slow drivers

Joe_Horner

Norman_Castle wrote: »

There is a standard required to pass a test. I'm not sure if there is a "national driving standard"

If you research the scoring for the driving test (I had to while teaching my partner to drive), driving slowly / hesitancy is a "driving fault" which you can fail for under the accumulated faults / totting up system. It can also be treated as a serious fault if it occurs on multiple (rule of thumb is 5) occasions during the test.

However, committing any traffic offence just once, is an automatic "serious" (or "dangerous" depending on circumstances) fault and an immediate fail.

Which obviously means that driving slowly isn't an offence in itself, even as far as the driving test is concerned.

Incidentally, my partner passed with 4 minors having taken no professional lessons :T

heart_free

Reasons I may drive a tad slower than the speed limit
1) busting for a wee - need to make the ride smooth in that case I can tell you!
2) Cup of coffee in the cup holder
3) Just picked up a chinese taakeaway and trying not to get sweet and sour sauce over the upholstery
4) Am ahead of schedule/early for an appointment and need to use up some time
5) Singing along to the radio and thinking I'm Adele

brat

Norman_Castle wrote: »

There is a standard required to pass a test. I'm not sure if there is a "national driving standard"

The DSA have produced a booklet detailing a National Driving Standard.
It covers both sides of the debate as one might expect. It states that we should all be considerate of other road users, we should progress in the traffic stream, older drivers should be aware that their physical abilities and response times will diminish as they get older, and should adjust their driving behaviour accordingly to maintain safety. It places the onus on both sides to maintain roadpeace, ie it encourages drivers not to be careless, and it encourages other drivers not to respond adversely when they perceive other's driving to be below their standard.

It has no legal status or value. The law provides for that.

The law stipulates a maximum speed for all roads.
In all but a minority of locations there is no stipulation in law for a minimum speed for a road.
The law simply states that if you drive without reasonable consideration of other road users, you commit the offence of inconsiderate driving. The law makes no judgement on what is an appropriate speed for a road. If you were driving at five miles per hour on a road and no one else was around you would not be driving inconsiderately, but if you were holding up traffic by doing that then clearly you would be inconsiderate. Similarly if a tractor driver was doing 20mph along a country road and no-one was around, he wouldn't be inconsiderate. But if there was a queue of traffic behind, and the tractor driver had driven 10 miles along a road passing numerous places where he could reasonably have stopped safely to let the queue pass, this would be inconsiderate. How much of a time delay is deemed to inconsiderate would be down to the courts to decide, given that the tractor driver has a right to make reasonable progress too, and might feel entitled to pass one pull over space if he was turning off in the next half mile or so.

I was sat behind a driver today who was doing an indicated 45 mph on the A591 Kendal to Windermere, which is a good wide, busy single carriageway road, mostly 60mph limit. The road is easily capable of 60mph but the speed this person was doing didn't seem wrong or inappropriate for the road. We trundled along in a line of three or four cars, through a 40mph village, and into Windermere. No-one seemed agitated that their journey time had been restricted by this driver, who wasn't old, just in no particular hurry, she had young children in the car. There wasn't a decent opportunity to overtake, so I didn't. Had the opportunity arisen, I probably wouldn't have bothered - I was in no hurry. Buses and HGVs regularly using this road too, so if you are on a schedule, you know that you need to consider your journey time to take into account the likelihood that an HGV will prevent your preferred progress.

At what point should we consider a speed to be inconsiderately slow?
from a 2011 report on free flow vehicle speeds, the average free flow speed of cars on non-built up NSL roads is 48mph. Some cars will be faster, and others slower. The average speed of HGVs is 42/43mph, some of which will go at limiter speed, others will heed the 40mph limit.
The difference in time between the average Mrs Miggins speed (42.5mph) and the average speed of cars (48mph) is 5.5mph. So if you were unlucky enough to be stuck behind Mrs Miggins for 10 miles of an A road between passing opportunities, it would cost you about 97 seconds of your hoped journey time. Had you been stuck behind a 20mph tractor for just one mile that would have cost you 105 seconds.

So within those speed frameworks, is 40-45mph an unreasonably or inconsiderately slow speed?
The answer has to be no, because it is not too far removed from the average speed, and it is faster than other vehicles are legally entitled to travel at. The time loss is insignificant compared to other entirely expected driving events, such as temporary traffic lights, roadworks, HGVs and other slow vehicles, congestion etc etc

Is it inconvenient?

That probably depends on your journey purpose, how time pressed you are, and how poorly you have planned your own journey. But whose fault is that?

UsernameAlreadyExists

brat wrote: »

Interesting stuff ...

but none of that justifies/excuses the road captains that take it upon themselves to police the roads!

jase1

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

but none of that justifies/excuses the road captains that take it upon themselves to police the roads!

Especially when they then speed through villages -- which I note the slow driver defenders STILL haven't condemned :mad:

DaveF327

Norman_Castle wrote: »

I agree, but its debateable if 45 in a 60 is too slow.

It isn't too slow... if you're the only car around for miles. There's no law against driving slower than the posted limit.

Once you are aware of a following car that's been on your tail for some time now, or a lengthening queue, then it is obviously too slow for them, so take the hint and share the road nicely

prowla

It's just plain bad manners to hold people up.
Doing 45 in a 60 (in good conditions, etc.) is an example of that.

StrongWork

Gilbert2 wrote: »

Why do some drivers decide it is ok to drive differently to what they were to taught to when they eventually pass their test?

Because passing the test is considered the absolute minimum driving standard.

The proper learning happens in the many years following.

If I was still driving in the same way I did when I passed my test I would be very disappointed.

Do I drive quicker? Yes, absolutely.
Am I safer? Certainly, my observation is much improved as is my understanding of car control, hazard identification and avoidance.

Gilbert2

Norman_Castle wrote: »

There is a standard required to pass a test. I'm not sure if there is a "national driving standard"

.

Doesn't surprise me. I rest my case.

brat

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

but none of that justifies/excuses the road captains that take it upon themselves to police the roads!

No, only the police should police manner of driving offences.