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

bazster

Lum wrote: »

Strider is actually on the mark when he rants about people who get some daft idea about the law (e.g. NSL for a single carraigeway is 50) and then feel obliged to enforce their view of the law upon everyone else, e.g. by speeding up when someone attempts to overtake them, or by sitting in the outside lane of a DC at 58 mph. These people do exist, congrats on not being one of them

Oh believe me I know, they drive me nuts too. Although in my opinion that kind of arrogance is relatively uncommon compared to sheer, dozy stupidity whereby drivers simply don't have a clue what's going on around them, whether it be causing a mobile traffic jam or having any idea what the speed limit is.

alastairq

(e.g. NSL for a single carraigeway is 50)

sadly for those on here...they're perfectly correct!

[Bus, C1 MGV, White van man, and any vehicle which the driver considers needs to be limited to 50.....for example, if fitted with off-road tyres, age, mechanical limitations, etc....]

But then, the ''40-in-a-60' brigade are right too.....all LGV's ona single carriageway NSL rural, have a lmit of 40mph.

If you see one going faster than that, then they are really pushing your safety envelope beyond the limit.

But does the LGV driver care?

Not one iota!

Until their wagon falls over, that is.....

Derivative

alastairq wrote: »

except that, [since you say the limit is 30?] such action would be unlawful.

A good driver firstly drives within the Law.

A cowboy driver does as they please.

Personally I don't consider there to be anything unsafe about driving marginally faster than the limit for a few seconds while performing an overtake.

If that makes me a cowboy - so be it. I'd rather that than complain that others are driving 'slowly'.

I wouldn't do it because I'm happy waiting behind someone (or, as said - as a motorcycle rider, being much thinner it's far easier to overtake at the speed limit).

However - on the topic of law - there's nothing wrong with people driving 58 in a 60 either. They're simply acting to preserve their license surely - yes, speedometers have tolerance built in generally, but I'd still rather have a decent safety margin. Depending on how powerful your vehicle is, the difference between 60 and 65 could be a small blip of the throttle.

alastairq

Personally I don't consider there to be anything unsafe about driving marginally faster than the limit for a few seconds while performing an overtake.

If that makes me a cowboy - so be it. I'd rather that than complain that others are driving 'slowly'.

Since it is considered acceptable to flout the Law in the above respect, why stop there?

Why not ignore a solid white centre line, simply because you yourself can see nobody coming?

Or, why not ignore a red traffic light, if you cannot see another vehicle waiting?

Why not tailgate, if it makes you feel better?

Why bother using indicators, if you really cannot be bothered?


Why bother worrying about renewing that slightly bald tyre?

When you know it still grips the road ok?

Why bother getting that brake light mended?

Indeed, why are we really bothering about all the misdemeanours and unlawful driving complaints that infest this forum?

When the reality is, danger is only caused when someone actually crashes? [why worry if no harm is done, in other words?]

In fact, why worry about being burgled?

After all, you will be claiming on the insurance....and won't object if the payout is more than the stolen items were really worth?


Why is it acceptable to flout the Law [which we all support and voted for].....unless it doesn't suit us to do so?

Yet we complain bitterly if someone else's law breaking impinges upon us personally?

Derivative

alastairq wrote: »

Why is it acceptable to flout the Law [which we all support and voted for].....unless it doesn't suit us to do so?

As individuals we have discretion and the capability to understand that not all is black and white. Many of your strawman examples are obviously dangerous, some of them not so much.

If you were caught performing an overtake above the speed limit, then you would face the sanctions. One could say it was deserved, shouldn't rush so much.

On "flouting" the Law: A good proportion of the population download music files illegally, and another decent proportion drive at 80mph on motorways. Such actions are illegal, but obviously deemed by many as acceptable.

A good driver is a person who drives safely, not someone who rigidly adheres to the law in all circumstances. I'm sure you've seen the old "stamp on the brakes for speed cameras" brigade. Yes, in an ideal world people would plan ahead and see the speed limit change early, unfortunately humans are not perfect beings. I'd rather someone "speed" for a few seconds and slowly/predictably adjust their speed, than brake dangerously simply because 'the law says so'.

Yet we complain bitterly if someone else's law breaking impinges upon us personally?

You're twisting words here - it is clear your viewpoint differs from mine, so I wouldn't group us together as "we".

alastairq

You're twisting words here - it is clear your viewpoint differs from mine, so I wouldn't group us together as "we".

so you don't complain?

A good driver is a person who drives safely, not someone who rigidly adheres to the law in all circumstances

As far as 'driving safely' is concerned, that means driving in a manner which minimises risk, to others as well as oneself.

The Law is in place partly to establish the boundaries of risk.


It isn't about 'black or white', but about establishing those boundaries within which we work.

The Law regarding the roads defines the limits within which our 'discretion' should operate.

Drivers in particular extend those boundaries [exercise their 'discretion'] mainly because we have entered an era where enforcement of Laws is compromised by logistical factors.....costs, manpower, etc.


They have become used to not having to worry or concern themselves about being brought to account.

I'm sure you've seen the old "stamp on the brakes for speed cameras" brigade. Yes, in an ideal world people would plan ahead and see the speed limit change early, unfortunately humans are not perfect beings. I'd rather someone "speed" for a few seconds and slowly/predictably adjust their speed, than brake dangerously simply because 'the law says so'.

If someone does 'stamp on the brakes', why should that be a problem?

Only if following drivers are in fact too close behind.


You're right, nobody is perfect.

But by following the driver in the example above, and considering their actions 'dangerous' implies that anyone affected isn't driving 'safely, as you put it, either.

{simply because, a good driver will be reducing their speed to the required level regardless of whether the vehicle in front is, or is not, doing so. Therefore, the 'panic braking' you deem so dangerous, isn't going to affect a 'good' driver.

It may well have a dire effect on a driver who is simply following blindly behind, however.

blindly enough to find themselves having a claim made against them, perhaps?]

FATBALLZ

robpw2 wrote: »

perhaps , turn off the computer game and get some sleep

I agree with the first part, personally my driving ability improves when I stop playing on the Nintendo DS, but I'm not sure about the second, as my ability dips again when I fall asleep.

mikey72

Derivative wrote: »

...........On flouting the Law: A good proportion of the population download music files illegally, and another decent proportion drive at 80mph on motorways. Such actions are illegal, but obviously deemed by many as acceptable.

A good driver is a person who drives safely, not someone who rigidly adheres to the law in all circumstances.

Spot on. 80mg per 100ml of blod is nothing, I'm perfectly safe after half a bottle of scotch. (I may scrub the tyres a bit on the kerb stones at times, but everyone does that, in fact I must get the offside tyre replaced.)

Strider590

mikey72 wrote: »

Spot on. 80mg per 100ml of blod is nothing, I'm perfectly safe after half a bottle of scotch. (I may scrub the tyres a bit on the kerb stones at times, but everyone does that, in fact I must get the offside tyre replaced.)

Only 7% of accidents are caused by drink driving, the other 93% are caused by sober people...... So statistically speaking you'll be fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine :rotfl:

Derivative

mikey72 wrote: »

Spot on. 80mg per 100ml of blod is nothing, I'm perfectly safe after half a bottle of scotch. (I may scrub the tyres a bit on the kerb stones at times, but everyone does that, in fact I must get the offside tyre replaced.)

You're right, overtaking someone at 35 in a 30 zone is just as dangerous as drink driving.
I hadn't thought of it that way before.

I don't really have the time to write out elaborate arguments, my point is that breaking some laws is more severe than others.

You don't need the law to tell you that running a red light is dangerous, they're almost always posted in areas where visibility would prevent someone from making a safe judgement on their own. Same with driving a bit fast on the motorway - the 70mph law was created at a time when cars were a shadow of their modern selves.

If you break the law, and get caught, you'll be punished. To dissuade people from breaking the law as a matter of course. That doesn't mean that you should never consider it in any circumstance.