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

Lum

"For the law to be respected, the law must be respectable."

Recently more and more speed limits are being set to the 50th percentile, as opposed to the old standard of using the 85th percentile. This means they are being set at a level that criminalises half of the drivers on the road.

It's hardly surprising that a lot of people have decided that the whole thing is a con.

There's plenty of dumb laws out there that contribute to this:
Illegal to park your car, put the handbake on and make a phone call.
Illegal to copy a CD you own onto to your iPod for use in the car or on the train.
Illegal to do 70 on the motorway at 3AM because some plonker at the highways agency forgot to turn the 50 signs off on the HADECS system when the jam ended at 7PM.

alastairq

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.

The majority probably do comply with the Law...it is the minority who stand out.

My point is, why '60?'

Especially when health and eyesight,amongst other things, start to change at a much earlier age.

Why not 50?

Or, better still, 45? [as with vocational licences?}

Even when a fixed age is set, what about the individual who has 6 months to go?

alastairq

Lum wrote: »

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.

Whether they are or not is for them to realise, and the systems of monitoring and remedial training to deal with.

However, whist an emergency vehicle driver may appear to ignore the laws...they are trained [and must maintain the standard achieved]...to fully comply.

It is the Law itself which allows for certain regulations to be ignored, if safe to do so.

And the number of traffic regulations that can be ignored are actually very limited.

Furthermore, if an emergency driver does get it 'wrong', the outcome in Court is a very much more severe one.

Lum

Yes, but you said "the laws that govern the rest of us".

FWIW, I've always thought that the best system would be a two tier driving licence. Legitimise the likes of the IAM and RoSPA advanced driving tests (both of which are based on the same material as the emergency service ones anyway) and increase the NSL for people with this qualification.

Add in a requirement for retests for this new tier and revoke it in the event of being found guilty of a serious offence, such as driving without due care and attention.

This would have the benefit of encouraging people to actually take further training upon passing their driving test and should provide an overall safety benefit.

alastairq

t's hardly surprising that a lot of people have decided that the whole thing is a con

The alternative is anarchy, is it not?

And if you feel anarchy exists, why complain on this forum?

Laws are fine until they get in someone's way.


But the reality I think you raille at is how the law is enforced, rather than its existence in the first place?

[nothing to stop you stopping and phoning the Highways Agency? they might appreciate it!]

corrag

Crabman wrote: »

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.

I wasn't tailgated. I was going through a set of traffic lights on a green light when a guy decided to jump the lights on a red and smashed into the side of my car lifting it onto two wheels, but I take your point.

Lum

corrag wrote: »

I wasn't tailgated. I was going through a set of traffic lights on a green light when a guy decided to jump the lights on a red and smashed into the side of my car lifting it onto two wheels, but I take your point.

Now this is interesting. Clearly (to me) the problem here is not that someone was speeding, it was that someone chose to go through a red light and didn't even look to see if anyone was coming. If they had actually seen the red light, or your car, and bothered to stop the fact that they may have been speeding would not have mattered.

If they were going so fast that they were unable to stop for the red light, then the problem was one of excessive speed (too fast for the conditions) which is not the same as speeding (exceeding an arbirtrary limit).

alastairq wrote: »

But the reality I think you raille at is how the law is enforced, rather than its existence in the first place?

I do believe that the way it's currently enforced has had a negative effect on road safety yes, but I don't argue for removing the enforcement. I argue for the correction of bad law.

Some of the anti camera campaigners do indeed argue as you say. They'd say that prior to the days of cameras and targets and league tables the police would generally ignore speeders if they were driving in a safe and considerate manner, but when they wern't they would pull the person over and give them a telling off. If they continued to be a problem then the offence of speeding was quite easy to prove, a lot easier than due care and attention and thus it was an easy way to punish them and encourage them to change their ways. Discretionary enforcement of the law being the order of the day here.

I'm uncomfortable with that notion as there are problems. It used to be acceptable to speed in order to keep up with the rest of the traffic, but what if you happened to commit the offence of driving whilst black, or driving whilst having a dispute with your neighbour who happens to be a traffic copper?

To me the solution is what I posted in my previous post, two tier licences and to ensure that speed limits are set by traffic engineers based purely on safety, not by councillors based on politics and tabloid news articles.

alastairq

Lum wrote: »

Yes, but you said "the laws that govern the rest of us".

FWIW, I've always thought that the best system would be a two tier driving licence. Legitimise the likes of the IAM and RoSPA advanced driving tests (both of which are based on the same material as the emergency service ones anyway) and increase the NSL for people with this qualification.

Add in a requirement for retests for this new tier and revoke it in the event of being found guilty of a serious offence, such as driving without due care and attention.

This would have the benefit of encouraging people to actually take further training upon passing their driving test and should provide an overall safety benefit.

I do not differentiate between any one regarding the law.....emergency vehicle drivers are no different to you or I.

But just as lorry drivers have some different laws to comply with, compared to car drivers, so do emergency vehicle drivers.


IAM, RoSPA, [or even, my-place-of-work]....are not about training to drive faster.

They are primarily about teaching drivers to be very much more aware.

If, by learning to be more aware, it enables one to make better progress without raising levels of risk to others, then that is a by-product.

The law with regards to emergency vehicle drivers is aimed at aiding better progress.

The problem with your idea is one of monitoring.

But I agree with your ideas regarding further driver education.

howeer, a major issue is..the public highways are not there purely for motorised vehicles....they exist for all to use.

Raising permitted speeds for certain drivers doesn't do anything to help other road users cope with those drivers.

corrag

Lum wrote: »

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

Hiya, sorry to hear about your experience too. It must be awful to still be in pain from it too.

I misexplained in my post and I can see why it sounds like I was hit from behind. I was actually hit going through a Green light when this guy decided to jump his red light and smashed into the side of my car with such force I went up on two wheels. It caused over £5k of damage to my car, lucky I was ok other than shot nerves.

alastairq

They'd say that prior to the days of cameras and targets and league tables the police would generally ignore speeders if they were driving in a safe and considerate manner, but when they wern't they would pull the person over and give them a telling off.

they never bloody ignored me! [pre-points, I hasten to add!]