slow drivers

Gilbert2

brat wrote: »

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.

I don't even know why you decided to say this.

I have a choice whether or not to murder someone.

However, should I do so then I probably would never see the light of day again.

So, in reality, the choice of murdering someone isn't really a choice, or else I pay for it.

You do not have the choice of driving too slow, or too fast for that matter, you have only the choice of driving within the law, unless you want a conviction.

You have not moved this debate any way forward with such a silly remark.

brat

Reggie256 wrote: »

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.

Where do we draw the line?
One of my saddest duties is to attend the homes to tell families that their dearest partner/parent/child has been killed in a road traffic collision.
I often meet families who tell me that they had been trying for some time to find a way to tell their elderly relative that they should be hanging up the keys. Usually the elderly driver is the victim of their own fatal error, but it's not always that simple. I worked on a case similar to the one you described where an 86 year old driver pressed the accelerator instead of the brake, and launched his vehicle into a roundabout. The angle of the roundabout walls caused the vehicle to go airborne over the roundabout and land on a car on the other side of the roundabout, killing the young driver.
Our coroner has seen so many fatal accidents caused by elderly drivers that he has been pushing the DfT to consider their options regarding the rights of drivers to automatically renew their licence at 70 via personal declaration.

But by the same token, we need to be careful about riding roughshod over the rights and freedoms of elderly citizens.
I don't think it's appropriate for them to resit the basic driving test, but I believe there could be some skill based tests that they could do to show they are still capable of driving safely, along with having to confirm eyesight, medical and physical health.

1886

I remember one night last year being behind a car doing 45mph on a 60mph road, they then continued to travel at 45mph as we went on to a 40mph road and then the same speed on a 30mph road.

Personally I think slow drivers are just that because they are'nt very confident drivers. I also think a lot of drivers forget that a speed limit is a speed LIMIT. If you have somebody doing 34mph on a 40mph road it's not illegal.

martinthebandit

1886 wrote: »

I remember one night last year being behind a car doing 45mph on a 60mph road, they then continued to travel at 45mph as we went on to a 40mph road and then the same speed on a 30mph road.

Personally I think slow drivers are just that because they are'nt very confident drivers. I also think a lot of drivers forget that a speed limit is a speed LIMIT. If you have somebody doing 34mph on a 40mph road it's not illegal.

Well there has been some discussion on this thread about that but personally I don't want it to be illegal (within very broad limits) I just wish that needlessly slow drivers would show a bit more consideration for other road users.

Joe_Horner

Ok, here's an example for you.

About a month ago I hit a pot-hole that raised a fist-size blister on one of my tyres, so it got swapped for the spare. Was heading in today to get it changed and had a blow-out on one of the other tyres - this was on a 60NSL road.

I had a choice of sitting there waiting for recovery, forcing people to queue and cross a double white to pass me, or put the blistered (illegal and unsafe) tyre on to travel the final couple of miles to the tyre place (no layby's or broken lines between where I was and the village I was heading to). I decided on balance that the safer, and less disruptive, choice was fit the blistered tyre and continue carefully.

This was out of consideration for the drivers I'd be holding up if I just sat there - personally I'd have prefered sitting in the dry waiting for recovery (and not risking 3 points on my licence) rather than sitting in the rain changing a wheel with cars trying to squeeze past and threatening to knock the car off the jack.

But I was only willing to do around 30 - 35mph because of the fault on the tyre. If you were behind me you would have had no idea whatsoever why I was doing that speed - you would have just seen someone "driving slower than it was safe to".

martinthebandit

Joe_Horner wrote: »

But I was only willing to do around 30 - 35mph because of the fault on the tyre. If you were behind me you would have had no idea whatsoever why I was doing that speed - you would have just seen someone "driving slower than it was safe to".

However my post was aimed at those that consistently drive at a slow speed when there is no valid reason for it. The circumstances you describe are very different.

I assume you kept on eye on traffic build up behind you and let, and even helped, following traffic overtake you.

Joe_Horner

I did as far as possible, but the double whites and no pull-ins made it difficult.

The thing is, I agree to an extent about your point regarding "habitual" drivers like that, but in any given case when you're following someone you can never know whether they're just slow, or slow for a reason.

Which is why I take the view that, if they want to drive at that speed, then let them - I find it far less stressful when I'm behind one that way

martinthebandit

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I did as far as possible, but the double whites and no pull-ins made it difficult.

The thing is, I agree to an extent about your point regarding "habitual" drivers like that, but in any given case when you're following someone you can never know whether they're just slow, or slow for a reason.

Which is why I take the view that, if they want to drive at that speed, then let them - I find it far less stressful when I'm behind one that way

And I also agree with you and I really don't get stressed by them.

..... Its interesting though that the ones on here who seem to have got most worked up about it are the ones who seem to be defending, or admitting to be, slow drivers.

Gilbert2

brat wrote: »

Where do we draw the line?
.

The law is unforgiving & it doesn't discriminate.

If one were to be flashed by a speed camera it matters not whether one is old, young, black or white.

If somebody is elderly and they trangress with road law then they are an offender, simple as.

You cannot give leeway to an old codger who jumps a red light by mistake, it's an offence.

Just as you cannot excuse slow driving that could cause danger to other road users just because the driver is 88 yrs old.

Joe_Horner

Gilbert2 wrote: »

The law is unforgiving & it doesn't discriminate.

If one were to be flashed by a speed camera it matters not whether one is old, young, black or white.

If somebody is elderly and they trangress with road law then they are an offender, simple as.

You cannot give leeway to an old codger who jumps a red light by mistake, it's an offence.

Absolutely right on all counts.

Which strongly suggests that driving at the sort of speeds, and in the circumstances, being discussed here does NOT amount to inconsiderate driving and, no matter how badly you want it to, is NOT an offence.

If it did there would be lots and lots of prosecutions for it because the law is unforgiving and doesn't discriminate. I challenge you to find one.

Just as you cannot excuse slow driving that could cause danger to other road users just because the driver is 88 yrs old.

"Slow" driving (certainly at the sort of speeds being discussed here) doesn't cause danger to other road users.

Other factors might (weaving / inattention etc) but, in the abscence of any of those factors, just sitting at 40 in a 60 does NOT create danger. Irritation*, possibly, but not danger.

People who drive too fast for the conditions, meaning they can't stop in time when they come up behind the car in question, or take risky overtakes through their own impatience, cause danger. But that's not the "slow" driver's fault or responsibility.





* but the irritation is down to the person getting irritated - if they can't control it then they're probably psychologically unsuited to piloting a ton + of metal in public. Even the OP acknowledges that he doesn't let them annoy him