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

mikey72

real1314 wrote: »

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:

I've never claimed to be, but if it's been changed, it's been for a reason, so I'll drive below the new limit.

Strider590

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.

How did you get hit by a speeding car? Head on collision?

Because there aren't many other ways for a speeding car to hit you.
Generally speeding results in the driver harming only themselves and may spin off up a kerb to hit a wall, or bus stop or something.

Lum

mikey72 wrote: »

I've never claimed to be, but if it's been changed, it's been for a reason, so I'll drive below the new limit.

The reason is usually politics rather than safety.

For example one day a drunk driver who was exceeding the old speed limit mows down someone's child. A tragic accident but difficult to do anything about, especially as there are so few traffic police around these days.

That doesn't stop the cries of "something must be done", so the council put in a lower speed limit as the cheapest and easiest way to make these people go away satisfied.

mikey72

Lum wrote: »

The reason is usually politics rather than safety.

For example one day a drunk driver who was exceeding the old speed limit mows down someone's child. A tragic accident but difficult to do anything about, especially as there are so few traffic police around these days.

That doesn't stop the cries of "something must be done", so the council put in a lower speed limit as the cheapest and easiest way to make these people go away satisfied.

You usually find drunk drivers keep to the speed limits, in the hope they don't get spotted. It's the invincible drivers that speed because they know how safe they are, then lose it and mow down the pedestrians, then the speed limit is changed, the camera goes in and they are forced to pay for there invincibility. Me I'm happy not to speed if it makes bereaved parents feel better.

Derivative

alastairq wrote: »

partly because, by driving at the fastest speed your vehicle can manage, even if only briefly, severaly limits the ability of the overtaking driver/rider to cope with, what for them may be, an unforeseen siltation. Or a change in circumstance.

Do you not think that's quite realistic though?

The fastest speed your vehicle can manage is not likely to come about on any public road, unless you're driving a 900cc on the motorway.

The fastest acceleration perhaps, in which case I'd agree that using all of the available power is probably not sensible.

Lum

mikey72 wrote: »

You usually find drunk drivers keep to the speed limits, in the hope they don't get spotted. It's the invincible drivers that speed because they know how safe they are, then lose it and mow down the pedestrians, then the speed limit is changed, the camera goes in and they are forced to pay for there invincibility. Me I'm happy not to speed if it makes bereaved parents feel better.

It was an example, not a typical scenario. The drunk driver who thinks they're ok to drive will speed. The drunk driver who knows they're drunk but chooses to drive anyway will be somewhat below the speed limit.

Both are deadly.

And if someone thinks they are so safe, yet are driving fast enough to kill when there are pedestrians about, there are bigger failings than just their transgression of an arbitrary number, but I agree with you that these people are also a menace.


Personally I'd find it insulting if the council tried to buy me off with a couple of new signs after losing a loved one. I'd want to see the actual problem addressed, whether that's cracking down on drunks, grade separating a junction that's in dire need of it, re-engineering a dangerous corner or perhaps just putting up a warning sign* and some shellgrip.

* Assuming this is in an area that doesn't heavily abuse warning signs to the point that most of them are crying wolf, e.g. Oxfordshire.

real1314

mikey72 wrote: »

I've never claimed to be, but if it's been changed, it's been for a reason, so I'll drive below the new limit.

Nice evasion. Would you accept that anyone who had driven at the old limit cannot be a "good" driver according to your definition?

:cool:

alastairq

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.

Oh dear, you really don't have much understanding of the driving world, do you?

A 'competent, careful driver' is the standard by which a Court measures whether someone who is charged with 'driving without due care' has that charge proven or not.

The description is within the public, legal domain....never mind my professional one.

The term 'chancer ' is one I find useful when describing driver attitudes as I have posted earlier.

Your concept of a 'good' driver really is the one needing re-appraisal...and no, I don't rate any driver who thinks they can ignore the laws that govern the rest of us as 'good' in any way, shape or form.

And to make that point, I personally am happy to take that idea to the very highest echelons of driver training and education....no problem.

Lum

alastairq wrote: »

Your concept of a 'good' driver really is the one needing re-appraisal...and no, I don't rate any driver who thinks they can ignore the laws that govern the rest of us as 'good' in any way, shape or form.

And to make that point, I personally am happy to take that idea to the very highest echelons of driver training and education....no problem.

So the police/fire/ambulance drivers are all crap drivers in your estimation then? After all these people all regularly ignore the laws that govern the rest of us when out on a shout.

alastairq

Nice evasion. Would you accept that anyone who had driven at the old limit cannot be a "good" driver according to your definition?

Circumstances can change with time.

Many speed limits are imposed not because the prevailing limit encourages drivers on that road to travel at speeds faster than is advisable....but to allow other roads users to cope better with the traffic speeds along that road.

For example, if side roads exist which are seeing increasing usage.....and fixed obstructions to sight lines from those side roads mean that both those trying to exit have difficulty coping with the prevailing traffic speeds on the major route, then by lowering the speed limits on the major route, this gives all parties a better chance of coping with each other.

Of course, another point to be made is that even though there exists a given limit, which may subsequently be lowered, this does not mean that very driver was driving to the old limit in the first place.

One of the criteria for changing a limit is to monitor the mean, or average speed currently displayed by traffic.......this is often lower than the prevailing limit anyway.

However, this discussion centres on drivers who comply with the limit [the law]...regardless of what limit used to be in place.

A good driver respects the law.....and appreciates there is a reason for regulations to be in place......even if that reason is not immediately apparent to them, there and then.

If anybody fails to understand the reason for a certain regulation to be in place, they have the opportunity to seek to make changes......simply ignoring them isn't one.