driving slow : your views ?

Cornucopia

brat wrote: »

It is not bad practice at all. It is normal practice.

You do understand what I mean by good/best and bad practice? Whether everyone does it is irrelevant to whether it is good practice. Good practice in this case is defined and published by the relevant official authority.

It would help if you would come out and say whether you think the advice in the Highway Code is wrong (or not). I think it would help the discussion not to go round in circles.

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.

I'm pretty sure my interpretation is accurate - the best practice is to drive at a steady speed whilst conditions are favourable. All manner of hazards and potential hazards may present themselves in which case the conditions are no longer favourable, and a steady speed may no longer be appropriate.

Motorway hills in isolation are not normally such a hazard. They may become so if clogged with vehicles that have not, or cannot, maintain a steady speed.

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

But it happens every day, so it cannot be bad practice...

brat

IanMSpencer wrote: »

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.

It's really not a different point. There is no significant loading for mileage on insurance, a person driving 2,000 miles pa will not have a significantly lower premium than a person driving 15,000 miles pa. Businesses insure for groups of people whether they do low or high mileage, so it's very likely that the reason insurers load for multiple speeding tickets is because it's evidence that they are driving more miles, and are therefore more likely to crash on that basis.

Some insurance companies eg Swinton had no extra loading for speeding tickets, because they assessed that there was no added crash risk. Others would load premiums against those with speeding tickets because they realised they would be able to profit on the back of the powerful speed kills slogan.

brat

Cornucopia wrote: »

You do understand what I mean by good/best and bad practice? Whether everyone does it is irrelevant to whether it is good practice. Good practice in this case is defined and published by the relevant official authority.

It would help if you would come out and say whether you think the advice in the Highway Code is wrong (or not). I think it would help the discussion not to go round in circles.

The advice in the highway code is sensible. you should drive at a steady predictable cruising speed. On the motorway that has always meant that cars naturally slow down a little on inclines and sometimes speed up on descents. That's predictable and steady. If the HC had wanted you to drive at the same speed all the time unless hazards dictated that you slowed, they could have said that, but they chose the word 'steady', presumably they chose it carefully, because it implies predictability as much if not more than constancy.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Motorway hills in isolation are not normally such a hazard. They may become so if clogged with vehicles that have not, or cannot, maintain a steady speed.

But it happens every day, so it cannot be bad practice...

The slight drop in speed that most vehicles display on an incline is an entirely normal, expected, predictable occurrence that is probably only noticed by those using cruise control. The maintaining of, say, 70mph on the flat road is replaced by 68mph on the hill. Almost everyone driving naturally will do this. It is not wrong. It is a steady cruising speed.
The problem arises when some drivers insist it is wrong to allow this to happen and adopt an attitude against the 'slowing' driver, such as moving into a tailgating position to try to pressurise the driver ahead to speed up, or overtaking and offering disparaging looks, creating the potential for conflict.

Siberianski

We do alot of miles as we have dogs we show/and in the winter i race all over the country i have too admit i am mr slow abit on motorways reason been is diesel prices.

If i keep the van at 60mph i will get on motorways about 50mpg, if i knock that up 10-15mph that miles per gallon will fall 20percent.

Cornucopia

brat wrote: »

The advice in the highway code is sensible. you should drive at a steady predictable cruising speed. On the motorway that has always meant that cars naturally slow down a little on inclines and sometimes speed up on descents. That's predictable and steady.

Pretty much by definition, not steady. And given the performance characteristics of different vehicles and the lack of driving skill of different drivers, it can become unpredictable, too.

If the HC had wanted you to drive at the same speed all the time unless hazards dictated that you slowed, they could have said that, but they chose the word 'steady', presumably they chose it carefully, because it implies predictability as much if not more than constancy.

I disagree. It's blindingly obvious that they and I are not advocating constant driving speed irrespective of hazards. I have said this a number of times, now, and it's getting boring correcting you each time you say otherwise.

The slight drop in speed that most vehicles display on an incline is an entirely normal, expected, predictable occurrence that is probably only noticed by those using cruise control. The maintaining of, say, 70mph on the flat road is replaced by 68mph on the hill....

If it were that slight, it would be virtually unnoticeable. Perhaps I live in an area with big hills? Certainly the A2/M2 and M20 roads that I drive several times a week have enough hills that are steep enough to cause speed reduction of 10mph+. That's when it becomes noticeable.

There are two types of motorway hill that are at issue.

1. A long, slow incline like the A2(e) from the Medway bridge to Chatham. 4 lanes, a distance of c. 1.5 miles, with an incline of c. 5%. My choice: stay with the slow-moving trucks on the inner lanes, or speed up (possibly above the limit) to keep pace with the 80mph+ club in the outer lanes. There is no happy medium because you are constantly coming up behind trucks with limited opportunity to overtake at 70 (certainly in rush hour).

2. A shorter, steeper incline like the A2(w) from Pepper Hill to Bean, a distance of c. 0.5 mile, with an incline of c. 10%. This is worsened by a 3:1 lane split at the top of the hill for Bean/Bluewater junction. Some slow moving vehicles therefore occupy lane 2 all the way up, even though it is completely unnecessary.

I'm prepared to fall in behind drivers who combine lane hogging and drastic speed fading in the outside lane, but don't expect me to be happy about it.

brat

Cornucopia wrote: »

Pretty much by definition, not steady. And given the performance characteristics of different vehicles and the lack of driving skill of different drivers, it can become unpredictable, too.

I disagree. It's blindingly obvious that they and I are not advocating constant driving speed irrespective of hazards. I have said this a number of times, now, and it's getting boring correcting you each time you say otherwise.



If it were that slight, it would be virtually unnoticeable. Perhaps I live in an area with big hills? Certainly the A2/M2 and M20 roads that I drive several times a week have enough hills that are steep enough to cause speed reduction of 10mph+. That's when it becomes noticeable.

There are two types of motorway hill that are at issue.

1. A long, slow incline like the A2(e) from the Medway bridge to Chatham. 4 lanes, a distance of c. 1.5 miles, with an incline of c. 5%. My choice: stay with the slow-moving trucks on the inner lanes, or speed up (possibly above the limit) to keep pace with the 80mph+ club in the outer lanes. There is no happy medium because you are constantly coming up behind trucks with limited opportunity to overtake at 70 (certainly in rush hour).

2. A shorter, steeper incline like the A2(w) from Pepper Hill to Bean, a distance of c. 0.5 mile, with an incline of c. 10%. This is worsened by a 3:1 lane split at the top of the hill for Bean/Bluewater junction. Some slow moving vehicles therefore occupy lane 2 all the way up, even though it is completely unnecessary.

I'm prepared to fall in behind drivers who combine lane hogging and drastic speed fading in the outside lane, but don't expect me to be happy about it.

OK, we disagree, move on. The issue is not that drivers drive in their normal way at a steady predictable speed, the bigger issue is that a few drivers seem to take exception to this, believing it to be incorrect.
On the motorway, you will have drivers driving at speeds normally ranging between 55mph and 90mph. To be concerned about a driver naturally and predictably dropping a little speed when you have such ranges to contend with baffles me slightly. It's such a minor issue to get one's knickers in a twist about, especially as the driving you're bothered about conforms with the advice offered in the HC.

Drive and let drive.
Pride in one's own driving ability can often be misplaced. After all, to everyone else, you are the 'other driver'.

almillar

I think you are entirely missing my point.

Nope, I get it. People hit hills, keep their foot in the same place, and either speed up or slow down. CC keeps the speed steady, which you say is unnatural. I understand that, and yes, it can be bad for fuel economy.
But again, as Cornucopia says, the Highway Code says to keep a steady speed. Slowing down up hill or speeding up down hill is not keeping a steady speed, no matter how many people do it, and therefore against HC advice.
As I've already said, as long as you're not being dangerous or selfish (with speed or lane), your speed is none of my business, so if you want to go with the gradients to save yourself some fuel or whatever, go ahead.

nobbysn*ts - nothing wrong with what you did in my book. If you didn't want him hassling you, or didn't want to hold him up, perhaps you should have just not accelerated immediately upon passing the NSL sign, and let him be on his way. If you actively deny him the overtake, like you did, you'd better be driving at the limit and not slightly under it otherwise you're being discourteous.
Remember - you shouldn't change speed if you're being overtaken. I'll leave it to you to interpret when he started his overtake, but you can't just drive as if he's not there.

Shielder

A year or two ago, when I began working in Scotland and commuting every week from Cheshire, I phoned the insurance company to increase the mileage on my policy. The funny thing was, they didn't have an option to go as high as I needed (70k) and my insurance premium didn't change. When it can to the renewal, the cost actually went down! Go figure.

brat

almillar wrote: »

Nope, I get it. People hit hills, keep their foot in the same place, and either speed up or slow down. CC keeps the speed steady, which you say is unnatural. I understand that, and yes, it can be bad for fuel economy.
But again, as Cornucopia says, the Highway Code says to keep a steady speed. Slowing down up hill or speeding up down hill is not keeping a steady speed, no matter how many people do it, and therefore against HC advice.
As I've already said, as long as you're not being dangerous or selfish (with speed or lane), your speed is none of my business, so if you want to go with the gradients to save yourself some fuel or whatever, go ahead.

Which is the right attitude.
The HC advice is aimed at the driver whose speed fluctuates unpredictably and for no good reason. We've all seen that type of driver on the motorway.
If I'm in the second lane overtaking someone and I slow naturally from 70 to 68, this is entirely normal, and is not contrary to highway code advice. The 'cruiser' behind me can move out if he's desperate not to click off his cruise control. If he starts to tailgate due to his stubborn desire to maintain his lane and cruising speed, then I'll slow a little more to increase the gap between me and the car in front to allow both of us the time to react to something unforseen.
Driving demands a tolerance of other people's norms. A low opinion of other people's norms can lead to frustration, which is one of the primary causes of accidents.

Cornucopia

People were maintaining a steady speed using their right foot well before CC become more common. indeed, that's exactly how I drove prior to having cars equipped with it.

It sounds as though you've had some bad experiences, and presumed that the perpetrators were CC users, when that very possibly wasn't the case.