Driving Too Slowly Is Dangerous

[vonhosen]

eccles said:

vonhosen said:

eccles said:

vonhosen said:

eccles said:

JimSuperSix said:

The only thing that makes any slow-moving vehicle dangerous is the lack of anticipation and low driving standards of other road users. Every driver should be prepared for anything up to and including a totally stationary obstacle, and should have given themselves the required space and time to be able to deal with that. If they are not then that is down to their own shortcomings.

Meanwhile back in the real world that's complete rubbish and completely unrealistic on the busy roads of today.
Using those criteria we'd be having people literally crawling around country roads so they can stop in the distance that they can see.
On motorways you can only react to the distance you can see and that can be a relatively short distance if you are behind a larger vehicle.

Then don't sit close behind large vehicles, you don't have to!
It'd be comical if it weren't so sad that this view of it's not possible to choose a safe option & still get to your destination at a decent time persists.
It IS possible in the real world.

And country roads with tight bends?

It's possible to make decent progress & still drive so that you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear & reasonably expect to remain so. That's a maxim that the emergency services drive/train to & decent progress as a term is relative to that maxim.

I would say they are trained to a level of risk that's acceptable. In the real world going around a 90 degree bend at 20mph and finding something in the road it will be almost impossible to stop in time, but we all accept this is a very unlikely scenario, so even a switched on, competent driver will be going faster than the distance required to stop.

Been there, done it & got the T shirt. Driving as fast as it's safe to drive (without having to worry about speed limits) on a NSL single carriageway country road, coming around a blind bend to find an LGV completely across the road & stopped short of it without hitting it. No better example to the others in the vehicle that we can make decent progress & still stop in the distance we can see to be clear.
They are trained to another maxim "No call is so urgent as to justify an accident".

[FiF]

Well that recent discussion would have been an eye opener if we didn't already realise how blinkered some folks are about managing risk.

I'd add it's not just about being able to stop short of a stationary obstacle, on single track roads it's about considering the consequences of meeting yourself coming the other way, or more correctly, meeting someone coming the other way driving along the road as fast as it's physically possible.

I've got the T shirt for encountering someone doing exactly that, me approaching a blind 45 right and a youth in a Corsa coming the other way so quickly he was on the limit of adhesion. It was close, too close, but no contact.

[vonhosen]

FiF said:

Well that recent discussion would have been an eye opener if we didn't already realise how blinkered some folks are about managing risk.

I'd add it's not just about being able to stop short of a stationary obstacle, on single track roads it's about considering the consequences of meeting yourself coming the other way, or more correctly, meeting someone coming the other way driving along the road as fast as it's physically possible.

I've got the T shirt for encountering someone doing exactly that, me approaching a blind 45 right and a youth in a Corsa coming the other way so quickly he was on the limit of adhesion. It was close, too close, but no contact.

Yep, single track (as opposed to merely single carriageway) roads, it is a minimum of half stopping distance rules.

[anonymous-user]

eccles said:

On motorways you can only react to the distance you can see and that can be a relatively short distance if you are behind a larger vehicle.

This has to be one of the dumbest things posted yet in this thread, and perfectly illustrates the current attitude of passing the blame to anyone but yourself.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

JimSuperSix said:

eccles said:

On motorways you can only react to the distance you can see and that can be a relatively short distance if you are behind a larger vehicle.

This has to be one of the dumbest things posted yet in this thread, and perfectly illustrates the current attitude of passing the blame to anyone but yourself.

I think the winner is "if an overtaking car trying to get past a slow driver hits you head on, it's the slow driver's fault", but this runs it close for utter tripe.

[eccles]

JimSuperSix said:

eccles said:

On motorways you can only react to the distance you can see and that can be a relatively short distance if you are behind a larger vehicle.

This has to be one of the dumbest things posted yet in this thread, and perfectly illustrates the current attitude of passing the blame to anyone but yourself.

Says the man who thinks that no one should hit anything if they follow the rules. Plenty of IAM and highly trained Police drivers hit things every day.
I'm talking real world scenarios, not some stuff I've read in a book and parrot back to look good.

[anonymous-user]

eccles said:

JimSuperSix said:

eccles said:

On motorways you can only react to the distance you can see and that can be a relatively short distance if you are behind a larger vehicle.

This has to be one of the dumbest things posted yet in this thread, and perfectly illustrates the current attitude of passing the blame to anyone but yourself.

Says the man who thinks that no one should hit anything if they follow the rules. Plenty of IAM and highly trained Police drivers hit things every day.
I'm talking real world scenarios, not some stuff I've read in a book and parrot back to look good.

Not quite sure what you are saying (and tbh I'm not sure you are either) - because IAM and Police drivers (allegedly) hit things every day, then you're not responsible for the stuff you hit due to your own incompetence / impatience?

And I assume that "some stuff I've read in a book" would be the books that tell you how to drive a car and not crash it?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

eccles said:

JimSuperSix said:

eccles said:

On motorways you can only react to the distance you can see and that can be a relatively short distance if you are behind a larger vehicle.

This has to be one of the dumbest things posted yet in this thread, and perfectly illustrates the current attitude of passing the blame to anyone but yourself.

Says the man who thinks that no one should hit anything if they follow the rules.

If everyone followed the rules, every vehicle, every cyclist, every pedestrian, surely no one would hit anything? Apart from natural causes, like falling trees and rocks, suicidal deer and the like.

[bartelbe]

Frustrating as someone driving way below the limit is, the issue is too many cars on the road. You simple aren't going to make progress anymore.

I was in relax mood driving home, so didn't push it. The car in front was tall gating, over taking like made, ignoring limits. He shot off into the distance. I caught up with him at a set of lights 2 miles down the road. Everything that driver had done had been a waste of time. He hadn't got anywhere.

[witko999]

bartelbe said:

Frustrating as someone driving way below the limit is, the issue is too many cars on the road. You simple aren't going to make progress anymore.

I was in relax mood driving home, so didn't push it. The car in front was tall gating, over taking like made, ignoring limits. He shot off into the distance. I caught up with him at a set of lights 2 miles down the road. Everything that driver had done had been a waste of time. He hadn't got anywhere.

I think the issue is actually councils' rampant use of traffic lights in situations where a give way is perfectly fine. Unfortunately they want to control everything to the detriment of any kind of traffic flow.

[BertBert]

bartelbe said:

Frustrating as someone driving way below the limit is, the issue is too many cars on the road. You simple aren't going to make progress anymore.

I was in relax mood driving home, so didn't push it. The car in front was tall gating, over taking like made, ignoring limits. He shot off into the distance. I caught up with him at a set of lights 2 miles down the road. Everything that driver had done had been a waste of time. He hadn't got anywhere.

Perhaps that wasn't his objective.

[MissChief]

These people drive slowly because they’ve had it drummed into them for decades that speed=dying horribly, burning kittens and puppies alive and maiming children.

I also believe that some of the more elderly drivers have failing eyesight so feel safer driving more slowly.

[anonymous-user]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

eccles said:

JimSuperSix said:

eccles said:

On motorways you can only react to the distance you can see and that can be a relatively short distance if you are behind a larger vehicle.

This has to be one of the dumbest things posted yet in this thread, and perfectly illustrates the current attitude of passing the blame to anyone but yourself.

Says the man who thinks that no one should hit anything if they follow the rules.

If everyone followed the rules, every vehicle, every cyclist, every pedestrian, surely no one would hit anything? Apart from natural causes, like falling trees and rocks, suicidal deer and the like.

Unfortunately not much chance of that when people can't even take responsibility for being too close behind another vehicle on a motorway...

[meatballs]

JimSuperSix said:

Unfortunately not much chance of that when people can't even take responsibility for being too close behind another vehicle on a motorway...

To be fair everyone's jumped to the conclusion that he's not leaving a safe braking distance, when that wasn't explicitly stated.

You can drop back a long way behind a heavy vehicle and still have no visibility of what's going on in that lane, unlike a car which you can see through, or move to edge of lane to see past. So driving behind a heavy vehicle does increase your risk somewhat in that regard.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

meatballs said:

JimSuperSix said:

Unfortunately not much chance of that when people can't even take responsibility for being too close behind another vehicle on a motorway...

To be fair everyone's jumped to the conclusion that he's not leaving a safe braking distance, when that wasn't explicitly stated.

You can drop back a long way behind a heavy vehicle and still have no visibility of what's going on in that lane, unlike a car which you can see through, or move to edge of lane to see past. So driving behind a heavy vehicle does increase your risk somewhat in that regard.

Well drop back further. If you hit someone in the rear, and they didn't just swerve in front of you and brake, then you were driving too fast/too close/not concentrating.

[Dan_The_Man]

Lorry crash on the news today "80-year-old, driving a 1903 Knox Runabout Old Porcupine, was killed at the scene of the crash on the M23 in Surrey at about 10:00 GMT."
Suspect that would have been a slow moving classic rammed by a lorry driver not expecting a tiny rolling roadblock

[BertBert]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If everyone followed the rules, every vehicle, every cyclist, every pedestrian, surely no one would hit anything? Apart from natural causes, like falling trees and rocks, suicidal deer and the like.

That raises a very good question. How do we know that the system of rules is a perfect system that if followed means no accidents?

It doesn't feel likely to me.

Bert

[MissChief]

Dan_The_Man said:

Lorry crash on the news today "80-year-old, driving a 1903 Knox Runabout Old Porcupine, was killed at the scene of the crash on the M23 in Surrey at about 10:00 GMT."
Suspect that would have been a slow moving classic rammed by a lorry driver not expecting a tiny rolling roadblock

A potential closing speed of 30MPH or more, car in front doesn’t notice until a hundred yards or more, managed to find a gap in lane 2 in time, pulls out, truck is then potentially 20-30 yards behind a 30MPH open top tin can. Doesn’t bear thinking about.

Why was he on the motorway anyway?

[ericmcn]

MissChief said:

Dan_The_Man said:

Lorry crash on the news today "80-year-old, driving a 1903 Knox Runabout Old Porcupine, was killed at the scene of the crash on the M23 in Surrey at about 10:00 GMT."
Suspect that would have been a slow moving classic rammed by a lorry driver not expecting a tiny rolling roadblock

A potential closing speed of 30MPH or more, car in front doesn’t notice until a hundred yards or more, managed to find a gap in lane 2 in time, pulls out, truck is then potentially 20-30 yards behind a 30MPH open top tin can. Doesn’t bear thinking about.

Why was he on the motorway anyway?

He shouldn't have been on Motorway, or indeed driving at all it seems.

[InitialDave]

The veteran car incident isn't really what the thread's about. He wasn't driving slower than he should have been, rather he was driving a very old, slow car, he made a mistake, and ended up on a road he shouldn't have been on.

If he were driving a modern car at that kind of pace in that situation, these comments would perhaps be justified. As it is, they come across as somewhat harsh in light of the result.