How to report an elderly driver that is clearly unable to drive properly

aliasojo

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

Oh and a little grey-haired old lady this morning driving at 20mph in a 40mph zone whilst displaying a bumper sticker telling people top back off, they're too close! Really? :rotfl: :rotfl:

That reminded me of when I was driving in the Highlands on a 60mph road and the older lady in front was driving at 30mph. Not the end of the world certainly, but when I overtook her, she shook her fist at me. :rotfl:

Strider590

aliasojo wrote: »

That reminded me of when I was driving in the Highlands on a 60mph road and the older lady in front was driving at 30mph. Not the end of the world certainly, but when I overtook her, she shook her fist at me. :rotfl:

They actually don't like it if you don't tailgate them or don't overtake aggressively.
Deep down they know they're poor drivers and they want you to "prove" your worse than them so that they can claim the moral high ground.
Tailgating and driving like a knob just gives them what they want.

Sounds like you didn't give her the satisfaction :cool:

Johno100

Strider590 wrote: »

They actually don't like it if you don't tailgate them or don't overtake aggressively.
Deep down they know they're poor drivers and they want you to "prove" your worse than them so that they can claim the moral high ground.
Tailgating and driving like a knob just gives them what they want.

Sounds like you didn't give her the satisfaction :cool:

You could be talking about at least a couple of the posters on this thread I suspect.:T

Bongles

alastairq wrote: »

Which is where misunderstanding stem from..if that is indeed the training objective?

The IAM will want to see a driver driving up to the speed limit when it's safe to do so (just like the DSA examiner on your 'L' test). I wouldn't describe that as the IAM's training objective though - the training objective is good observation, anticipation and planning. After all, it is only when those things are working well that you will correctly identify when it's not safe to drive up to the speed limit and driving too fast for the conditions will be viewed much more sternly than too slow.

alastairq wrote: »

And from that stems a belief that one must always drive a fast as conditions allow?

Unfortunately that's true. The driving test regards it as a fault if you driver slower than the limit when driving at the limit would have been safe. Some people infer incorrectly from that that one must always drive as fast as conditions allow. I don't think it's the IAM that's being misunderstood there though - only a minority of drivers have even heard of the IAM. I think it's the DSA test - the one that everyone knows about.

alastairq wrote: »

[try conducting a good old fashioned touring holiday if you're screaming around everywhere on the speed limit?}

But it's when I'm on touring holidays that I do most of my screaming around .

alastairq wrote: »

However, the IAM would appear to have a place, training/coaching those who harbour a desire to always drive as quickly as possible.

It's the 'always' in that sentence that represents the misconception.

reason2

i think some people are forgetting that the speed limit is the maximum..

not the minimum or consistent average...

reason2

the one common theme here from what i have read is the old person HAS NOT caused an accident but what if they did?

well that applies to every road user who hasnt caused an accident

and secondly.. they believe the risk is caused because they cant go faster because of an older person driving slower..
which makes me question not the old persons ability but the other driver.

i have been in the "fast lane" of a motorway and *hands up im guilty* done 80mph only to have someone up my ar*e flashing and telling me to move over- i refuse since i am myself speeding - but to them i am too slow.. am i the risk or are they the risk.

if you are in that much of a rush to do an extra 5-10mph your journey planning has been poor and risk assesment worse!

alleycat`

reason2 wrote: »

i have been in the "fast lane" of a motorway and *hands up im guilty* done 80mph only to have someone up my ar*e flashing and telling me to move over- i refuse since i am myself speeding - but to them i am too slow.. am i the risk or are they the risk.

If it is safe to move over you are equally at fault for not pulling into the middle and then inside lane when safe to do so.

The idea is that you are in the outside/"fast" and "middle" lane for as little time as is necessary to make progress.

Reacting to someone else driving like a "t|t" and behaving in a belligerent manor removes any moral high ground you had.

I would imagine everyone on here has reacted badly to what you've suffered above but it doesn't make you or I morally better for reacting.

Strider590

reason2 wrote: »

i think some people are forgetting that the speed limit is the maximum..

not the minimum or consistent average...

I think some people are forgetting that "it's a limit, not a target", is just a one line retort, used by people really have no excuse for driving so poorly..... Same goes for "it's not a race".

There is no excuse for incompetence, it's made very clear that lacking confidence is a fail point on the UK driving test, if your not capable of make good progress and driving to the conditions, then you should not be on the road.

My driving instructor taught me, that in good conditions anything short of 50 in a 60 or 25 in a 30, would be a fail.
I will overtake anyone doing less than those minimums.

"All forms in inconsiderate driving need to be tackeled. Drivers who are unnecessarily excessively slow lead others to make rash moves"
~ Peter Rodger, cheif examiner from the Institute of Advanced Motorists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8649662/Slow-drivers-cause-the-most-frustration.html

The reason that BS excuses don't wash with me is that when the snow falls, i've found that on average people speed up. THIS is because they're being forced to pay attention to the road, instead of eating breakfast, smoking, texting or just driving mindlessly in autopilot.......

reason2

alleycat` wrote: »

If it is safe to move over you are equally at fault for not pulling into the middle and then inside lane when safe to do so.

The idea is that you are in the outside/"fast" and "middle" lane for as little time as is necessary to make progress.

Reacting to someone else driving like a "t|t" and behaving in a belligerent manor removes any moral high ground you had.

I would imagine everyone on here has reacted badly to what you've suffered above but it doesn't make you or I morally better for reacting.

I didnt have any moral high ground at the time of writing that! i never claimed to.

you have answered my point which was who is at fault.. your answer was not soley me for being too slow at 80mph and not solely them for being too fast at 95mph..

same is applied for someone doing 20mph and someone doing 35mph.. its not the older persons fault for doing 20 and not the younger persons fault for doing 35mph..

mcfisco

You'd have thought with all these highly dangerous elderly drivers running amok with no apparent easy way to prevent them that we'd have some horrifying road death statistics and at least be looking to be in with a shout of winning that particular league.
But no, somehow we're about as affective at turning this 'scary' situation into European league success as Man City, we just don't seem to be able to get off the bottom of the table