Driving Too Slowly Is Dangerous
Discussion
Pegscratch said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
How have you arrived at the conclusion that they have no valid reason?
Because being incapable of driving at the speed limit due to health/age/tiredness is a valid reason for not having a licence, not a valid reason for driving slowly. Having an insecure load is a good reason for being prosecuted for it. Being otherwise distracted is a good reason for being prosecuted for driving without due care and attention. Having a set of tyres that mean you will slide off the road cos it's a bit damp and past 30mph it's a lot sketchy is a good reason for being prosecuted for not maintaining your vehicle properly.There are always examples of where inclement conditions or a presence of other external factors are a good reason to slow down. Those factors rarely (if ever) exist for 6-10 miles of NSL single carriageway in Lincolnshire except when the roads have turned white.
, or having no empathy for other drivers, making judgments about other drivers when in possession of no actual facts, ranting and raving about drivers that you feel don't meet your driving requirements, are all, in my opinion, good reason not to have a licence. But this isn't *just* down to impatience.
If you fail to accelerate up to the speed limit without good reason during your test, you fail. Why does this then become acceptable behaviour once you've passed the test?
Yes, there will be occasions when someone has an excusable need to drive below the limit, but that cannot be the case for every one of the plethora of drivers who do this.
edit: I know this has been covered before elsewhere on here, but when I attended a speed awareness course, literally half the people there didn't know the speed limit on NSL single- and dual-carriageways (but thought they did). This has to be a large part of the issue.
If you fail to accelerate up to the speed limit without good reason during your test, you fail. Why does this then become acceptable behaviour once you've passed the test?
Yes, there will be occasions when someone has an excusable need to drive below the limit, but that cannot be the case for every one of the plethora of drivers who do this.
edit: I know this has been covered before elsewhere on here, but when I attended a speed awareness course, literally half the people there didn't know the speed limit on NSL single- and dual-carriageways (but thought they did). This has to be a large part of the issue.
Edited by jchesh on Thursday 31st October 12:22
jchesh said:
But this isn't *just* down to impatience.
If you fail to accelerate up to the speed limit without good reason during your test, you fail. Why does this then become acceptable behaviour once you've passed the test?
By that measure, taking a hands free call, holding the wheel with one hand whilst resting your right elbow on the open window, tuning in the radio, opening the sunroof, and a hundred other everyday things, are all unacceptable whilst driving, because you'd fail if you did any of them during the test. If you fail to accelerate up to the speed limit without good reason during your test, you fail. Why does this then become acceptable behaviour once you've passed the test?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
By that measure, taking a hands free call, holding the wheel with one hand whilst resting your right elbow on the open window, tuning in the radio, opening the sunroof, and a hundred other everyday things, are all unacceptable whilst driving, because you'd fail if you did any of them during the test.
Not a valid comparison. None of those things affects other road users in any way: if they do, then they become unacceptable. Driving below the speed limit for no reason other than one's own preference does directly affect other road users.jchesh said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
By that measure, taking a hands free call, holding the wheel with one hand whilst resting your right elbow on the open window, tuning in the radio, opening the sunroof, and a hundred other everyday things, are all unacceptable whilst driving, because you'd fail if you did any of them during the test.
Not a valid comparison. None of those things affects other road users in any way: if they do, then they become unacceptable. Driving below the speed limit for no reason other than one's own preference does directly affect other road users.It's not good arguing here about what you think should be happening, you have to deal out there with actually what is happening.
vonhosen said:
The message from the authorities is consistently less speed, not more speed.
It's not good arguing here about what you think should be happening, you have to deal out there with actually what is happening.
The message is don't exceed the speed limit, and there is also an anti-speed message in the form of speed limits being lowered. There is not a message to drive along at 75% of the posted speed limit – or is there? If there is, please show it to us.It's not good arguing here about what you think should be happening, you have to deal out there with actually what is happening.
jchesh said:
But this isn't *just* down to impatience.
If you fail to accelerate up to the speed limit without good reason during your test, you fail. Why does this then become acceptable behaviour once you've passed the test?
There are more considerations than that. It isn't that simple.If you fail to accelerate up to the speed limit without good reason during your test, you fail. Why does this then become acceptable behaviour once you've passed the test?
It's far easier to fail above the limit than below it on test.
jchesh said:
vonhosen said:
The message from the authorities is consistently less speed, not more speed.
It's not good arguing here about what you think should be happening, you have to deal out there with actually what is happening.
The message is don't exceed the speed limit, and there is also an anti-speed message in the form of speed limits being lowered. There is not a message to drive along at 75% of the posted speed limit – or is there? If there is, please show it to us.It's not good arguing here about what you think should be happening, you have to deal out there with actually what is happening.
How many prosecutions for it?
It is supported through inaction, it's not viewed as important by the authorities.
When somebody has been driving with somebody holding them up for a while & an opportunity presents itself for an overtake, the camera van has equipment that can measure the speed of the vehicle being overtaken or the vehicle overtaking. How many have you heard complain that they got prosecuted in these circumstances for briefly being 10mph over the limit?
How many have you heard complaining that they were prosecuted for being at the front of that & doing 10mph under the limit?
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 31st October 13:03
jchesh said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
By that measure, taking a hands free call, holding the wheel with one hand whilst resting your right elbow on the open window, tuning in the radio, opening the sunroof, and a hundred other everyday things, are all unacceptable whilst driving, because you'd fail if you did any of them during the test.
Not a valid comparison. None of those things affects other road users in any way: if they do, then they become unacceptable. Driving below the speed limit for no reason other than one's own preference does directly affect other road users.vonhosen said:
ericmcn said:
vonhosen said:
Psycho Warren said:
JimSuperSix said:
So now it's 30 in a 60, but 50 would be ok? Previously they were a retard for 25 in a 30.
Are you incapable of safely overtaking someone who is doing 30 in a 60? Maybe they are travelling slowly for a reason that you don't know about? Maybe they are looking for somewhere, they have a headache, the car is making a strange noise, they are tired and doing their best to get home safely.
In general terms this is an amazingly inconsequential inconvenience. Deal with it like an adult.
looking for somewhere over the course of many miles? they should be paying full attention to driving not thier map or sat nav.Are you incapable of safely overtaking someone who is doing 30 in a 60? Maybe they are travelling slowly for a reason that you don't know about? Maybe they are looking for somewhere, they have a headache, the car is making a strange noise, they are tired and doing their best to get home safely.
In general terms this is an amazingly inconsequential inconvenience. Deal with it like an adult.
if they have a headache and cant drive to the speed limit then they are unfit to drive and should be off the road - same with tiredness.
thier car is making an odd noise then it shiuldnt be on the road.
so where is the reasonable valid excuse for thier actions? there isnt any.
and i shoudnt have to leave early and waste even more of my precious free time to take into account inconsiderate behaviour of others.
You can't choose how other's drive, you can't force other's to drive to your values.
All you can choose is how you let it affect you & deal with it.
That is, you can choose to deal with it like an adult or you can sulk like a child & suffer stress symptoms.
The point is there's no need or point in sulking or getting stressed about it.
ericmcn said:
It's well and good saying that but far too many people drive far too slowly thus clogging up main roads and vehicles in the immediate vicinity of slow moving crap or just as bad for either driving far too close thus blocking visibility and or refusing to over take at all - creating a domino effect.
It's just piss poor driving overall, then you get psychos in vans, they either drive do fast they will take off or drive so slow and get infuriated when over taken and continue to trail a few mm behind your bumper for having the audacity to overtake the derv that they were driving in the first place.
Welcome to driving in England.
And I drive all over the UK with my work & it don't find dealing with all this problematic. Like I said Satnav tells me how long it should take for the journey before I start & it pretty much takes that time, save for other's accidents etc that happen after I've already left. It's just piss poor driving overall, then you get psychos in vans, they either drive do fast they will take off or drive so slow and get infuriated when over taken and continue to trail a few mm behind your bumper for having the audacity to overtake the derv that they were driving in the first place.
Welcome to driving in England.
Individuals driving around me aren't adding to that time greatly or causing me stress with their driving choices (because I'm not interested enough in what they do to get wound up by it). You can take control of your emotional response by reframing how you view the activity, or you can continue to let it take hold over you. You do have a choice. If you don't like what's happening change what you can influence & exert control over, rather than sulking about what you can't exert control over & will also probably make you ill in the process.
I just over take idiots and let them f**k around themselves. When I can see a clear sight of the road ahead I'm far less likely to have an accident than having a clouded vision due to inept driver's blocking the view.
ericmcn said:
vonhosen said:
ericmcn said:
vonhosen said:
Psycho Warren said:
JimSuperSix said:
So now it's 30 in a 60, but 50 would be ok? Previously they were a retard for 25 in a 30.
Are you incapable of safely overtaking someone who is doing 30 in a 60? Maybe they are travelling slowly for a reason that you don't know about? Maybe they are looking for somewhere, they have a headache, the car is making a strange noise, they are tired and doing their best to get home safely.
In general terms this is an amazingly inconsequential inconvenience. Deal with it like an adult.
looking for somewhere over the course of many miles? they should be paying full attention to driving not thier map or sat nav.Are you incapable of safely overtaking someone who is doing 30 in a 60? Maybe they are travelling slowly for a reason that you don't know about? Maybe they are looking for somewhere, they have a headache, the car is making a strange noise, they are tired and doing their best to get home safely.
In general terms this is an amazingly inconsequential inconvenience. Deal with it like an adult.
if they have a headache and cant drive to the speed limit then they are unfit to drive and should be off the road - same with tiredness.
thier car is making an odd noise then it shiuldnt be on the road.
so where is the reasonable valid excuse for thier actions? there isnt any.
and i shoudnt have to leave early and waste even more of my precious free time to take into account inconsiderate behaviour of others.
You can't choose how other's drive, you can't force other's to drive to your values.
All you can choose is how you let it affect you & deal with it.
That is, you can choose to deal with it like an adult or you can sulk like a child & suffer stress symptoms.
The point is there's no need or point in sulking or getting stressed about it.
ericmcn said:
It's well and good saying that but far too many people drive far too slowly thus clogging up main roads and vehicles in the immediate vicinity of slow moving crap or just as bad for either driving far too close thus blocking visibility and or refusing to over take at all - creating a domino effect.
It's just piss poor driving overall, then you get psychos in vans, they either drive do fast they will take off or drive so slow and get infuriated when over taken and continue to trail a few mm behind your bumper for having the audacity to overtake the derv that they were driving in the first place.
Welcome to driving in England.
And I drive all over the UK with my work & it don't find dealing with all this problematic. Like I said Satnav tells me how long it should take for the journey before I start & it pretty much takes that time, save for other's accidents etc that happen after I've already left. It's just piss poor driving overall, then you get psychos in vans, they either drive do fast they will take off or drive so slow and get infuriated when over taken and continue to trail a few mm behind your bumper for having the audacity to overtake the derv that they were driving in the first place.
Welcome to driving in England.
Individuals driving around me aren't adding to that time greatly or causing me stress with their driving choices (because I'm not interested enough in what they do to get wound up by it). You can take control of your emotional response by reframing how you view the activity, or you can continue to let it take hold over you. You do have a choice. If you don't like what's happening change what you can influence & exert control over, rather than sulking about what you can't exert control over & will also probably make you ill in the process.
I just over take idiots and let them f**k around themselves. When I can see a clear sight of the road ahead I'm far less likely to have an accident than having a clouded vision due to inept driver's blocking the view.
Like I say I'm not having problems with this.
I'm not getting involved in collisions, I'm getting to destinations at the times I expected to & I'm not attracting the attention of the authorities when doing so or getting stressed about it.
I'm not the one having the trouble here, it's the people who are that need to look at themselves because by their own admission they are having problems & are telling us here they are by complaining about it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Being an impatient , or having no empathy for other drivers, making judgments about other drivers when in possession of no actual facts, ranting and raving about drivers that you feel don't meet your driving requirements, are all, in my opinion, good reason not to have a licence.
Listen, my dear TwigtheWonderf, or having no empathy for other drivers, making judgments about other drivers when in possession of no actual facts, ranting and raving about drivers that you feel don't meet your driving requirements, are all, in my opinion, good reason not to have a licence. ktard, your spouting of st may stick to others but I frankly don't give two sts what you opine.Not one of my suggestions mentioned being impatient, or having no empathy. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and in order to maintain that you have to maintain your vehicle and meet a set of given standards. I have not once argued that people making risky overtakes are right. I have simply argued that being a rolling obstruction is a selfish act that is going to bring you into conflict with other road users who might have opposite behavioural traits; a point that appears to escape you and vonlederhosenasslesschaps.
Driving like a t
t, fast or slow is driving like a tt. You can argue otherwise until you're blue in the face but accidents have been attributed to the latter, whether a prosecution followed or not.TwigtheWonderkid said:
Your point was you'd fail the test for driving below the speed limit, hence it's unacceptable. Using that metric, it's a very valid comparison. You never said people shouldn't drive slowly because it effects others, you said they shouldn't do it because it's a test fail.
Alright Mr Barrister, I'll slightly revise or expand my point in light of your surgical logic.If you drive at 80% of the speed limit throughout your test, you will fail, because you are unnecessarily holding up other road users. Why does this principle not then apply after passing the test? I am not directing this question rhetorically at the people being discussed in this thread who do this, but rather to those in this thread who are arguing that it's fine to drive as slowly as you like.
I would like to think that the driving test, whatever its flaws, is at least some way towards being an arbiter for how one should drive in the real world, particularly for something as fundamental as the speed one drives at. Surely we agree on this? Furthermore, all the authorities who exist to promote 'advanced driving' (I don't need to list them) promote the principle of 'making good progress' so that one's presence on the road does not unnecessarily impede the progress of others.
If you view a stream of traffic not from the individual's perspective, but from an objective, aerial view of the entire flow, the speed of the cluster of cars of whatever size at a given, say, twenty-second window, is determined almost entirely by the speed of the car at the front of the cluster. If this speed of, say, twenty cars, is 45 mph when the safe and legal speed on the road is 60 mph or just under, then, taking an overall perspective, that front car is nothing other than subversive to the progress of the train of cars. This is not a matter of opinion! To use a plumbing analogy, if a pipe has a blockage, you work to remove that blockage so that the contents of the pipe can flow at the rate it was designed to flow at. Those drivers who chose to drive slowly and refuse to pull over to safely let people past are an impediment to the optimal flow of traffic. That flow may still not be great given the number of cars on the road, but surely we want it to be as good as it can be?
As far as lesser offences like adjusting the sunroof, radio etc while driving: in theory, one actually should pull over to do these things, if operating on the principle that one's attention should be as close as possible to 100% on the road when driving. Of course, in the real world, there is a bit of (most would agree sensible) leeway in most people's minds such that the added risk of making these adjustments while driving along is small enough such that they don't need to pull over. I'm included in this. Furthermore, the fact that you would fail for some of these things in the test is partly because of safety but also partly because of a generally acknowledged etiquette that you don't do these in a driving test. I struggle to see how the need to drive at the speed limit where safe comes into this category.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Being an impatient , or having no empathy for other drivers, making judgments about other drivers when in possession of no actual facts, ranting and raving about drivers that you feel don't meet your driving requirements, are all, in my opinion, good reason not to have a licence.
Except none of that is related to their driving skills on the road and hence is totally irrelevant., or having no empathy for other drivers, making judgments about other drivers when in possession of no actual facts, ranting and raving about drivers that you feel don't meet your driving requirements, are all, in my opinion, good reason not to have a licence. Just because I get annoyed at inconsiderate drivers, doesnt mean im going to road rage them and cut them up at the first opportunity. People who allow their emotions to effect thier actions and subsequently road rage, tailgate etc probably shouldn't have a licence - but that is purely because of their driving standards. Just like most of these slow drivers also shouldnt be on the road because of their driving standards.
vonhosen said:
How much targeting of these drivers takes place?
How many prosecutions for it?
It is supported through inaction, it's not viewed as important by the authorities.
You could say the same about Middle Lane Morons, lane hogs, Tailgaters etc. Until recently "society" didnt really have a problem with MLMS and lane hogs. Now you can say for many its considered more "socially unacceptable" (ignoring the fact its ALWAYS been illegal) due to media and police campaigns and increased efforts to prosecute (albeit no where near enough IMO).How many prosecutions for it?
It is supported through inaction, it's not viewed as important by the authorities.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 31st October 13:03
I don't see why dawdling is acceptable but those above behaviours are not? both are illegal. Just because lots of people break those laws, doesnt make it acceptable, nor should be as "society" accept it.
2 or 3 decades ago it was the same with drink driving - almost socially acceptable and normalised on some communities yet blatantly illegal for good reason.
Dawdling is just harder to prosecute.
jchesh said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Your point was you'd fail the test for driving below the speed limit, hence it's unacceptable. Using that metric, it's a very valid comparison. You never said people shouldn't drive slowly because it effects others, you said they shouldn't do it because it's a test fail.
Alright Mr Barrister, I'll slightly revise or expand my point in light of your surgical logic.If you drive at 80% of the speed limit throughout your test, you will fail, because you are unnecessarily holding up other road users. Why does this principle not then apply after passing the test? I am not directing this question rhetorically at the people being discussed in this thread who do this, but rather to those in this thread who are arguing that it's fine to drive as slowly as you like.
Essentially the authorities criteria & weighting, not PHers criteria or weighting.
jchesh said:
I would like to think that the driving test, whatever its flaws, is at least some way towards being an arbiter for how one should drive in the real world, particularly for something as fundamental as the speed one drives at. Surely we agree on this? Furthermore, all the authorities who exist to promote 'advanced driving' (I don't need to list them) promote the principle of 'making good progress' so that one's presence on the road does not unnecessarily impede the progress of others.
When you don't have a good understanding of the examining criteria & weighting how can you apply it to anything?'Advanced driving criteria' are not what are used in DVSA driving tests, the DVSA test criteria are the DVSA test criteria & there is no need to conflate the two. Also advanced driving criteria don't come into the law with respect to assessing whether driving amounts to Sec 3 RTA.
jchesh said:
If you view a stream of traffic not from the individual's perspective, but from an objective, aerial view of the entire flow, the speed of the cluster of cars of whatever size at a given, say, twenty-second window, is determined almost entirely by the speed of the car at the front of the cluster. If this speed of, say, twenty cars, is 45 mph when the safe and legal speed on the road is 60 mph or just under, then, taking an overall perspective, that front car is nothing other than subversive to the progress of the train of cars. This is not a matter of opinion! To use a plumbing analogy, if a pipe has a blockage, you work to remove that blockage so that the contents of the pipe can flow at the rate it was designed to flow at.
There isn't a design flow rate, there is only an upper flow limit. Individuals are required to make an assessment for themselves in the circumstances as they see them at the time. They are to make that within set parameters. The authorities can set the minimum &/or the maximum in respect of that. They rarely set a minimum, but invariably set a maximum. They can use existing legislation in relation to various offences as they see fit in support of all that.jchesh said:
Those drivers who chose to drive slowly and refuse to pull over to safely let people past are an impediment to the optimal flow of traffic. That flow may still not be great given the number of cars on the road, but surely we want it to be as good as it can be?
They can prosecute for inconsiderate driving those, who in their view (not in our view), unnecessarily impede traffic. Just because traffic is indeed held up from travelling at the speed limit, it doesn't follow that the authorities will view the actions of the lead vehicle as inconsiderate driving. They rarely prosecute for it, which if it is a prevalent as some here suggest should reveal something as to how the authorities view it.vonhosen said:
They can prosecute for inconsiderate driving those, who in their view (not in our view), unnecessarily impede traffic. Just because traffic is indeed held up from travelling at the speed limit, it doesn't follow that the authorities will view the actions of the lead vehicle as inconsiderate driving. They rarely prosecute for it, which if it is a prevalent as some here suggest should reveal something as to how the authorities view it.
OK, but everything you say is set out with respect to being prosecuted. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about impeding the progress of other road users.Psycho Warren said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Being an impatient , or having no empathy for other drivers, making judgments about other drivers when in possession of no actual facts, ranting and raving about drivers that you feel don't meet your driving requirements, are all, in my opinion, good reason not to have a licence.
Except none of that is related to their driving skills on the road and hence is totally irrelevant., or having no empathy for other drivers, making judgments about other drivers when in possession of no actual facts, ranting and raving about drivers that you feel don't meet your driving requirements, are all, in my opinion, good reason not to have a licence. Just because I get annoyed at inconsiderate drivers, doesnt mean im going to road rage them and cut them up at the first opportunity. People who allow their emotions to effect thier actions and subsequently road rage, tailgate etc probably shouldn't have a licence - but that is purely because of their driving standards. Just like most of these slow drivers also shouldnt be on the road because of their driving standards.
Psycho Warren said:
vonhosen said:
How much targeting of these drivers takes place?
How many prosecutions for it?
It is supported through inaction, it's not viewed as important by the authorities.
You could say the same about Middle Lane Morons, lane hogs, Tailgaters etc. Until recently "society" didnt really have a problem with MLMS and lane hogs. Now you can say for many its considered more "socially unacceptable" (ignoring the fact its ALWAYS been illegal) due to media and police campaigns and increased efforts to prosecute (albeit no where near enough IMO).How many prosecutions for it?
It is supported through inaction, it's not viewed as important by the authorities.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 31st October 13:03
Psycho Warren said:
I don't see why dawdling is acceptable but those above behaviours are not? both are illegal. Just because lots of people break those laws, doesnt make it acceptable, nor should be as "society" accept it.
Dawdling isn't offence, MLMing isn't an offence, undertaking isn't an offence. Doing all of them may amount to inconsiderate driving in certain circumstances, but where the authorities decide, not where PHers decide.Psycho Warren said:
2 or 3 decades ago it was the same with drink driving - almost socially acceptable and normalised on some communities yet blatantly illegal for good reason.
Drink drive was not like them. Drink drive a clear line was drawn in the sand (longer ago than 2 or 3 decades). A line that meant whether your driving was actually adversely affected or not didn't matter a jot. All that mattered was whether the proportion of alcohol in your breath/blood/urine exceed that line drawn in the sand.Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 31st October 15:08
vonhosen said:
jchesh said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
By that measure, taking a hands free call, holding the wheel with one hand whilst resting your right elbow on the open window, tuning in the radio, opening the sunroof, and a hundred other everyday things, are all unacceptable whilst driving, because you'd fail if you did any of them during the test.
Not a valid comparison. None of those things affects other road users in any way: if they do, then they become unacceptable. Driving below the speed limit for no reason other than one's own preference does directly affect other road users.It's not good arguing here about what you think should be happening, you have to deal out there with actually what is happening.
I live in a fairly rural area and like to press on in NSL areas. But, the amount of the 40 mph club most people on here are complaining about, that carry on at 40mph through villages and end up right behind me in beggars belief.
jchesh said:
vonhosen said:
They can prosecute for inconsiderate driving those, who in their view (not in our view), unnecessarily impede traffic. Just because traffic is indeed held up from travelling at the speed limit, it doesn't follow that the authorities will view the actions of the lead vehicle as inconsiderate driving. They rarely prosecute for it, which if it is a prevalent as some here suggest should reveal something as to how the authorities view it.
OK, but everything you say is set out with respect to being prosecuted. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about impeding the progress of other road users.Megaflow said:
vonhosen said:
jchesh said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
By that measure, taking a hands free call, holding the wheel with one hand whilst resting your right elbow on the open window, tuning in the radio, opening the sunroof, and a hundred other everyday things, are all unacceptable whilst driving, because you'd fail if you did any of them during the test.
Not a valid comparison. None of those things affects other road users in any way: if they do, then they become unacceptable. Driving below the speed limit for no reason other than one's own preference does directly affect other road users.It's not good arguing here about what you think should be happening, you have to deal out there with actually what is happening.
I live in a fairly rural area and like to press on in NSL areas. But, the amount of the 40 mph club most people on here are complaining about, that carry on at 40mph through villages and end up right behind me in beggars belief.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff