Bad Drivers

stephen77

vassa wrote: »

No...the debate was whether driving under the speed limit is dangerous. A 'danger' doesn't cease to be a danger because it's on two wheels instead of 4 does it?

I was saying your a bad driver because your inconsiderate to other drivers.

For the lorry driver who is driving slowly. Does not mean they are a bad driver, its just frustrating being behind them.

stephen77

vassa wrote: »

Not necessarily...but that's a different point.

And if it was dangerous, it's dangerous because they're going fast, not because you're going slow. You adapt to the road conditions of what's in front of you. If there's a queue of traffic doing 10mph and someone is approaching them too quickly then it's up to them to slow down, not the slower ones to speed up. Person behind always takes the responsbility, the same as you approaching the person in front of you at speed puts the onus on YOU to amend your driving.

There was no queue. It was late at night and pretty empty. There was no need for the traffic sign to say 10mph I had to look at it twice to believe it.

vassa

stephen77 wrote: »

I was saying your a bad driver because your inconsiderate to other drivers.

For the lorry driver who is driving slowly. Does not mean they are a bad driver, its just frustrating being behind them.

I don't mean to sound offensive, but you have no idea what you're saying. You seem to struggle with the basic meanings of words and what things actually mean. In the nicest possible way and without hostility, but if you don't understand that being inconsiderate doesn't necessarily make someone a bad driver then i'm not sure it can be explained to you.

I do what speed i feel comfortable at for my car, in conditions that i deem suitable for said speed, and depending on whether i feel it is dangerous or not. As i've already stated, i would never merge into 60mph oncoming traffic and do 40 out of being pigheaded. I take different scenarios and situations into account. What i don't give a toss about is when someone sits up my !!!! because they're too impatient to sit behind someone doing 25 in a 30 zone or whatever. I have absolutely no consideration for those people, because they're the morons who can't drive properly.

That doesn't make me a bad driver. My full car and motorbike licences, passed first time with hardly any minors on either, and my 9 years of driving without personally witnessing, causing or being involved in an accident say otherwise.

bod1467

vassa wrote: »

and my 9 years of driving without personally witnessing, causing or being involved in an accident say otherwise.

Reminds me of the joke about the old lady who'd been driving for 50 years and never had an accident. She'd seen quite a few though.

Azari

bod1467 wrote: »

Reminds me of the joke about the old lady who'd been driving for 50 years and never had an accident. She'd seen quite a few though.

That isn't even a joke to some.

There are still people who think that women are worse drivers than men.

When you ask them how that correlates with the known fact that insurance companies consider them a lower risk the tell you knowingly: "Ah, they may not have as many accidents but the cause more".

When asked by what miraculous mechanism they achieve this feat they tend to go all quiet.


* Fortunately, people like that are not bright enough to realise that the insurance companies attitude can just as easily be attributed to women having cheaper accidents than men, rather than less of them.

Either way, though, it's likely that it results in less human damage, which is the important thing.

zagfles

Azari wrote: »

That isn't even a joke to some.

There are still people who think that women are worse drivers than men.

When you ask them how that correlates with the known fact that insurance companies consider them a lower risk the tell you knowingly: "Ah, they may not have as many accidents but the cause more".

When asked by what miraculous mechanism they achieve this feat they tend to go all quiet.


* Fortunately, people like that are not bright enough to realise that the insurance companies attitude can just as easily be attributed to women having cheaper accidents than men, rather than less of them.

Either way, though, it's likely that it results in less human damage, which is the important thing.

The insurance difference only ever applied to younger people - over the age of 35 there was no significant difference in premiums, in fact if anything older men got slightly cheaper premiums than women.

Nowadays of course it's illegal to discrminate on grounds of sex

pinkshoes

I'm adding another:

If you're going to pull out in front of me, then accelerate. It's the peddle on the right. If you have a low powered car, then don't pull out unless you have sufficient space to get up to speed! It's your car, so you should know his much space you need to accelerate.

stephen77

vassa wrote: »

I don't mean to sound offensive, but you have no idea what you're saying. You seem to struggle with the basic meanings of words and what things actually mean. In the nicest possible way and without hostility, but if you don't understand that being inconsiderate doesn't necessarily make someone a bad driver then i'm not sure it can be explained to you.

I do what speed i feel comfortable at for my car, in conditions that i deem suitable for said speed, and depending on whether i feel it is dangerous or not. As i've already stated, i would never merge into 60mph oncoming traffic and do 40 out of being pigheaded. I take different scenarios and situations into account. What i don't give a toss about is when someone sits up my !!!! because they're too impatient to sit behind someone doing 25 in a 30 zone or whatever. I have absolutely no consideration for those people, because they're the morons who can't drive properly.

That doesn't make me a bad driver. My full car and motorbike licences, passed first time with hardly any minors on either, and my 9 years of driving without personally witnessing, causing or being involved in an accident say otherwise.

Well you have changed your version events from driving at the most economical speed for your car to what speed you feel comfortable at. which is it?
My most comfortable speed is not my most economical speed.

Still waiting on what your most economical speed is for different roads as you were asked earlier by another poster.

vassa wrote: »

Do what I do, maintain your speed, don't slow down at all, but reach across with your left foot and gently press the brake, just so the lights come on. Then that person will see your headlights and will think you're breaking, that soon shows them they should be keeping a distance.

while they are in the wrong for driving up your boot. Two wrongs do not make a right. Trying to frighten other motorist is not a good driving skill.
So you may not give a toss about them, so why bother breaking to supposedly teach them a lesson?

Jamie_Carter

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. It's also in relation to the conditions and what sort of road i'm on, but me pointing that out originally would have negated everyone's need to be a self-righteous Uncle Tom wouldn't it? Crawl back under a rock or something.

The speed that would give the best fuel consumption is 0.

If you drive at speeds that are well below the speed limit for your selfish reasons, which you have stated that you do, then you become an obstacle, and will slow down the flow of the traffic. For this reason you would not pass your test if you drove like this on your test (as others have pointed out).

So rather than getting abusive, then maybe you should have a look at your selfish driving attitude.

Jamie_Carter

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.

It would give you minor faults. So if you do it a number of times throughout your test, then you will accumulate enough minor faults to fail.