Safe Speed Forums

You cant put a number on sefety - you should know that by now!

For me to even try to answer that with a definitive speed is a waste of time and effort. There are times when it will be safe to exceed the 40mph limit and times when even half of the limit is too fast. That is why I used the 85th percentile statement.

By not travelling in the same speed bracket as the 85th percentile you are disagreeing with a large amount of trained, certified, and experienced drivers.

Then you don't know enough. Rule 169.


Sorry, what site are we posting our comments on? Something something....
Isn’t my comment entirely relevant? Doesn't common sense go hand-in-hand with safety? I don’t want to force people to go faster than they feel is safe, that would be dangerous in itself. No, it's better to abide by the highway code.


Is this the height of selfishness!


Not obsessed, but it can be detrimental to do otherwise. As long as the speed is within the limits of safety and due consideration, what exactly is the problem with it?


Better yet, I would say the whole aggressive group regardless of the speed - unless you like aggressive drivers who are too slow? There isn't a problem with fast per se, so long as the fast isn't too fast.


Go with the flow whatever that may be (but don't dictate it) but remain within the safe speed limit (considering the varying environment of course) and, in an ideal world, within the speed limit (but this is far from an ideal world - many are not set reasonably). If you’re not needlessly holding anyone up then you can drive as slow as you like, 1mph for all I care.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Again, you're on about safety only.



No - that belongs to those who try to force people to go faster than they want to go.



You talk about the "flow" as if it's independent of the drivers. Drivers do set the flow -
if not then who?

I'd hardly term those drivers who wish to travel at a posted speed limit, where prevailing conditions permit, as "heavy footed chumps".

Moreover (and I can only speak for myself here), I never "force" other drivers to travel at a speed faster than they are comfortable with; I merely keep a distance, and pass at the next safest opportunity.

_________________
Simon

I’m not going ‘on about safety only’, all the other points of my post, which you seem to have skipped over, are also about the consideration. Of course that one point where I hint at it is in itself about safety only


Oh so that doesn't also belong to those who needlessly force others to go needlessly slow?
I ask again: are you not against needless and aggressive slow driving?

If you think the sentiments 'I choose what other people do' and 'it's my business and no-one else's' isn't the very essence of selfishness [Dictionary.com: "devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others."] then I think we can agree to disagree, leave this point here and let the reader make up their own mind about our respective attitudes.


No, that's only how you're inferring it (or deliberately evading it).
It is fairly obvious that if you've constantly got a long queue behind you and no-one in front (even though you're being overtaken), then you're not going with the flow and are instead impeding it; modulate your speed accordingly or pull over.

Well aber, I think your starting to make yourself look very foolish.
Your previous point of not having to pull over and let other past was based upon your not knowing it was in the HC; now that I've pointed it out you've dropped that point altogether. Just so you better realise the principle of considerate driving:


There it is; no evasion, no misquote, no strawman; what more can we say.

It appears you're impeding the flow of an intelligent discussion. Please pull over and let the discussion through!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

You could re-write that with equal justification to say:

"And that is the crux of the matter. We'd like to deny the majority of other car drivers the "courtesy" of allowing them to drive at a speed closer to the limit than WE choose to drive. Yet we expect people behind to do us the "courtesy" of driving as slow as WE choose! What double standards wilfully slow drivers have.

If only they could see their hypocrisy. Instead, drivers exert their will over those normal drivers by name calling and impedingetc.


I'm afraid that as someone who spends a lot of time on single carriageway NSL roads in a scenic part of the word, I see both forms of selfishness (and in almost equal measure during the tourist season). Unfortunately, on this crowded little island, the roads, like water, are a shared resource and I believe that we all have a moral (if not legal!) obligation to use them as efficiently as possible. I wouldn't water my garden in a dry spell (but not quite a hosepipe ban) just because I pay my water rates and I have a right to do so. Similarly, I wouldn't potter along a road with limited overtaking opportunities holding up other road users without letting them past periodically simply because I had paid my road tax!

To move the discussion along - how exactly do you act in order to let some one past. Would you actually pull off the road and stop until the queue had passed? Is using the left indicator to mean "I will slow down as much as necessary as soon as you begin your overtake" too ambiguous for safety?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

In the past I've been driving a car that's gone into "limp home" mode due to an ECU fault - revs limited to about 2,500 (on a diesel), poor acceleration, top speed of about 55mph. On these occasions I've kept well to the left, flicked the hazards on, wound the window down and signalled with my hand for the following driver to overtake.

It's called being considerate. My vehicle's top speed was limited through no fault of my own so I made it as easy as possible for others to pass.

_________________
Magistrates rule #1: "Never let justice get in the way of a conviction."

Is there not a "specific" hand signal in the HC for "I am ready to be overtaken"??



As an aside, Is that a "Should" not or a "Must" not?

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

You've got me on that one actually. I just waved the guy behind past, I figured with the hazards on and the fact I was keeping so far to the left and going at about 35-40mph in an NSL it should be obvious there was a problem with the car.

There was a layby on that stretch of road but it was on the other side of the road, by the time I'd pulled in the two cars that were stuck behind me could safely have overtaken and been half a mile up the road.

_________________
Magistrates rule #1: "Never let justice get in the way of a conviction."

At last one of you has got the point. Well done Mole, you're streaks ahead of the others.
Equal justification - yes I like it. Slowpokes have equal justification to speed merchants,
so get used to it...

If only Steve knew his highway code, he would know that MUST
is bolded, and everything else is not an obligation. Which blunts his point (as if he ever had one)!

Hold on, what exactly is your definition of 'speed merchant', those who don't exceed the limits? (well if they have equal justification....)

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Praise indeed! 'Crombie thinks I "done good"! I can feel my chest fit to burst with pride...

For the record though, I do need to say that's exactly what I meant - EQUAL rights.

Unfortunately, that also (in my book at least) means EQUAL RESPONSIBILITIES. So the "speed merchant" has a responsibility not to intimidate or endanger the "slowpoke" and the latter has a responsibility not to frustrate or impede the former.

To behonest though, I don't think there are many on here would disagree with that!

Please do not evade the question, it's getting tiresome. If drivers do not set the flow, then who does?
Answers please, not more evasion.

Read Post 1, and recall that this thread started with complaints and grumbling
about how slow drivers should quit driving altogether. No sign of any equal rights there, just hubris, I'm afraid.

So let's be part of the solution, instead of playing "grumpy old men", and do what you say we
should do - give equal rights to the slower drivers amongst us. And do it with a smile, not a scowl.

PS: thanks for your unexpected show of support. Keep up the good work.

Those who are obsessed with pressing hard up against the limit or exceeding it on the sly.
That means you lot, BTW, in case you don't get it...

On the "A" roads I'm talking about, there are plentiful lay-bies (never DID manage to establish the plural of "Lay-by"!) and they are well signposted. There can be little excuse for not using them to let traffic past. On the smaller single track roads, there are plenty of passing places which can be used for the same purpose. Sometimes, on the straight sections of "A" road where there are good overtaking opportunities, the road is wide enough for there to be a few feet of tarmac to the nearside of the white line. I often see trucks pulling over until their wheels are nearly into the grass and putting their left indicator on. I think this is great and I wish that the HC would officially adopt more procedures (like that one) for enhanced courtesy. Similarly, there's no official sign for "Sorry!" - which, I think, would help reduce stress levels enormously sometimes. Obviously there are dangers associated with the "left-indicator" strategy and both the overtaker and the overtakee need to be careful about ambiguity. Very often, if I'm in a queue behind something slow and I can see that sort of behaviour, I feel reasured that the driver is aware of what's happening around them and is doing all they can to try and mininmise their impact on the road users around them - even if i'm not one of the lucky ones that gets past!

Whether or not it helps for the overtakee to slow down is something I'm not so sure about. Sometimes I find it more helpful if they maintain speed and course so that there are fewer unknowns. Interestingly, I think the HC could learn a lot from the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. Here the overtaken vessel has a duty to maintain speed and course whilst being overtaken. (Also, all vessels have an equal obligation to aviod collisions - not just the one that doesn't have "right of way")!

Be careful not to convince yourself that I'm saying anything I'm not though! I think most of the grumbles on here are from people who get stuck behind "slowpokes" who do NOT keep to their half of the deal!

Your words lack sense because they are incomplete; that's why I suggested that
you to go back to the basics. You have to go as slow as the 30th percentile
to see any significant increase in crash risk. Yet you only have to go from 85th
to 90th to see an increase due to high speed. Thus, it is perfectly OK to do much less
than 40 mph in a 40 mph limit. Slowness is "more OK" than speed - that is what it means,
I'm afraid.

And common sense says the same thing. Clearly, there is more margin for slower
drivers, and these "percentile" figures reinforce that completely, don't they?

Why struggle in vain - just give slow drivers their equal rights, as Mole says,
and go about your business.