driving slow : your views ?

nobbysn*ts

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Here is an example. Last night drove to Shrewsbury. The road is essentially the M54 followed by a dual carriageway built to a similar standard.

About 2 miles before the first roundabout they have put in a temporary 50mph limit but no average speed cameras. This is to slow traffic in preparation for severe delays at the roundabout which is being rebuilt but at 6 at night there were no obvious traffic queues, There were no works before he roundabout.

So having driven at 70mph and passed a significant number of vehicles and been passed occasionally by others, I then slowed down to the mandatory limit, probably was doing 48 but indicated 50.

Every other vehicle I could see on the road exceeded the limit, a significant number were clearly driving at about 80mph. With the light traffic, I felt very exposed to the speed of these people who obviously decided that as it was temporary and they could not see any obstruction, that they would ignore it. I even was overtaken by an HGV.

Now, at this point I weigh up whether I should speed up for my own safety.

About a mile into the speed restriction, there was a three car accident, and I didn't see it, but judging from the damage and the spacing of the involved cars, I'd guess someone did rear-end a slower car through the limit.

Quick poll: should the driver speed up above the limit to account for the speed of other traffic around them given there were no speed camera warning signs, works or obvious cameras? Yes or no.

I'll keep to the limit. If some numpty driving above a speed they're in control at hits me, they'll be paying, and hopefully prosecuted for dangerous driving. I'm in control of my car, I won't be pushed along because of an idiot deciding he's above the law. But it's more than likely the pile up was caused by some plonker driving at speed, tailgated by two more that decided even that wasn't fast enough. Then he slammed the brakes on when he caught up with a slower driver, who probably carried on safely at 50mph, with a chuckle at the idiots behind him, without being involved in the pile up.

UsernameAlreadyExists

It's also likely that a giraffe that had escaped from the local zoo stepped out into the road. You do like to speculate a lot

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

It's also likely that a giraffe that had escaped from the local zoo stepped out into the road. You do like to speculate a lot

If there was a local zoo, I'd agree with you. West Midlands Safari park is too far away in this instance.

nobbysn*ts

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

It's also likely that a giraffe that had escaped from the local zoo stepped out into the road. You do like to speculate a lot

I figured even some complete numpty driving way beyond a speed he was safe at wouldn't just pile into a slower car in front, he would be much more likely to realise he'd c*cked it up, and panic brake, and the two other idiots behind would pile into him. But, you speed, so in your position, if you think you wouldn't even mange to brake, but just pile into the car in front, are you still sure you're competent to drive at that speed? Or do you see giraffes yourself?

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

If there's not, and you can clearly see there's not then who cares?


The road is regularly patrolled by unmarked cars & bikes.

It is the difference between advisory and mandatory. If there is a mandatory limit, then it is reasonable to assume that some drivers are going to abide by it.

If it was advisory, for example, the advisory signs with amber lights on the motorway or a warning sign as with a sharp bend then the driver has the option.

OK. Answer the same question and add in that you have 9 points on your licence. Do you care now?

UsernameAlreadyExists

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

stuff

So ... as I said, you do like to speculate a lot.
How about a blow out? Or one of a million other reasons for an accident? No. It definitely has to be a speeder at fault. Of course, you're totally right.

nobbysn*ts

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

So ... as I said, you do like to speculate a lot.
How about a blow out? Or one of a million other reasons for an accident? No. It definitely has to be a speeder at fault. Of course, you're totally right.

So, you reckon not down to a speeder, so I guess you'll not advise speeding up in this case then? Which was the original question.

UsernameAlreadyExists

IanMSpencer wrote: »

OK. Answer the same question and add in that you have 9 points on your licence. Do you care now?

I couldn't say, I've never had 9 points. In fact I've never had any points. I don't know what impact it'd have on me personally because my insurance (legalised scam) is low because I am an old git. If I was low 20s, and it was the difference between 2K and 4K, then I am sure I'd drive like saint, ... but I certainly wouldn't hold people up from my moral soapbox.

UsernameAlreadyExists

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

So, you reckon not down to a speeder, so I guess you'll not advise speeding up in this case then? Which was the original question.

See post #677

Zaurak

jase1 wrote: »

Forcing other road users to slow down is bad driving.

Precisely. By speeding and not allowing cars travelling at the speed limit to overtake, you are forcing them to stay behind the slower moving vehicle they want to overtake and they must slow down, so according to your own definition, you are driving dangerously.

So glad to see you agree with my point of view.