Driving Too Slowly Is Dangerous

[jchesh]

vonhosen said:

The reason I curb my desire to travel faster than the speed limit is not because I don't think I can safely, it's because the authorities will sanction me if I do. If I travel below the speed limit I do so because I consider it appropriate for me to do so in the full knowledge of my circumstances at the time. With that in mind I'm not going to increase my speed because you think I should (even if our views on what is appropriate may differ) or worry myself that we hold different views. I would be more concerned where they authorities sanction me because they think I'm getting it wrong. If they aren't sanctioning me..............

Right, but the complaint here is not about drivers who quite appropriately go slower than the maximum limit in some circumstances because of a hazard that they perceive. Doing so is just good driving as I'm sure most here would agree. No one is suggesting that we all drive at the speed limit regardless of circumstances. The complaint is about those who refuse to ever go faster than a speed that is lower than the speed limit regardless of circumstances.

[vonhosen]

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.

The message from the authorities is consistently less speed, not more speed. They are concerned with people travelling above speed limits not those travelling below them.

It's not good arguing here about what you think should be happening, you have to deal out there with actually what is happening.

But the speed kills message is not working. It has been interpreted by most of the public as outright speed kills, not inappropriate speed or breaking the speed limit.

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.

1) I'm not arguing that what they do is right.
2) I'm pointing out that getting wound up by it isn't helping you.
3) I'm suggesting that YOU can't change their behavioural choices, but YOU can alter your mindset to make sure you make the right choices when having to deal with these things.
4) YOU not having the right mindset to protect yourself leaves YOU vulnerable & arguing "but look at them" isn't going to alter that.
5) I don't worry about MLM's, undertakers, dawdlers because there is no point in me doing so. it won't help me. I adopt a mindset that will serve me well in dealing with the realities of driving on our roads as the are (not that which I'd love them to be).

[vonhosen]

jchesh said:

vonhosen said:

The reason I curb my desire to travel faster than the speed limit is not because I don't think I can safely, it's because the authorities will sanction me if I do. If I travel below the speed limit I do so because I consider it appropriate for me to do so in the full knowledge of my circumstances at the time. With that in mind I'm not going to increase my speed because you think I should (even if our views on what is appropriate may differ) or worry myself that we hold different views. I would be more concerned where they authorities sanction me because they think I'm getting it wrong. If they aren't sanctioning me..............

Right, but the complaint here is not about drivers who quite appropriately go slower than the maximum limit in some circumstances because of a hazard that they perceive. Doing so is just good driving as I'm sure most here would agree. No one is suggesting that we all drive at the speed limit regardless of circumstances. The complaint is about those who refuse to ever go faster than a speed that is lower than the speed limit regardless of circumstances.

Who determines what is appropriate for them in the circumstances?
YOU don't get to & that is a source of frustration for you.
YOU don't get to make that call for them. Only they & the authorities do.

That leaves you with what can YOU do about THEM?
And what is YOU complaining here complaining about THEM going to achieve?

I'm not suggesting what THEY do is right.
I'm suggesting YOUR approach to them isn't going to help YOU.
MY approach means I don't get stressed, don't get in accidents, but do get to destinations on time whilst not attracting the unwanted attention of the authorities.

Concentrate on what YOU can influence for YOUR benefit. Not stuff that YOU can't influence & will only cause YOU stress.
Make the choice to be in control of YOUR emotional response (by controlling that which you can exert control over), don't let YOUR emotions be a slave to OTHER'S whims (that you can exert no control over).

Part of being a good driver is being self/emotionally aware of these arenas & exercise control over them. Poorer drivers aren't aware & don't.

[Pegscratch]

Jesus H Christ, this guy is one of those sanctimonious "only you can help yourself" pictures that thick people share on Facebook.

I do not get frustrated with the simple folk driving slowly. I overtake them. I get frustrated with holier than though morons assuming things about me that they cannot possibly know.

[jchesh]

vonhosen said:

Who determines what is appropriate for them in the circumstances?
YOU don't get to & that is a source of frustration for you.
YOU don't get to make that call for them. Only they & the authorities do.

That leaves you with what can YOU do about THEM?
And what is YOU complaining here complaining about THEM going to achieve?

I'm not suggesting what THEY do is right.
I'm suggesting YOUR approach to them isn't going to help YOU.
MY approach means I don't get stressed, don't get in accidents, but do get to destinations on time whilst not attracting the unwanted attention of the authorities.

Concentrate on what YOU can influence for YOUR benefit. Not stuff that YOU can't influence & will only cause YOU stress.
Make the choice to be in control of YOUR emotional response (by controlling that which you can exert control over), don't let YOUR emotions be a slave to OTHER'S whims (that you can exert no control over).

Part of being a good driver is being self/emotionally aware of these arenas & exercise control over them. Poorer drivers aren't aware & don't.

If you had read what I said, I wasn't commenting about the appropriateness of others' speed adjustments. Of course the severity of hazards and the requisite speed adjustments are partly subjective. Once again, the finger I am pointing (and I think so is this thread) is at those who, as just one example, apply a blanket rule of never under any circumstances exceeding 50 mph on a NSL single carriageway. By any objective measure this is inconsiderate, bad driving.

[Pegscratch]

jchesh said:

If you had read what I said, I wasn't commenting about the appropriateness of others' speed adjustments. Of course the severity of hazards and the requisite speed adjustments are partly subjective. Once again, the finger I am pointing (and I think so is this thread) is at those who, as just one example, apply a blanket rule of never under any circumstances exceeding 50 mph on a NSL single carriageway.

Your breath is wasted. Twig and vonhosen are renowned for arguing against points people aren't making. Even simple points appear to be lost on them.

[vonhosen]

jchesh said:

vonhosen said:

Who determines what is appropriate for them in the circumstances?
YOU don't get to & that is a source of frustration for you.
YOU don't get to make that call for them. Only they & the authorities do.

That leaves you with what can YOU do about THEM?
And what is YOU complaining here complaining about THEM going to achieve?

I'm not suggesting what THEY do is right.
I'm suggesting YOUR approach to them isn't going to help YOU.
MY approach means I don't get stressed, don't get in accidents, but do get to destinations on time whilst not attracting the unwanted attention of the authorities.

Concentrate on what YOU can influence for YOUR benefit. Not stuff that YOU can't influence & will only cause YOU stress.
Make the choice to be in control of YOUR emotional response (by controlling that which you can exert control over), don't let YOUR emotions be a slave to OTHER'S whims (that you can exert no control over).

Part of being a good driver is being self/emotionally aware of these arenas & exercise control over them. Poorer drivers aren't aware & don't.

If you had read what I said, I wasn't commenting about the appropriateness of others' speed adjustments. Of course the severity of hazards and the requisite speed adjustments are partly subjective. Once again, the finger I am pointing (and I think so is this thread) is at those who, as just one example, apply a blanket rule of never under any circumstances exceeding 50 mph on a NSL single carriageway.

The appropriateness of which is a choice for them & the authorities, not you.
You can have a view on it, but it doesn't really matter as far as change is concerned (if change is what you are seeking).

[Pegscratch]

vonhosen said:

The appropriateness of which is a choice for them & the authorities, not you.
You can have a view on it, but it doesn't really matter as far as change is concerned (if change is what you are seeking).

Close the forum, you're allowed a view but it doesn't matter.

Forums are places for people to exchange their views. All you appear to be doing is arguing to get your post count up.

[vonhosen]

Pegscratch said:

vonhosen said:

The appropriateness of which is a choice for them & the authorities, not you.
You can have a view on it, but it doesn't really matter as far as change is concerned (if change is what you are seeking).

Close the forum, you're allowed a view but it doesn't matter.

Forums are places for people to exchange their views. All you appear to be doing is arguing to get your post count up.

I'm dealing in the reality of the situation & offering a solution to those struggling with that reality.

[RedSwede]

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.

[Pegscratch]

vonhosen said:

I'm dealing in the reality of the situation & offering a solution to those struggling with that reality.

Great, lovely. Others are talking about the subject matter openly and discussing what they perceive to be the problem and don't need the God Squad in here telling them how to live in peace and harmony with the world.

Are you a vegan?

[vonhosen]

Pegscratch said:

vonhosen said:

I'm dealing in the reality of the situation & offering a solution to those struggling with that reality.

Great, lovely. Others are talking about the subject matter openly and discussing what they perceive to be the problem and don't need the God Squad in here telling them how to live in peace and harmony with the world.

They can take it or leave it. That's a choice they do have. It's not one for you to make for them.

Pegscratch said:

Are you a vegan?

Nope.

[Pegscratch]

RedSwede said:

1. They had made a different assessment of the risk to me.

That they did. They're entitled to. Flashing at you is a bit excessive (especially if they weren't flashing their headlights!) but sometimes "live and let live" is best in these situations and just know you were dealing with the full picture where they weren't. Sometimes however I find in these situations it's better to lean enough on the brake pedal to show you're responding to a situation (light the brakes). Sometimes it may provoke them into a stupid overtake. I generally find if someone is hell bent on driving like a moron there's little you can do to stop them.

RedSwede said:

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.

Or find somewhere to stop in your unroadworthy car so that you can make it roadworthy again?

RedSwede said:

3. New car. I didn't know that 30 on the dial was actually about 26, 27 if I'm lucky.

Now you do. This can be slow going but only really irritating when it's coupled with other signs that the driver of the vehicle is otherwise distracted. I'm all to aware of how certain speedos over-read - my old bike was comfortable doing 23-24 at an indicated 30. "Known issue, sir"!

RedSwede said:

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.

Well done; it doesn't mean that others from different parts of the country with different demographics haven't had different experiences...

The one standout piece in all of this is that it appears people are incapable of seeing that other people may have seen different situations and circumstances. Where I live I see people "bimbling" regularly, and it's because there's a lot of people who are very old round my way. I'll not change that, I just live with it, and know I can overtake them when the opportunity arises. I am entitled to my view that they shouldn't be on the road as I'm not convinced they've got all their marbles, and seeing them get out of the car when they reach their destination only reinforces that view. It doesn't automatically mean I roll around with a chainsaw on a rope riding a GSX-R looking to murder people for not conforming with the standards I believe should be upheld!

Some people really need to give their head a wobble. Maybe even get a partner, or a hobby, or both.

[RedSwede]

Pegscratch said:

Or find somewhere to stop in your unroadworthy car so that you can make it roadworthy again?

You don't think I did exactly that? But finding somewhere appropriate isn't instant. If you were behind me during that process, would you not have jumped to the conclusion I was just being an inconsiderate moron?

Pegscratch said:

Now you do. This can be slow going but only really irritating when it's coupled with other signs that the driver of the vehicle is otherwise distracted. I'm all to aware of how certain speedos over-read - my old bike was comfortable doing 23-24 at an indicated 30. "Known issue, sir"!

Yes, I do. But during the acclimatisation period, again, would you not have jumped to the conclusion I was just being an inconsiderate moron?

Pegscratch said:

The one standout piece in all of this is that it appears people are incapable of seeing that other people may have seen different situations and circumstances. Where I live I see people "bimbling" regularly, and it's because there's a lot of people who are very old round my way. I'll not change that, I just live with it, and know I can overtake them when the opportunity arises.

In which case, surely you have no problem!

Pegscratch said:

I am entitled to my view that they shouldn't be on the road as I'm not convinced they've got all their marbles, and seeing them get out of the car when they reach their destination only reinforces that view.

You are entitled to that view. But the standard required of a driver isn't going to be substantially raised any time soon. The shift over the next few decades will be towards more dumbing down with lower limits and then to automation. Relax, and try and enjoy the relative freedom we have now.

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

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Pegscratch 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.

Listen, my dear TwigtheWonderfktard, your spouting of st may stick to others but I frankly don't give two sts what you opine.

Well why are you arguing with me then?

[Foss62]

Getting back to whether driving too slowly is actually dangerous, I think the posters mentioning slip-road dawdlers were probably closest to the mark. I try hard to identify these ‘drivers’ before actually getting on the slip road and then hold back a long way, ignoring the inevitable tailgater. After the idiot has somehow made his or her way onto the motorway (or not...) I can then accelerate down the slip road as I want to. Interestingly, I also often leave the black BMW well behind at this point.

[lyonspride]

RedSwede said:

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

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

Edited by lyonspride on Friday 1st November 07:06

[eccles]

RedSwede said:

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

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

[vonhosen]

lyonspride said:

RedSwede said:

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

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

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

[lyonspride]

vonhosen said:

lyonspride said:

RedSwede said:

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

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

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

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