Safe Speed Forums

I think I may recognise part of the tune, but the one I remember best dates back to about 1964 though - no National Speed Limit.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

We should allow people the option not to overtake - they might be newly qualified, or they could be carrying trays of eggs stacked up on the back seat, for example. People should be able to poodle along. If they leave a gap, only knobheads could object to that.

We have to fit around slowcoaches, and somehow do it in a safe way. Gripping the wheel and letting it rip (e.g. Ross's method) wouldn't work very well all the time, as my mate Rich found out in the end.

No - the general ethos of overtaking is to generally avoid doing it, but then list specific conditions (no oncoming vehicles in range, no timing problems or ambiguity with the other drivers, clear view ahead, straight and flat road, no junctions, good dry surface, no mud on the road, not in a built up area etc. etc.), plus one last thing which is often missing from drivers' minds - a good reason to overtake in the first place. Don't forget - there are a lot of “TESTOSTERONE-MAN” clones out there who only want to overtake to assuage their inferiority complex!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Unfortunately, 20 years ago we were heading in the wrong direction. Mrs. Thatcher engaged us in a race to build roads faster than they could get congested – an ultimately futile expenditure which lured people to live ever further from their place of work and has brought more congestion than ever. Whatever roads she put in resulted in people commuting to work from ever further distances, up to (and beyond?) what is humanly tolerable. When I started 30 years ago, most (nearly all) people lived within a few miles of work. Now it is common to travel 50 miles each way, and new roads would stretch that even more.

The right course we need follow now is not to where we were heading 20 years ago, but a new course that pays due respect to the immutable laws of supply and demand.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Absolutely excellent point.

Of course, the sailor would like to be able to teleport back to the start and run the course properly too.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I think as far as the Highway Code's concerned, there's nothing wrong with overtaking as long as you don't do it on a corner, a bend, a hill, a hump-backed bridge, where the road narrows or on the zig-zags of a zebra crossing etc. An advanced driving instructor once taught me that when you overtake you must ensure you can see the overtaken vehicle in full in your rear-view mirror.

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

Why then you taught to 'make progress' when learning to drive and will indeed fail your test if you are not making adequate progress? Pootling along in my mind is not making adequate progress. On a country road you should aim to go as fast as is safe(but within the speed limit for legal purposes) taking into account your vehicle and skill level. You may not me on important business, but the person behind might be. Going too slow for the conditions causes frustration. If you need to travel at a speed far below what a normal, competant driver would asses as being safe then you should be damn sure to make overtaking as easy as possible. Also, you should consider pulling over if a queue forms - no harm in that is their basingwerk? But how often does that happen?

Personally overtaking should not be encouraged, but neither should it be made as difficult as possible. Much like you shouldn't wave people across roads - you let them make their own mind up. Same goes for overtaking. Through proper road markings etc an oppotunity to overtake should be presented - and let the driver make the decision. A little training in how to do it safely would be welcomed - but with a simple clear instruction :- If in doubt DON'T!

My main issue about sitting at the back of a queue of cars behind an LGV is simple. I like to be able to see a long way into the distance and when my vision is obstructed I have a real need to get past the obstruction to restore my vision. To my mind this is not selfish unless you call ensuring your own safety by having the maximum amount of information available selfish.

With a large moving obstruction to your vision you cannot adequately prepare for the mistakes of oncoming vehicles and could very easily be caught up in someone else's accident.

BTW, I'm not sorry for my method of overtaking, only that it might offend some people who disagree.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

Fair enough, but some blokes need to be ‘out in front’ because they are over-competitive or uncooperative, and short on the brains to realise it. Like my mythical “TESTOSTERONE-MAN”, they never quite advance out of puberty.

That, on it’s own, is a major cause of aggressive and unsafe driving. These poor men need special training on how to prevent their balls from ruining their lives.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Male competitive instincts have positive social impact too. In the early days of man those instincts made good hunters. These days they make good businessmen and good sportsmen. The problem on the roads is how to manage and channel those strong instincts to give a net benefit. Most of us, once mature, do so very well.

Since the competitive motivation is one that craves success the golden opportunity is to create a social value that rates success correctly as avoiding crashes. It's when immature men rate success in terms of bravado or getting in front that we have problems.

Any progress with your aggressive drivers count?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

It is if you have a few trays of eggs on the back seat! Fair do’s though – only bastards drive about holding people up unnecessarily, although that doesn’t mean you need to break the limit.



If you like driving in the country, one could also say that one should aim to go as slow as is safe, if you see what I mean. It depends why you are driving. For retired people, every day is Sunday!



OK – I guess he could be carrying a heart for transplant! But if it’s just an aggressive suit in a grey German car, or a slacker in a van, I’m not going out of my way to accommodate people like that!



Yes, but going fast is not an option when you are towing a caravan, taking a sofa or washing machine to the dump or carrying a wardrobe on the roof rack! Or when your wife is in the front seat! Whatever we do, we are going to have slowpokes.



Right on!



Spot on, Capri2.8i, you really hit the mark at the end there!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Well, there have been a few bad cases (one awful, yet commonplace, one) and a little bit of shoving and pushing, but overall, when looked at objectively, I suppose I could say that, when I really think about it very closely indeed etc. etc. perhaps there is a little less aggressive driving than I had thought, although that could be just chance etc. etc.

One a related note – in an accident in 2004, odd as it seems, I can’t remember the lead up, but I remember the whole aftermath. Perhaps it’s all in the mind – PTSD? Before, bad driving didn’t register, but now I hate it with a passion.

_________________
I stole this .sig

An attitude like that will more than likely earn you a smack in the mouth one day.
Regardless of how bad the person behind you is driving, you should let them pass with the minimum of fuss.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

I sed to think this perception thing was about optimism v pessimism, but now I believe it's more deeply rooted in our survival instincts.

We are alert to the things that threaten our survival, and aggressive drivers clearly fall into this category. Hence when we are driving home our awareness is raised by the one driver that tailgates and then barges past, as he registers high on our "threat radar" and kicks off various chemical reactions etc. The other few hundred drivers we interacted safely with don't move the scale off the stop, so we have no reason to remember them.

Good driving is thus inherently unmemorable, especially to a third party observer.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Yes, yes, but I need you to estimate the percentage. Pretty please.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

That's my point, not yours! Blokes like that never grow up because they are over-competitive and short on the brains. What remedial training should we impose on these violent men?

_________________
I stole this .sig

I beg to differ. They own grey German cars and, by association, have exotic holidays, live in big houses etc because they are over-competitive and have plenty of brains.

What is your point in that statement then?

The way it reads at the moment, you come across as somebody who will obstruct someone who is trying to get past you if you can see no immediate reason for them wanting to.


Unless you are blessed with ESP, you have no way of knowing what is going on inside the other drivers head.


Would it not be better to attempt to root out the cause of "road rage" (I use that term loosely) rather than try to find a "cure" after the effects have been displayed?

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Well, it’ll have to be a rough one. One a scale on 1 to 10, where I’m 10 (which is like a really cool, calm driver, keeping up with the flow without breaking the speed limit, tolerant of inexperience and buffoonery, and fully aware of things), and the aggressive and/or totally thumb in bum mind in neutral brigade get 1 out of ten, and a 5 or 6 is habitually OK most of the time, I’d say the following.

1) A few get 10 out of 10 (perhaps 10%)
2) A lot seem to get 5 to 7.
3) Very few get 1 (perhaps less than 1%)

But that’s only when I see them. You have to understand this - if a person drives well all the time, whenever I see him, he will be driving well.

But if a person drives well only some of the time, and very badly in rare circumstances, unless I see that person at a bad time, he will look good to me! In other words, these estimates are inevitably skewed in favour of drivers who have bad habits in rare circumstances. Yet those rare bad habits are the killers. For example, to condemn a driver who cannot control his urge to be ‘up front’, you must observe him at his moment of rage, because all the rest of the time, he drives fine. In other words, most drivers look OK most of the time. Perhaps it is the time when they aren’t OK that is rare, yet kills.

_________________
I stole this .sig

They've been conned by Pax Americana capitalism. There's no big deal here - it's just simple-headed "me first" vanity by the slaves of consumerism. My advice to them - sell their balls, and buy some brains!

Proof: look at consumer debt levels - it's all on HP, RigPig!

_________________
I stole this .sig

I’m saying what you are saying – stupid blokes get road rage.



I let people pass OK, but don't expect me to get a ticket by tailgating me, and getting all road-ragey. That don’t amount to a hill of beans to me!



It’s human nature, but that doesn’t mean we are slaves to our testosterone - look it up yourself – it’s called ‘The Selfish Gene’ by Richard Dawkins.

_________________
I stole this .sig