Bad Drivers

Azari

Can any of those who seem to think that there is some requirement to drive at or near the speed limit post links to either the highway code or the road traffic act where this requirement is stated?

I'm aware that people have been prosecuted for driving absurdly slowly but, until reading this thread I wasn't aware that anyone thought there was any requirement to travel close to the limit.

prowla

Azari wrote: »

Can any of those who seem to think that there is some requirement to drive at or near the speed limit post links to either the highway code or the road traffic act where this requirement is stated?

I'm aware that people have been prosecuted for driving absurdly slowly but, until reading this thread I wasn't aware that anyone thought there was any requirement to travel close to the limit.

From the Highway Code:

144

You MUST NOT

• drive dangerously
• drive without due care and attention
• drive without reasonable consideration for other road users.

Therefore driving deliberately slowly and building up a queue behind you and saying sod them is driving without reasonable consideration.

prowla

Regarding driving up to the speed limit, the Highway code gives the following advice:

125

The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous. You should always reduce your speed when

• the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends
• sharing the road with pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, particularly children, and motorcyclists
• weather conditions make it safer to do so
• driving at night as it is more difficult to see other road users.

and:

146

Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition of road you are on. In particular

• do not treat speed limits as a target. It is often not appropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speed limit
• take the road and traffic conditions into account. Be prepared for unexpected or difficult situations, for example, the road being blocked beyond a blind bend. Be prepared to adjust your speed as a precaution
• where there are junctions, be prepared for road users emerging
• in side roads and country lanes look out for unmarked junctions where nobody has priority
• be prepared to stop at traffic control systems, road works, pedestrian crossings or traffic lights as necessary
• children, are looking the other way, they may step out into the road without seeing you.

They both say that it may not be safe to drive as fast as the speed limit, and give examples of circumstances where that may not be the case.

But they don't seem to mention driving slower to save fuel or to generally be a nuisance to other road users.

You have to read the whole rule to understand it; not just cherry-pick words from it.

Azari

prowla wrote: »

From the Highway Code:

144

You MUST NOT

• drive dangerously
• drive without due care and attention
• drive without reasonable consideration for other road users.

Therefore driving deliberately slowly and building up a queue behind you and saying sod them is driving without reasonable consideration.

LOL, you didn't answer my question.

You may have decided that not driving at or near the speed limit is 'driving without reasonable consideration for other road users' but that is not what the highway code says.

I have suffered as much as anyone from dodderers doing 30 mph on NSL backroads, but I don't believe they were driving in contravention of the highway code. (The roads in question being quite bendy.)

Damned annoying, though, particularly as you would see their brake lights come on half way round every bend.

People who have been prosecuted tend to be doing under thirty on straight, dry, uncluttered, roads, in daylight.

bod1467

vassa wrote: »

Another clueless person.

Where did i say i drive 'well below' the speed limit?

You said you'd drive at 30 in a 40 limit. That is 75% of the speed limit - in my books that is well below the speed limit. If you had done that on your driving test, especially if you had taken your test within the last 5 years or so, you would have received a mark-down for it. That in itself may not cause you to fail, but it would add to any other mark-downs and so increase the risk of failure.

Azari

bod1467 wrote: »

You said you'd drive at 30 in a 40 limit. That is 75% of the speed limit - in my books that is well below the speed limit. If you had done that on your driving test, especially if you had taken your test within the last 5 years or so, you would have received a mark-down for it. That in itself may not cause you to fail, but it would add to any other mark-downs and so increase the risk of failure.

You are expected to make good progress.

If you stuck at thirty on a clear road you might get marked down but, remembering that the speed limit if the maximum speed it is deemed safe to travel in ideal conditions, anything that made the conditions less than ideal would count in mitigation of your lower speed.

Norman_Castle

doughnutmachine wrote: »

doing 25 in a 30 is dangerously slow

I expect you mean inconveniently slow. Its safer than doing 40 in a 30 which is how fast most drivers choose to drive. How many of the Highway Code, must drive at the limit, dictators stick to the 30 limit?. If you drove like that on your test..............

Slower drivers are just another minor delay which many drivers, including me, resent. No-one owns the roads. They are a shared space. Motorists are obliged to make good progress, not drive at the speed limit. Competent motorists will be patient and wait or overtake safely.

artbaron

vassa wrote: »

Another clueless person.

Where did i say i drive 'well below' the speed limit? I said i drive at whatever speed is best for my fuel consumption, and this (although i didn't say it at the time) is in relation to what the speed limit is.

So assuming optimum conditions, what speed is best for your fuel consumption in a 30mph, in a 50mph and in a 70mph respectively?

bod1467

This is the real world ... one of my colleague's husband took his motorcycle test yesterday (direct access, so riding a larger bike for the test even though his own bike is a 125cc).

He failed.

Why? He was riding TOO SLOW for the conditions and road speed limit.

(I don't have any details as to HOW slow he was going, but I don't imagine it was anything like 15 in a 30 - probably more like low 20s in a 30, or 30 in a 40).

PZH

somethingcorporate wrote: »

I bought it after seeing a bunch of videos about insurance scams (crash for cash type things), especially on women with babies in the car and given my wife drives a lot with our LO in the car I'd rather be safe than sorry.

I do agree that many of the videos are from drivers that are not so great themselves but mine is more for protection of myself and wife rather than to capture bad driving.

I don't think we can imply causality from owning a dashcam to being a bad driver.

Mine is small and tidy and hides behind the rear-view mirror, cost me £50 from ebay and the best thing I have ever bought for the car.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't having a go - I think they are a fantastic idea and maybe more insurance companies should insist on them. They are cheap and easy to fit these days :T