Driving Pet Peeves

[LaMotta]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm a senior citizen and after reading this thread if I catch my speedo dipping below 60 at all on the M9 tomorrow I'm going to admit I'm a disgrace and hand in my licence the day after.

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.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

People who don't have the mental or physical faculties to make good progress on a straight road with no pedestrians, T junctions or any of the other complexities and risk factors of normal roads should absolutely not be driving at all.

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.

[Rocky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm a senior citizen and after reading this thread if I catch my speedo dipping below 60 at all on the M9 tomorrow I'm going to admit I'm a disgrace and hand in my licence the day after.

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.

[Rocky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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.

[LaMotta]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

You shouldn't have posted that. He won't believe your anecdotal evidence.

[Rocky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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.

[Future17]

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.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No, they're not. You're talking about people not having the mental or physical faculties to drive on an entirely straight road. I'm saying if that's the case they should be nowhere near a situation where little kids could dash out in front of them as they clearly wouldn't have the capability to react.

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.

[Rocky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You shouldn't have posted that. He won't believe your anecdotal evidence.

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.

[Rocky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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.

[LaMotta]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

I'm genuinely relived that we are now getting some common sense on this issue.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

And more common sense. Although with the bit in bold it seems that some people do think its arguable

[Rocky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

It would appear from the last several pages of this thread that it's very much arguable if you're so inclined.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

That's utter bollocks, try getting out of a speeding fine by saying it was safe.

[Rocky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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.

[LaMotta]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

That was an example of why some drivers might not feel comfortable driving at 70, doesn't mean they can't.

[Rocky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's utter bollocks, try getting out of a speeding fine by saying it was safe.

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?

[Rocky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That was an example of why some drivers might not feel comfortable driving at 70, doesn't mean they can't.

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.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

I don't think I did.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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?

So you think that would get you out of a speeding fine?

[LaMotta]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't think I did.

No real surprise that you are wrong again - from three pages ago:

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes, but I also agree that people should be able to drive within the speed limit according to their personal capabilities, road, weather and traffic conditions.

Someone travelling at 45mph on a dual carriageway is less likely to cause congestion than someone travelling at 58mph.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

My argument is pretty consistent, there is no minimum speed limit.

[Rocky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So you think that would get you out of a speeding fine?

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.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No real surprise that you are wrong again - from three pages ago:

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?

[LaMotta]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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?

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.

I couldn't put it better than this:

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

I couldn't put it better than this:

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.

[Killiehibbie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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 accidents

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You've posted that much irrelevant nonsense on this thread, it was quite easy to miss.



We can't know for sure if there is a valid reason I agree, but there really is very little reason for driving at low speeds, so I don't think giving the benefit of the doubt to the driver is sensible. Either way, the crux of this entire argument is that earlier you indicated that people should be able to drive within the limit at whatever speed they like based on their driving capabilities. Do you stand by that view? If you do, I'm worried.

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.

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. 😉

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Are you deliberately being this obtuse for a reason? Like seriously? You MUST be on the wind up? I can't actually believe im having to explain this.

The comparison with people going too fast is completely irrelevant because nobody, not one person, is making irresponsible claims that driving too fast and carelessly is not dangerous. Its not a part of my argument. How can't you see that?

It changes nothing about the fact that slow driving can be dangerous. Wake up man ffs!

How is the comparison irrelevant.

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. 😂