driving slow : your views ?

nobbysn*ts

Cornucopia wrote: »

The problem is that you're characterising a legitimate overtake as "cutting out".

Most scenarios are more like this: I want/need to overtake at 70mph or thereabouts, and I can see a vehicle 1/4 mile behind me. What effort should I make to try to estimate whether that vehicle is not doing 70mph, too, but rather more? The answer: very little.

B*gger all effort. It's far enough away in the mirror, it can see me approaching a vehicle in front, indicating, so the car behind should anticipate I'll overtake, therefore its no longer safe for him to attempt to overtake me. Don't attempt an unsafe overtake. And if you think simply speeding up to try to keep me in will work, I won't be checking you continuously, I'm watching the vehicle in front, that I'm safely overtaking.

ollski

IanMSpencer wrote: »

It is probably a show of skill that a driver can tailgate at 95 to get the incompetent idiot in front out of the way.

I would suggest it is a show of 2 incompetent idiots.

UsernameAlreadyExists

Cornucopia wrote: »

Most scenarios are more like this: I want/need to overtake at 70mph or thereabouts, and I can see a vehicle 1/4 mile behind me. What effort should I make to try to estimate whether that vehicle is not doing 70mph, too, but rather more? The answer: very little.

Good luck on the Autobahns then.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

Good luck on the Autobahns then.

If it were autobahns, then the situation would be entirely different.

My view is this: if I can pass the car in a reasonable time (i.e. the car is doing say 65mph or less) then passing at 70mph is making progress and there is no legal obligation to defer to the other car.

If the car then sped up - and that does happen - so I am not making progress compared with the other vehicle and I am not overtaking I have a choice, either to abort the pass or to decide that a short increase in speed is a pragmatic choice.

Typically if I sped up to 75mph and the other vehicle came with me, then I'd abort, knowing that the car would stick to that speed for a bit and a bit later on they'd slow down and in the different circumstances the pass would stick.

The only consideration I'd give to an approaching car coming at speed is whether I could safely pull out and allow the fast car to adjust their speed in a safe manner. I would not pull out forcing a car into a sudden and unplanned brake. As long as I was overtaking promptly, I would not be overly concerned as to the person behind's blood pressure, though I would vacate the lane as soon as practical without cutting up the car I was passing.

Any car driving at high speed should be well aware of the possibilities ahead and seeing two cars in proximity should already be considering the possibility that there could be a passing move. Any driver expecting cars in front to defer due to their excessive speed clearly is not a safe driver. The only time high speed could be excused on a motorway (if at all) is when there is practically no traffic around. If there is sufficient traffic that the 3rd lane is needed to pass a car travelling at 65mph or less, then the chances are that the road is too busy for driving at speed in the first place.

nobbysn*ts

I had a very similar situation today, on a dual carriageway. Steady 40mph, approaching a stationary dustbin truck, Which I intend to overtake. However, in the distance behind me, is a motorbike doing the obligatory 47mph, (at we all know the speed camera by the dustbin truck will allow that) I can pull out, and I reckon he will have to lift off slightly, but not brake, but I can't get round the truck and back in again before he catches up without slowing. So obviously stop behind the truck, then attempt a standing start back into traffic, or overtake?

Cornucopia

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

Good luck on the Autobahns then.

What possible relevance are Autobahns?

FWIW I've driven extensively in France (not Germany).

Their motorways are much more disciplined than ours, though of course there is generally much less traffic. Their driving style overall is much more co-operative than ours, and when I get back, it's invariably no more than a few miles up the A2 or M20 before someone demonstrates typically British impatience that I won't have seen for the weeks I've been away.

[Deleted User]

Had someone the other day crawling along at 25MPH on a 30 road. As we got near to the end of the road, the traffic lights were on green so he sped up to 35 to quickly get through them before they changed. What a tool.

matttye

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Any driver expecting cars in front to defer due to their excessive speed clearly is not a safe driver.

You realise that the same thing could occur when people are travelling at the speed limit?

I bet everyone who has posted in this thread has been cut up by a HGV when travelling at the legal limit on a motorway. If not, they clearly haven't been driving for very long, 'cause it happens to me constantly.

nobbysn*ts

matttye wrote: »

You realise that the same thing could occur when people are travelling at the speed limit?

I bet everyone who has posted in this thread has been cut up by a HGV when travelling at the legal limit on a motorway. If not, they clearly haven't been driving for very long, 'cause it happens to me constantly.

'Constantly' suggests you are more than unlucky. They don't pull out randomly, they pull out if they're closing on the vehicle if front of them. If they need to overtake, I usually let them out, if it's safe to do so. I only overtake them if I can complete easily, and I'll hang back until the space in front is clear enough to get my vehicle past the cab. I won't sit next to one if I can't overtake cleanly, even if I'm on a motorway and have no intention of moving back over after. Possibly you think the onus is on the vehicle you are overtaking to assist your maneuver which is why you seem to be constantly surprised, whereas I will only overtake if it's safe even if others don't seem to assist. But, I've been driving a long, long time, at the limit, and, no, I can't remember the last time I was 'cut up' But I have let a fair number out, and moved into the third lane myself.

brat

IanMSpencer wrote: »

There is a word for that.

This is the speeder fallacy - if you can drive fast you are a safe, skilled driver. If you drive slow you are clearly a blind granny.

It is probably a show of skill that a driver can tailgate at 95 to get the incompetent idiot in front out of the way.

I would suggest that the success of average speed cameras through roadworks in modifying traffic flow shows exactly that they make roads safer where without them we had excessive and dangerous stop start driving because drivers refused to moderate their own behaviour.

This is an oft trotted out misconception by those who clearly haven't researched the subject.
No-one is talking about tailgating at 95 or suggesting that excessive speed=skill.
What I'm saying is that speed cameras have historically been sited at areas where it is absolutely safe to speed, areas where the natural 85th percentile speed is over the prosecution threshold. This is a speed that has been shown (Solomon, Cirillo et al) to be a speed that the more competent safe drivers will use, yet it is a speed that will put them at risk of prosecution by the speed camera.
At the other end of the scale, those whose use of speed is a real danger, ie those whose attitude to risk causes them to drive at excess speed, will actively avoid cameras. They know where they are, and will take their dangerous activities elsewhere.