Bad Drivers

Azari

bod1467 wrote: »

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).

What an absolutely amazing coincidence!

You adopt a position on road speeds and the very next day you not only know someone who is taking a motorcycle test but miracle of miracles he happens to fail on the very grounds related to the very topic under discussion.

I would imagine that the probability of that of all those things coming together must be almost infinitesimally small and yet ...

bod1467

Yep - coincidence can be amazing, can't it.

Doesn't make it false though. I can vouch-safe that what I have said is the truth (as it was told to me by my colleague).

I am willing to wager all my possessions and wealth that what I posted in the previous post is the truth - are you prepared to wager likewise that I am lying?

Azari

bod1467 wrote: »

Yep - coincidence can be amazing, can't it.

Doesn't make it false though. I can vouch-safe that what I have said is the truth (as it was told to me by my colleague).

I am willing to wager all my possessions and wealth that what I posted in the previous post is the truth - are you prepared to wager likewise that I am lying?

I didn't think you were lying; just using a little literary licence to compress the time frame and highlight the reason for failure. (Did he really fail solely for not going fast enough?)

I know it can be a factor in car tests because it indicates that the driver doesn't have an acceptable level of confidence but, given the nature of a motorcycle test it's hard to see how the examiner can possibly know that the candidate was habitually going so slowly that it warranted a fail. (Given that, unlike a car test, the examiner cannot possibly have the same view of conditions as the cyclist.)

vassa

I have a bike licence. I was legally allowed to drive on a 70mph dual carriageway on a bike which wouldn't do over 45mph. Maybe you need to write to the government and get this dangerous practice outlawed.

What you don't seem to understand is that it's up to the person on the motorway/A-road/B-road/road to look well in advance. If i'm doing 30 in a 40 zone, they should (by the highway code's own standards) be giving me a wide enough birth that they can SEE that they're approaching a car that is going slower than them, and should adjust THEIR driving accordingly. Anyone with proper depth perception can realise this fact. If they then choose to overtake, that's up to them, and it's also up to them to wait until SAFE TO DO SO. Putting the onus and burden on the car in front is never EVER going to wash in any court or with anyone with half a brain, unless they really are going dangerously slow, ie, 30mph in a NSL road. It's ALWAYS the responsibility of the person following to be aware. If i'm doing 35 in a 40 zone and you smash into the back of me because i'm going 'too slow' you will never ever get my insurance to pay out for you, and I will always get your insurance to pay out. Funny that.

I am NOT going to put my foot down and rev up to 40mph just because someone else wants to get past me, i'm perfectly comfortable and safe doing 30mph with my revs at 1500, thanks.

martinthebandit

vassa wrote: »

....... i'm perfectly comfortable and safe doing 30mph with my revs at 1500, thanks.

.....you forgot inconsiderate

stephen77

vassa wrote: »

I have a bike licence. I was legally allowed to drive on a 70mph dual carriageway on a bike which wouldn't do over 45mph. Maybe you need to write to the government and get this dangerous practice outlawed.

What you don't seem to understand is that it's up to the person on the motorway/A-road/B-road/road to look well in advance. If i'm doing 30 in a 40 zone, they should (by the highway code's own standards) be giving me a wide enough birth that they can SEE that they're approaching a car that is going slower than them, and should adjust THEIR driving accordingly. Anyone with proper depth perception can realise this fact. If they then choose to overtake, that's up to them, and it's also up to them to wait until SAFE TO DO SO. Putting the onus and burden on the car in front is never EVER going to wash in any court or with anyone with half a brain, unless they really are going dangerously slow, ie, 30mph in a NSL road. It's ALWAYS the responsibility of the person following to be aware. If i'm doing 35 in a 40 zone and you smash into the back of me because i'm going 'too slow' you will never ever get my insurance to pay out for you, and I will always get your insurance to pay out. Funny that.

I am NOT going to put my foot down and rev up to 40mph just because someone else wants to get past me, i'm perfectly comfortable and safe doing 30mph with my revs at 1500, thanks.

While its up to me to over take. If I choose incorrectly to over take and crash, while I was out fault and no court would say your guilty. Think of the car I just have had a head on crash with, it was not there fault.

The thread about bad driving is not talking about motorbikes or lorry's that are restricted to slower speeds. We are talking about vehicles that can go drive at 70mph.
I would not feel safe going 45mph on a dual carriageway if every one else was driving 60+ mph. I think that is dangerous. It may be legal, but still I would choose a different route.


Most cars are more economical going faster than 30mph as well.

bod1467

Azari wrote: »

I didn't think you were lying; just using a little literary licence to compress the time frame and highlight the reason for failure. (Did he really fail solely for not going fast enough?)

I know it can be a factor in car tests because it indicates that the driver doesn't have an acceptable level of confidence but, given the nature of a motorcycle test it's hard to see how the examiner can possibly know that the candidate was habitually going so slowly that it warranted a fail. (Given that, unlike a car test, the examiner cannot possibly have the same view of conditions as the cyclist.)

I asked my colleague again at lunchtime and she doesn't know any more than what I said earlier. I accept that it's unlikely that this was the SOLE reason he failed, but it is the MAIN thing that she (hence he) is aware of.

Azari

stephen77 wrote: »

While its up to me to over take. If I choose incorrectly to over take and crash, while I was out fault and no court would say your guilty. Think of the car I just have had a head on crash with, it was not there fault.

If you wish to overtake it is entirely your own responsibility to ensure it is safe to do so. Having a slow driver in front of you will provide no mitigation whatsoever in any court case resulting from a crash caused by your overtaking when it was not safe to do so.

I find dawdlers at least as annoying as the next person. In many cases they take all the pleasure out of driving. (If, for example, you are stuck behind one on what would otherwise be a pleasant drive along windy back roads.)

However, much as I might curse them, I have never considered that they are breaking the law, or doing anything they shouldn't, by travelling at the speed with which they feel comfortable.

It's quite scary that there are people who seriously believe that doing 40 mph on an NSL road is breaking the law. Such appalling ignorance of the road traffic act goes some way to explaining why there are (admittedly a smallish proportion of) such appalling drivers on our roads.

artbaron

Azari wrote: »

It's quite scary that there are people who seriously believe that doing 40 mph on an NSL road is breaking the law.

40 wouldn't be but speeds under 30 could well be grounds for prosecution, especially if it involved hesitation or other signs of inability. Around here it's not uncommon to find someone traveling at 25mph in a 60 where 60 can be attained perfectly safely. I recently followed a pin-headed wonder in a 40 zone up a hill and on occasion he went so slowly that I had to drop completely out of gear. That was a clear case of careless driving on his part.

Azari

artbaron wrote: »

40 wouldn't be but speeds under 30 could well be grounds for prosecution, especially if it involved hesitation or other signs of inability. Around here it's not uncommon to find someone traveling at 25mph in a 60 where 60 can be attained perfectly safely. I recently followed a pin-headed wonder in a 40 zone up a hill and on occasion he went so slowly that I had to drop completely out of gear. That was a clear case of careless driving on his part.

Yes, there's definitely a threshold below which the police will consider prosecution.

It's all relative and dependant on conditions.

No one is going to be prosecuted for doing 15mph along a road with vehicles parked both sides near a school, particularly when pupils will be arriving or departing.

But 25 mph on clear section of NSL carriageway in good conditions might well be a problem.

I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for going too slowly at 30mph or above (and don't believe they ever would be), despite what some of the boy racers here seem to think.