No-one is saying that though. If you are driving at 45mph for the sake of it on the M9 , then that is wrong and it wouldn't matter what age you are. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Printable View
No-one is saying that though. If you are driving at 45mph for the sake of it on the M9 , then that is wrong and it wouldn't matter what age you are. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
You can make good progress at 45-50 mph. What you're basically saying is that 70 should not only be maximum speed limit but also minimum, that's mental.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky
To be clear I've never mentioned elderly or senior citizens. I was responding to a point about people who are physically or mentally incapable of making good progress on a motorway. I'm perfectly comfortable with folk choosing to drive at 60 as long as it's not their lack of physical or mental faculties that's limiting them. I'm not comfortable with folk driving at 45mph as that's a massive inconvenience to other road users.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
I think you'll find that the police would absolutely not consider 45mph to be "making good progress" on a motorway in normal conditions. Having attended a Bikesafe course with police motorcyclists I can attest to that. Incidentally neither would an advanced driving instructor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
You shouldn't have posted that. He won't believe your anecdotal evidence.:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky
As anybody who drives the M9 regularly knows, getting one of those cranes from Falkirk on the road up ahead creates a huge tailback as two lanes have to merge into one. 45mph drivers aren't much better. 60+ is fine as the two lanes then stay pretty well balanced so traffic throughput is maintained.Quote:
Originally Posted by LaMotta
If a two (or more) lane road is even moderately busy, driving at an unusually low speed is a hazard. I don't think that's arguable.
If witnessed over a relatively short period by the police, the driver would be pulled over and likely fined.
No I'm not, I'm talking about people having the choice to drive at the speed they feel comfortable with within limits. Driving at 70 gives you a breaking distance of about 126m, at 20 that would be about 10.2m. That's definitely 2 different kettles of fish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky
To be fair, those guys were pretty clear that the speed limit was a target and could be exceeded when safe! The phrase "make good progress" was used a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by LaMotta
You literally posted about mental and physical capabilities. If a driver lacks the physical and mental capabilities to be safe on a motorway they're unsafe anywhere else too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky
I'm genuinely relived that we are now getting some common sense on this issue.:banana:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky
And more common sense. Although with the bit in bold it seems that some people do think its arguable:dizzy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
It would appear from the last several pages of this thread that it's very much arguable if you're so inclined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
Nobody is saying it isn't an inconvenience or even a hazard , it's just not the hazard it's being blown up to be by some and can be easily neutralised by careful and considerate driving.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
That's utter bollocks, try getting out of a speeding fine by saying it was safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky
Lolz at me neutralising the next mile long tailback I'm in by simply driving carefully and considerately. Can't wait to try it and watch the cars in front simply evaporate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
You actually stated that, quote, "people should be able to drive within the speed limit according to their personal capabilities". If you are now saying it is an inconvenience an hazard to others to drive at whatever speed they like below the limit, I'm sure you'll retract your previous statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
That was an example of why some drivers might not feel comfortable driving at 70, doesn't mean they can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky
Jesus wept you're now telling me that me quoting the words that came directly from a police motorcyclists in a bikesafe course full of people who are literally there to learn to keep themselves safe on the road is bollocks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
In all honesty if your driving is as erratic as your arguments on this thread it might not be a bad idea to pop down to the police station and hand in your licence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
I don't think I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by LaMotta
So you think that would get you out of a speeding fine?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky
No real surprise that you are wrong again - from three pages ago:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
My argument is pretty consistent, there is no minimum speed limit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky
A) I was quoting someone else so what I think is irrelevant. B) If you're driving at 65mph on a 60mph with no hazards in good conditions you're not going to get stopped by the police anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Driving at 70 can be a hazard and more accidents are caused by people driving 70 than 45, your own statistic posted earlier proved that. 2 deaths due to a contributing factor of slow driving, that's about 0.001%. What's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by LaMotta
You are all over the place, changing your argument constantly, posting inaccuracies, and you have no idea what you have or haven't said previously. I've explained my point several times now which has nothing to do with cars going too fast. If you don't understand the point by now then there really is no point going on. If this was a boxing match your corner would have thrown the towel in long before now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
I couldn't put it better than this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky
I've been nothing other than consistent in my posts. There is no default minimum speed limit. Slow driving is a contributing factor in a very small minority of traffic accidents but even then, the main reason for those accidents will be something else, probably police officers teaching people it's ok to drive faster than the speed limit. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by LaMotta
You're very unlikely to get stopped by the police unless the cameras alert them. Somebody earlier in this thread said that routine traffic patrols no longer happen and they only attend fatal accidentsQuote:
Originally Posted by Rocky
You have got me mixed up with another sensible poster. I never mentioned a driver's capability. But I have tried to explain to you, the only one seemingly arguing that driving slow is more dangerous than driving fast. And that neither you nor I can know what the reason for anyone else's action is. I've given umpteen examples for why the car was being driven slower than you want, which you have ignored. That is worrying as it shows you have no awareness of other road users.Quote:
Originally Posted by LaMotta
It is interesting that Dazzling Doidge, who first came across the slower driver, has passed the car and moved on, whilst you are clearly stuck behind the slow car and fuming as everyone else overtakes you. 😉
How is the comparison irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by LaMotta
You have a 1 in 1000 chance of being in a serious accident by going slow compared to a 999 chance in 1000 when not going slowly. Now you can see the reason why a comparison is very relevant. Driving slowly resulting in a lower chance of a serious accident really doesn't help your argument, you should be a politician. 😂