Bad Drivers

UsernameAlreadyExists

based solely on the fact that this thread is titled "bad driver", and reading the last post (and embedded quote) I agree 100% with Jamie Carter. Now I will go back and read the rest.

Vassa, please stay off the roads. Your single post has made me think you should stay at home, or just walk.

Jamie_Carter

Azari wrote: »

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.

Yes I agree. You are expected to drive at a speed that is appropriate to the road conditions. Nobody has suggested that you have to stick to 60mph on a narrow winding country road.

Jamie_Carter

Azari wrote: »

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.

Who has said that it is against the law?

It is however bad driving due to it not considering other road users, and not keeping the traffic flowing. And it would count as a fault on your driving test.

Jamie_Carter

vassa wrote: »

No, it would be yours.


Doesn't matter what the vehicle is, the debate here is speed.


It's not dangerous just because you think it. Show me stats that back up doing 45 in a 60 zone is dangerous.


Depends on engine size, number of gears, tyre pressures, wind resistance, road surface, number of passengers etc.

Some engineer in India managed to break a world MPG record by keeping his engine at 1500 rpm, getting approx 47 miles per LITRE.

I adopted this this last week. Last week i drove my normal style, slow steady acceleration, soft breaking and sticking to the limits, and i did a full tank in. I got home 15 minutes ago and have used half a tank this week.

It saves me money, so if it's too slow for others i don't care one bit, they can go round me.

Where i do agree it's dangerous, is if you merge into moving traffic and only do 45 in a 60 zone, because then people have no choice but to take preventative action to avoid a crash. If you're cruising in moving traffic on a 60 road at 45 it's not dangerous at all if the person behind you has any ounce of road sense whatsoever, it's not really even a debate.

2 Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.E+W+S
For section 3 of the M1Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be substituted—
“3 Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.

If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.”

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/40/section/2

Jamie_Carter

vassa wrote: »

Also will be interesting to see if the 'you go 10mph under the speed limit so you may as well be holding my kids over a balcony' brigade begin to chastise someone who admits speeding. And btw, i would be very careful, forum or not, admitting speeding, a few bikers have been prosecuted for doing the same as far as i'm aware.

Although i do agree that going FASTER than the speed limit isn't necessarily dangerous either, it's just stuff that governments set to control the flow of traffic/administer fines/try to bring a degree of safety etc etc, BUT (although i don't see where you've slated the slow drivers, so i'm not accusing you of double standards) the flip side works as well, if going 10mph under the limit is grossly dangerous to some, going 10 over is the exact same situation, except the car's reaction time is worse.

The safest situation is when everyone is doing the same speed, whilst staying within the speed limit, and driving according to the road conditions.

Nobody has said otherwise.

Jamie_Carter

vassa wrote: »

A car isn't a 'slow moving vehicle', i think you've misunderstood it.

It refers to things like mopeds, tractors..

The person who is driving so badly that someone in front of them doing 40 in a 60 zone now becomes 'dangerous' is the one driving without due care and attention.

And the 'queue of traffic' thing isn't measurable so your posting of that is pointless.

Many mopeds and tractors can do 40mph.

Someone doing 40mph when the road conditions and speed limit will safely allow 60mph, is then driving 'a slow moving vehicle'

Jamie_Carter

vassa wrote: »

The term 'slow-moving vehicle' in the context of that sentence refers to a vehicle which by design is slow moving, not a vehicle that's just going slowly.

Rubbish. A slow moving vehicle is a vehicle that is moving slowly.

vassa wrote: »

Feel free to personally attack me though.

You mean like you did to me??

Jamie_Carter

Azari wrote: »

That may be true but it is not what the argument here is.

Some posters have been saying that there is some legal requirement that people should drive at or near the speed limit. (Which is rubbish.)

There is a world of difference between saying:

"If you are driving slowly do not allow a long queue to build up behind you."

and

"Don't drive slowly."

Do you really think vassa pulls over occasionally to let the queue of traffic pass them?

I doubt it very much. In fact that would negate all their fuel saving anyway.

They would probably just say "that's their problem".

Jamie_Carter

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.

A large speed differential is dangerous, and is the cause of most RTCs on motorways.

Jamie_Carter

stephen77 wrote: »

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.

A speed limit displayed as low as 10mph on the matrix would most likely be due to some sort of obstruction on the carriageway. This may have been cleared before you reached it, as it can take a while before the speed limit is updated.