Safe Speed Forums

Nope. I definately did not say that no drivers experience satisfaction by passing others. I suggested that some drivers overtake out of the simple need to get along to their destination expediently and yes, if they overtake someone on the way, then the end result will I suppose give them satisfaction.
I took your post to mean that you believe that some drivers gain their satisfaction from overtaking, not because they make progress as a result, but because the overtake maneouvre demonstrates their (scrambling for a word here) prowess/superiority/status/ability over the driver they overtake. If I misunderstood then I apologise.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

It's not even as simple as being able to see or not see the person in front. If the person in front is travelling at a similar speed to that which I would like to do I find it just as relaxing and satisfying as having the road clear as far as I can see. The problem comes when the person in front is travelling much more slowly than I want to. For some reason it is just not relaxing. I find I have to concentrate more to maintain an appropriate distance. When there is a slow driver at the front of a queue the vehicle spacing tends to be down to 2 seconds but when things are flowing freely the spacing is often 10 seconds or more.

It might be worth exploring this notion. That sense of unease that you feel is related, somehow, to your notion that there is some "ideal speed" that you could get to, if only you passed that "slow-coach" up front.

Yet my experience (and it is not personally directed to you, of course) is that the overtaker often immediately slows down to much the same speed as the "overtaken", once he has passed. I find that odd, and that's why I'm asking about it. Does it take a large margin of difference, and does the "overtaken" disappear in your mirror, or is it a small margin that triggers it, and do you only slowly "remove yourself from the scene", so to speak?

No, you understand perfectly well what I mean. The first point is to show that overtaking is a pleasurable activity, for some drivers. I think we all agree on that now, especially after your comments on prowess/superiority /status/ability, which are "guy things", really, i.e. blokes come with that wired in.

The second point is that (people being the way they are etc. ...), once an activity has stimulated pleasure, some will become somewhat (I too scrambling for a word here) attracted to/addicted to overtaking because "it feels good". That's what happens when things "feel good", for instance, if you're a bit of an alchy or a smack head or whatever takes your fancy.

What I am saying is that it is very easy to mistake a thing that "feels good" for a thing that is "good" - some degree of introspection is required.

Now as you say, it's easy to take offence at a post like this, because of the "You's", and "I's" and all that, but I don't mean this personally at all. I'm merely raising the possibility that something subliminal may be associated with overtaking, and it needs to be talked about, like they do at Alcoholics Anonymous!

Especially for Valle Crucis, here's a bit of a masterclass in how to overtake

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvrhb1mDkYs

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Tell me about it!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ52PGwgOjA

If I overtake someone the only reason they wouldn't disappear in the mirror is if they decide to speed up!

The speed difference (between my desired and the actual) that would cause me to overtake varies with the conditions. If someone is doing 40 on a 60mph wide A road then I will almost certainly overtake given a clear opportunity. If they are doing 50 I might overtake if I have got a reasonable time before the next junction or other point that is going to slow us down again. If they are doing 55 I probably wouldn't bother. If I am following someone who obviously isn't concentrating and their speed is up and down like a yoyo or they are weaving about etc. then I might make more of an effort to get past so that I can relax again.

I hope that all makes sense

If you have any addiction to overtaking at all, it seems to be the mildest possible case! I suppose my aim is to somehow associate the urge drivers feel to be "out in front" with the subliminal sense that a car can somehow allow us to be free of constraints (like they show in the ads).

In actual fact, cars bring along a whole new set of constraints, costs and frustrations which offset much of the freedom they undoubtedly bring. I think this site is devoted to the ideal of having the freedoms without the costs.

Unfortunately, we can only dream of an unfettered freedom machine that allows us to escape the hum drum of daily life, because the reality is so far removed from that ideal.

You should get down here in the first weekend of September, to Haddenham Steam Fair. It's a gas! (Steam, of course.)

http://home.btconnect.com/springwellfarm/Hadrally.html

Mole, when you get in a car you're getting in a one tonne vehicle that can be propelled at lethal speeds, and 35 to 40 mph is pretty much an absolutely lethal speed if somebody is in the road within 100 meters and you haven't yet slowed down, its also the speed many people commonly drive at in 30mph zones.

Secondly roads are NOT train tracks, you cannot expect them to be clear of people. With the exeception of motorways they are PUBLIC spaces and people ARE allowed to walk and cycle on them.

I don't condone careless pedestrains stepping out either; when I'm on my cycle I'm at far greater risk of injury/death if a pedestrain steps out than when I'm in my car, but I'm still not in the mindset of thinking that peds deserve it when they get knocked down whilst on the road, whatever the situation.

We all make mistakes, and we should all look out for each other IMO, and those who move one tonne vehicles around should shoulder a great deal of responsibility to move them round in such a way that they don't hit somebody who might cross the road without looking properly.

And what's more, even if a ped steps out and gives you little chance to slow down in time, there's a good chance you should have been going slower already having observed people on the pavement.

And lets be clear, sometimes pedestrains do not step out in the road without looking to get KSIed, somethimes they get KSIed on crossings and sometimes on the pavement, and sometimes when they are crossing the road with all due care and attention (i.e. when people zoom around corners at a speed that means they have no chance of not hitting something they can't yet see).

What fun! This is a troll.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

[quote="Valle Crucis"]
I'll give one example. I'm a slow coach. Right now, a slow-coach is within their rights to poodle along at any speed they like - there usually doesn't quote]

That's not altogether true. I think they charge people with driving without due care and attention? They certainly did that woman for 10mph on the motorway.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

There is much common ground between us here Weepj! I completely agree with almost everything you say BUT the only area on which we differ is the LEVEL of responsibility of each category of road user. My hobby is sailing (not that I do very much of it at present!) but I see parallels here. There have been instances of reckless, irresponsible, inebriated idiots charging round congested harbours on jet skis and in speed boats. If they happen to get killed by a passing container ship, is it always the ship's captain's fault because he's in the bigger vessel?

Yes, good point. Somewhere down there is another speed limit, a lower one, which is (at present) undefined and known to no-one. Coppers decide on a case by case basis. If you are in a steam engine on the A141 doing 4 mph, that’s fine and dandy. But if you are in a Ford Forgettable 1.6VX doing twice that speed, they'd do you for careless driving, or whatever it is.

But all this bolsters the case I’m making. The upper speed limit sets expectations for the top speed you can go, and the slowest as well. Thanks for that – with no upper speed limit, a slow-coach would be totally within their rights to poodle along at any speed they liked, and no copper could grumble because no-one would have a clue what the “right speed” is.

Only on a motorway...

I cannot recall any one being prosicuted for driving slowly on a normal road.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

There was this well-reported case in Scotland a few years back:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3694201.stm

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I really enjoy putting my IAM training to good use, especially on overtakes. And yes, I get an enormous amount of satisfaction when I've been following someone, and using my observation and positioning, I'm able to execute a safe overtake, where perhaps a year plus ago I may not have gone for it.

And no, it doesn't bother me in the slightest if someone overtakes me.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Sue Nicholson is very much entitled to her opinion, but that's all it would be if there were no indication to say what a "proper" speed for that road is. In other words, without a speed limit to define the expectations of "normal driving", any decision made by magistrates, coppers or Sue Nicholson would be completely arbitrary and subject to dispute. It seems that speed limits do set expectations, then?

I imagine if a large vessel was passing through an area where this could happen it would have it cleared by coastguard anyway. Better safe than sorry.

And as far as boating goes its still "Sail Before Steam" right? An attitude many drivers could learn from IMO. In and around a port, if a powered boat is baring down on a yaught and the powered boat doesn't slow down or stop, expecting the yaught to get out of the way, and it strikes the yaught then yes, I would expect the captain of the powered boat would be hauled before a court should naybody get injured.

Not practical for cars of course, we can't clear the roads everytime a car is driven down it, which is exactely why people in cars should be excercising extreme caution when moving with pedestrians around them.

I've said it before, I think many drivers drive (and cyclists cycle) with a "Well, if they get in my way it'll be their fault" attitude, and basically use this to justify the speed they want to travel at, just becuase they think they'll get their quicker.

Slightly more complex than that I think.

I write a piece about bad drivers on motorways and get lambasted by many who obviously took it too personally, almost as a direct attack on their personal driving habits I'd say; RigPig and Stormin exchange stories about some drivers being idiots in the same thread, not a peep.

So I reckon its down to the stance of the poster too.