Safe Speed Forums

Oh yes, of course, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others - I should have guessed!

Oh please, you didn't even know that rule existed, let alone if it was a should or a must; and yes, I did already know about the format of the HC. Did I ever say the requirement was a must, or instead one borne out of consideration?

To answer Dusty: if it was a must it would have been shown within my quote.

For you to say I never had a point is very rich - rule 169; I seem to have a point - yes?


Wait a minute, you call the one instance where I didn't give a direct answer "tiresome"? Sounds to me like you’re the impatient one. Conversely, did give the same response when you didn't answer my questions of:

- "so what's the problem?
- "As long as the speed is within the limits of safety and due consideration, what exactly is the problem with it?"
- "are you not against needless and aggressive slow driving?"
- "Isn’t my comment entirely relevant?"
- "Doesn't common sense go hand-in-hand with safety?"
- as well as offering no acknowledgement to my highlighting of your strawman, your selective quotes and your misrepresentation of my statements.

To give you a direct answer (because you obviously didn't get the forward thinking one): drivers set the flow (governed by other factors such as limits and conditions). Be very clear that I was talking about free-flow, not impeded-flow.

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

Expanding the equation, what you have in actual fact have said is:

Slowpokes have equal justification to those [who are obsessed with pressing hard up against the limit or] exceeding it on the sly, so get used to it...

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

But a vessel which is "manoeuvring with difficulty" has an absolute right of way over other vessels. Perhaps cars who need to go slow should fly the appropriate flag hoist (RU) on their radio aerial,

_________________
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

At last. We now know that individuals set the flow. We'll discount that nonsense
about free-flow, etc., because that means one driver. More than one about, and there's interference,
so let's cut out stuff that's not helpful.

So drivers, after all, set the flow. I hope I don't have to beat every point out of you that way, Steve!

We've almost got you up to scratch, but the full equation is :

Slowpokes have not less than equal justification to those who are obsessed with pressing hard up against the limit or exceeding it on the sly
!!!

Well, we'll have to take your word on that, I guess. In any case, it doesn't apply
to cars going nearly at (say two thirds of) the limit, so it's a (what was that word you
used - oh yes) strawman.

Back on topic, you appeared to inadvertently concede that slowpokes have not less than equal
rights to speed demons, although it took a bit of trickery! Sorry about that - I can't resist
temptation. But we know it makes sense, so I don't know why we are grumbling!!

I haven't to any such statement, neither have you; let me show you how:

So within that equation, my prior expansion of your statements of: "Slowpokes have equal justification as those exceeding it on the sly, so get used to it..." is still logically valid? It still logically satisfies your clarification, no?


Excuse me, would you allow me to commence beating all the other mentioned earlier points out of you now?


Not helpful, yes; let's cut your selfish and impatient attitude, your lack of knowledge of the HC, your laughably incorrect statements of equality and any reasonable difference between impeded-flow and free-flow and just cut to rule 169:

Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.


Where does it say (should, must, or otherwise) that within the rule?

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

I think you're pretty tied up there, Steve! I'll give you a little time to get sorted out.
In the meantime, let me assure you that it's perfectly OK to drive a little slower
than most people do. It's fine, really fine.

Just chill out, and enjoy yourself a little. Learn to live a little, and most of all,
don't take things too seriously while you're driving to the beach.

Abercrombie, you're tying your own argument up in knots.

You bemoan the discussion focussing on safety, though that has to be the number one priority on the roads, way above your enjoyment of the birdsong. You suggest that it is not selfish of you to impede other drivers whilst wilfully driving at a speed well below the safe maximum, and rail against the idea of pulling over out of courtesy, on the grounds that it would slow you down, so 'why should you'.

Here's the deal; you have chosen to drive at a speed below that which you could safely and legally achieve, so you obviously have no, or reduced, time pressures on your journey. Other road users may have greater time pressures on their journey and, while proper planning of any journey is paramount, can not be reasonably expected to predict a long period of time trapped behind a vehicle travelling below a safe, legal speed. This is why your attitude epitomises the height of selfishness.

Courtesy should not only feature when coupled with accountability, and whilst you can pootle along in your largely anonymous metal cage, to exercise your "rights" to the needless detriment of others is antisocial in the extreme. I'm completely within my rights to come and fly around your house at 100' in the middle of every night, but to do so would be discourteous, and so I would not.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Is that "good" selfishness, i.e. the Darwinian advantage type, or "bad" selfishness, a Darwinian disadvantage?
I wonder who's genes would prevail - the slowpoke or the speeder?

As the slowpokes are often old, they have already passed thier genes on successfully,
in the main, and they are in the process of supporting them. It seems to me that they
may have a good strategy.

Really, do you understand how equal fits within the condition of "not less than equal"? I'll give you a little time to get sorted out.


What makes you think I need this reassurance? I believe I said "If you’re not needlessly holding anyone up then you can drive as slow as you like, 1mph for all I care.", so yes, it can be perfectly OK to drive a little, or a lot, slower than most people do.

Chill out man: don't be impatient and don't let one occurrence of the slightest thing seem to you to be tiresome; don't be selfish, think of others not just about yourself and what you have to gain, and don't be ignorant of the HC.

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

Precisely, you have nothing.

It is anti-social, that is a bad thing.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Yes, you've got it. Or, phrased more clearly, slow pokes have at least as much right to do what they
do as speed demons have. Of course, they have much more right, in my opinion. My goal
here is to convince you to slow down, chill out and enjoy your time in the car. Drop
this anxiety over low speed - it's all in the mind.

On what grounds? Anti-social behaviour can be a very good thing indeed,
especially where "cheating" has no direct consequence. This is borne out
by game theory.

I'd argue that civilization depends on anti-social behaviour. The world would
be unrecognizable without it.

PS : for proof, google Fred Goodwin!

10 mph on a m/way is not the same as 40-45 on a s/c nsl.
Let me remind you that a large percentage of the vehicles on the road between 0700 and 1800z are restricted BY LAW to 40 mph on s/c nsl roads, and others to 50 mph.
While some drivers of speed restricted vehicles chose to break the law (put their licence at risk...and an lgv licence can be revoked with NO points) to "allow faster traffic flow" (sic) others (most) will keep to their allowed speed (me).
If you chose to overtake, you will find that I will attempt to slow a bit to widen the gap. It is your risk. If you judge it wrong and cause an accident, that will be your fault.
I will not drive at 20/30/ in a 60 limit, I will attempt to maintain the maximum I am allowed to drive at on the road I'm on. Many of you will still overtake me, even if I am doing the maximum speed allowed on that road for ANY vehicles.
Driving inconsiderately by driving slowly does not excuse driving dangerously by overtaking in exasperation.
The number one cause (believe it or not....whatever your preference) of accidents is excessive speed (not speeding) for prevailing conditions.
Some say they have to go faster because others go too slowly.
Absolute crap. They drive fast because they like to and blame others when their poor driving results in an accident.
Accidents do not not happen to cars, they happen to drivers.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

I would think more of you were you to just admit that you have no justification for being hugely selfish, rather than trying to obfuscate with nonsense.

There is no benefit to you from your actions, and there is a disbenefit to others, its not rocket science, or even biology for that matter.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Jomukuk, you have reaffirmed my faith in humanity. Sanity will triumph in the end.

I'm a Catholic, and I have to "love my neighbour". That means you, Robin Xe! The benefit to me is increased safety,
less wear and tear, no hassle from the cops, birdsong etc. The list goes on. I even get in the Lord's good books,
which will be taken into account on Judgement day!

If it’s in all in the mind, why there is a rule about it in the HC?

Why do you feel the need to slow down people who remain within a safe speed and the speed limit?

Anyway, just to be very clear here: I take it you do indeed firmly agree with your expanded statement that "Slowpokes can have equal justification as those exceeding limits on the sly, so get used to it..." ?

edited to add (you've not logged back in since I made the post):
Within that (and this is what I was ultimately striving towards), are you saying that those who "exceed limits on the sly" have some right to do so?

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