people driving sooooo slow cos they dont know the speed limit!

abbecer

Hi Mids-Costcutter. It's obviously not every driver but it does happen quite often. It's a great stretch of road, pretty straight, pretty flat with big wide verges on the side so nothing overhanging the road. Overall good clear road with ability to see fair way into the distance. Very clearly marked with speed but yet some still drive really slow even when their are good conditions etc.

Rebecca

ianbar0

I am very glad my thread has been so popular! Never had one take off like this before!

roddydogs

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Really? I didn't know that. I wonder if anyone has mentioned that to our local council? The Truvelo in the middle of the A road going to the next village must be a fake then.

You cant tell the difference bewtween a Gatso and a Truvelo?, then slow down for both, then:rotfl:

Idiophreak

fivetide wrote: »

You hitting them. come on, you are the one advocating speeding, do try to keep up.

Where have I advocated speeding, exactly?
Come on, man up, provide the quote.

I've said I speed - the two things are definitely not the same and I've made it very clear that I only speed *when it's safe to do so*. Do try to keep up.

If you read my post (I know that's hard for you) you'll note I said "Your car might be hit by a drunk driver", but whatever...you're worried about me driving into the side of a drunk driver that comes out at 90MPH? There's still *nothing* you can do to guard against that (obviously depending on the amount of visibility of the side road etc). If you do 70 you might get past the junction before they arrive. If you do 60 you might be there just in time to hit them, if you do 50 you might get there just before...The problem is you just don't know the *magic speed* you need to travel at to avoid the collision. So, all you could do to be sure, is to drive at 2 mph everywhere you go. Might give you a chance of stopping, or just scraping the side of their car gently as it zooms past...But of course, the slower you go, the more you increase the likelihood of them hitting you side on...Once again, you calculate your risks and carry on. If you can, you move your car away from the junction a little, pick your speed and mentally cross your fingers that today isn't the day some idiot kills you.

fivetide wrote: »

Houses = people. People = unpredicatble. If you need a limit to give residents peace then that's a built up area is it not so you can say there is a higher potential for someone to walk onto the road or be crossing that section of road than say, in the middle of absolutely no-where.

Again, try and read...There's a concrete wall, which means people can't get on to the road. Even if they managed to climb up onto the viaduct. There's ZERO chance of anyone walking out onto the road. Literally zero. They might walk *along* the road, sure...But they *can't* just step out. As I said, it's for noise concerns ONLY. Nothing to do with safety at all.

fivetide wrote: »

I bet you told him how the limits shouldn't apply to you because they are lowering your quality of life. If you want to speed you will do because you always know best. His job was a waste of time and resources and the whole thing was nothing more than a stealth tax and shouldn't they focus on real crimes.... except you didn't did you?

No, despite what you seem to think, I'm not a tool and have no kind of bravado about speeding...I simply asked what exactly I was doing wrong. I pointed out that I was clocked at 56/50 on a straight two lane dual carriageway, in no traffic, in perfect visibility with a dry road surface. His response was, like yours, that what I was doing wrong was breaking the law. He couldn't actually explain what I was doing that was wrong, unsafe etc...you know why? Because I was doing nothing wrong and was driving perfectly safely. He said that the limits are conservative and aren't infallible, but that you have to obey them anyway. Fair enough.

You're getting very hung up on my "quality of life" comment...and I think you've misunderstood it. Given the choice of getting somewhere faster or getting somewhere slower - most people would choose the first. In the absence of any compelling reason to go slower, I go faster. I don't think "wow, this will make my life so much better!" I just have better things to do with my life that dawdle at unnecessarily low speeds mandated by some clueless council jobsworth.

fivetide wrote: »

For the last time, I'm not sayign I don't speed. If you read the responses properly I've advocated higher limits and agreed with lum on several points (but also highlighted a few errors). All I am saying is you shouldn't speed in a 30 limit. End of.

So, you think you're driving dangerously in higher speed limits? Because, after all, the limits are always there for safety, right? So if you're going faster, you're driving dangerously, right? Or do you think that higher limits can be wrong, but the 30 limits are always right? I don't see how *what* the speed limit is effects whether you deem it worth obeying?

fivetide wrote: »

You break the law. You are happy to take the risk. If you've been on a speed awareness course then you haven't learnt so that's pure stupidity.

Have you ever been on a speed awareness course? From the idea you think you could "learn" something from them suggests not...

Actually, I was quite looking forward to mine. I was looking forward to some spirited debate around speed limits, policing...I was really hoping to be proved wrong. To have them open my eyes to what I'd failed to understand for all these years...What happened, however, was somewhat disappointing. I was stuck in a room with a bunch of *horrible* drivers. He did a quiz and there were less than 10% of the people in the room that could tell you the correct national speed limit. We spent 3 hours going over stopping distances at 30 vs 40, the difference in fatality rates, how to handle tailgaters, lane discipline and a host of other random driving trivia. There honestly wasn't a single minute of the thing (aside from my question at the end) that was in any way related to the reason I was there.

I left more assured than ever that we should introduce annual driving tests, but with no revelations about the dangers of speeding...

NBLondon

Couple of examples from round my way:

1) A20 eastbound towards Sidcup. Just over a mile of urban Dual Carriageway with armco down the middle. No houses, no pavements. Speed Limit 40 with cameras at the end. Most traffic belts down at about 55 then brakes for the cameras. Would make more sense for the empty stretch to be a 50 limit then change to 40 where it becomes residential again and have the camera there to enforce that.

2) A102 southbound after the Blackwall Tunnel. Urban Dual Carriageway, concrete barriers all sides, footbridges. It's 30 coming out of the Tunnel until after the first junction then it jumps to 50. Some chunter along at 32 all the way; some accelerate to 60 as soon as they see daylight (for bikers make that 68). Then you get the idiot who joins at the next slip road doing 38 and immediately drifts into the middle lane at 38 because there's a coach doing 36 ahead of them.

Did somebody already mention the A12 north/east bound from Blackwall towards the North Circular and M11? Urban Dual Carriageway with concrete walls, footbridges etc. Changes between 30,40,50 with no apparent rhyme or reason...

Bob_the_Saver

martinthebandit wrote: »

But failing to drive to the speed limit when it is safe to do so is a fail in the driving test and failing to do it after you have passed your test is considered to be inconsiderate of other road users.

I assume you mean when it is safe to do so, anyway my everyday vehicle won't do 70mph so you'll just have to wait, please show me where it says that in a 50 zone I have to drive at 50 or in a 70 zone I have to drive at 70.
What is inconsiderate is not to allow faster drivers (within the speed limit) to pass either by the way you drive or if you are very slow pulling over regularly.
If I want to drive at 50 in a 60 zone I can, will and am within my rights to do so.
If someone want to sit right up to the limits that's fine by me.

Strider590

Bob_the_Saver wrote: »

I assume you mean when it is safe to do so, anyway my everyday vehicle won't do 70mph so you'll just have to wait, please show me where it says that in a 50 zone I have to drive at 50 or in a 70 zone I have to drive at 70.
What is inconsiderate is not to allow faster drivers (within the speed limit) to pass either by the way you drive or if you are very slow pulling over regularly.
If I want to drive at 50 in a 60 zone I can, will and am within my rights to do so.
If someone want to sit right up to the limits that's fine by me.

I maintain that the issue is not so much about speed, but about the deliberate obstruction of other drivers, the people who drive far too slowly and feel it's their duty to force other drivers into doing so too.

I drive at the speed limits whenever conditions allow, if someone wants to drive faster, that's fine, i'll even move over to let them pass. But there's an increasing number of drivers who will do their best to obstruct anyone who wants to pass, they're under this illusion that they're doing the world a favour by !!!!ing off drivers who are probably already pretty !!!!ed off.......

Lum

Bob,

If every "slow" driver did what you did then this thread probably wouldn't exist.

Thank you for showing a bit of consideration for others, and you are also making yourself safer by letting those who are genuinely dangerous get past you and out of your way, rather than having them sit 3 inches off your back bumper.

If they are dangerous and likely to have a crash, they will probably do it when they are half a mile up the road, rather than when they're alongside you overtaking on a blind corner and realise there's a truck coming and you're the softer option to hit.

It's pretty much win/win to let the faster driver past, no matter how much of an idiot they may or may not be.

Trebor16

Strider590 wrote: »

I maintain that the issue is not so much about speed, but about the deliberate obstruction of other drivers, the people who drive far too slowly and feel it's their duty to force other drivers into doing so too.

What you appear to be saying is that anyone who doesn't drive at a speed that you want to drive at is being deliberately obstructive?

Trebor16

Lum wrote: »

It's pretty much win/win to let the faster driver past, no matter how much of an idiot they may or may not be.

As long as it doesn't compromise your safety when you let them past. Letting someone past on a single carriageway road inappropriately is going to create more problems than it solves.

Of course it would help if those who want to go faster don't sit on the rear bumper of the slower car and intimidate them into an inappropriate move.