How do you cope with slow, dawdling, indecisive drivers?

[Horse Pop]

HemiCommander said:

There seems to be 14 pages of people saying essentially the same thing:

• People have the legal right to travel at any speed up to the posted limit on the highway
• There is nothing intrinsically wrong with going slowly, there could be a good reason for it
• It is inconsiderate to hold up others if it can be avoided

I have no problem with someone who wishes to drive at 40mph for whatever reason. They could have a boot full of quail eggs or their mother in law on board or be driving a terrifyingly awful car. I have a big issue with people who hold others up when it can be avoided, i.e. they don't pull over when someone has been behind them for more than a minute or two and the road ahead is clear.

Much the same applies on the pavement or cycle path, you can go at whatever speed you like but if you are holding people up then you let them past.

This is far too reasonable a post for this thread!

[Mr Snap]

Pan Pan said:

Mr Snaps - You really cannot face the truth can you? Still if avoiding it makes you happy, then I am happy for you also!

I'm not avoiding it, I just couldn't see the point of having an argument regarding logic with you; because logic doesn't seem to be your strong point.

So, just to make you happy…

The points we've both made are opinions unsupported by information. I say it's this, you say it's that. Neither of us can provide proof of our opinions, so all we can do is argue our corners.

So, you trying to parse the logic in what (you think) I said is somewhat pointless. Besides, I can't be "totally wrong" because people exist who disagree with you. There only has to be one person who thinks like I do to make your assertion "totally wrong". (And, since I exist and actively disagree with you, it's you are definitely 'totally wrong'). You only have to read this thread to see that there are people who disagree with you here on Pistonheads.

You may find it annoying that some people don't drive up to the posted limit at all times but it's a free country and it's allowed - within reason. Similarly, there are people who drive slightly above the limit and are allowed to get away with it. The law has some give and take in a number of situations - or have you never been let off with a stern warning? Take the piss either too fast or too slow and, eventually, one day you'll get pulled.

Anyway, if someone wants to drive at 25 in a 30, they're allowed. It may be inconvenient for you but they're not breaking any laws and no politician will ever bring in a law that forces people to drive up to the limit because it'd be seen for stupid and completely unenforceable. Politicians don't like looking more stupid than they are already and the police wouldn't thank you for bringing in a law that, in enforcing it, would make them unpopular.

Whatever you may feel, most traffic calming schemes are brought in democratically. One way or another people have voted for them because they understand that it's for the greater good. It may be annoying that they can't drive down street A faster, but they accept it because they live on street B and they don't like people driving too fast down their own street. It doesn't take a huge leap of logic for the people on street B to accept that the people on street A deserve the same conditions. This is the bit that seems beyond you, traffic calming isn't a plot from outer space, it's happened because people want it where they live and, so, they accept that it has to happen where other people live.

If you want traffic calming to be removed and for minimum speed limits to be put in place, stop complaining and get involved with the democratic process that brought it about. Good luck with it, though, because everyone will think you're a fruit loop.

[ORD]

It is genuinely frustrating that people express the view that they are "allowed" to drive below the speed limit without considering (a) whether this is in fact consistent with the Highway Code (which it is not) and (b) whether or not driving below the speed limit is a socially acceptable thing to do (it is not).

In the above, assume that I mean "when it is safe to do so". There is no excuse for driving below the speed limit when it is safe to do so.

[Mr2Mike]

Mr Snap said:

the greater good

Did you play the crusty killer in Hot Fuzz?

[Pan Pan]

Mr Snaps. It would seem that your fundamental flaw is an inability to both understand, and face up to reality of a situation. I have never once suggested that there should be a law which forces people to drive at the posted limit, that was entirely an invention of your strange mind only.
You just don't seem to be able to face up to reality, and so invent things in your mind to support your argument, which are not part of main stream thinking, only existing in your perceived little world, and certainly not a mainstream view on this particular forum. If you wish to apply logic (even your version of it) count up the number of posts which support those, who are slow dawdling, indecisive drivers, and then of those who support the practice of driving at least at the posted limit where conditions allow.
It might show that your view is the minority view.
Operating a motor vehicle of any kind is a dynamic activity which requires a certain level of skill and awareness of what is happening around the vehicle in question. Also a willingness operate the vehicle in question, in a way which allows it to be integrated with those around it.
You seem to be advocating that people should not be required do this, and if they cause delay and disruption by so doing, that is acceptable, because there is not a specific law against it (although from others posting here, it seems that there is)
The premise is quite simple, if a person cannot drive on public roads in a way which allows integration with the majority of other road users, and willfully proceeds in a manner which causes delay and disruption to other road users around them, they should perhaps consider whether they are suited to driving on public roads at all.

[Mr Snap]

First you say

Pan Pan said:

…...I have never once suggested that there should be a law which forces people to drive at the posted limit, that was entirely an invention of your strange mind only.

Then you say

Pan Pan said:

…..count up the number of posts which support those, who are slow dawdling, indecisive drivers, and then of those who support the practice of driving at least at the posted limit where conditions allow.

Which contradicts what you first said.

Then you say

Pan Pan said:

You seem to be advocating that people should not be required do this.

Please explain the difference in practice between required and forced.

Then you say

Pan Pan said:

The premise is quite simple, if a person cannot drive on public roads in a way which allows integration with the majority of other road users, and willfully proceeds in a manner which causes delay and disruption to other road users around them, they should perhaps consider whether they are suited to driving on public roads at all.

Your premise is dumb. The roads are full of people who don't drive well, they're the people whom I referred to earlier who don't give a toss about driving. And, believe me, they ain't going to return their licences to the DVLC for your sake. They're going to carry on pottering about whether you like it or not. A fact that all your pent up fury can never change.

As for 'the majority' you speak of, it means nothing. I'd be surprised if the majority of petrol heads here on PH didn't agree with you. But PH isn't representative and you considering it as a useful statistic only indicates how tin foil hat worthy you are.

Nothing will ever be done about people driving too slowly except in the most serious of cases. Why? Because pottering drivers vote.

You're getting all het up about it isn't going to make the slightest difference. No matter how much you fume, things will remain largely the same.

So, there you go. Your logic is flawed and, in the real world, nothing is ever going to change about people driving too slowly.

Do you seriously think you're winning this argument?

[Munter]

Mr Snap said:

You're getting all het up about it

... he's not the only one....

And pointing out that most drivers are rubbish, doesn't stop them being rubbish. If they are rubbish, it's not wrong to point it out and say "Ideally they'd improve or give up". And saying it doesn't mean people are getting "het up" about it. Just they identified something wrong, and pointed it out. You though appear to be "het up" that someone should bother to point out such a thing.

This is now how the thread reads:

Others: Some people are rubbish drivers, wouldn't it be nice if they improved.
Snap: WHAT THE fk YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT THEY ARE DOING NOTHING WRONG EXCEPT BEING RUBBISH
Others: Easy tiger...just saying.

[Mr Snap]

I take your point but I'd argue it's more like this…



Others: SOME PEOPLE ARE fkING RUBBISH DRIVERS AND SHOULD BE (INSERT YOUR OWN PUNISHMENT)
Snap: WHAT THE fk YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT THEY ARE DOING NOTHING WRONG EXCEPT BEING RUBBISH
Others: THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED ETC ETC
Snap: AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!

Happy driving

[Pan Pan]

Mr Snap. Please show where I suggested that a law to force dawdling drivers to travel at the posted limit should be introduced? (What I said was that if some drivers are not able to cope with this, they should perhaps consider whether they are suited to driving motor vehicles at all)for whdrivers as noted before this is purely an invention of yours.
Your position is untenable, because you appear to be supporting those who wish to drive in a way which disrupts and delays other road users who wish to travel legally at then posted limit (and that this is alright on the grounds that forcing slow dawdlers to speed up to the posted limit would not be possible
enforcable??
Next you will be telling us that it is OK for people who are afraid of heights to become steeplejacks as long as they don't climb more than 600mmm above the ground
Coming on this forum and advocating that holding up other drivers who wish to travel at the posted limit where conditions allow is OK is a rather illogical thing to do, don't you think? Like I said yours is the minority viewpoint (on this forum at least) are you a troll perhaps, just out looking for an argument?
I really would be interested in what you might have to say to the driver of the ambulance, needlessly held up by the slow dawdling driver I observed on Monday evening, or better still, the person/s the ambulance was attending. I am sure they would like to know why you believe it is OK to hold up other drivers (even the emergency services drivers) by travelling at 20 mph below the posted limit.

[Mr Snap]

Pan Pan said:

Mr Snap. Please show where I suggested that a law to force dawdling drivers to travel at the posted limit should be introduced? (What I said was that if some drivers are not able to cope with this, they should perhaps consider whether they are suited to driving motor vehicles at all)for whdrivers as noted before this is purely an invention of yours.

You suggested force when you said...

Pan Pan said:

You seem to be advocating that people should not be required do this

At this point you are implying that people SHOULD be REQUIRED. Requiring somebody to do something implies an obligation backed up by force - i.e. force of law.

For example: If HMRC say I'm REQUIRED to pay my VAT, it means I'm obliged to do so backed up by force of law and they'll get medieval on my arse if I fail to comply. If you REQUIRE people to approach the posted limit, then you are by implication forcing them to do so. What part of this don't you understand?

If you didn't mean REQUIRED, you shouldn't have said it. I'm not responsible for your rudimentary grasp of words and their meanings.

Pan Pan said:

Your position is untenable, because you appear to be supporting those who wish to drive in a way which disrupts and delays other road users who wish to travel legally at then posted limit (and that this is alright on the grounds that forcing slow dawdlers to speed up to the posted limit would not be possible
enforcable??

If I could understand what this actually meant, I'd be happy to reply. As it is, it's gibberish.

Pan Pan said:

Next you will be telling us that it is OK for people who are afraid of heights to become steeplejacks as long as they don't climb more than 600mmm above the ground

For someone who complained about me putting words in his mouth, this assertion takes the biscuit.

Pan Pan said:

Coming on this forum and advocating that holding up other drivers who wish to travel at the posted limit where conditions allow is OK is a rather illogical thing to do, don't you think?

No it isn't illogical, it's expressing an opposing opinion. Are you suggesting the only people allowed on this thread are those who agree with you? I think you've kind of misunderstood the whole process here. Besides, the OP asked for opinions on how to cope with slow drivers. Some people felt they should be hung but a large minority, including me, said there's nowt you can do about them. All you can do is sit back and chill. Think of them as mobile chicanes if it helps.

Pan Pan said:

Like I said yours is the minority viewpoint (on this forum at least) are you a troll perhaps, just out looking for an argument?

No.

Pan Pan said:

I really would be interested in what you might have to say to the driver of the ambulance, needlessly held up by the slow dawdling driver I observed on Monday evening, or better still, the person/s the ambulance was attending. I am sure they would like to know why you believe it is OK to hold up other drivers (even the emergency services drivers) by travelling at 20 mph below the posted limit.

I haven't a clue, I wasn't there. Personally, I get out of the way asap. But I've observed situations where that wasn't immediately possible, so I'm not going to judge a situation on your say so because I don't think you're the most rational person on PH.

[Pan Pan]

Mr Snap - From your various postings it would seem that you are one of the slow, dawdling, indecisive drivers referred to by the original poster. You seem to be trying to defend the practice of causing delay, and disruption to other road users, who wish to travel legally at the posted limit.
You claim that some might be out for a slow relaxing drive, which is fine, provided those doing this drive with due care and attention, to other road user,s particular with regard to using their rear view mirrors, and registering that they may have caused a large queue of other motorists to build up behind them, in which case, they should do as others have suggested, and get out of the way, or begin travelling at the posted limit.
If they cannot do either of these things, as I have said several times before, they should perhaps consider whether the are really suited to driving a motor vehicle at all, and perhaps choose some other form of transport, more suited to their wits, reaction times, and level of driving skill, a mobility scooter perhaps???, (I believe some of these are capable of heady speeds up to 20 mph!!!) Some have even suggested that travelling at the posted limit is `fast' and that drivers doing so are `rushing' every where.
Well, in certain road conditions travelling at even 20 mph could be `fast', but usually only when the roads are covered in snow, and ice, or when visibility is poor. In good condition,s there is no excuse, for holding up large numbers of other drivers by travelling at speeds well below the posted limited. It generally comes down to either incompetence on the part of the slow driver, or sheer bloody minded selfish arrogance. If there is sound reason for going this slowly it would be best to do it when it will cause least disruption to others. But just as some can cite reasons for going slowly, it is possible to cite just as many for travelling at the posted limit, and in some cases above it. If it had been one of my relatives in the ambulance which was held up by the dawdling idiot I described in an earlier post, I would definitely have reported them to the police for dangerous driving. everyone else got out of its way. Why couldn't the dawdling idiot do the same?
In a given section of road where a dawdler has let a large queue of (often frustrated) motorist build up behind them, whilst the vehicles in front, travelling at the legal limit have disappeared off into the distance, it is very clear who is the `problem driver' in that section of road.
You even mention that your GF has done a track day, but it appears, that you `may' not have done so??
It would seem that your GF is more mentally suited to driving on both track, and public road, than you are.
Perhaps it would be better if you let her do the driving on public roads, and get yourself a mobility scooter, for when you are let out in public places, From your comments I am sure you would be far happier and more suited to going at 20 mph everywhere, and if even that is too much for you, you could slow down even more, but bear in mind, you may be inconsiderately holding up pedestrians who need to be somewhere faster than you need to be.

[jamieduff1981]

I followed a lady in a Clio along a damp B-road for around 5 miles last night. She didn't exceed 30mph and was typically slower than this and we passed around 2 dozen passing places along the way where she could have let me by but didn't. She got away from me when we reached my home town and its 30mph limit, where she sped up and pulled away.

I may flippantly suggest that she be shot, and I'd definately suggest that she improves her driving skills and suggest she considers whether she's competent driver and whether she has the aptitude for driving at all.

To be honest though, I'd be happy to compromise on her just pulling in to a passing place and letting me get on my way above a leisurely cycling pace. That would however require some basic level of conscious thought and consideration for anyone other than her mushbrained self, so it'll never happen.

[Carl_Docklands]

Half of me says: Eat them alive. Undertake at the soonest possible opportunity. You don't want to be around when they eventually harm themselves.

The other half says: Slow down and keep a longer distance than normal to them, stick the radio on and take no notice. They will eventually move.

I fight this conflict everytime I get to Junction 8 and Junction 9 of the M25. I gurantee that in the outside overtaking lane of a nearly empty 4 lane motorway, doing 60mph there will be a private hire minbus taxi just waiting for me.

[funkyrobot]

I overtake them.

Then I get abuse from them.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[Mr Snap]

Pan Pan said:

Mr Snap - From your various postings it would seem that you are one of the slow, dawdling, indecisive drivers referred to by the original poster. You seem to be trying to defend the practice of causing delay, and disruption to other road users, who wish to travel legally at the posted limit.
You claim that some might be out for a slow relaxing drive, which is fine, provided those doing this drive with due care and attention, to other road user,s particular with regard to using their rear view mirrors, and registering that they may have caused a large queue of other motorists to build up behind them, in which case, they should do as others have suggested, and get out of the way, or begin travelling at the posted limit.
If they cannot do either of these things, as I have said several times before, they should perhaps consider whether the are really suited to driving a motor vehicle at all, and perhaps choose some other form of transport, more suited to their wits, reaction times, and level of driving skill, a mobility scooter perhaps???, (I believe some of these are capable of heady speeds up to 20 mph!!!) Some have even suggested that travelling at the posted limit is `fast' and that drivers doing so are `rushing' every where.
Well, in certain road conditions travelling at even 20 mph could be `fast', but usually only when the roads are covered in snow, and ice, or when visibility is poor. In good condition,s there is no excuse, for holding up large numbers of other drivers by travelling at speeds well below the posted limited. It generally comes down to either incompetence on the part of the slow driver, or sheer bloody minded selfish arrogance. If there is sound reason for going this slowly it would be best to do it when it will cause least disruption to others. But just as some can cite reasons for going slowly, it is possible to cite just as many for travelling at the posted limit, and in some cases above it. If it had been one of my relatives in the ambulance which was held up by the dawdling idiot I described in an earlier post, I would definitely have reported them to the police for dangerous driving. everyone else got out of its way. Why couldn't the dawdling idiot do the same?
In a given section of road where a dawdler has let a large queue of (often frustrated) motorist build up behind them, whilst the vehicles in front, travelling at the legal limit have disappeared off into the distance, it is very clear who is the `problem driver' in that section of road.
You even mention that your GF has done a track day, but it appears, that you `may' not have done so??
It would seem that your GF is more mentally suited to driving on both track, and public road, than you are.
Perhaps it would be better if you let her do the driving on public roads, and get yourself a mobility scooter, for when you are let out in public places, From your comments I am sure you would be far happier and more suited to going at 20 mph everywhere, and if even that is too much for you, you could slow down even more, but bear in mind, you may be inconsiderately holding up pedestrians who need to be somewhere faster than you need to be.

Have you ever considered writing in sentences? It might help people understand what you're trying to say.

If the person holding up the ambulance was driving as badly as you say, why didn't you report them? Saying that you would have done so had it been a relative is a bit weird, to be honest. If the driver was causing a genuine hazard, you should have reported him/her. What difference should it make having a relative involved? Driving without due care is an offence, end of, you should have reported it. (Or maybe the situation wasn't anything like as bad as you're pretending…?)

Actually, I don't drive a car, I've never even taken a car license because I've only ever ridden bikes. Why, you might ask? Because I'm too impatient to sit around in a tin box stuck behind people like you. If you can't cope with slow drivers, you should adopt a form of transport that's less likely to be held up. The choice is yours.

Track days? Not these days, I haven't time, but I used to race a 500 twin back in the 80's. So, plenty of track days and racing experience, thank you. None of which helped me learn how to ride in slow traffic. Not much call for rear wheel drift or getting my knee down when I'm filtering at 20mph, to be honest.

Any more daft questions or mad assertions you'd like to make?

[Pan Pan]

Mr Snap - Thank for the honesty of your last post, we now know, all that we need to about your driving
history, and why you seem unable to understand why slow indecisive, dawdling drivers represent a problem on the countries roads.
As for your comment regarding the reporting of the driver who held up an ambulance involved in an emergency to the police. You might remember, that I mentioned that I was in a queue of 15 cars being held up by this individual. Unless I attempted to get past them all, (which would have involved exceeding the posted limit by a significant margin) to get directly behind the slow incompetent drivers vehicle, I was never going to get near enough to take its registration number. Arguably that would be the job of the ambulance driver but I would guess they had other criteria on their minds at the time.
I sincerely hope you are not ever in an ambulance, where you need to be taken to hospital quickly, which is then held up, by a slow, ignorant, selfish individual dawdling at well below the speed limit, and who like most drivers of this type, fail to get out of the way, or even use their rear view mirrors.
Lucky I guess, for us all that you do not drive.

[Mr Snap]

Pan Pan said:

Mr Snap - Thank for the honesty of your last post, we now know, all that we need to about your driving
history, and why you seem unable to understand why slow indecisive, dawdling drivers represent a problem on the countries roads.
As for your comment regarding the reporting of the driver who held up an ambulance involved in an emergency to the police. You might remember, that I mentioned that I was in a queue of 15 cars being held up by this individual. Unless I attempted to get past them all, (which would have involved exceeding the posted limit by a significant margin) to get directly behind the slow incompetent drivers vehicle, I was never going to get near enough to take its registration number. Arguably that would be the job of the ambulance driver but I would guess they had other criteria on their minds at the time.
I sincerely hope you are not ever in an ambulance, where you need to be taken to hospital quickly, which is then held up, by a slow, ignorant, selfish individual dawdling at well below the speed limit, and who like most drivers of this type, fail to get out of the way, or even use their rear view mirrors.
Lucky I guess, for us all that you do not drive.

Now, let me see... 15 cars, average UK car length is 4.2m and assuming there was, say, a .75 car lengths between each car. That adds up to over 100m in new money. All the same, despite it being in the evening, your incredibly acute eyesight enabled you to assess the reason why someone was driving slowly over 100m ahead of you. (Although, I note, despite your quite extraordinary visual powers, you couldn't see their license plate).

See? There's your problem! Your powers of observation are so good, you can see stuff that us other poor mortals don't even know about. Truly you are a driving god and we are not worthy to occupy the road in front of you at any speed.

That or you're making stuff up. Either way, you come across as slightly unhinged. Do you ever read what you write, or ever stop to think while you're writing?

[Pan Pan]

Mr Snap. You were not there, so your ridiculous attempt to work out the distance between myself and the incompetent dawdling f*ckwit, is just that a riduiculous attempt to justify your ridiculous (non driver) viewpoint of an event (which despite your puerile blusterings did actually take place)
I would love to see if you can read a standard licence plate at 100 metres, let alone the distance that actually prevailed on the night.

[Mr Snap]

Pan Pan said:

Mr Snap. You were not there, so your ridiculous attempt to work out the distance between myself and the incompetent dawdling f*ckwit, is just that a riduiculous attempt to justify your ridiculous (non driver) viewpoint of an event (which despite your puerile blusterings did actually take place)
I would love to see if you can read a standard licence plate at 100 metres, let alone the distance that actually prevailed on the night.

Tell us the story again, please. You know, Pan Pan, the one about how you can see well over 100m, in darkness, and can tell why someone is driving slowly...

I wasn't there but I know you're talking out of your arse. Why? Because either you weren't 15 cars away - in which case you're exaggerating - or you don't have a clue how far 100m is. Either way, you're talking complete bks and can't be trusted to tell anything like the truth. If you were telling that one in court even the worst barrister in the UK would take you apart and feed you to the ducks.

The comment regarding reading the number plate was irony. I'm afraid I forgot to take into account the fact you wouldn't know what irony was if it was shiny, looked like iron and someone was whacking you over the head with it.

Just to be clear. I'm not a non-driver, I'm a rider. I have a 1100cc bike and I use it every day, covering over 9,000m/year and have been doing so since the early 70's - and I don't hang around.

This amount of riding has lead me to the conclusion that it's angry people like you that present the greater danger to me in traffic, not little old ladies out for a Sunday run.

If I come up behind someone who's going slowly, I don't jump to stupid conclusions as to why they're doing it. If I can't get past (unusual) I sit back and wait for them to sort themselves out. If I run across someone like you, with a chip on their shoulder, I give them a much wider berth, because you're the kind of angry, impetuous, moron who acts before thinking and who's liable to kill me.

[Johnnytheboy]

I think it's time you two got a room.