whats the best way to make a slow driver go faster?

Mrs_Arcanum

alastairq wrote: »

But it isn't limited to older drivers.....this is my point, why pick on older people?

Eyesight itself can and does deteriorate with age...but that 'age' starts at around 45 or so, not 60!

On the contrary,the Law does help. It requires certain minimum standards of health and ability, as a condition of issue of a licence.

LGV and PCV licence holders already have a system of health checks in place for renewal of the vocational licence category every 5 years, or less if a history of problems is identified.

From the age of 45!

The problems occur when folk try to hide from the regulations.....and that isn't exclusive to older people.


it's not about what people see...it's about what they do with that information.

The current system does not affect the majority who are not LGV & PSV drivers though does it?

I personally have had deteriorating eyesight since age 20 and wear corrective lenses. My father had glaucoma caught very early but even so he was still driving when it was patently obvious he could not see sufficiently well enough to be safe.

Just because something may affect some of the population from age 45 or so does not mean something shouldn't be done later when those same issues are likely to affect more of the population more of the time.

corrag

As a driver just getting my nerves back after being hit by a speeding car which wrote my car off, I'd hope people would be a little considerate that the person in front causing you such inconvenience is perhaps nervous or recovering from a trauma.

If I had my way I'd never drive again, but thats sadly not possible. I stick to the speed limit which really seems to wind people up, but its tough. I've been having Nervous Driver Training which has helped hugely but it takes time to get over a big accident. I'd prefer to arrive late than to not arrive at all.

alastairq

Just because something may affect some of the population from age 45 or so does not mean something shouldn't be done later when those same issues are likely to affect more of the population more of the time.

Before you drive or ride
To drive or ride a vehicle or motorcycle you must:
hold the appropriate driving licence for the vehicle being driven
meet driver minimum age requirements
meet the legal eyesight standards

Above, the extract from

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/AdviceOnBuyingAndSellingAVehicle/DG_4022406

Note that a Cat B licence is valid only to age 70.

As has been posted earlier on this thread, people appear to want to be able to exercise their discretion when choosing to comply with a Law or not.

Many objections are made when members of the medical profession notify DVLA of a health issue, apparently 'behind the patient's back'...

Anyone still driving with an un-corrected eyesight or health issue is breaking the Law.

But like a lot of other driving issues, nothing is 'done' until it comes to the attention of the authorities.

Yes, licence renewal with a health assessment should be mandatory every few years.

My argument is, why 60?

When clearly, age-related health issues commence at a much younger age?

[I am over 60 now...I hold vocational and most non-vocational categories of licence, and my work relies upon my holding those categories. I spend a fortune every few years getting medicals for licence renewal. So I do not argue from personal experience of slipping under the radar in this respect.]


The one big fly-in-the-ointment regarding our wishes and desires in this respect is, one of costs and logistics for the government.

alastairq

As a driver just getting my nerves back after being hit by a speeding car which wrote my car off, I'd hope people would be a little considerate that the person in front causing you such inconvenience is perhaps nervous or recovering from a trauma.

you have my sympathies and understanding....but you raise the single most important issue with driving, which appears so sadly lacking on these forums.....that of tolerance.

real1314

alastairq wrote: »

you have my sympathies and understanding....but you raise the single most important issue with driving, which appears so sadly lacking on these forums.....that of tolerance.

I'm not sure that someone who divides drivers into: "Competent Careful Drivers" or "Chancers" is really in a position to assess tolerance in others. Your points are so radically polarised that you really should re-appraise your perspective.

It's good thought that you've also moved your position from a driver who stays within the law as being "competent and careful" rather than "good"; you've accepted that a driver who does not stay within the law can actually be a good driver. Well done. :cool:

mikey72

real1314 wrote: »

...........you've accepted that a driver who does not stay within the law can actually be a good driver. Well done. :cool:

Never good, just lucky, (so far) and the rest of us have to compensate for them normally.

Crabman

corrag wrote: »

As a driver just getting my nerves back after being hit by a speeding car which wrote my car off, I'd hope people would be a little considerate that the person in front causing you such inconvenience is perhaps nervous or recovering from a trauma.

If I had my way I'd never drive again, but thats sadly not possible. I stick to the speed limit which really seems to wind people up, but its tough. I've been having Nervous Driver Training which has helped hugely but it takes time to get over a big accident. I'd prefer to arrive late than to not arrive at all.

My policy with tailgaters on single carriageway roads is simple - I slow down a little.

This allows them a better opportunity to overtake so they can reach the mortuary more quickly.

It also means if you have to brake hard for a hazard ahead, you can do so in a more controlled manner so the tailgater doesn't smash into the back of your vehicle.

Mrs_Arcanum

alastairq wrote: »

Above, the extract from

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/AdviceOnBuyingAndSellingAVehicle/DG_4022406

Note that a Cat B licence is valid only to age 70.

As has been posted earlier on this thread, people appear to want to be able to exercise their discretion when choosing to comply with a Law or not.

Many objections are made when members of the medical profession notify DVLA of a health issue, apparently 'behind the patient's back'...

Anyone still driving with an un-corrected eyesight or health issue is breaking the Law.

But like a lot of other driving issues, nothing is 'done' until it comes to the attention of the authorities.

Yes, licence renewal with a health assessment should be mandatory every few years.

My argument is, why 60?

When clearly, age-related health issues commence at a much younger age?

[I am over 60 now...I hold vocational and most non-vocational categories of licence, and my work relies upon my holding those categories. I spend a fortune every few years getting medicals for licence renewal. So I do not argue from personal experience of slipping under the radar in this respect.]


The one big fly-in-the-ointment regarding our wishes and desires in this respect is, one of costs and logistics for the government.

Counter argument is why not 60 to start with then reduce the age as people are more compliant. What the law says and what the majority do are clearly two different things.

Do you ever hear of a regular motorist prosecuted for poor eyesight? You do have people who lose their licence due to failing sight. However, this ONLY applies to people who get their eyes tested in the first place. Those who ignore failing sight for whatever reason still drive and are a danger to others. Yet they think they are still fine.

Those who do get their eyes tested and wear the correct glasses such as you and I are not the issue. It is those who wilfully ignore eye problems who are the danger.

Lum

Note, I'm not a lorry driver and have never driven one. I know there are a few reading this thread and would love to hear their perspectives on these:

jackyann wrote: »

No, absolutely not, and I didn't brake suddenly either! The police explained that if you are in the slow lane doing say 60-65mph, and then slow down to say 40-50 because a speed limit sign flashes, the lorry drivers hate it because they are on deadlines. They are often in the slow lane, but it takes a lot of effort to overtake a 40mph driver if you are in a heavy lorry wanting to do, say 55mph. So they hate having to slow down then try to overtake.

Some good advice from the police about avoiding a conflict but lorries are allowed to use the middle lane, assuming anyone ever lets them out. So long as you're not doing something stupid like driving a grey car in heavy rain with no lights on, they should really see you and look towards changing lane. If you're doing 40 and they're doing 56 this is not an elephant racing* scenario so pulling out early shouldn't be a problem.

Only other thing I can think of that might help is to press the brake pedal enough that it lights up the lights but doesn't actually slow down the car, maybe flash it a few times, and then let the car coast down to your new speed. This should give the lorries plenty of warning of your intentions and time to deal with it in a nicer manner.

FWIW, in advisory speed limits, e.g. in roadworks, I tend to carry on as before but be extra alert for things like workers on the carriageway. As soon as I see any evidence that there are actually people about I'll either obey the advisory speed limit, or move across a lane so that there is a whole lane between me and the coned off section. Possibly both, it depends on the specific situation.

alastairq wrote: »

maybe not, but by exceeeding their limits by up to as much as 50%, does make it more difficult for a car driver to get past.
...
{ this issue of a lorry driver driving at 50--55mph on a SC road is a selfish one....since it leaves very little margin of speed advantage for a car to overtake, and remain within the limit. [one major reason for the 40mph limit still being in place.]....therefore the lorry driver is showing little or no concern for the car driver.

As good as 'trying to prevent someone from overtaking?']

I suspect in this situation lorry drivers are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Lets assume that the lorry driver is simply trying to minimise the disruption for everybody else and go through this.

Driving along at 40, in a straight section. There's a car approaching from behind and nothing coming. Ok, I'll stick to 40 and this person will overtake, everyone is happy...

... only they don't overtake they instead follow the lorry at half a car length, fuming at this inconsiderate lorry driver who is holding them up. Another overtaking opportunity arises but they're so close to the lorry now that they can't even see it's safe to overtake.

Another car arrives and promptly does the same thing, tailgating the first car. This guy is on the phone and has no intention of overtaking.

A third car arrives, this person does want to overtake, but they're now stuck behind a convoy that is the length of one lorry and 3 car lengths. They're driving a Corsa B with the 1.0 hairdryer engine and have no hope of getting past on this particular road as none of the overtaking opportunities are long enough, that doesn't stop them from weaving about, poking themselves across the middle line looking to see if they can manage. They've slighly misinterpreted the "overtaking position" advice so are following at 1 car length.

The fourth car arrives, this one is decently powerful enough, say a Civic Type R, but the obstruction is now one lorry + 5 car-lengths and the driving style of the Corsa is making them nervous so they follow at 1 car length decide to let the Corsa overtake first rather than risk getting sideswiped.

The 5th car arrives, this is a normal car, dealing with a solid queue of one lorry a 7 car lengths. They have no hope of overtaking, and from here the queue just grows and grows.

You're the lorry driver, you can see this fiasco unfolding behind you. You're still mainly concerned about not delaying people unnecessarily. Do you:

a) Continue at 40mph and hope that one of these muppets actually decides to overtake

b) Drive at 50mph because you can safely (if not legally) do that on this road and it will cause less disruption to the others behind you.

corrag wrote: »

As a driver just getting my nerves back after being hit by a speeding car which wrote my car off, I'd hope people would be a little considerate that the person in front causing you such inconvenience is perhaps nervous or recovering from a trauma.

And this is yet another reason why tailgating is always bad.

Believe it or not, I know what you are going through. Back in 2004 I was hit from behind by a bloke doing 50mph who didn't see, and didn't brake for, my stationary vehicle. I am still in a lot of pain from this incident and likely will be for the rest of my life. For a fair amount of time I'd react quite badly when being tailgated, even going as far as actual physical symptoms. I'd jump and get a feeling like an electric shock that started at the sides of my neck and quickly shot down my arms. Sometimes this would be followed later in the day by an eczema flare up on my arms.

Thing is he wasn't speeding. The speed limit of the road in question was a 70, he was too busy arguing with his kids who were whining about being late for a football match and not looking where he was going.

I've since been hit from behind twice more by people who just wern't paying attention. It's amazing the damage a Smart fortwo can do at 20mph.

And this is the point, and I'm well aware that it's very easy for me to say this and a lot harder to put it into practice, but please try not to focus too much on speed. It's terrible observation that causes accidents.

The best thing you can do is be alert for other people showing signs of not looking where they're going, e.g. braking at the last minute, swerving to avoid obstructions that have been there for ages or randomly drifting across lane markings without realising. Give these people a wide berth, it's entirely legitimate to be nervous around them.

Some of these people may also be speeding, some may not.

* Elephant racing is the scenario where two lorries have slightly different speed limiters, say one at 55.5 mph and the other at 56.2 mph. Because it takes so long to overtake they tend to wait until they are almost embedded in the back of the other lorry before pulling out, in order to minimise the disruption caused to the users of the middle lane

real1314

mikey72 wrote: »

Never good, just lucky, (so far) and the rest of us have to compensate for them normally.

Has a road you've driven on ever had it's speed limit reduced?

Wouldn't that mean that you had been driving in an unsafe manner prior to the change of limit? and hence are not a "good" driver?

:cool: