|
Old Navy is right about people turning right. I come across many cases of people virtually next to the kerb, trying to turn right and of course blocking all the traffic behind, leading to other people driving on the footpath - and we all know what that leads to.....(cue previous thread revival).
|
|
I feel like I'm turning into a grumpy old man before my time! But yes, some people seem to have no concept of other people on the road, particularly those behind them. I see exactly this frequently - some berk turning right barring the left turn for the person behind. Infuriating, isn't it. I particularly admire people stopping at 'give way' markings, whether or not they need to! People admiring the flowers on the middle of an otherwise empty roundabout etc...
|
|
What gets me with this is that it must happen to the blocker at some time,finding themselves behind someone and thinking'I could get through if they were over to the right',but no connection between that experience and doing it themselves.Same with having headlights on whilst parked on the wrong side of the road.Perhaps they are just not very bright(I mean the drivers,not the headlights).
|
|
|
|
We live near a supermarket, the entrance to which is off a fairly narrow, residental street. Given that the supermarket and the road (and the entire estate) were built at the same time, the planners wisely made the road wider at the turning into the supermarket car park, and about 100yds either side. There's a "right turn" lane in the middle of the road for people turning right into the supermarket car park, with a tapered filter lane approaching it.
It is a running joke with SWMBO and I just how many people either fail to use the right turn lane at all, or brake down to 5 mph in the main road, holding everyone up, and then turn sharply into the lane at the last minute instead of filtering off 100yds earlier.
This particular supermarket is a brand notorious for its popularity with the peroxide blonde, skin tight jean and cosmetically enhanced "asset" types in Cayennes and X5s, and wealthy old dears in Polos. You leave your car in here at your peril. ;-)
Cheers
DP
|
|
This is a pet hate of mine and there are two points in my daily journey where these dopey idiots are a real problem. Consequently on the return journeys I always try and let a few of them out before I turn into the street, to keep things moving and free any blockages. More often than not they will just gawp at you and refuse to move, oblivious to the concept of "letting someone go". It also upsets people behind me who are also on their return journeys if they have to wait a extra 4 or 5 seconds despite the fact that earlier in the day when it is they that are blocked by right-turners, they would have benefited from someone like me who understands the notion of road craft.
|
|
I suppose it shouldn't surprise too much. I know some really stupid people with driving licences.....
|
HB wrote: "I suppose it shouldn't surprise too much. I know some really stupid people with driving licences....."
Whenever I feel I'm getting worked up about some piece of stupidity on the roads, I remind myself about the people I encounter walking down the main shopping street in my town. They are generally unhealthy, have no taste (judging by their dress sense) and their behaviour is loud, crude and sometimes offensive.
And I bet nearly all of them drive.
It's best to get real and not have high expectations of other drivers.
Cynical, moi?
|
I remind myself about the people I encounter walking down the main shopping street in >> my town. They are generally unhealthy have no taste (judging by their dress sense) and their behaviour is loud crude and sometimes offensive. And I bet nearly all of them drive.
Ok Chris... but you missed out the best bits here.
Those loud, crass and tastelessly dressed types ALSO are the types who saunter three abreast, despite folk behind trying to get past, will stop suddenly to look into the window of the local sports shop, at the wikkid trainers on display, who will veer across your path to enter the burger shop without looking, will EXIT the burger shop, stuffing their faces with lardy food, without looking who's coming, thus bumping into you, and invariably dripping a load of mayo or tomatoc sauce down your sleeve...
Yep! Exactly the same behaviour as they show in cars!
Now, take the same mob, and dump them in the local supermarket, and the same 'I couldn't give a toss about anybody else' attitude continues.
They push their trolleys down the wrong side of the aisle (Opposite to everyone else!), "park" the trolley wherever they want, no matter who/what they are blocking, smash stuff off of sheleves with their careless trolley-pushing, and just walk on, then they park the trolley AGAIN, while they go off to load up with more cream cakes, hammer their trolley into your ankles, because they are too busy comparing prices on various types of cut-price lager, and guaranteed at one stage will stop in the middle of an aisle (or even worse - at the *&^##^& CHECK OUT!) and proceed to have a gormless conversation with somebody, at a very loud volume.
Translate all the above 'habits' into automotive terms...
|
|
|
|
Mmm. An interesting one this isn't it?
When doing my IAM motorbike test/training the whole question of positioning figures very highly in the whole ideaology. In particular the positioning when approaching bends/hazards.
I mention this as it often serves to highlight just how bad/thoughless car drivers are when it comes to positioning on the road. Fortunately the generally superior acceleration of a motorcycle means one can avoid such hazrds however that's not always the case.
|
Just as infuriating is when the right-turner has positioned correctly, but the driver behind does not know how to turn the wheel to pass around to the left, but waits helplessly holding everybody else up.
Probably the same people who do 9-point turns in carparks because they don't understand how steering wheels work.
|
|
...and people who sit behind buses, because they don't have the confidence to overtake. Probably the same people that do the whole of the motorway journey in lane 2, inc when lane 1 is empty.
|
|
....and people who sit in the outside lane at traffic lights then decide to indicate right after the lights change. Or better still, don't signal at all.
|
....and people who sit in the outside lane at traffic lights then decide to indicate right after the lights change.
Unless of course you wish to punish an erstwhile tailgater. In those circumstances its a fair gambit I say.......
;-)
|
|
I usually punish an erstwhile tailgater at the lights by releasing the tailgate, getting out of the car and beckoning them in ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
Don't leave out the lane 3 speed merchants Westpig, who don't move over because they think lane 3 is their dedicated lane, even when 1 and 2 are empty.
Edited by scribe on 10/12/2008 at 10:50
|
|
Or the mimsers who dither along in the fast lane of a dual carriageway because 4 miles further on they're going to make a right turn.
|
I don't have to say anything here because most of my favourite types of bad driver have already been described.
I think people are getting worse at this positioning business. Like mimsing and nervousness in traffic the tendency to get in the way unnecessarily has an infectious side. It goes with stupidly obstructive road engineering and stupidly low speed limits. Everyone just gets too depressed to try to drive properly. Why bother? No one else does.
|
|
Pretty much sums it up,few see driving as an art now,just a means to an end.Coming home just now I had to undertake two vehicles in the outside lane of a dual carriageway,nothing unusual there,but one was on tow!
|
Yes to all of the above - with knobs on around my way.
A particular speciality in these numpty outer regions is to sit at a junction waiting to turn right (the flaired type that allow left turners easy egress) 5 or more mteres back from the solid white line - this delightful piece of numskullery not only stops others left turning when possible, but stops them seeing far enough & reacting quickly to gaps. I often 'parp' offenders - even then the penny rarely drops.
Edited by woodbines on 10/12/2008 at 13:16
|
|
Don't leave out the lane 3 speed merchants Westpig who don't move over because they think lane 3 is their dedicated lane even when 1 and 2 are empty.
That's different. They're not likely to be guilty of causing needless congestion and frustration by holding everyone else up. About the only person a lane 3 speed merchant is going to hold up is another, faster lane 3 speed merchant. I'm happy to let them sort that out amongst themselves.
|
About the only person a lane 3 speed merchant is going to hold up is another faster lane 3 speed merchant. I'm happy to let them sort that out amongst themselves.
so people that drive at the faster end of the spectrum are second class citizens then? So it doesn't matter if there is a big queue of people in lane 3 patiently waiting for some clown at the front to pull over when there's a decent gap?... and it doesn't matter that it encourages the equally anti-social under taking brigade?
|
I think you've taken something I said the wrong way Westpig, but I'm not sure what. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you or scribe originally meant. I thought this thread was about people whose thoughtless positioning holds up everyone else. You mentioned CLOG - "people that do the whole of the motorway journey in lane 2, inc when lane 1 is empty" and scribe mentioned "lane 3 speed merchants".
CLOG (and other examples, like the person waiting to turn right as described by the OP) are a particular form of problem in they effectively make themselves into a roadblock, hindering everyone behind them. Someone whose standard approach to a motorway is to drive faster than almost everyone else, and stay in lane 3 at all times (which is what I took "lane 3 speed merchant" to mean) is not going to form a roadblock hindering everyone because most people will be going slower than them anyway. So all I was getting at was that thoughtless positioning on their part doesn't affect the entire traffic flow in the way that CLOG and the OP's example does. It only affects those few people who aren't going slower than them.
My personal experience is that people who drive at the faster end of the spectrum (above 70 at least), even if they naturally gravitate towards lane 3, aren't that bad at moving left when someone faster is coming. Other people may have different experiences.
So it doesn't matter if there is a big queue of people in lane 3 patiently waiting for some clown at the front to pull over when there's a decent gap?
It does matter. But is that someone in lane 3 doing 70 and not pulling over (I wouldn't call that a lane 3 speed merchant, that's just CLOG behaviour in a different lane) or someone doing 90 holding up someone wanting to do 95 (which I don't think happens that much, but I might be wrong).
|
Some of the problems with right turn lanes is that they often have cross hatching before & after to protect the lane.
75% of drivers treat the cross hatching as a total no-go area, so they slow down in the through lane then at about 5 mph turn into the right turn lane making sure that none of their tyres should touch the cross hatch.
Now I know that a small percentage of cross hatching is bounded by solid white lines & these must be respected, but if just broken lines then I just cross onto the hatching without slowing, then slow into the filter lane allowing those behind to carry on un-hindered.
|
Some of the problems with right turn lanes is that they often have cross hatching before & after to protect the lane.
With the use of CCTV to convict motorists of bus lane and box junction offences can you blame people for being ultra cautious, or confused by cross hatching? My sis in law was done by CCTV for having her front wheels about a foot onto a box junction and causing no obstruction.
Edited by Old Navy on 10/12/2008 at 16:53
|
so people that drive at the faster end of the spectrum are second class citizens then?
Those who in lane 3 of a motorway who "drive at the faster end of the spectrum" are usually massively exceeding the speed limit. Why do those who flagrantly ignore the rules of the road expect sympathy?
"Drive at the faster end of the spectrum" is a delightful euphemism, by the way. It may well be suitable for wider usage, for other miscreants who want to verablly sanitise their offence:
No, yer honour, I wasn't driving while drunk. I was just as the higher end of the alcohol spectrum.
I didn't default on the loan, I was just at the lower end of the payment spectrum.
No, I didn't shoot the traffic lights, I was just at the lower end of the deceleration spectrum.
Are the police getting lessons now in how to construct and deploy Blair-style euphemisms?
|
>>Are the police getting lessons now in how to construct and deploy Blair-style euphemisms?<<
NW could you expand on this, do you mean Tony the grinner or Sir Ian the incompetant?
|
NW could you expand on this do you mean Tony the grinner or Sir Ian the incompetant?
I mean the grinner, not the bloke who had nothing at all to do with shooting the Brazilian ;)
|
Navyboy wrote
>>When doing my IAM motorbike test/training the whole question of positioning figures very highly in the whole ideaology. In particular the positioning when approaching bends/hazards.<<
I was also taught this. However, taking up some of the road positions advocated does freak out some drivers !
With regard to the OP and the badly positioned car turning right: The car behind will frequently stop against the kerb therby making it impossible for two-wheelers to get by (I do realise that that's their intention :-) )
|
I agree with the OP in that you can not really position your vehicle correctly and rely on other road users to understand.
Driving standards are going down hill fast IMO.
I miss the guy in the telegraph that used to write and give advice on positioning and any other number of motoring issues i.e. dealing with tail gaters etc.
Can anyone remind me his name - I can see his face and I think he drove a 911.
|
Paul Ripley?
If that's right it's a miracle. Can't always remember the names of people who are world-famous or quite well known to me these days.
|
Heh heh NW... practising for the attitude test next time you get pulled for speeding?
'I'm not sadistic towards the automobile and press-on driving, I'm more at the upper end of the cruelty spectrum where these elements are concerned...'
:o}
|
Those who in lane 3 of a motorway who "drive at the faster end of the spectrum" are usually massively exceeding the speed limit. Why do those who flagrantly ignore the rules of the road expect sympathy?
NW,
whether you like it or not...if you drive down the average m/way that is flowing well, the outside lane tends to be used by those travelling between 70mph and 85mph. That has become a norm...no doubt due to the improvements over the years with regards tyres, brakes, suspensions, road surfaces, car safety, etc, etc. At some times those people can make up 60 - 70% of the m/way traffic (so an awful lot of the general population, not just the odd boy racer or 'speedster')....why should those people be subject to anti-social and ignorant behaviour by someone further up the queue who is selfish... and if you're going to quote the illegality of speeding..then two wrongs don't make a right...
and if this country's speeding laws were sorted out properly a vast part of our population wouldn't ignore them, would they
Are the police getting lessons now in how to construct and deploy Blair-style euphemisms?
just come back from my course...glad you approve
|
why should those people be subject to anti-social and ignorant behaviour by someone further up the queue who is selfish... and if you're going to quote the illegality of speeding..then two wrongs don't make a right...
Tell me westpig, in what other areas of your policing work is it routine to regard people as ignorant and anti-social for not facilitating intentionally illegal behaviour?
and if this country's speeding laws were sorted out properly a vast part of our population wouldn't ignore them would they
I'd like to see how this argument works when you arrest someone for breaking a law they don't like.
|
Tell me westpig in what other areas of your policing work is it routine to regard people as ignorant and anti-social for not facilitating intentionally illegal behaviour?
I'm not discussing police work, i'm discussing driving on a motorway. I'm specifically discussing a past time that many, many average and normal people indulge in i.e. driving along a m/way at more than the posted limit.. (because that limit has been there constant for nearly 40 years despite the advances of technology albeit i'd concede the negativity of increased congestion) and deliberately or inconsiderately blocking those many people is IMO most ignorant and anti-social.
If you want some daft answers: it's illegal to walk on the grass in some parks (via byelaws), i'd expect facilitation for someone to do so to save some kids life who fell in a lake; it's illegal for a doctor to speed, yet i'd hope people would do so to enable them to save a life; it's illegal for a police driver at work to drive up a No Entry, yet that should be facilitated for numerous reasons e.g during pursuit of armed robbers; it's illegal for a motorist to drive 10 feet through a Red Light to help a fire engine through...i could go on all night.
I'd like to see how this argument works when you arrest someone for breaking a law they don't like.
there are many minor infringements of the law that are totally ignored by officialdom and well you know it. To deprive someone of their liberty would be for something well up the scale of illegality...so is not at all relevant to this debate..is it.. unless of course you believe that doing 80mph along a m/way is right up there with the most serious offences...i don't (with some provisos; e.g thick fog, etc)
|
If you want some daft answers: it's illegal to walk on the grass in some parks (via byelaws) i'd expect facilitation for someone to do so to save some kids life who fell in a lake; it's illegal for a doctor to speed yet i'd hope people would do so to enable them to save a life; it's illegal for a police driver at work to drive up a No Entry yet that should be facilitated for numerous reasons e.g during pursuit of armed robbers;
Daft answers indeed. You haven't managed to understand the distinction between actions undertaken in an emergency situation to save life, and the routine, non-emergency flouting as a "past time" of a speed limit imposed for safety purposes.
|
|
Westpig, you wont win with an extremist law abider.
|
Westpig you wont win with an extremist law abider.
This thread is proving to be great value on the entertainment front. I'll get a good few laughs out of the concept of an "extremist law abider"
Presumably the police should hunt down these wicked "extremist law abiders" and lock them up along with the folks who get arrested for all the harmless activities which are now caught under the terrorism acts?
|
This thread is proving to be great value on the entertainment front. I'll get a good few laughs out of the concept of an "extremist law abider"
I think it describes someone who appears unwilling to accept that laws may sometimes be unnecessarily restrictive and that some transgressions of the law may cause no harm. Or someone who believes that even if a particular transgression causes no harm, it is still a bad thing purely for being a transgression of the law.
Perhaps you don't think "extremist law abider" is the right phrase, but these perverse beliefs do appear to exist and are potentially very harmful to society so it is useful to have an easy way to describe them.
I often wonder how far the unquestioning obedience could be stretched with, for example, laws banning the wearing red jumpers, or prohibiting the clipping of toenails on any day except Tuesday.
Of course, there is a distinction in that clipping your toenails at the weekend is always harmless to others, whereas driving at 80 is only sometimes harmless to others. But that distinction is only relevant if those enforcing the law make an effort to ignore the harmless instances and focus on the harmful ones.
|
always harmless to others whereas driving at 80 is only sometimes harmless to others. But that distinction is only relevant if those enforcing the law make an effort to ignore the harmless instances and focus on the harmful ones.
Precisely.
A new car, with a chap of 45, with 25 years of experience doing 80 (and NOTE... if he's at that age he may be driving an Uber-BMW, Audi, jag, Merc, lexus whatever) is a far better cahp than the 20-yr-old git in a scrapheap-bound 80s Transit or Sierra doing 80.
However... they are both legally on the road, both cars are legally on the road... so let's call it lowest-common-denominator prosecution, shall we?
Locally, we have the same problem - Plod in fact doesn't even bother stopping certain types (ie minibus taxis), as they know that all fines, summonses etc will be totally ignored. And nobody has the balls to go and track down the miscreants...
Yet me doing 68 in an 60 zone will be prosecuted to the hilt...
|
I think it describes someone who appears unwilling to accept that laws may sometimes be unnecessarily restrictive and that some transgressions of the law may cause no harm. Or someone who believes that even if a particular transgression causes no harm it is still a bad thing purely for being a transgression of the law.
Don't try shifting the ground here. We weren't discussing whether the speedsters should be prosecuted, we were discussing Westpig's attempt to denigrate those who don't go out of their way to facilitate people who choose to break the law.
There's case for saying that speed limits should be enforced flexibly, but that's a separate issue. This is about whether a driver who doesn't set out to block lanes or impede anyone from overtaking, but uses the outside lane to overtake at 70mph a queue of slower traffic should not abused for observing the legal the limit rather than facilitating those who flout it.
Westpig had gone beyond defending the law-breakers, and was chose to sneer at those who drive within the limits for not getting out of the way of people who make a conscious decision to drive at a speed which is not only illegal, but which increases the dangers both through the higher kinetic energy of driving at higher speeds and through increased speed differentials.
The problem here is not "extremist law-abiders", it is extremist speedsters who disregard both the law and the safety of others.
I often wonder how far the unquestioning obedience could be stretched with for example laws banning the wearing red jumpers or prohibiting the clipping of toenails on any day except Tuesday.
Silly analogy. For a start, there aren't any such laws. And if there was such a dumb bit of legislation, then as you acknowledge, breaking it is harmless to others.
Even if you are right when you say that "driving at 80 is only sometimes harmless to others", you miss the point under discussion here, which is that others are being asked to constrain their legal use of the roads to facilitate those who want to drive at an illegal speed. Even if you believe that those others drivers are not having their safety threatened by someone overtaking at 80, they are being harmed by being asked to get out of the way.
|
Even if you are right when you say that "driving at 80 is only sometimes harmless to others" you miss the point under discussion here which is that others are being asked to constrain their legal use of the roads to facilitate those who want to drive at an illegal speed. Even if you believe that those others drivers are not having their safety threatened by someone overtaking at 80 they are being harmed by being asked to get out of the way.
Ok, so Mr Tosspot is driving at 120kmh (indicated) in a lane where he could be moving over to the left to let me in.
I'm doing 120kmh (indicated) so I am in the right as well.
However, HE will not move over.
All a question of whose speedometer is correct, isn't it?
Now, Mr tosspot is doing 120 (indicated) and passing somebody else, doing 100 (indicated). Because Mr T is NOT prepared to exceed the limit, the differentialm in passing speed is about 5km/h faster than the guy next to him.
What does he do? Give it a bit of hoof, pass, and let the 15 cars queuing up behind him come past? Or sit until he has passed the other chap, by which time there are 30 cars, all believeing THEY are doing the speed limit, gnashing at the bit...
Pedantry and common sense are poles apart when it comes to driving.
Here's a converse - I can drive at 120km/h along the local freeway. So I WILL do that speed.
Doesn't matter that due to a thick sea mist the visibility is down to 100m, and at times it is closer to 50m, does it? It is my RIGHT to drive like a complete prong, beacuse I am within the speed limit.
|
Now Mr tosspot is doing 120 (indicated) and passing somebody else doing 100 (indicated). Because Mr T is NOT prepared to exceed the limit the differentialm in passing speed is about 5km/h faster than the guy next to him. What does he do? Give it a bit of hoof pass and let the 15 cars queuing up behind him come past? Or sit until he has passed the other chap by which time there are 30 cars all believeing THEY are doing the speed limit gnashing at the bit...
Given a bunch of bullyboys with anger-management issues on my tail, I put the foot down and get out of their way, just as I'll get out of the way of other idiots. On a single-carriageway road I have even turned off and done a u-turn on a side road just to let the speed merchants go non and cause problems for someone other than me.
But the mindset at work here is made very clear by your characterisation of someone driving at the indicated speed limit as a "tosspot". You have decided that you want to exceed the speed limit, so you reckon you have a right to demand that other drivers should also drive at a speed which their instruments tell them is illegal.
That's what it all comes down to. In your determination to drive as close as possible to the speed limit, or over it if you so choose, others should do what hey quite reasonably believe to be illegal.
Here's a converse - I can drive at 120km/h along the local freeway. So I WILL do that speed. Doesn't matter that due to a thick sea mist the visibility is down to 100m and at times it is closer to 50m does it? It is my RIGHT to drive like a complete prong beacuse I am within the speed limit.
No, it's not, and I'm sure you know it's not. The speed limit is a limit, not a target or a minimum, and I'm sure that like the UK, South African driving laws say that you should not drive both within the limit and at a speed suitable for the conditions, including a speed that will allow you stop within the distance that you can see to be clear.
|
I'm driving faster than you, for whatever reason, on a dual carriageway/freeway.
I expect you to get out of my way IF and WHEN it is safe to do so.
If you choose to impede my progress, through pedantry, then expect me to be annoyed with you.
If you are on the speed limit, then well and good. If you are below it, I have an argument.
As far as instruments go, maybe someday some folk might wake up to the fact that their speedometers are actually under-reading by a LOT... and could get them recalibrated?
Because I know of cases where guys have an indicated 120 when they are doing 100... and the fiften guys behind are getting very very cross at lane-hogger who is 'within my rights'
|
Even if you believe that those others drivers are not having their safety threatened by someone overtaking at 80, they are being harmed by being asked to get out of the way.
Sorry, I can't quite get my head around the idea of someone being 'harmed' by getting out of the way of a faster (or speeding) vehicle - although I can get my head around the concept of someone getting harmed by not doing so.
Although 'safety-car' vigilantism might be attractive to certain types of HSE obsessed my-speed-only types, any sensible person might think they're in greater danger holding up a 'speedster'. Indeed, it's arrogant & illogical to assume one knows the reason why another vehicle is apparently breaking the speed limit - there may be some overrriding imperative, e.g. emergency of some kind.
|
Sorry I can't quite get my head around the idea of someone being 'harmed' by getting out of the way of a faster (or speeding) vehicle - although I can get my head around the concept of someone getting harmed by not doing so.
Don't worry, It's really quite simple. There is a queue of slow-moving traffic in the middle lane, which I can safely overtake whilst remaining within the speed limit (overtake at 70, pull in again when I have passed them). What the speedsters are arguing is that unless I am prepared to drive at an illegal speed, I should not perform what is otherwise a safe and legal manoeuvre because it would impede their choice to break the law.
So because the bullyboys demand the right to travel unimpeded at an illegal speed, my journey is unnecessarily prolonged because I can't get past the slow-moving trucks unless I too drive illegally.
There may of course be an emergency. And if it's an emergency vehicle, I'll do whatever I can safely do to get out of their way, including pulling off the road if required ... but I hope you are not trying to argue that the strings of cars doing 80-90 in the fast lane with lights ablaze are some form of unmarked emergency vehicle.
|
Don't worry, It's really quite simple. There is a queue of slow-moving traffic in the middle lane, which I can safely overtake whilst remaining within the speed limit (overtake at 70, pull in again when I have passed them).
You really don't understand the point do you? There's no place for such egocentric & I-know-best attitudes on the road - that's what causes accidents - not people doing 80 occasionally! Perhaps you should consider the difference between driving marginally over the limit & not upsetting the general flow & trying to impose what you think is right upon others.
Edited by woodbines on 12/12/2008 at 20:50
|
"There's no place for such egocentric & I-know-best attitudes on the road"
Indeed. Try that attitude in Poland and see how long you last. Here, you either drive with the flow of traffic or risk having some bald ogre in a Polonez barrel into the back of you accompanied by that screech of non-ABS-assisted rubber on tarmac.
|
You really don't understand the point do you?
Woodbines, I understand it very well indeed. The issue is simply whether whether someone driving at an illegal speed should slow down when their path is impeded by someone driving at a legal speed, or whether the legal driver should be denigrated for not law-breaking. I prefer the former, you prefer the latter.
There's no place for such egocentric & I-know-best attitudes on the road - that's what causes accidents - not people doing 80 occasionally!
The only thing that will cause an accident in these circumstances is if the person driving illegally expects everyone else to get out of their way. The egocentricity here is entirely on the part of those who choose to drive illegally rather than to work within the Highway Code, which provides a framework for road-users to co-exist safely.
Perhaps you should consider the difference between driving marginally over the limit & not upsetting the general flow & trying to impose what you think is right upon others.
Woodbines, it would help a lot if you actually read what you are replying to. I'm not trying to impose anything; I am merely seeking to be allowed to complete a safe and legal manoeuvre in a legal manner without being abused by people who have decided they want to break the law.
As I wrote before, I will often decide to postpone or abandon a manoeuvre if I think that it I will be dangerous to complete it legally, because I'd far rather avoid an accident; and if that means pulling off the road and stopping to let the speedsters past, I'll do it. It's not worth either the risk or the stress, and the best piece of advice I ever received about driving was on this forum: "whatever his problem is, I don't want to be a part of it".
But I do understand what's going on here, and I think that you understand it too: it's a form of bullying. A driver who chooses to travel at an illegal speed should at the very least have the courtesy and common sense to accept that it is a reasonable and rational choice for other drivers not to exceed the speed limit, and not to try to transfer onto them the responsibility for any accidents which happen because of the speed differential created by the speedster.
If you or any other of the get-outta-my-speeding-way drivers cause an accident by tailgating someone driving at the legal limit, I don't think you'll be at all surprised when a judge throws out your attempt to blame the other driver, and probably gives you a few extra points for your trouble. So why all the bluster here?
|
we were discussing Westpig's attempt to denigrate those who don't go out of their way to facilitate people who choose to break the law. This is about whether a driver who doesn't set out to block lanes or impede anyone from overtaking but uses the outside lane to overtake at 70mph a queue of slower traffic should not abused for observing the legal the limit rather than facilitating those who flout it.
I wholeheartedly agree with this point NW and have never stated or hinted that the law abiding should make way for others IF they themsleves are properly using that lane. My point has only ever been aimed at those people who dawdle in a lane when they could and should use another lane i.e keep left.
Westpig had gone beyond defending the law-breakers and was chose to sneer at those who drive within the limits for not getting out of the way of people who make a conscious decision to drive at a speed which is not only illegal but which increases the dangers both through the higher kinetic energy of driving at higher speeds and through increased speed differentials.
see above...you've got the wrong end of the stick...although i do think that someone doing dead on the dot 70mph in lane 3, could slightly increase their speed to say 75mph if someone were to be catching them up and it facilitated them pulling in..in the same way a lane 2 vehicle could throttle off a bit before an overtake using lane 3 if it allowed a faster vehcile past....it's called good manners
conversely it is also good manners for the faster vehicle to allow the slower one some decent time to complete their manoeuvre, not hassle them as some do.
|
I wholeheartedly agree with this point NW and have never stated or hinted that the law abiding should make way for others IF they themsleves are properly using that lane. My point has only ever been aimed at those people who dawdle in a lane when they could and should use another lane i.e keep left.
Westpig, sorry if I misunderstood you; I read your earlier post in a very different way, and I'm happy to accept that wasn't what you meant.
I also entirely agree with you about people who don't keep to the left. Staying in an outer lane when there's room to move to the left is anti-social and dangerous (because it promotes undertaking), and it's one of the few points on which I allow myself to (gently!) criticise the driver on in a car that I'm in.
Depressingly, most drivers I talk to about it simply don't know that they are supposed to pull in. If people miss such a simple point, then more widespread use of driving theory refresher courses would be a good idea.
|
You haven't managed to understand the distinction between actions undertaken in an emergency situation to save life and the routine non-emergency flouting as a "past time" of a speed limit imposed for safety purposes.
NW,
I merely answered your question. Your question didn't mention distinctions between emergency situations and some people's usual driving habits.... and incidentally the 'speed limit imposed for safety purposes' comment conveniently ignores my bit about it being more relevant some 40 years ago, (with obviously a number of exceptions depending on the circumstances, as previously mentioned and repeated here to prevent my point being seen as entrenched and at an extreme). Do you really think I don't understand the difference...I suspect not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
