Is my advanced driving tuition dangerous?
Discussion
GreenV8S said:
vonhosen said:
That's like saying because a woman wears a skirt above the knee, she has played a part in creating the situation of her rape. Doesn't wash with me I'm afraid.
And yet it seems obvious to me that a young woman who dresses and behaves provocatively while in the company of drunken young men *does* contribute to the situation. That doesn't mean it's her fault, but she has put herself at risk....
But Peter, surely there's a difference between a woman who wears a skirt above the knee, and one who behaves provocatively while in the company of drunken young men.
However, I do agree with the rest of your post. Bending the law a little in the interests of easing other problems seems to me to be a sensible compromise, but Von, taking a stricter view of legalities, presumably does not agree with that approach.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
vonhosen said:
So you are asking for it by having a nice car ?
By buying a nice car you are responsible for creating a climate where those who can't afford it may steal it, damage it out of jealousy, or rob you ?
I wouldn't say I was asking for it, but I'd try to avoid leaving a nice car parked in a rough area of town, and I'll expect my mates to roll their eyes if I left it there and then found it on bricks when I get back.
An advanced driver won't experience rage themselves but imo should also tend not to do the sort of things that aggravates rage in the people around them.
I don't expect people to break the law for my convenience, but if somebody is zooming up behind me and clearly will want to get past I'll consider options to reduce the inconvenience to them that might involve speeding up or slowing down. Whether that would result in me exceeding the speed limit is a factor to be considered, but not one that overwhelms all other considerations. Incidentally, I would consider this as a courtesy to the other driver and not because I felt intimidated into doing it or felt that I had an obligation to do it (unless an emergency vehicle was involved).
naetype said:
ph123 has answered my question quite clearly. The problem is not with me, the answer is therefore NO. The problem is with an attitude I cannot quite comprehend, I doubt and hope I never will.
This is a disturbing lack of comprehension, and a load of other things which I don't think I'd expect from folk contributing to an 'advanced driver' column. Are you blind to what's going on in a rear view mirror?
Fact is, you are on the road in a 30 mph limit zone, on a clear wide avenue with good vision, nevertheless ‘built up’ and you will be holding other less disciplined drivers up.
Rather like the girl in the company of drunken youths late at night, just being here invites a situation which could lead to rape. (So what is she doing there in the first place?)
It's odd as far as I'm concerned one or two on this 'advanced' board are blind to this. As you guys are saying, it's nothing to do with condoning any law breaking, but to be unaware of a tailgater's likely frustration, is witless IMHO.
How you deal with it will depend on a number of conditions I suppose, as already suggested above, but first choice in my book is accept that someone wants to travel quicker that I, … and move out the way as soon as safe etc
I have to add this was a problem I could see with the IAM when I went out with one or two of their members; they were blind to the general flow of the traffic, so long as they stuck to the legal and ‘correct’ process. I couldn’t do it.
ph123 said:
naetype said:
ph123 has answered my question quite clearly. The problem is not with me, the answer is therefore NO. The problem is with an attitude I cannot quite comprehend, I doubt and hope I never will.
This is a disturbing lack of comprehension, and a load of other things which I don't think I'd expect from folk contributing to an 'advanced driver' column. Are you blind to what's going on in a rear view mirror?
Fact is, you are on the road in a 30 mph limit zone, on a clear wide avenue with good vision, nevertheless ‘built up’ and you will be holding other less disciplined drivers up.
Rather like the girl in the company of drunken youths late at night, just being here invites a situation which could lead to rape. (So what is she doing there in the first place?)
It's odd as far as I'm concerned one or two on this 'advanced' board are blind to this. As you guys are saying, it's nothing to do with condoning any law breaking, but to be unaware of a tailgater's likely frustration, is witless IMHO.
How you deal with it will depend on a number of conditions I suppose, as already suggested above, but first choice in my book is accept that someone wants to travel quicker that I, … and move out the way as soon as safe etc
I have to add this was a problem I could see with the IAM when I went out with one or two of their members; they were blind to the general flow of the traffic, so long as they stuck to the legal and ‘correct’ process. I couldn’t do it.
OK, if I'm pushed "aggressivly" then, yep, I'll let the past, no problem, but, if I'm pushed "not aggressivly" then I don't, simply because on some roads I wouldn't get anywhere ...
Martin
GreenV8S said:
vonhosen said:
So you are asking for it by having a nice car ?
By buying a nice car you are responsible for creating a climate where those who can't afford it may steal it, damage it out of jealousy, or rob you ?
I wouldn't say I was asking for it, but I'd try to avoid leaving a nice car parked in a rough area of town, and I'll expect my mates to roll their eyes if I left it there and then found it on bricks when I get back.
An advanced driver won't experience rage themselves but imo should also tend not to do the sort of things that aggravates rage in the people around them.
I don't expect people to break the law for my convenience, but if somebody is zooming up behind me and clearly will want to get past I'll consider options to reduce the inconvenience to them that might involve speeding up or slowing down. Whether that would result in me exceeding the speed limit is a factor to be considered, but not one that overwhelms all other considerations. Incidentally, I would consider this as a courtesy to the other driver and not because I felt intimidated into doing it or felt that I had an obligation to do it (unless an emergency vehicle was involved).
But you're tempting fate by just buying the nice car & it doesn't matter where you leave it in public. The green eyed monster roams everywhere.
Oh & I'll let them pass as well........then book em.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 4th March 00:40
GreenV8S said:
An advanced driver won't experience rage themselves but imo should also tend not to do the sort of things that aggravates rage in the people around them.
I don't expect people to break the law for my convenience, but if somebody is zooming up behind me and clearly will want to get past I'll consider options to reduce the inconvenience to them that might involve speeding up or slowing down. Whether that would result in me exceeding the speed limit is a factor to be considered, but not one that overwhelms all other considerations.
I don't expect people to break the law for my convenience, but if somebody is zooming up behind me and clearly will want to get past I'll consider options to reduce the inconvenience to them that might involve speeding up or slowing down. Whether that would result in me exceeding the speed limit is a factor to be considered, but not one that overwhelms all other considerations.
Well reasoned and reasonable. But it is a very subtle explanation. How do you think the credibility of the IAM as a road safety organisation would be affected if it endorsed this point of view? I can imagine the Brake press release: 'Speed obsessed IAM says you don't need to obey the speed limit'.
How real a problem is it? My impression is that most drivers drop back quite soon once they see you are obeying the speed limit. Can I ask those who think it is a real problem how much over the speed limit they think it would be necessary to go to avoid causing frustration?
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
I think that we have lost the perspective of the OP. Lots of people are saying here:
1 If you as the driver get frustrated behind a slower car, then you are a poor driver - agreed but irrelevant to the debate
2 If you cause frustration by driving at any speed you feel, below the limit, it's all ok as you are within the law - wrong. Regardless of the law or not, you have been part of that frustration. Could that be dangerous? Too right.
So as an advanced driver driving in a 30 limit built up area (for example), at or below 30 when the majority flow is at 35, you will generate a situation where people will be frustrated. Noone else, you will generate the situation. You were driving in that manner. The excuse that it is within the law is true, well and good. It has no bearing at all on how dangerous the situation is.
So the key question is how does the advanced driver recognise this and mitigate the situation, reduce frustration and make the situation safer? Many have suggested that you let people by. Good but if you did that in many built up areas you would make no progress at all.
Are there any other mitigation techniques? Well one is to drive faster. Other than the fact that it is illegal, it is quite a good strategy. Doesn't work well if you end up driving too fast for the circs (but we have an advanced driving method to judge that)!
Any others?
I just don't buy the argument - if it's legal it's safe and if it's not safe then as long as it's legal that's fine
Bert
1 If you as the driver get frustrated behind a slower car, then you are a poor driver - agreed but irrelevant to the debate
2 If you cause frustration by driving at any speed you feel, below the limit, it's all ok as you are within the law - wrong. Regardless of the law or not, you have been part of that frustration. Could that be dangerous? Too right.
So as an advanced driver driving in a 30 limit built up area (for example), at or below 30 when the majority flow is at 35, you will generate a situation where people will be frustrated. Noone else, you will generate the situation. You were driving in that manner. The excuse that it is within the law is true, well and good. It has no bearing at all on how dangerous the situation is.
So the key question is how does the advanced driver recognise this and mitigate the situation, reduce frustration and make the situation safer? Many have suggested that you let people by. Good but if you did that in many built up areas you would make no progress at all.
Are there any other mitigation techniques? Well one is to drive faster. Other than the fact that it is illegal, it is quite a good strategy. Doesn't work well if you end up driving too fast for the circs (but we have an advanced driving method to judge that)!
Any others?
I just don't buy the argument - if it's legal it's safe and if it's not safe then as long as it's legal that's fine
Bert
What is expected of us all on the roads is clearly defined.
Your desire to drive outside the bounds of defined acceptability creates the danger.
You will carry the can & you will be the one whose licence is under threat.
If people unnecessarily impede your "legal" process, then they can be dealt with where necessary.
No, no VH you have missed my point entirely. This is not a debate about legality, it is about danger factors. It's just facile to say that the slower legal driver plays no part in the creation of a situation of greater danger just because the faster drivers are breaking the law. And of course when they are stuck behind they are not breaking the law!
When I was driving at 30 in a built up area in my evo and the repmobile behind became so angry that he dangerously overtook, swerved in and halted with an emergency stop, I was in the right and he was in the wrong. But that's not the point! I played a part in creating that situation and an advanced driver should not create greater danger.
Bert
That's like saying because a woman wears a skirt above the knee, she has played a part in creating the situation of her rape. Doesn't wash with me I'm afraid.
Those getting a court date are the one losing their rag behind a car doing 30 in a 30 & the one doing the rape.
And they may be breaking the law when they are stuck behind, such as if they are aggressively tailgating.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 3rd March 17:12
For goodness sake VH, the thread is not about breaking the law or not, it'a about the role of the advanced driver in managing risk as a result of their driving. Keep up!
Bert
vonhosen said:
GreenV8S said:
vonhosen said:
So you are asking for it by having a nice car ?
By buying a nice car you are responsible for creating a climate where those who can't afford it may steal it, damage it out of jealousy, or rob you ?
I wouldn't say I was asking for it, but I'd try to avoid leaving a nice car parked in a rough area of town, and I'll expect my mates to roll their eyes if I left it there and then found it on bricks when I get back.
An advanced driver won't experience rage themselves but imo should also tend not to do the sort of things that aggravates rage in the people around them.
I don't expect people to break the law for my convenience, but if somebody is zooming up behind me and clearly will want to get past I'll consider options to reduce the inconvenience to them that might involve speeding up or slowing down. Whether that would result in me exceeding the speed limit is a factor to be considered, but not one that overwhelms all other considerations. Incidentally, I would consider this as a courtesy to the other driver and not because I felt intimidated into doing it or felt that I had an obligation to do it (unless an emergency vehicle was involved).
But you're tempting fate by just buying the nice car & it doesn't matter where you leave it in public. The green eyed monster roams everywhere.
Oh & I'll let them pass as well........then book em.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 4th March 00:40
Abso-effing-lutely VH. Bang on. I sold my Evo after 6 months. One of the big contributory factors was a week of commuting with 4 tosser-experiences (one of which I have described), the last of which was being pulled and questioned by a pair of snotty nosed Bibs about my activities and destination in a "well it's a very desirable car Sir". And "well now you come to mention it, you do look rather like a suited-middle-aged-father-of-3 and not much like a car thief".
Got the Tiv, lots of admiring glances and not a single tosser-experience! Has that contributed to my safety - yes siree.
Bert
bertbert said:
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
I think that we have lost the perspective of the OP. Lots of people are saying here:
1 If you as the driver get frustrated behind a slower car, then you are a poor driver - agreed but irrelevant to the debate
2 If you cause frustration by driving at any speed you feel, below the limit, it's all ok as you are within the law - wrong. Regardless of the law or not, you have been part of that frustration. Could that be dangerous? Too right.
So as an advanced driver driving in a 30 limit built up area (for example), at or below 30 when the majority flow is at 35, you will generate a situation where people will be frustrated. Noone else, you will generate the situation. You were driving in that manner. The excuse that it is within the law is true, well and good. It has no bearing at all on how dangerous the situation is.
So the key question is how does the advanced driver recognise this and mitigate the situation, reduce frustration and make the situation safer? Many have suggested that you let people by. Good but if you did that in many built up areas you would make no progress at all.
Are there any other mitigation techniques? Well one is to drive faster. Other than the fact that it is illegal, it is quite a good strategy. Doesn't work well if you end up driving too fast for the circs (but we have an advanced driving method to judge that)!
Any others?
I just don't buy the argument - if it's legal it's safe and if it's not safe then as long as it's legal that's fine
Bert
1 If you as the driver get frustrated behind a slower car, then you are a poor driver - agreed but irrelevant to the debate
2 If you cause frustration by driving at any speed you feel, below the limit, it's all ok as you are within the law - wrong. Regardless of the law or not, you have been part of that frustration. Could that be dangerous? Too right.
So as an advanced driver driving in a 30 limit built up area (for example), at or below 30 when the majority flow is at 35, you will generate a situation where people will be frustrated. Noone else, you will generate the situation. You were driving in that manner. The excuse that it is within the law is true, well and good. It has no bearing at all on how dangerous the situation is.
So the key question is how does the advanced driver recognise this and mitigate the situation, reduce frustration and make the situation safer? Many have suggested that you let people by. Good but if you did that in many built up areas you would make no progress at all.
Are there any other mitigation techniques? Well one is to drive faster. Other than the fact that it is illegal, it is quite a good strategy. Doesn't work well if you end up driving too fast for the circs (but we have an advanced driving method to judge that)!
Any others?
I just don't buy the argument - if it's legal it's safe and if it's not safe then as long as it's legal that's fine
Bert
What is expected of us all on the roads is clearly defined.
Your desire to drive outside the bounds of defined acceptability creates the danger.
You will carry the can & you will be the one whose licence is under threat.
If people unnecessarily impede your "legal" process, then they can be dealt with where necessary.
No, no VH you have missed my point entirely. This is not a debate about legality, it is about danger factors. It's just facile to say that the slower legal driver plays no part in the creation of a situation of greater danger just because the faster drivers are breaking the law. And of course when they are stuck behind they are not breaking the law!
When I was driving at 30 in a built up area in my evo and the repmobile behind became so angry that he dangerously overtook, swerved in and halted with an emergency stop, I was in the right and he was in the wrong. But that's not the point! I played a part in creating that situation and an advanced driver should not create greater danger.
Bert
That's like saying because a woman wears a skirt above the knee, she has played a part in creating the situation of her rape. Doesn't wash with me I'm afraid.
Those getting a court date are the one losing their rag behind a car doing 30 in a 30 & the one doing the rape.
And they may be breaking the law when they are stuck behind, such as if they are aggressively tailgating.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 3rd March 17:12
For goodness sake VH, the thread is not about breaking the law or not, it'a about the role of the advanced driver in managing risk as a result of their driving. Keep up!
Bert
The thread is about some people thinking someone who is behaving perfectly legally & responsibly within the law, should behave differently because of the failings of another. Manage the risk, but within the law. If you are frustrating someone behind you & it worries you, let them pass. Don't speed up & break the law, because you don't have to, there are safe legal options.
None of that means there is blame to be attached to the driver keeping to the limit, but there is blame on the offending vehicle driver.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 4th March 11:18
ph123 said:
Rubbish BFF.
Since when have we established that anyone is driving poorly or losing control? Nonsense.
The fact does remain though that for the majority of undisciplined drivers in a hurry
Since when have we established that anyone is driving poorly or losing control? Nonsense.
The fact does remain though that for the majority of undisciplined drivers in a hurry
Thats where we established the poor driving.
ph123 said:
faced with someone learning advanced driving technique that is occasionally at a lesser pace than high speed traffic flow, will thereby cause frustration.
Thats the failure that needs adressing, the frustration.
ph123 said:
We're talking about modern day reality which most of us dislike but are stuck with.Your attitude is 'bugger you, I'm legal so I can I'll drive as I see fit'.
Thats certainly not my attitude. Neither is it that i get frustrated and try and blame the other driver. A slow, legal driver shouldn't frustrate you, neither should a fast illegal driver. When you get frustrated you are starting to lose full control.
ph123 said:
Fact is, you are in the way. So is your mindset. So you drive up a motorway at 70 mph do you?
Yep.
BFF
GreenV8S said:
I don't expect people to break the law for my convenience, but if somebody is zooming up behind me and clearly will want to get past I'll consider options to reduce the inconvenience to them that might involve speeding up or slowing down. Whether that would result in me exceeding the speed limit is a factor to be considered, but not one that overwhelms all other considerations. Incidentally, I would consider this as a courtesy to the other driver and not because I felt intimidated into doing it or felt that I had an obligation to do it (unless an emergency vehicle was involved).
So the only real difference between you and I is that, where I would also manage the situation, I would only ever do it within the legal limit. See, we're not that different.
BFF
Hi everyone,
However, here are a number of options that have helped me:
- Be nippy! E.g. look well ahead to find opportunities to make (legal) progress. Sometimes forward planning can lead you to get ahead through a more flowing drive, even in heavy urban traffic.
- Be nippy - part 2: drive legally but briskly. If you're making headway and not hanging about when there are opportunities to go, then I find those behind are more accomodating about sticking to 30.
- Be nippy - part 3: pull away briskly. Of course, on the Ducati I can do 0-30mph in the blink of an eye, leaving tailgaters for dust behind. However, even in a car, a brisk getaway from traffic lights and the like can create space behind you.
- Do 33mph. Many speedometers over-read by 10%, so an indicated 33mph will be a genuine 30mph.
- Remember some people tailgate without realising it. They may drive very close simply because they have become accustomed to doing so. Some people just drive like that, without a clue how aggressive it seems to you. So relax about their behaviour and manage the space around your car or bike as safely as possible.
None of the above will solve every situation, but I hope they add some options.
Cheers
However, here are a number of options that have helped me:
- Be nippy! E.g. look well ahead to find opportunities to make (legal) progress. Sometimes forward planning can lead you to get ahead through a more flowing drive, even in heavy urban traffic.
- Be nippy - part 2: drive legally but briskly. If you're making headway and not hanging about when there are opportunities to go, then I find those behind are more accomodating about sticking to 30.
- Be nippy - part 3: pull away briskly. Of course, on the Ducati I can do 0-30mph in the blink of an eye, leaving tailgaters for dust behind. However, even in a car, a brisk getaway from traffic lights and the like can create space behind you.
- Do 33mph. Many speedometers over-read by 10%, so an indicated 33mph will be a genuine 30mph.
- Remember some people tailgate without realising it. They may drive very close simply because they have become accustomed to doing so. Some people just drive like that, without a clue how aggressive it seems to you. So relax about their behaviour and manage the space around your car or bike as safely as possible.
None of the above will solve every situation, but I hope they add some options.
Cheers
I've never had anyone drive right up my behind, but I think in your situation I would have let the person behind me overtake providing it was safe to.
So ok, you were sticking to the speed limit but if she wants to potentially lose her licence, let her...i'd rather have someone like that in front of me than two inches from my rear bumper!
So ok, you were sticking to the speed limit but if she wants to potentially lose her licence, let her...i'd rather have someone like that in front of me than two inches from my rear bumper!
Enfield said:
I've never had anyone drive right up my behind, but I think in your situation I would have let the person behind me overtake providing it was safe to.
So ok, you were sticking to the speed limit but if she wants to potentially lose her licence, let her...i'd rather have someone like that in front of me than two inches from my rear bumper!
So ok, you were sticking to the speed limit but if she wants to potentially lose her licence, let her...i'd rather have someone like that in front of me than two inches from my rear bumper!
Sadly it happens all the time. 3 separate instances on the way to the office this morning. And yes I may have broken the law to mitigate my risk. So if that disqualifies me from being advanced, then I better high-tail it out of here.
However I was actively considering the risk factors of the situation and in my judgement reduced my personal risk. I was behind a car driving at variously between 30 and 35 in a 40 limit (no problem in that). The car behind me was clearly very frustrated by it all and was right up my chuff. It was a SC country road with good visibility so I overtook and I (may have) exceeded the 40.
Another choice was to slow down and stop which as I was 2nd at the head of a queue of traffic I decided was a greater risk than a safe overtake.
Bert (high-tailing it out)
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff