slow drivers

steve-L

brat wrote: »

280 horses means I need almost no time or effort to pass. Even my own Touran with half the horses gets past with no drama.
Passing an HGV may take an extra second or so with some additional pre overtake prep time to ensure safety. I can envisage no scenario where the overtake of a 40mph Micra would be more difficult than a 40mph HGV in the same place.

The difference is one will usually pull in slightly, the other you have a real danger of them suddenly noticing you (or noticing you actually don't want to be going at 45) and drifting towards you.
(I don't mean deliberately, it seems they eventually notice the car that has been behind them for 10 miles, look over their right shoulder and the car drifts as they do...)

Despite having 280 horses myself I find when you actually can overtake Mrs. Miggins it's best to find somewhere you can sit alongside for a few seconds until she notices you, swerves, corrects and then go.

Not all Mrs. Miggins do this (and equal amounts are Mr. Miggins) the problem is that its a way to common occurrence to make overtaking Mrs. Miggins straightforwards.
When you overtake the HGV that has pulled in slightly and even indicated you at least know they have seen you and are less likely to accidentally cut you up.

brat

mgdavid wrote: »

Now you're wandering off topic and bringing in other factors. Here you are talking about the way the law is enforced currently, not the law itself.

Yes, but the interpretation and application of the law is the important factor.
What is the offence of inconsiderate driving?
Its is "If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence"

The question therefore is, what is reasonable consideration?

If you wanted to do 60mph and I wanted to do 58, would my driving be unreasonably inconsiderate? Where does this line get drawn?
What about the Transit van which legally can't go over 50?
What about the horsebox driver or cattle carrier who doesn't want to go over 35mph because of sympathy for his load.
What about the ambulance that wants to get his patient to hospital as quickly as possible while working on him at the same time.
What about the bus driver stopping and starting on a rural road?
What about the HGV that can only do 40mph max?
What about the cyclist whose primary (safe) positioning causes cars to slow down?
What about speed cameras causing HGVs driving on limiter on a trunk road to reduce their speed to 35mph to keep their licence safe?
What about inexperienced drivers who don't often drive outside the 30 limits, and don't feel particularly comfortable at the higher speed?
What about cars towing caravans?
What about agricultural vehicles doing 20mph where there's two miles between lay-bys?
What about the 60mph road that has been unexplainedly reduced to 40mph?
What about the pensioner who feels that 40mph is their optimum speed for their safety - please pass if you wish to go faster.

We are faced with all sorts of legal limiters to our preferred speeds, either imposed by road conditions, weather conditions, the law, the actions of other road users etc etc. So "without reasonable consideration" would have to be seen in that context.

If a driver was prosecuted for inconsiderate driving for doing 40mph in a 60, any defence lawyer would say that many other vehicles are not allowed to go faster than 40mph, and many other road users would reasonably choose to go no faster than 40mph. So the speed of itself could not be considered unreasonable. Prosecution would then be required to show that it was the purpose of the driver to be unreasonably inconsiderate.

Unless you're a conspiracy theorist, it would be wrong to assume that the village hall geriatric club have colluded to make life a misery for all commuter motorists. So, unless the old person has a personal vendetta and was prepared to evidence this via actions or admission, this is not a prosecutable scenario.

prowla

I think that driving well below the speed limit on a particular road (in good conditions, etc.) is being inconsiderate to other people who are trying to get from A to B as efficiently as possible.

brat

steve-L wrote: »

The difference is one will usually pull in slightly, the other you have a real danger of them suddenly noticing you (or noticing you actually don't want to be going at 45) and drifting towards you.

with respect, I think you're contriving to create a debating stance based on a completely different circumstance. if "Mr Slow" is also weaving all over the road, then he is driving carelessly or dangerously. That's another debate on which we would probably entirely agree. If there's a safe place to overtake, a slower driver in a small vehicle is by far the easiest type of road user to overtake due to the reduced time and distance exposed to danger.

Despite having 280 horses myself I find when you actually can overtake Mrs. Miggins it's best to find somewhere you can sit alongside for a few seconds until she notices you, swerves, corrects and then go.

I hope you don't mean that, because that sounds like an awful plan... :think:

Not all Mrs. Miggins do this (and equal amounts are Mr. Miggins) the problem is that its a way to common occurrence to make overtaking Mrs. Miggins straightforwards.
When you overtake the HGV that has pulled in slightly and even indicated you at least know they have seen you and are less likely to accidentally cut you up.

You're trying to present two scenarios as common and routinely experienced, and in all honesty I don't recognise either as common.
The first is that slower drivers veer into your path as you overtake.
The second is that HGV drivers proactively make overtaking as easy as they can for you. Your argument seems to rely on these key points. I drive daily on two (mostly S/C) trunk roads in our county, and I don't see HGVs 'pulling in slightly' to let anyone overtake, nor do I have any difficulty passing slower cars. On the rural roads where overtaking is almost impossible, a slower car driver is much more likely to pull in to let a car pass than a Goods vehicle.

I really believe that we all need to live and let live, and recognise the value of tolerance. The most inconvenience we'll ever get from "Mr Slow" is perhaps 2 or 3 minutes once or twice a week.
Most of us contributors will have wasted a year's worth of "inconvenience time" responding to this thread. Most of us will spend much more time in queues, so let's recognise the thinly disguised ageism for what it is, recognise that we will be elderly drivers one day, and be a little more understanding that the 'entitlement' to hold a driving licence is conditional on the recognition that road traffic laws and good driving etiquette is designed to encourage us to accommodate the lower common denominator of driver skills.

Gilbert2

brat wrote: »

Because it's not correct. A motorist can choose to drive at any speed between 1 and 120+ miles per hour.

.

Well this driver chose to drive at a slow speed and was convicted.

Pensioner fined for slow driving


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3694201.stm

And we all know if you choose to speed you can get booked too.

You see, you don't have that choice.

brat

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

Not withstanding the fact that the double white lines are getting longer and longer ... and longer.
Where once was perfectly safe to overtake is now deemed inappropriate. They also seem to join sections of 30s together now between villages.
What really gets me is when you reach a point where you CAN overtake, only to be met with a convoy of traffic coming in the other direction also behind an equivalent rolling road block.
You can't get past these muppets these days. The roads and regs don't permit it.

EDIT: I love how one of my posts was removed earlier ... did I touch a nerve perhaps?

I agree with your main point.

I'd much rather see directives for road traffic efficacy that allow us the hope that (like the new rail project) in 20 years time we might be able to complete our journeys in a fraction of the time that we do now.
I believe that the vocal road safety lobby and the laudable drive to reduce road casualties creates a pressure to restrict rather than enhance road efficacy. We should be tasking road and vehicle scientists enginers and designers even more to create a safe but fast road network fit for 21st century motoring.

Reggie256

pka wrote: »

I guess what I am trying to say is that each persons perception of 'when it is safe to do so' is different to the next persons.


I personally consider driving to be a privilege and not a right and would like to think that when the time comes I will give up my license before I become a menace on the roads. However we must all accept that as we get older, our reactions are not as quick as they used to be, therefore most drivers compensate by slowing down. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe to drive, indeed in some cases I would suggest that they are in fact safer; if they have acknowledged a shortcoming and compensated for it.

I will freely admit to getting frustrated by 'slow' drivers at times and unlike the OP do not 'smile wryly to myself' indeed i'm likely to mutter a few expletives under my breath. However I do not turn in to a tailgating, light flashing, horn tooting moron. The expletives are enough to get the frustration out and I pootle along behind them at a safe distance.

I wonder if all you 'haters' of the slow brigade will freely hand your licenses in when your faculties mean you can no longer safely drive at the speed limit, when younger drivers deem it safe to do so......

So in summary I guess that's option 1 from me

Emphasis ‘most’.
“However we must all accept that as we get older, our reactions are not as quick as they used to be, therefore most drivers compensate by slowing down. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe to drive, indeed in some cases I would suggest that they are in fact safer; if they have acknowledged a shortcoming and compensated for it”

Sadly, for every driver who compensates by slowing down there is another who has displayed a stubborn refusal to accept that their reaction time has deteriorated and their ability to drive is compromised.

I work for the NHS; speaking from experience I’ve seen reports, from GP assessments, of ‘older’ drivers driving up the wrong side of a dual carriageway, going out intending to pop to the shops down the road and winding up being pulled over by the police for crawling along the motorway at 30mph some 40 miles from their home-town, driving down a slip-road used for cars coming OFF the motorway…. and the list goes on.

Sadly, for SOME, the by-product of age means that they think that they’re never wrong and in in a few of the cases (as described above) the driver was too stubborn (or lacking in insight) to accept that the error was theirs.
And those examples notwithstanding – in the last twelve months I’ve passed spots where car accidents have occurred, both times only minutes after the accident occurred. Both times they were ‘older’ drivers. The first was a Nissan Micra which had mounted the pavement and hit a telegraph pole. The second was a Vauxhall Corsa – it appeared that the driver had been attempting to drive onto his own driveway but managed to hit the wall instead, and planted his car in his front garden. And both of these were on 30mph roads within housing estates.

And I’ll never forget a rather tragic accident that occurred outside Lloyds bank in Bath many moons ago, where an older driver, intending to brake, floored the accelerator instead, drove into the side of the bank and killed a young mother and her child in the process. Harsh an opinion as it may be, and I freely admit that it was a long time ago and I was, and am, not privy to why he made the error, it shouldn’t take the death of a young mother and her daughter to convince someone that they’re not fit to drive.

Now, PLEASE don’t misinterpret this – I am not ageist – but younger drivers get a LOT of bad press, almost to the point where they’re all tarred with the same brush. Yes, there are a lot of young drivers who drive like idiots. By the same token there are a lot of older drivers who probably shouldn’t be driving at all, but acknowledging this, let alone making some crap reality TV show about it, wouldn’t be politically correct.

Point is that it is, obviously, possible to drive slowly and still be unsafe to be behind the wheel and I, personally, don’t automatically assume that the driver in front, who is doddering along at 25mph on a 40mph road, is a safe driver because experience has taught me that they’re probably oblivious to the fact that I’m even there!

brat

Gilbert2 wrote: »

Well this driver chose to drive at a slow speed and was convicted.

Pensioner fined for slow driving


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3694201.stm

Yes, it's the only one I could find too. I linked to it yesterday in post 360. It's a fairly clear case of careless and inconsiderate driving, and nothing like what we're discussing.

And we all know if you choose to speed you can get booked too.

You see, you don't have that choice.

Of course you have the choice. It is your choice whether you choose to comply with the laws. If you don't comply you stand every chance of being punished for it, but the choice to do so is yours and yours alone.

Gilbert2

brat wrote: »

Yes, it's the only one I could find too. I linked to it yesterday in post 360. It's a fairly clear case of careless and inconsiderate driving, and nothing like what we're discussing.


Of course you have the choice. It is your choice whether you choose to comply with the laws. If you don't comply you stand every chance of being punished for it, but the choice to do so is yours and yours alone.

Yes it is what we are discussing.


The retired teacher, from Bearsden, pleaded guilty to driving carelessly and without due consideration for other road users by braking at each corner "in a manner so as to cause the vehicle to slow down almost to a halt" and by driving erratically at five to 35mph, causing other drivers to take evasive action to avoid a collision.

This offence took place on an A road in Stirlingshire.

No doubt this A road is typical of many others and will have varying speed limits, prob from 60mph to 50mph, 40, 30.

Unlike a speeder her slow speed wouldn't need to be recorded, simply observed by the police, for a conviction of driving carelessly and without due consideration.

Her speed ranged from 5mph, on bends, to 35mph.

You cannot in any way determine that driving at 35mph in the stretches that were 50mph were not considered too slow by the cops or the court.

What is a fact is that a speed, up to a 35mph max on an A road, was a contributing factor.

Something which you have said time and again is not illegal.

You are wrong and you know it!;)

Gilbert2

brat wrote: »

It obviously winds you up. But it's absolutely not illegal, sorry. You just have to find a little love in your heart for those with less driver skill than yourself, and set off 2 or 3 minutes earlier. You'll be one of them sooner than you think.

Wrong!

It is illegal.

As a traffic cop you should know this!;)