driving slow : your views ?

Ebe_Scrooge

On the whole topic of driving slow ... I remember when I was learning ( many moons ago ! ) the instructor was telling me that the majority of the test would be around town ( 30 mph limit ). But he said that part of the route takes you into a 40mph limit. He said the examiner will expect you to speed up to 40mph, as long as road / traffic / weather conditions permit, otherwise you will fail for "undue hesitancy".

I don't know if this still the case ( I'm talking 30 years ago here ), but it's an interesting observation.

Cornucopia

It's been mentioned before - and it's not indicative of a desired driving style for all time - merely a way to show your confidence to the examiner.

Buellguy

Cornucopia wrote: »

It's been mentioned before - and it's not indicative of a desired driving style for all time - merely a way to show your confidence to the examiner.

And the fact that you have actually noticed the change in speed limit and therefore an indication that you are observing things other than 10 feet in front of your bonnet

Cornucopia

Indeed.

I wonder why they don't require a commentary during the test?

Buellguy

Cornucopia wrote: »

Indeed.

I wonder why they don't require a commentary during the test?

Sounds like a good idea to me

bod1467

They actually do if you take the advanced IAM or RoSPA test (so I believe).

Jamie_Carter

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

No, didn't care about him when he was behind me, didn't care when he moved out, wouldn't care if he had got past, safely, by himself.
Don't care he was an idiot to try in the first place.

You are the sort of driver who considers themselves a good driver, but actually exaggerates the poor driving of others due to your selfish driving. This often causes RTCs where they wouldn't otherwise happen. This actually makes you a dangerous driver yourself.


What you have described could be considered racing by the police, and earn you a prosecution.

nobbysn*ts

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

You are the sort of driver who considers themselves a good driver, but actually exaggerates the poor driving of others due to your selfish driving. This often causes RTCs where they wouldn't otherwise happen. This actually makes you a dangerous driver yourself.


What you have described could be considered racing by the police, and earn you a prosecution.

Doubtful. He was more than welcome to finish his overtake when he actually caught me up, if he was happy to drive over 60mph. Racing would imply he was somewhere near me in the first place as well.

almillar

nobbysn*ts:

Don't care he was an idiot to try in the first place.

You have an unhealthy attitude towards other drivers. With driving the way it is, I can hardly blame you.
Let's suppose the only reason he tried (like an idiot!) to overtake you was because you were holding him up because you weren't quite at the speed limit. Would you agree that it would be courteous of you to let him go. Are you aware that the Highway Code requires you (let's not get into law/advice) to be courteous to other road users?

Commentaries - these are actually very difficult to do. It's NOT part of the IAM test, but I think it IS part of the police test. Lots of very good drivers go to pieces when they have to 'tell a story' whilst driving. It sounds simple, 'say what you see' but when you do it, you can subconsciously slow down. I've tried it and that happened to me. Wholly inappropriate for the L test.

nobbysn*ts

Ok, the opinion is obviously once the car behind has committed to overtake, by pulling out, I shouldn't accelerate until he's safely past, as I should enable the overtake. Seems the general consensus, and most people even quoted the highest code to prove under no circumstances should I have accelerated. So, imagine the same scenario, but it's not a car behind me, it's a truck. He pulls out. We still agree, hold back. Let him pass? Under no circumstances accelerate from the 40mph I doing until he's passed? Same scenario remember, same speeds, same overtake, same highway code. Just a truck now.