slow drivers

Mrs_Arcanum

McCoy wrote: »

Still, since people would have had to have been born in 1917 to have missed the introduction of a driving test, I'd venture that the number of people like the man you mention is negligible.

Not true either

2nd September 1939
Driving test suspended for the duration of World War Two and resumed on 1st November 1946.
18th February 1947
A period of a year granted for wartime provisional licences to be converted into full licence without passing the test.

My mother (born 1922) was one of these drivers who failed to update her provisional licence and never drove again.

Peater

Gilbert,

I don't think anyone will dispute that some doddery old dear doing 5-35mph on a NSL road is unreasonable.

But what you are not grasping is that alot of people do not think that 40-60mph is unreasonable.

When a law/code uses a word like 'reasonable', it allows for opinions and discretion. It's not black and white.

I think you are the minority on what you consider to be unreasonable. I'm taking a punt here, but would you by chance be afflicted by Autism in any way (i'm being sincere btw, not baiting). Inability to accept others opinions/ideas is often a sign.

steve-L

Brat wrote:

A small proportion of my driving progress gets curtailed by slow moving HGVs, significantly less by tractors and cyclists.
But almost no time at all is wasted by Mr Slow or Mrs Miggins, and the areas I work have a high percentage of elderly residents.

This is the difference with HGV's and the connection.

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.

It is the erratic driving that comes along with it that is half the problem.
The other half is refusal to acknowledge that they are going slowly and causing an impediment for other drivers.

Driving erratically as I connect with Mr Slow and Mrs. Miggins also involves 'monospeed' (refusal to reduce speed once in a 30 limit) and/or
braking ON corners. (Again a difference with HGV's) and the total lack of awareness of the road behind them meaning when I do pull alongside to pass they then swerve erratically due tot he surprise that either someone is behind them or someone might want to be going more than 40???

That the police originally thought the ex teacher from Bearsden was drunk doesn't surprise me as this is also what goes through my head when I see some of the 'slow' drivers.

The list of associated 'erratic driving' faults is long... from changing lane without signal to simply stopping dead with no warning (other than the rest of their erratic driving).

Unfortunately these are all things I saw when my father was driving, before the Dr. finally took away his license. He would stop for no reason because he had forgotten where he was or where he was going.
He would change lane without signalling (and pull into the right turn lane that someone was passing him in) because he had no idea there were other cars on the road. He would not slow to 30 in the 30 zone because he had totally forgotten where he was...

He did this over a period of probably 5 years (as the illness progressed) with the last 2 being particularly bad... and throughout he would never acknowledge it was him, not the rest of the road that was at fault.

This has left a profound expression on my mother and uncle, both of whom have expressed strong opinions that the family should never let them drive if they ever get into that position.

This for me brings the whole argument of 'I was going as quickly as conditions allowed' into a different perspective.

Those that acknowledge their faculties are diminished and in turn acknowledge that they are delaying others unnecessarily who have their faculties intact.... are one group. It's a concern ... but I can also see why Mrs. Miggins wants to drive once a week to Church or social...

However, those who continue to maintain that they were going as fast as they wanted and damn everyone else contain the most dangerous subset. This subset intersects with many other subsets of dangerous drivers such as boy racers....
It is the subset of not acknowledging that their actions affect others.

Norman_Castle

martinthebandit wrote: »

Or

*As judged by drivers who are trying to drive in accordance with the basic skills they achieved in order to pass the driving test.

Oh and I think the tone of your post, and earlier ones, tends to prove my point.

I'm confused as what point you think is being proved and what you think the tone of my post implies. Please enlighten me.

Norman_Castle

londonTiger wrote: »

sometimes when you're doing an unfamiliar route you tend do drive a lot slower.

I was driving along a country road - looking for a cottage. I was driving 10mph as I was driving and looking out for the building i needed to stop at. I saw a queue of cars behind me so i decided to indicate left and drive very close to the pavement to let the cars overtage.

Then the flipping driving gets angry beeps long and hard at me as he overtakes.

10mph for no good reason is too slow. You should always look behind when cottaging.

brat

steve-L wrote: »

It is the erratic driving that comes along with it that is half the problem.
The other half is refusal to acknowledge that they are going slowly and causing an impediment for other drivers.

Steve, everyone agrees that erratic driving that goes hand in hand with some slow driving (or fast driving for that matter) has to be dealt with for what it is, and no-one would disagree that it could easily be considered careless/inconsiderate/dangerous.

My wife (42, fit and active) is an OK driver. She's safe and careful, but does not like driving quickly. She is an infrequent driver outside the 30s and for that reason she's cautious at higher speeds. She drives on a clear 60mph 'A' road probably only 10 times a year and she'll do an indicated 45-50, which is probably nearer 42-46 mph. Cars occasionally pass her, but most don't bother, because she's usually only doing 8 miles along the road to the next town, in doing so passing through two villages that are reduced to 40 mph and 30 mph.

Now is that inconsiderate? It might be a tad inconvenient to some motorists who prefer to use the highest permissible speed (or often more), but my wife doesn't have an inconsiderate bone in her body.

Looking at established points of agreement

• A driver driving erratically at speeds varying between 5 and 35 miles per hour, using inappropriate braking, and giving the impression that she was drunk (like the Scottish case) should be prosecuted for careless and inconsiderate driving.
• A driver doing a steady 40 to 45 mph along a clear A road is not going to be prosecuted for inconsiderate driving.

The basic disagreement between us is in personal perception of the gravity of the matter, ie whether you believe that your right to have a free run along an A road should trump another's need to drive a little slower because they are cautious or nervous drivers.

Some of us have other things to worry about, but it clearly does frustrate others.

Gilbert2

Peater wrote: »

Gilbert,

I don't think anyone will dispute that some doddery old dear doing 5-35mph on a NSL road is unreasonable.

But what you are not grasping is that alot of people do not think that 40-60mph is unreasonable.

When a law/code uses a word like 'reasonable', it allows for opinions and discretion. It's not black and white.

But the law doesn't use the term 'reasonable' with regard to slow driving.

The offence is 'unnecessarily slow driving.'

And how that is determined is not by private motorists or forum members on here, it is determined by the law.




I think you are the minority on what you consider to be unreasonable.

No, there are several other members who also consider slow drivers a nuisance.

Indeed, several polls (just google it) show that slow driving is the biggest annoyance on the road.

And 40 in a 60, for no reason whatsoever, is slow.

Hardly in a minority am I?

Added to that, slow driving is actually accepted as dangerous by many authorities, not least the police. Again, just google it.



I'm taking a punt here, but would you by chance be afflicted by Autism in any way (i'm being sincere btw, not baiting). Inability to accept others opinions/ideas is often a sign.

I doubt you are being sincere, just abusive.

Anyway, one doesn't need to accept any conflicting opinion, should it be wrong.

Just because someone like you has the opinion that it is good to poke fun at disabilites doesn't mean I then have to agree with you.

In any case, several members here have been absolutely adamant that driving slow is not an offence, that motorists can drive at their own skill level & ability rather than what the law demands and various other untruths.

I have proved that incorrect.

Why on earth would I agree with any of your opinions when they are untrue?

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

............:)

Peater

Thus proving you cannot reason with the unreasonable.

Gilbert2

brat wrote: »

My wife (42, fit and active) is an OK driver. She's safe and careful, but does not like driving quickly. She is an infrequent driver outside the 30s and for that reason she's cautious at higher speeds. She drives on a clear 60mph 'A' road probably only 10 times a year and she'll do an indicated 45-50, which is probably nearer 42-46 mph. Cars occasionally pass her, but most don't bother, because she's usually only doing 8 miles along the road to the next town, in doing so passing through two villages that are reduced to 40 mph and 30 mph.

Now is that inconsiderate?

Yes it is, because she is only thinking of herself obviously.

(ie She feels safe at that speed, bugga everyone else, she dictates their speed for her shortcomings)

Anyway, the above is no excuse.

A new driver who has just passed their test is most probably completely unfamiliar with motorway driving.

Yet, should they drive on the motorway, they are expected to do so legally regardless.

If they are pulled for driving slowly then it will not wash.

That is the law.

Your wife has capability issues and should consider handing back her licence or else it may get taken from her.





Looking at established points of agreement

• A driver driving erratically at speeds varying between 5 and 35 miles per hour, using inappropriate braking, and giving the impression that she was drunk (like the Scottish case) should be prosecuted for careless and inconsiderate driving.
• A driver doing a steady 40 to 45 mph along a clear A road is not going to be prosecuted for inconsiderate driving.

The basic disagreement between us is in personal perception of the gravity of the matter, ie whether you believe that your right to have a free run along an A road should trump another's need to drive a little slower because they are cautious or nervous drivers.

Matters not, if that caution or nervousness results in driving slow for no good reason then it could be an offence.

They are not a valid defence.


.

......................

Gilbert2

Peater wrote: »

Thus proving you cannot reason with the unreasonable.

Agreed, although I would describe you more accurately as misinformed and probably ignorant rather than unreasonable.