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

real1314

alastairq wrote: »

so you don't complain?



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.




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?]

Ergo, it's not all about risk. Therefore you have admitted that your point about good drivers staying within the law is incorrect.
The law is not ALL about risk and therefore not ALL about safety.

At least you've shifted from a rather appalling level of naivety displayed in the earlier comment. :cool:

ffacoffipawb

The car in front is a Toyota

The car in front peeing everybody off, dawdling and pootling along at 60 miles a week is a Vauxhall Corsa.

mikey72

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

The car in front is a Toyota

The car in front peeing everybody off, dawdling and pootling along at 60 miles a week is a Vauxhall Corsa.

The car in front is a Toyota, being driven at 38mph by a driver with a flat cap, and a nodding dog watching you, the car behind is a corsa, in your boot, with a bass that hurts your teeth, and is being driven by a chav who's been disqualified last month. Me. I'm now drinking the other half of the scotch, so I don't care!

alastairq

herefore you have admitted that your point about good drivers staying within the law is incorrect.
The law is not ALL about risk and therefore not ALL about safety.

I am inclined to respond with a 'yeah, whatever'.

The Law with regards to the public highway covers many other aspects apart from those associated with risk.


Try passing a driving test by ignoring the Law?

Try building a kit car, that is to be registered for use on the Public Highway without complying with the law?

Try passing the most advanced of Police driver assessments without complying with the Law?

Try getting a job with Eddie Stobart by openly stating you have no intentions of complying with the Law if it is inconvenient for you to do so?


The Law lays down the boundaries within which a competent careful driver is expected to work within.

If a driver's standards fall below those expected of a 'competent, careful driver', then...in the very least, the offence 'failing to exercise due care & attention' is proven.

The Law with regards to anything driving [or using the public highway] is in place because, in this instance, drivers have proven themselves to be unable to exercise proper discretion.

There is no difficulty in driving within the Law.

Thus, by the logic displayed by others on here, anybody who struggles to drive within the Law, in reality needs their driving attitude looking at.

A driver who thinks it fine to be a 'chancer', isn't a 'good' driver, by any means... regardless of what they themselves think of their driving standards.

But hey, you chose to do as you wish, eh?

Whether you display a 'good' standard of driving or not will, in the end, be up to others to decide.

Harry_Flashman

alastairq wrote: »

Try getting a job with Eddie Stobart by openly stating you have no intentions of complying with the Law if it is inconvenient for you to do so?

Try keeping a job with Eddie Stobart (or many other big transport firms) if you have intentions of remaining within the law if it inconvenient to the Company!

Lum

alastairq wrote: »

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.

Oh come on, you know bloody well I wasn't talking about vans, busses, trucks etc.

Bus and truck drivers also tend not to try to prevent you from overtaking by speeding up either.

Derivative

alastairq wrote: »

A driver who thinks it fine to be a 'chancer', isn't a 'good' driver, by any means... regardless of what they themselves think of their driving standards.

So how do you define taking a chance?

Driving itself is dangerous - every time you go out on the road you're accepting the risk of accident and injury. That's chancing it.

In the circumstance that the driver in front is doing 20 in a 30 and you wish to travel at the limit, I would say that momentarily speeding to overtake them is safer than performing an overtake at 30. Less time in the other lane, clearer intentions, less chance of them inadvertently 'blocking' you in.

Or do you mean 'chancing it' in the sense of potentially being caught speeding and facing the penalties?

Driving within the bounds of the law does not make you safe. Driving safely does.
Similarly, driving outside of the bounds of the law does not inherently make you unsafe. Driving unsafely does.

Would you disagree with the above paragraph?

bazster

Derivative wrote: »

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.

Agree with all that. Overtaking is inherently dangerous, safest thing for everyone is to get it over with as quickly as possible. If you have the acceleration of a motorcycle at your disposal sometime the safest thing to do is to use it.

mikey72

Derivative wrote: »

..........Driving within the bounds of the law does not make you safe. Driving safely does.
Similarly, driving outside of the bounds of the law does not inherently make you unsafe. Driving unsafely does.

Would you disagree with the above paragraph?

I usually find the worst drivers are the ones that have a blind belief that they're always safe, so anything the decide must be safe as well, and select which laws they like the look of today. Now that make it unsafe for everyone.

jackyann

Lum wrote: »

Interesting. As far as I'm concerned people can go as slow as they like on the motorway within reason, so long as they keep left unless overtaking.

You wern't sat in the middle lane while the left lane was empty or going the same speed, were you?

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.
What bugs me is that they may hate it, but harassing me made me flustered, so more likely to cause an accident.

And I *think* that you can't, under "normal" conditions do less than 30mph on a motorway - I'm sure the Highway Code says this.

As for safe driving: most of us do the very best we can, and make the best judgements we can. What I always think is, if I did cause an accident, it wouldn't be because I was speeding or doing something against the Highway Code.