driving slow : your views ?

nobbysn*ts

matttye wrote: »

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.

You decide they should abort their overtake, so you can do yours. You get cut up a lot. Obviously, your opinion differs to theirs, and you are usually disappointed. There's probably a learning curve in here somewhere.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Cornucopia wrote: »

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.

They have that on the M42 for a short section of hill after Tamworth towards Donnington.

Germany has a wide variety of restrictions and they use the variable speed limit system in some areas to control them dynamically, other places they have permanent restrictions on lanes - it is not unusual for lorries to be restricted to lane 1 only for many miles.

Many tailbacks on motorways are caused by lorries sitting in the middle lane not making much progress.

nobbysn*ts

IanMSpencer wrote: »

They have that on the M42 for a short section of hill after Tamworth towards Donnington.

Germany has a wide variety of restrictions and they use the variable speed limit system in some areas to control them dynamically, other places they have permanent restrictions on lanes - it is not unusual for lorries to be restricted to lane 1 only for many miles.

Many tailbacks on motorways are caused by lorries sitting in the middle lane not making much progress.

By comparison, the uk isn't much different though. Europe tends to keep lorries out of the outside lane for some stretches, but then allows then into all the lanes mostly though. The uk keeps lorries out of the outside lane on all motorways, so we are actually in a better position in reality.

matttye

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

You decide they should abort their overtake, so you can do yours. You get cut up a lot. Obviously, your opinion differs to theirs, and you are usually disappointed. There's probably a learning curve in here somewhere.

Their overtake hasn't begun when they're in the normal driving lane, whereas mine has because I'm in the overtaking lane.

By moving into an overtaking lane and making me slow down, they are starting a brand new overtake and stopping my already-in-progress overtake.

By staying in the normal driving lane and letting me finish my manoeuvre, the lorry drive isn't actually aborting anything.

You know it makes sense.

nobbysn*ts

matttye wrote: »

Their overtake hasn't begun when they're in the normal driving lane, whereas mine has because I'm in the overtaking lane.

By moving into an overtaking lane and making me slow down, they are starting a brand new overtake and stopping my already-in-progress overtake.

By staying in the normal driving lane and letting me finish my manoeuvre, the lorry drive isn't actually aborting anything.

You know it makes sense.

Nope, I figured you've say that. Solely because you choose to drive down the overtaking lane, doesn't mean you're overtaking. It could simply mean you're hogging the lane. You're moving in the flow of traffic. Possibly you decided you'd get an edge by moving out a mile early, but that's down to you, you're 'overtaking', they decide you're simply hogging the lane. So, you're in a flow on traffic that is moving at a reduced pace, and you're now in second place. Read the road in front of you, you'll have a lot less near misses.

matttye

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Nope, I figured you've say that. Solely because you choose to drive down the overtaking lane, doesn't mean you're overtaking. It could simply mean you're hogging the lane. You're moving in the flow of traffic. Possibly you decided you'd get an edge by moving out a mile early, but that's down to you, you're 'overtaking', they decide you're simply hogging the lane. So, you're in a flow on traffic that is moving at a reduced pace, and you're now in second place. Read the road in front of you, you'll have a lot less near misses.

Perhaps you didn't see, but in post #728 I said that this often happens when I'm overtaking a convoy of lorries. I.e. when I've already overtaken one or two, one will decide to pull out. When I'm clearly overtaking numerous vehicles.

I hope that's clear enough now. I'm not talking about hogging the overtaking lane or moving out way early - I'm talking when I'm actually overtaking numerous vehicles.

:wall:

brat

Cornucopia wrote: »

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.

No, this is what we do normally, all the time, nice and safely. We slow down subconsciously when we perceive a greater actual or potential hazard level, then we allow our speed to rise, when the hazard level diminishes. That is one of the most valuable safe driving abilities we possess, and it's done with hardly a conscious thought. More recently (in the last 15 years) speed cameras have caused drivers to fear prosecution to the degree that their concentration is now shared between road safety and licence protection. They are not one and the same thing.

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

Camera policy has been wrong since inception. It was sold to police forces as a money making tool, and that was the reason why they were positioned where they are, nothing to do with safety, all about profit.

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.

Stradling's research missed this fundamental point. He attempted to draw a relationship between those who got speeding tickets and those who crashed. His report indicated that those who get more tickets crash more. But he didn't take account of miles travelled. A simple further analysis of crashes per mile revealed that those who get tickets are on average less likely to crash than those who avoid getting tickets.

Considering the number of speed cameras in the country, I'm surprised that drivers don't get caught out more by them. It's a testament to their ability to avoid prosecution that they manage as well as they do. I believe that (on average) each camera only catches one person per day. We have no information from the speed cam industry as to what time of day people are caught, or even what speed they are being caught at.
Unfortunately, the number of fatal collisions involving vulnerable road users hasn't dropped in the way that we should have expected in the last 15 years, despite the camera partnership's proclamations about their safety credentials.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

brat wrote: »

No, this is what we do normally, all the time, nice and safely. We slow down subconsciously when we perceive a greater actual or potential hazard level, then we allow our speed to rise, when the hazard level diminishes. That is one of the most valuable safe driving abilities we possess, and it's done with hardly a conscious thought. More recently (in the last 15 years) speed cameras have caused drivers to fear prosecution to the degree that their concentration is now shared between road safety and licence protection. They are not one and the same thing.


Camera policy has been wrong since inception. It was sold to police forces as a money making tool, and that was the reason why they were positioned where they are, nothing to do with safety, all about profit.


Stradling's research missed this fundamental point. He attempted to draw a relationship between those who got speeding tickets and those who crashed. His report indicated that those who get more tickets crash more. But he didn't take account of miles travelled. A simple further analysis of crashes per mile revealed that those who get tickets are on average less likely to crash than those who avoid getting tickets.

Considering the number of speed cameras in the country, I'm surprised that drivers don't get caught out more by them. It's a testament to their ability to avoid prosecution that they manage as well as they do. I believe that (on average) each camera only catches one person per day. We have no information from the speed cam industry as to what time of day people are caught, or even what speed they are being caught at.
Unfortunately, the number of fatal collisions involving vulnerable road users hasn't dropped in the way that we should have expected in the last 15 years, despite the camera partnership's proclamations about their safety credentials.

A single study proves very little, and arguably all that he has shown is that high mileage drivers get tickets and crash. That sort of study does not account for things like the context of driving - so for example you are more likely to crash in towns, so a low mileage driver is more exposed to risk.

It is like studies that show that wearing cycling helmets does not save cyclists, which is contrary to common sense. TRL did a study of the studies and worked out that every study was essentially statistically flawed, added in some of their own research on the mechanics of cycle crashes and concluded that helmets were indeed safer as you would expect, if you accounted for the likely profile of typical accidents.

The reality is that where speed cameras have been put in at accident black spots, they get massive changes in accident rates and RoSPA quote a figure of something like saving 800 deaths a year (RAC revisited and came in with a lower but still significant 400 deaths) can be directly attributed to the speed camera network. That does not reconcile with the suggestion that speed cameras simply catch safe (and by implication, observant!), fast, high mileage drivers.

Nobody should depend on a single study to try and argue the safety or otherwise of cameras - all that you get is cherry picking of the studies to pick the one that suits the answer you want.

nobbysn*ts

matttye wrote: »

Perhaps you didn't see, but in post #728 I said that this often happens when I'm overtaking a convoy of lorries. I.e. when I've already overtaken one or two, one will decide to pull out. When I'm clearly overtaking numerous vehicles.

I hope that's clear enough now. I'm not talking about hogging the overtaking lane or moving out way early - I'm talking when I'm actually overtaking numerous vehicles.

:wall:

That's the problem. Everyone hogging the outside lane imagines they're ready to overtake the vehicle in the distant. Reality is you're overtaking the one in front, providing it's a reasonable distance away. If you think you get exclusive use because you want to overtake the one in front of the one in front of that, that's why you keep having nasty surprises when other traffic decides to use your 'exclusive' lane, to overtake the vehicle that's actually the one in front of them at the time.

Paradigm

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

That's the problem. Everyone hogging the outside lane imagines they're ready to overtake the vehicle in the distant. Reality is you're overtaking the one in front, providing it's a reasonable distance away. If you think you get exclusive use because you want to overtake the one in front of the one in front of that, that's why you keep having nasty surprises when other traffic decides to use your 'exclusive' lane, to overtake the vehicle that's actually the one in front of them at the time.

This actually rings true...

Just got home today after a week in sunny Cornwall & driving the nearly 300 miles home I can't count the number of times I've sailed along the clear inside/middle lanes at a steady 75mph with the outside lane totally clogged with "overtakers" travelling at 60 or so in some cases....