should have another run out soon. I can then return the videos you lent me. I've acquired a copy of the Organ Donor run done in the late 90's in the Rover SDi - It makes interesring viewing. You are welcome to borrow it, if you like.

As the thread appears to have turned to GLF....

Just in case anyone is wondering about the username:

I = Information
P = Position
S = Speed
G = Gear

GLF = Go like phuck

Hello C, thanks for the reply.

Yes, I look forward to another trip together sometime, so long as you don't expect an 'advanced' performance from me. Even so, I think you'll be reasonably safe!

I hope you were able to view those two video tapes OK, but I found they didn't always play very well. I lent one of them to Gareth (Streetcop) a while back, but it suffered rough treatment in the post on the way to him which didn't help! Anyhow your kind offer of the SD1 run video is very appealing. I've heard a lot about it but I don't think I've ever seen it.

Chat to you soon.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Fat Audi 80]

TripleS said:

Fat Audi 80 said:

willibetz said:

An interesting debate about making progress and adherence to speed limits. However, may be the single biggest issue (as yet not fully explored) is how "law-abiding" and "speeding" drivers act when sharing our roads. This consideration influences my driving in a couple of ways:

- when considering an overtake, I'm mindful of whether I'll be frustating the driver that I pass in the next town or village

- I'm occasionally pushed by frustrated drivers in limits, who then fail to make progress after the GLF's (do people still use that term?)

GLF's

I don't care about others, in the sense that I will over take in a GLF area and then do 30 in a village. That is my choice, if the don't like it tough. Advice I was given on my advanced driving course...

Cheers,

Steve.

...but would you agree that it is best to avoid doing your NSL (alias GLF) overtake too close to the point at which you will be slowing for the 30 limit, i.e. right in front of the overtakee?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Very interesting one that Dave. I actually did that one of my advanced driving lessons. The instructor told me he was quite happy for to overtake at the end of NSL. The reason being that when you get out of the 30 you will be in the perfect position to make progress when back in the NSL.

I would agree that I definitely try NOT to antagonise other road users. BUT if you are confident that may be stuck behind the driver in the next NSL any SAFE overtaking opportunity is fair game.

Discuss.

Cheers,

Steve

[Big Fat F'er]

TripleS said:

I do feel that BFF's approach is not going to help get the youngsters on board, and that does need doing I think

My 'approach' is to be very clear about what is expected. Anyone joining an organisation like the IAM (for example purposes only) should know what is expected of them. During the training it is made very clear. Advanced Drivers are expected to drive within the limits at all times, including overtaking.

Tell you what. So that you don't think it's a personal attack on you, do me a favour. Publish the bits where the Advanced Institutions and the Police are recommending that you can break the limits.

You can't. Because they don't do it. They absolutely 100% state that you shouldn't break the limit. As a result, there are many drivers that decide that although sticking to the limits is often inconvenient, they do so from an Advanced stance. They don't always like it, but they believe it is the right thing to do.

You have decided it is not right for you, and you have decided to break the limits if you want to. So, we are not saying it makes you bad, or evil, or necessarily unsafe, or that you can't drive, or that you don't care, or that you have no experience, or that you have no skill. It is just that if you do it, it is not Advanced, as defined by the Advanced Institutions and Police. What is wrong with that approach.

[Big Fat F'er]

TripleS said:

Big Fat F'er said:

TripleS said:

Big Fat F'er said:

Triple - Someone earlier claimed that no Advanced institution can be seen to condone breaking the limit. Well it is even clearer than that. They explicitly state that you shouldn't break the speed limits. If they just wanted to avoid condoning breaking the law, they would avoid mentioning it at all. Or perhaps they would imply it, without being too factual. But ALL of the Advanced groups, and also the Old Bill, state that you should not speed. You choose to ignore that, but it doesn't affect the rules. Your ignorance, deliberate or otherwise, of the Advanced code doesn't change that code.

That is why it is always a moral decision, based on your principles. Yes, it will sometimes be inconvenient for you to obey the law. But if you claim to be Advanced, don't speed, and don't try and argue that it is okay to do so. I agree with your earlier comment when you say you have never claimed to be Advanced. Okay then, thats fine, so this doesn't apply to you.

I can not recall whether it was earlier in this topic or in another topic on PH, but very recently there was some debate about the rights and wrongs of speeding. Well I see it like this:

Speeding is undeniably wrong in so far as it contravenes the law, but beyond that it is arguable, and in moral terms I do not regard it as wrong when I break that particular law.

The law is made by politicians for whom, as a group, I - and perhaps many of you - do not have a particularly high regard. In many cases these are people whose behavioural and moral standards are by no means superior to mine, and yours, and I therefore do not necessarily place a high value on some of the laws they create. Where I support their general objective - such as a decent level of road safety - I will try to behave in a manner that is compatible with that, but rigid compliance with speed limits is, for my purposes, not an important ingredient.

I have previously made various references to my attitude to other road users, namely that it is essentially one of goodwill, tolerance, accommodation, promoting harmony and co-operation, and being mindful of their interests, not just my own. That is how I prefer things to be, it is in no way a tiresome restriction.

You, on the other hand, recently announced quite clearly that you had no interest in the thoughts and (in effect) feelings of other road users. In my opinion that was not a good stance to take, and I'm not inclined to feel that my attitude and approach, and indeed moral stance is inferior to that.

That's about all I can say. This is perhaps an unusual way of looking at it, but there you go.

Oh, and you do not need to tell me to cool it etc.

Enjoy your driving, and take care,
Dave.

Good points, apart from the statement about my comment that I had no interest in the thoughts and feelings of other drivers.

You KNOW that it was a flippant comment in a previous thread. You KNOW that it was an attempt at humour.

You need to cool it.

Well your tone seldom sounds very light and humorous to me, but maybe I'm reading you wrongly. Very often it sounds as if you wish to feel expert and be doing all the telling, and winning the arguments etc., which doesn't go down too well with me. Anyhow no worry, you have your style and I have mine, and that's it.

Of the two of us I'm not sure it really is me that needs to cool it - but you have the last word by all means. Sorry folks but........

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I made the comments in response to the one you made about me not caring about other drivers. Yet I had already said to you it was a little joke, an attempt at humour. you knew that, but still tried to use it.

I don't regard myself as an expert. That is why I usually discuss those things are can be backed up with evidence. For example, the IAM's stance on breaking the speed limit. That is factual, documented and published. Our differences come about not bacause you don't follow the 'rules', it's because you try and deny they exsit.

Just to help you a little bit, the next line is a joke. It's not sarcasm. I'm not getting at you. It's just a laugh, okay.

You wanna cool it.

[Big Fat F'er]

TripleS said:

Big Fat F'er said:

Let's face it, despite various attempts to change you, I think it's fair to say you haven't changed your stance. Neither has TripleS, or Green, etc. Thats why the debates go on. We all stick to what we believe in. I'm surprised you think that's blinkered.

As a matter of fact I don't seek to change people - well certainly not directly by attempting to demolish their viewpoints. I'm quite happy to offer my viewpoint and I just hope it will remain on the table to be picked up by whoever sees any merit in it. If they then adjust their own attitude in their own good time as a result of that, and go on to benefit from it - well that splendid.

As I may have said before, I'm not a believer in sudden major alterations, revolutionary changes etc. IMHO minor adjustments made on a steady logical basis will suit most people best and yield good solid progress, and it should maintain a stable situation too - which is also important.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

You know this was said in response to the comment about being blinkered. for some reason people often use that argument about someone else but not about themselves. I was simply pointing out that as far as I'm aware, your position on speeding hasn't changed. Neither has mine. Neither has Greens. So in other words, we still think what we originally thought. So you can't really pick out one person and say he is blinkered.

[Big Fat F'er]

TripleS said:

Big Fat F'er said:

Now go out for a drive, chill out, and realise there are more important things in life than our differences.

Edited by Big Fat F'er on Thursday 15th June 16:52

There's another example of what I think is causing some of us (well certainly me) some difficulty with you here. You're in 'telling mode' again, and we're not going to be 'told' by you - or anybody else actually.

Most of us like to offer our opinions, suggestions and viewpoints, and we're very willing to listen to alternative views, but that's about it. We do not want opinions - which may have no greater validity than our own - thrust down our throats.

Now if you'll excuse me for a while, I'm going to have to go and cool it a little.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Let me get this right. You are an adult. You appear sensible. you are more than capable of stringing a sentence together, and you clearly can defend your viewpoint. Yet when I said "Now go out for a drive, chill out, and realise there are more important things in life than our differences" for some reason you think that is 'telling' you what to do.

Did you honestly find that oh so bad? Was it so terrible? Do you think our differences of opinion are that important? I don't, and I'm surprised you do.

[Big Fat F'er]

GreenV8S said:

Big Fat F'er said:

despite various attempts to change you, I think it's fair to say ...

Have you been attempting to change us? All I've heared is that I must obey the speed limit because the law says so, along with a metaphorical wagging finger.

Nope, you know I was responding to the comment about being blinkered. You stick to your opinion, I'll stick to my, Triple will stick to his, etc.,etc., etc. It's not blinkered.

[Big Fat F'er]

Fat Audi 80 said:

I don't care about others.... .

Don't say that, even in jest, you never know who's reading this.

[StressedDave]

Big Fat F'er said:

Nope, you know I was responding to the comment about being blinkered. You stick to your opinion, I'll stick to my, Triple will stick to his, etc.,etc., etc. It's not blinkered.

I think entrenched is a better word...

I can't imagine any of the three of you changing your opinions or positions, irrespective of what anyone says. FWIW (about 2p and a conker, if you listen to some people ) my take on this is that slavish adherence to any law or rule, simply because it is a law or rule, is potentially misguided. While I appreciate the fact that the incumbent government seems to have a 'Mummy knows best' attitude to personal responsibility, in theory the people of this nation are both governed and Policed by consent - and if you've ever seen the BiB working at chucking-out time on a Saturday night, you'll understand what I mean.

Now the laws on speeding are perpetually being flouted by the general populace, irrespective of their 'adavanced' status as drivers. This generally means one of two things: either the laws are wrong (and thus should be changed) or the populace are so ill-educated and informed that they fail to see the need to adhere to them. I'd be inclined to think its the latter.

However, the corollary of this is that a driver, suitably educated, experienced and skilled, is capable of making a sane and rational decision as to what speed is appropriate under all conditions, particularly if he abides by the mantra that I try to instill into clients: "I am going to drive in a manner whereby my safety is not dependent on the action or inaction of any other road user". That is Advanced Driving, not 'don't go over the posted speed limit'. It is wrong to say that anyone who exceeds the speed limit is not an advanced driver. After all, Police drivers (and I know they have an exception as to speed) do it all the time, and as far as I know, there hasn't been a case of spontaneous combustion involving a Police driver yet...

[Philbes]

"After all, Police drivers (and I know they have an exception as to speed) do it all the time, and as far as I know, there hasn't been a case of spontaneous combustion involving a Police driver yet..."

But they are involved in accidents where excess speed is a factor.

[TripleS]

Fat Audi 80 said:

TripleS said:

....would you agree that it is best to avoid doing your NSL (alias GLF) overtake too close to the point at which you will be slowing for the 30 limit, i.e. right in front of the overtakee?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Very interesting one that Dave. I actually did that on one of my advanced driving lessons. The instructor told me he was quite happy for me to overtake at the end of NSL. The reason being that when you get out of the 30 you will be in the perfect position to make progress when back in the NSL.

I would agree that I definitely try NOT to antagonise other road users. BUT if you are confident that you may be stuck behind the driver in the next NSL any SAFE overtaking opportunity is fair game.

Discuss.

Cheers,

Steve

Hiya Steve - OK that is a consideration and I'm quite happy to take it into account. It becomes a matter of striking a reasonable balance between securing the rate of progress you want, as against the risk of upsetting the overtakee - with whatever that might lead to. Indeed it is not rare for people to come here reporting some extremely unpleasant conflicts, some of which seem to blow up out of not much at all, and I think we would do well to remember that.

If there is any doubt in my mind I would sacrifice a bit of progress in the interests of minimising the risk of inconveniencing or upsetting the other driver. There are, however, other views!

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[StressedDave]

Philbes said:

"After all, Police drivers (and I know they have an exception as to speed) do it all the time, and as far as I know, there hasn't been a case of spontaneous combustion involving a Police driver yet..."

But they are involved in accidents where excess speed is a factor.

True, but their incidence in terms of mile driven is an enormous degree of magnitude lower. As a cop friend of mine keeps saying "monkeys still fall out of trees" - you can never wholly remove the human factor from driving, merely mitigate it to as low a percentage as possible.

[Fat Audi 80]

Big Fat F'er said:

Fat Audi 80 said:

I don't care about others.... .

Don't say that, even in jest, you never know who's reading this.

P1$$ off, PATRONISING TW@T

There, you got a rise out me you Troll

Cheers,

Steve

(BTW consider yourself special, I don't normally do that on PH...)

Edited by Fat Audi 80 on Friday 16th June 15:08

[Philbes]

StressedDave said:

Philbes said:

"After all, Police drivers (and I know they have an exception as to speed) do it all the time, and as far as I know, there hasn't been a case of spontaneous combustion involving a Police driver yet..."

But they are involved in accidents where excess speed is a factor.

True, but their incidence in terms of mile driven is an enormous degree of magnitude lower. As a cop friend of mine keeps saying "monkeys still fall out of trees" - you can never wholly remove the human factor from driving, merely mitigate it to as low a percentage as possible.

But how does their accident rate when driving above the speed limit compare with their accident rate when driving within the speed limits? If an Advanced Driver has the ability to consider when breaking the limits is safe, then there should be no difference.

[GreenV8S]

Big Fat F'er said:

when I said "Now go out for a drive, chill out, and realise there are more important things in life than our differences" for some reason you think that is 'telling' you what to do.

Well it does rather look to me as if you are 'telling' somebody to go out for a drive etc there.

In terms of blinkered or entrenched views, the main thing that disappoints me about this thread is not the patronising attitudes from some people or the rudeness from others, it is that none of the 'obey the speed limit at all times' proponents have put forward any arguments to support their position. I've explained why I think you're wrong, and all you (collectively) have done in return is reiterate your opinions and dodge the question of why. I'm left to conclude that you're all obeying the law for no better reason than that it is there, and that isn't a good enough reason for me to support it.