driving slow : your views ?

nobbysn*ts

brat wrote: »

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.

So, basically, you reckon competent drivers who speed miss cameras, get caught, incompetent drivers who speed, avoid the cameras, and don't get caught. So, badge of honour then, the more points the better you are!

brat

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

No, the safest drivers are the ones that drive the safest, not the ones that decide they're the best because of a fallacy they seem to believe. As an enforcement tool they work very well. I'd be interested in how you can explain they ensnare the safest drivers speeding, who somehow don't have the ability to see the cameras, so get caught, but also let the most dangerous drivers, who speed, but know were the cameras are, and slow down and not get caught. Surely the more competent driver can read the road ahead better, and react to the cameras, not totally miss them?

The majority of drivers do not malevolently exceed the speed limit. They (we) do so in certain areas because the hazard definition of that area has reduced to a level that almost automatically causes speed to increase. It happens safely, almost subconsciously, and carries absolutely no added risk. The areas where this is likely to happen are the areas where the speed cameras are sited (by design, not coincidence).

Research conducted by Steve Stradling of Napier Uni which was commissioned by the DfT to show the beneficial effect of speed cameras, actually showed the opposite - that those who get more speed tickets have less crashes per mile than those who don't get tickets.
We shouldn't be surprised by this. We also shouldn't use it to conceal the extreme danger posed by excessive speeding caused by bad attitude.

brat

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

So, basically, you reckon competent drivers who speed miss cameras, get caught, incompetent drivers who speed, avoid the cameras, and don't get caught. So, badge of honour then, the more points the better you are!

I think we have unnecessarily removed some of our valuable concentration from driving hazards on the road to non-driving hazards such as speed cameras.

I've unwittingly responded to your second point in my previous post.

We all speed. It's not us and them. The major dividing line in respect of speed is appropriate vs inappropriate speed.

nobbysn*ts

brat wrote: »

The majority of drivers do not malevolently exceed the speed limit. They (we) do so in certain areas because the hazard definition of that area has reduced to a level that almost automatically causes speed to increase. It happens safely, almost subconsciously, and carries absolutely no added risk. The areas where this is likely to happen are the areas where the speed cameras are sited (by design, not coincidence).

Research conducted by Steve Stradling of Napier Uni which was commissioned by the DfT to show the beneficial effect of speed cameras, actually showed the opposite - that those who get more speed tickets have less crashes per mile than those who don't get tickets.
We shouldn't be surprised by this. We also shouldn't use it to conceal the extreme danger posed by excessive speeding caused by bad attitude.

So, yes, your opinion, better driver have more points.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

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.

Yes, and on the M50 I've had a couple of V2 moments where I was in the process of passing and had someone pull out - and that is the same as I would not do to a following car. I do not expect a lorry to see me as a dot in the distance and decide that they cannot complete the overtake without impeding me.

I do object to the lorry drivers on the 2 lane M42 failing to make a clean pass, the record pass I measured was 10 miles, much flashing of lights and fist waving when he eventually pulled in (and I wasn't overly impressed that the other lorry did nothing either). On the other hand, didn't need to pass a car for the rest of the journey!

I have rarely been cut up by a lorry and I can usually predict when it is about to happen so I probably don't think too much of it as I've already planned my strategy to deal with it.

Cornucopia

brat wrote: »

The majority of drivers do not malevolently exceed the speed limit. They (we) do so in certain areas because the hazard definition of that area has reduced to a level that almost automatically causes speed to increase. It happens safely, almost subconsciously, and carries absolutely no added risk.

This isn't universally the case. Many cars have speed limiters and/or cruise control, and many drivers use them. I am not convinced by a safe, subconscious drift in speed anyway - sounds like a recipe for disaster.

The areas where this is likely to happen are the areas where the speed cameras are sited (by design, not coincidence).

This is true. But that is an argument about inappropriate policy for speed camera placement, not about speeding per se.

Research conducted by Steve Stradling of Napier Uni which was commissioned by the DfT to show the beneficial effect of speed cameras, actually showed the opposite - that those who get more speed tickets have less crashes per mile than those who don't get tickets.

Was the data adjusted for driver-miles? Again, I'm wary of any driver who does not see a fixed speed camera, which will be preceded by speed camera signs. As far as mobile cameras are concerned - that's the risk you run when you speed - and that is an argument about speed, not safety.

matttye

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

'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.

I use the A1 and A1(M) between Lincolnshire and Hertfordshire all the time, and I'm always getting cut up by lorries on this stretch of road.

It's usually when I can see several lorries in convoy in front. I move into lane 2 to overtake them all, and given that I'm travelling 14mph faster than them (more if I'm speeding, as I sometimes travel 80mph depending on how busy it is), it wouldn't exactly take me long to pass them...but one of them often times still feels the need to pull out and overtake the other lorry going about 2mph slower than it.

Usually I just have to brake steadily but I've had to brake sharply a handful of times.

Cornucopia

We ought to introduce the "no lorries overtaking" sign that they have in France.

I had this scenario today on the 2-lane stretch of the M2. The annoying thing was that if the lorry driver had waited 2 minutes, he would have been on 3 lanes, and free to overtake without blocking the road.

nobbysn*ts

matttye wrote: »

I use the A1 and A1(M) between Lincolnshire and Hertfordshire all the time, and I'm always getting cut up by lorries on this stretch of road.

It's usually when I can see several lorries in convoy in front. I move into lane 2 to overtake them all, and given that I'm travelling 14mph faster than them (more if I'm speeding, as I sometimes travel 80mph depending on how busy it is), it wouldn't exactly take me long to pass them...but one of them often times still feels the need to pull out and overtake the other lorry going about 2mph slower than it.

Usually I just have to brake steadily but I've had to brake sharply a handful of times.

Again though, 14mph is 24640 yds. So you could pass a 40ft truck in about 7 seconds. I've never had to brake heavily due to being surprised by a truck pulling out. I've let them out though.

matttye

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Again though, 14mph is 24640 yds. So you could pass a 40ft truck in about 7 seconds. I've never had to brake heavily due to being surprised by a truck pulling out. I've let them out though.

In practice it doesn't seem to be anywhere near 7 seconds, so either most of them are not 40ft, or they're travelling slower than 56mph or I'm travelling faster than 70mph.

I'd say I pass most trucks in about 3 seconds at the most.

The way I see it is that the truck can wait 3 seconds for me to pass, or I can get stuck behind the truck for about 20+ seconds.

The former seems like the sensible option to me.