driving slow : your views ?

brat

Cornucopia wrote: »

You can recognise bad or selfish driving styles amongst all drivers. (TBH, I've been driving with CC for 15-odd years, and I cannot recognise other CC users in traffic, so I doubt that anyone else can).

It's part of my job to observe such misdemeanours. I also get the chance to ask drivers why they do what they do. It's not difficult identifying cc users. One of the main indicators is the slow approach and overtake in quiet conditions. Also the late application of braking to release cc because the driver incorrectly anticipated that his approach speed behind someone would coincide with them moving lane to let him pass.

In particular, anyone has the potential to fill the rear-view mirror of the vehicle in front with their car, I certainly don't see that behaviour being limited to those with CC.

No-one suggested that.

As I said when I introduced CC to the discussion, I think it has the potential to improve driving style because it reduces the link between the right foot and possession of the road space.

But perhaps I have naturally developed a more co-operative driving style due to increasing years and exposure to French driving, and it's nothing to do with CC at all?

Probably so.

brat

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Just having noted another thread, it occurs to me that the insurance industry have a view on this and it is that if you get speeding offences you are statistically more likely to have an accident than if you don't.

We know that all insurers will give increased premiums for more than 3 points, so it would suggest that no insurance company sees that this is nonsensical, there would be companies who offered normal premiums regardless of speeding convictions as an easy way of gathering more business.

We know they don't and so it is reasonable to assume that they have a good idea as to the likelihood of a claim from this profile of driver.

Motorists who do high mileages get more tickets and have more crashes. Hence a higher premium. The ratio between crashes and mileage was shown via further analysis of the Stradling research to be lower for those with speed tickets than those without.

brat

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'm sure we've all understood what you're saying - which amounts to this: (nearly) everyone does it, so it can't be bad practice.... and yet it is.

Herd mentality is never really a substitute for reasoned thinking. And I have my doubts about its modern counterpart "Wisdom of crowds", too.

It is not bad practice at all. It is normal practice. And, as I've already said, there is a misplaced righteousness about those who maintain the same speed all the time believing their driving is more correct. Speed will vary slightly or dramatically for many different reasons. The Highway Code is asking for the speed chosen for a particular circumstance to be steady and predictable.

It is not appropriate for any driver to display attitude to another driver because he disagrees with the speed that driver is doing.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

brat wrote: »

Motorists who do high mileages get more tickets and have more crashes. Hence a higher premium. The ratio between crashes and mileage was shown via further analysis of the Stradling research to be lower for those with speed tickets than those without.

Different point. You get a different quote regardless of mileage which you also estimate and also affects your premium. If speeding was not considered a genuine factor, competition would suggest that they would not want to take it into account because someone would happily be the place to go for a no difference quote in the standard market for insurance.

nobbysn*ts

An absolute classic today. I drive to the limit, not over, maybe a little bit under, (depending on the hills), So, 30 in th 30 limit, old bloke in a Peugeot behind me. Into the 40 limit, I accelerate to 40 in the 40 limit, he catches up. NSL sign coming up, we're about 10 yards away, and he pulls out. But it's a crappy old Peugeot, so a millisecond late, as I pass the 60 sign, I obviously accelerate to 60, as I have with all the limits so far. He hasn't gained on me, he's now dropping behind. So, tell me I should have let him pass? The only way he would have made it, was if I stopped, got out, ran round the back and pushed him. Eventually he pulled back in.

matttye

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

An absolute classic today. I drive to the limit, not over, maybe a little bit under, (depending on the hills), So, 30 in th 30 limit, old bloke in a Peugeot behind me. Into the 40 limit, I accelerate to 40 in the 40 limit, he catches up. NSL sign coming up, we're about 10 yards away, and he pulls out. But it's a crappy old Peugeot, so a millisecond late, as I pass the 60 sign, I obviously accelerate to 60, as I have with all the limits so far. He hasn't gained on me, he's now dropping behind. So, tell me I should have let him pass? The only way he would have made it, was if I stopped, got out, ran round the back and pushed him. Eventually he pulled back in.

No, what you did is fine.

Would be debatable if you had sped up once he was already at the side of you, blocking the overtake, but as he hadn't yet drawn alongside you or was in front of you, it wasn't dangerous to speed up. If someone is at the side or in front (i.e. a good way through the overtake), you should slow down and let them in.

nobbysn*ts

matttye wrote: »

No, what you did is fine.

Would be debatable if you had sped up once he was already at the side of you, blocking the overtake, but as he hadn't yet drawn alongside you or was in front of you, it wasn't dangerous to speed up. If someone is at the side or in front (i.e. a good way through the overtake), you should slow down and let them in.

Got to be honest, it wouldn't be to me even then. If he decided to potter out even further before in the 40 limit, and amble alongside if he wants to break the speed limit for longer, it's not going to be my problem. I'm not going to wait all day for him to perform a clearly unsafe overtake. If he can't anticipate the vehicles will move with the flow of traffic, or the speed limit, he's better off not pulling out in the first place.

matttye

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Got to be honest, it wouldn't be to me even then. If he decided to potter out even further before in the 40 limit, and amble alongside if he wants to break the speed limit for longer, it's not going to be my problem. I'm not going to wait all day for him to perform a clearly unsafe overtake. If he can't anticipate the vehicles will move with the flow of traffic, or the speed limit, he's better off not pulling out in the first place.

So I should slow down in the anticipation of a truck pulling out on a dual carriageway, but stopping someone mid overtake on a single carriageway road is perfectly acceptable?

:eek:

nobbysn*ts

matttye wrote: »

So I should slow down in the anticipation of a truck pulling out on a dual carriageway, but stopping someone mid overtake on a single carriageway road is perfectly acceptable?

:eek:

Well, for me, plough into the back of him if you want to prove your point. Both are bad overtakes, just different consequences. This one, he walks away from. Your choice at the end of the day.

nobbysn*ts

Actually, this is the second time some idiot tried this. (honest, only the second). The first one, I was behind a car turning left at a crossroads, a busy crossroads, with traffic on the left waiting to turn left, and on the right, turning left. But nothing coming the other way. So I slowed down, as the car in front slowed down to turn left. The transit van behind me decided to go through the cross roads on the wrong side, and attempted to overtake. Obviously by the other side of the crossroads he hadn't killed anyone, but was next to me, doing 40. NSL. Tough, I didn't slow down to let him pass. I also never saw him again.