[Your argument is specious. First of all, can we remove the idea that all difficulties encountered on the roads result in death. Secondly, I have faced situations many times where, driving an underpowered car (which is similar in practice to driving a speed-regulated truck), I have been put in danger by those who do not want to wait while I legally pass slower traffic. It happens a lot. The drivers of those underpowered vehicles do not die, but they sure have their lives made a misery by the hoardes of impatient drivers around them.]
not SERIOUSLY suggesting that , in the name of 'good driving practice', ''if you can't 'beat' them, join them?''
I assume you are refering to motorway driving?
on which, overtaking a slower vehicle, regardless of the power available, should be a lot easier than on a single carriageway? ok..so sometimes the traffic DENSITY can be such that the perception of finding a gap to move out into could be ackward? A good tool is proper use of mirrors and indicators?
I rarely have a problem there......why do others? but the problem you quote is as a result of other drivers failing to comply with the Highway Code, re being overtaken? so allow them to pull ahead, then move back to the left? again good signalling allows you to keep other road users informed of your intentions. If the original vehicle is now moving faster than you, surely your objective of making better progress is being achieved?
what IS the problem?
apart from seeking excuses to justify travelling faster/or over the speed limit?
which honestly don't wash...and the reality of speeding fines hits home?
a good reason for travelling at LESS than the general pace of surrounding traffic (on a motorway?) is simply, you give yourself a lot more time to cope with those other ''lunatic'' drivers which apparently seem to abound?
quote:
risk being rear-ended by hoardes of impatient drivers.
has someone come up with credible statistics which demonstrate how a huge proportion of accidents at speed on motorways involve rear-end shunts?
or is it a case of driver perceptions based on an emotional approach to driving?
If the former is the case, then surely a wise driver steers clear of those roads that carry such a huge proportion of unobservant drivers?
to be honest, this argument of ''concern over being ear-ended' reared its ugly head many times in the past......usually as a justification for either exceeding the speed limit, or ignoring the Highway Code, road signs and markings, etc.
quote:
am not prepared to travel at the speed of the slowest vehicle on the road to avoid it
no-one is suggesting any such thing.......but if by following your suggestions, one ends up with a speeding fine, trying to justify the injustice on the grounds of 'safety' is ignoring the real truth.
I think we would all drive perfectly safely without the threat of fines and points posed by speed cameras, the twits that crash without cameras would drive the same even if there were cameras on the roads they use. For this reason I see speed cameras as unnecessary... they exist purely as tax generators that also act to encourage the fruit loop lefties to think that the government is safety conscious.
Originally posted by Wobbletastic: I think we would all drive perfectly safely without the threat of fines and points posed by speed cameras, the twits that crash without cameras would drive the same even if there were cameras on the roads they use. For this reason I see speed cameras as unnecessary... they exist purely as tax generators that also act to encourage the fruit loop lefties to think that the government is safety conscious.
That particular line of thought would lead very nicely to speed regulators in cars - its proven fact that we as drivers cannot be trusted to keep to the limit - so if you did away with cameras then there must be something to keep drivers within the speed limit - hence speed regulators ..... is that what you want?!
Lesser of two evils, perhaps?
Going back to QJ's comments, thats exactly what I was thinking - I've towed a Stock Car all over the country and come across vehicles travelling slower than me, I've bided my time and then overtook when I had the chance, if the other vehicle speeds up then I've slowed down and gone back in - I was well p****d of with the other driver, but there's no point in ending up crashing........
Going back to QJ's comments, thats exactly what I was thinking - I've towed a Stock Car all over the country and come across vehicles travelling slower than me, I've bided my time and then overtook when I had the chance, if the other vehicle speeds up then I've slowed down and gone back in - I was well p****d of with the other driver, but there's no point in ending up crashing........
I am not suggesting that on every occasion when someone acts a jerk that it is warranted to accelerate away from the problem. Sometimes -usually- it is better to slow down. But I have on rare occasions been caught out in the outside lane with drivers passing me on the inside due to my inconsiderate (in their opinion) refusal to pass a car that increased its speed as I moved over to let it join the highway. I will end that dangerous situation as quickly and safely as I can within my abilities and judgement - and I'll argue it in court if necessary, even if I ultimately lose.
I was taught a lesson a long time ago when I was learning to ride a bike: it's better to be safe than right. The type of vehicle being driven has a strong bearing on the decision. If I'm driving a truck, tailgaters and jackasses don't bother me so much. If I'm in a biscuit tin, they do.
Speeding up in the situation I described above isn't going to seriously imperil anyone more than they already are - given that lunacy was the order of the day. Slowing down in the outside lane of a busy 70mph road, or trying to insist that I change lanes when I'm surrounded by nutters *in my opinion* would have increased the risk, either of an accident or of really, really triggering someone. If I earn my first ticket endeavouring to be safe, then too bad, I've never believed there was any justice anyway. But it's noteworthy that by speeding up I neither crashed nor died. I try to avoid confrontations with unbalanced, stressed-out people and if putting my foot down will avoid triggering them, I'll do just that.
I like to keep my options open, and since I am ultimately responsible for my actions, I will bear the consequences. As the copper said to me when I complained once, 'why didn't you just drive past him?'
The point I have made repeatedly is that a traffic officer would probably be more interested in the actions of the other drivers in such a situation rather than mine. A camera can't make such a distinction, speed cameras generally don't identify anything other than speeding.
The original point stands: I don't really have a problem with speed cameras - I have never been ticketed, and have no intention of being so. I don't see them as cash generators, and feel they play a valuable role, but not at the expense of real, sensible, human, traffic cops. Neither do I have a problem with speed limits, but experience has taught me that those who rigidly insist on the absolute letter of the law without deviation are to be avoided as much as those who totally ignore it.
Well we're safe for now. Thank goodness we're in a bowling alley.
Since the argument has moved on from general speeding to more of a "motorway manners" style argument I thought I'd add my 2p worth. In a perfect world the motorways and dual-carriageways would have an inside lane with vehicles of all types happily moving at the speed of the slowest vehicle (60mph), vehicles that wished to move faster would hop into the next lane and overtake the slower moving traffic whilst maintaining their own speed within the limit (70mph), any further lanes would contain less and less traffic with vehicles all overtaking each other in an orderly fashion. That's the way that I interpret the highway code- the outer lanes are for overtaking and once the overtaking manoeuvre is completed then the driver returns to the inside lane.
But I have never seen this happen. The inside lane is clogged with lorries. The 2nd lane contains more lorries trying to overtake their slower comrades in a 5-mile overtaking monoeuvre. Behind these lorries are vehicles desperately trying to make progress by forcing their way into an outside lane that is full of large high-powered euro-saloons and kids in Saxos. Frequently this chain of traffic in the outside lane finds itself stuck behind somebody who is travelling at 65mph. The entire chain wits for this person to pull in, then they all accelerate past as fast as they can in the hope that they will get round the slower drivers before the slower drivers move out again into the outside lane and slow the traffic down again. On most of the motorways and dual carriageways that I have travelled on this has been the case and it's certainly true of any of the Mways or DCs that link the major cities of the midlands.
"Behaviour for which drivers could be jailed for dangerous driving, rather than careless driving, include using a hand-held mobile on the move, tailgating, tuning a car radio, overtaking on the inside, running a red light, or emerging from a side road into the path of another vehicle"
Most of that sounds like common sense - the tuning the radio bit is a little suspect, but having said that the first accident I actually caused was because I was doing just that and wasn't looking where i was going, so perhaps they've got a point?
Most of the others are things everyone on here has complained about, so what the problem?
Perhaps if people actually concentrated on their driving and abided by the rules of the road they wouldn't have to do this, but, as we all know, they don't, so "draconian" measures are being looked at - don't blame the Gov for this, blame your fellow motorist (or even yourself???).
Posted by Phinehas: "The original point stands: I don't really have a problem with speed cameras - I have never been ticketed, and have no intention of being so. I don't see them as cash generators, and feel they play a valuable role, but not at the expense of real, sensible, human, traffic cops. Neither do I have a problem with speed limits, but experience has taught me that those who rigidly insist on the absolute letter of the law without deviation are to be avoided as much as those who totally ignore it."
The original point stands: I don't really have a problem with speed cameras - I have never been ticketed, and have no intention of being so. I don't see them as cash generators, and feel they play a valuable role, but not at the expense of real, sensible, human, traffic cops. Neither do I have a problem with speed limits, but experience has taught me that those who rigidly insist on the absolute letter of the law without deviation are to be avoided as much as those who totally ignore it.
Well said.
Quote of the day: "Tell ya what mate, when you can get the kind of women I can get, count them on two hands and own a top of the range turbocharged sports car featured in a Top Gear shoot out with Tiff Needel against the Escort Cosworth and Calibra 4x4 Turbo, then come back to me.
How would the law stand if you were driving within the speed limit yet too fast for the road conditions and subsequently had a collision? Sometimes 20mph can be way too fast
Surely you can't be serious. I am serious and don't call me Shirley
Originally posted by Tawtdiputs: How would the law stand if you were driving within the speed limit yet too fast for the road conditions and subsequently had a collision? Sometimes 20mph can be way too fast
Driving without due care..., or worse if you manage to kill someone. In Texas we had a Basic Speed Law. That's a catch-all for driving too fast for the conditions... and you didn't need to have an accident to be ticketed.
Well we're safe for now. Thank goodness we're in a bowling alley.
When people speed it’s not the prospect of crashing that bothers them; it’s being caught by the pesky flashing piggybanks on poles. It’s our life… we should be allowed to live it as we wish, if people are walking/playing in the road they are taking their lives in their own hands in the domain of the car and the motorist should not be held accountable.
Originally posted by Wobbletastic: When people speed it’s not the prospect of crashing that bothers them; it’s being caught by the pesky flashing piggybanks on poles. It’s our life… we should be allowed to live it as we wish, if people are walking/playing in the road they are taking their lives in their own hands in the domain of the car and the motorist should not be held accountable.
Anarchy rules!
I've got to assume you were joking? ........ I hope!!
Originally posted by Wobbletastic: When people speed it’s not the prospect of crashing that bothers them; it’s being caught by the pesky flashing piggybanks on poles. It’s our life… we should be allowed to live it as we wish, if people are walking/playing in the road they are taking their lives in their own hands in the domain of the car and the motorist should not be held accountable.
Can't agree with that at all.
If it were the domain of the car then towns wouldn't pedestrianise the centres, instead they would build drive through supermarkets.
Most towns were designed and built WAY bfore we had the amount of cars that we have now and the streets are not designed to take them, therefore speed limits in these areas should be LOWERED if anything when there is a risk to pedestrians maybe to 20mph. If you think that is unreasonable then try driving down a victorian narrow street at 30mph then try to stop safely within a car's length. Most of these streets have houses with front doors that open directly on to the street. One of these can open and have a toddler dash out within a second. At 30mph you wouldn't have a chance... nor would the toddler.
If you are doing 70mph on a country lane and hit a deer then what are you going to do? sue the deer?
If you have the best brakes and tyres coupled with state of the art suspension and roadholding that sticks to the road like sh1t to a blanket the human body is no less frail than it was 100 years ago. The forces acting on it caused by a rapid deceleration could seriously rearrange your internal organs. Doing that too many times can't be good for you
I don't have a problem with cameras or speed. What I DO have a problem with is people who think they can do as they like and refuse to accept the consequences when they either get caught or crash.
Surely you can't be serious. I am serious and don't call me Shirley
Originally posted by Wobbletastic: When people speed it’s not the prospect of crashing that bothers them; it’s being caught by the pesky flashing piggybanks on poles. It’s our life… we should be allowed to live it as we wish, if people are walking/playing in the road they are taking their lives in their own hands in the domain of the car and the motorist should not be held accountable.
This of course is garbage and you know it.
Well we're safe for now. Thank goodness we're in a bowling alley.
Originally posted by Wobbletastic: When people speed it’s not the prospect of crashing that bothers them; it’s being caught by the pesky flashing piggybanks on poles. It’s our life… we should be allowed to live it as we wish, if people are walking/playing in the road they are taking their lives in their own hands in the domain of the car and the motorist should not be held accountable.
Yes G damn it! AND we should be allowed to park where we want, when we want and have none of those evil sneering wardens to book us. We should be allowed to drive as fast as we want and where we want too. It's everything else's fault if they get in the way. Hang on! Why not, instead of bumpers, we should install Boudicean style spikes on our vehicles. At least there would be no suffering if we hit anything. In fact, why don't we just convert all of our high streets into multi-lane highways (For those who live in Coventry, this is already the case you lucky b*stards) and be done with it. Then we wouldn't have to worry about pedestrians or god forbid, CYCLISTS getting in the way. In fact, why stop with town centres, why don't we just tarmac over the whole country and have racetracks on every street corner, that would be great. Endless Clarkson/Stig wannabies racing round in their Fiestas, it should be the law! CARS RULE! If you don't own a car then you're obviously too poor and deserve to die in front of a car. Let's stop all these controls on our driving and let us do what we want and to hell with fines and penalties. We should make it compulsory that everyone HAS to drive a car in excess of 5 litres and anything less than a V8 is just wrong!
Of course, the above all and utter tosh and we would be gridlocked soone than you sould say it! As I've said before, these measures are there for a reason, and it is the only way of ensuring everyone behas responsibly on teh roads. If you do behave responsibly, you won't get fined/pulled up by Plod and have absolutely nothing to fear. It's the 'I'm the best driver in the world' brigade who you need to worry about.
