Safe Speed Forums

I should be OK, because I usually do around 50-55, but sometimes as little as 45 or so, before I perk up a bit.



That's what I thought. These blokes have been getting me going about that, as if 25 was absurdly slow, and drivers who do it should be removed from the roads. Actually 25 in the 40 is a bit slow, but nothing worth remarking on, for a reasonable person, I would have thought.



Yes, my Dad was almost 70 when he drove to Munich and back from north Wales. He could hardly get out of the car when he arrived - it was only as Escort 1100!

The ability for an act or object to "unacceptable" depends on whether it is possible to reject it. If you have no power to reject it, it is impossible for it to be "unacceptable" to you, for obvious reasons!

Examples:

A criminal may believe that his sentance is unacceptable, but still goes to gaol.

A person may not accept that they have (say) HIV, but HIV cannot be "unacceptable" - if you have it, it is a fact, and it is not subject to your emotional response to it.

The word you are seeking is "impermissible".




Is it unacceptable to try to change the behavior of the driver in front of you, or impermissible? I'd say
impermissible, because you can clearly try to do it. So, if you have no power to stop it, it must be acceptable.
Furthermore, if it is impermissible to try to change the behaviour of the driver in front, then it is fair
to compare it to (say) the weather, i.e. a thing you have to contend with.




Why should I ... I've no claim about her at all?



Those are my key issues. You seem to be building the case that it is normal to go at the speed limit wherever possible.
I'm making the point that it should be considered abnormal to go at the speed limit wherever possible, i.e. we
should deprecate that sort of thinking. Do you agree?

Where does it say that in that rule? (deja vu)
I am assuming you're not going to give a relevant answer!
Why on earth would you want me to pipe down about that? How isn't HC Rule 169 extremely relevant to this thread?


And I've never made such a claim about you have I? However, you have stated: "Why should I pull over - how would I gain from that?" which is a little worrying!


Of course, but everyone should also be considerate and pull over to let others pass when appropriate - as stated by rule 169.
Your definition of 'making the most of the journey' doesn't reflect everyone else’s (just as per your guides for driving [sincere or not]).

Anyway, I see you didn't acknowledge my statement about when I'm on my bike - very telling!
As a cyclist (too) I prefer to have everyone make decent progress instead of bunching up and having their visibility of where I am reduced, as well as encouraging overtakes and pulling back in without seeing little old me.

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

It's a question that you have so far evaded. Thanks for reminding me. What would I gain from that?

It's very kind of you to say that, pdavid!

?ell, you didn't pick me up when I first replied to you on it.
To give you a direct answer: possibly nothing at all, or possible piece of mind that: you're less likely to be dangerously overtaken, you're abiding with the spirit of the highway code, you won't be pulled by trafpol. You may even get a happy sensation about properly and considerately interacting with other road users, as opposed to causing ill feelings. You should pull over (when appropriate) because it's the considerate thing to do.

Now will you (continue to) evade all my questions to you?
- Where does it say that rule 169 is for "trucks and steam rollers etc" ?
- How isn't HC Rule 169 extremely relevant to this thread?
- What about the risk posed to other road users? (such as cyclists)

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

Luckily, we have a little rule that prevents the trading of insults, so you might
find it more difficult to use your speciality here. The mods get a bit wound up
from time to time over things like that.

It's best to stay calm and cool.

That's more like it. So there are various non-altruistic benefits. Therefore, it's a bloody good thing to do, isn't it? I've never said otherwise.

Well a sense of relief that Mr Tailgater is in front of you - where you can see him.


A nice warm feeling that you are going at your own pace and still negotiating with the other road user??

A knowledge that they overtake you thinking "nice decent driver" instead of with a


Giving you a instead of :plumbloco: signs.

OK they may wrong to give you the Stinky waggy fingers (as this is a form of road rage .) but most of the time - we find just letting the chap who wants to overtake do so safely makes for better harmony and a sense that you are appreciated as a better driver all the same

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

It's all true, and I'm glad that I do most of those things you say, even if I don't always admit to them
here. I'm just trying to tell these "speedy cats" off, for bad-mouthing the slowpokes. Most of the
guys here are on the leading edge of the bell shaped curve - you know, thrill seekers. Yet the ones
in the trailing edge got their rights too.

Yes it is a bloody good thing to do, yet some don't, possibly because they're selfish and inconsiderate, others possibly because they didn't know to do so was already shown within the Highway Code. Those who actually feel the need to question the usefulness of such a reasonable rule (regardless of whether they knew it existed) are probably those who don't act accordingly or considerately - at all.

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

We're discussing selfishness on the chat page. Actually, we all agree that selfishness is good, sometimes.



You'll have to justify that bit. It's only by examining the process that we can understand the benefits.

I doubt that! Selfishness in itself is never good. Any relation between selfishness and a resulting good outcome is usually rare and coincidental.
The selfishness of not pulling in when appropriate is not a good thing.


The benefits are really obvious and are primarily for the other road users, not the driver who is pulling in (the latter being how you were asking your question).

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

Wouldn't it be irrational to do anything that costs more than the benefits it
brings back? I mean - why bother?

You're wrong, and we can show it. Show up in the Chat page, and see!

We've already established that you have fewer, or no, time pressures on this hypothetical journey, by the fact that you are choosing, for reasons other than safety/legality, to drive more slowly than you could. Thus the cost in terms of time is irrelevant to you, but potentially high to others, thus the system-wide benefit has the potential to massively outweigh the zero cost to you.

This is unless I am missing some other way in which it is of disbenefit to you to behave like a member of a civilised society. Care to enlighten me?



This is an oft-repeated misconception. If you want that to be the case then I suggest you try the Max Power forums, or somewhere similar. I believe you'll find that "most of the guys here" are experienced and conscientious drivers, with a desire to continually improve their standards. I know I am, and I do not drive for thrills, I drive to relocate myself safely and expeditiously. I get my thrills going far faster, and almost as low, in something with far more power than even Squirrel's car!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

That's ok then.
"if necessary" "where it is safe"
No laybys, no pull-in.
My experience of trying to let others pass is that they do not...........pass, that is.
They get even closer and do not pass, they even start flashing lights at me !
ie: they didn't want me to pass, they were only tailgating to get ME to go faster.
My personal observation of my "fellow drivers" is that many are just tossers.
Example: The A6 south of Bedford is CLOSED....the entire dual carriageway is SHUT...NOT OPEN.
It is SIGNED for MILES around. DIVERSION signs are EVERYWHERE.
There is a queue of traffic waiting by the barriers to turn around and go back.
You couldn't make it up !

(oh, and many followed me as I turned off at the junction....but I was only going to a farm....)
DOHHHHHHHH



That's that then, not many places remaining are there ?



I suppose that about covers the [see description of fellow drivers above] in the mondeo who overtook me and then pulled in front, braked sharply, and then gave a V out of the drivers window AFTER I slowed to let him pass ?

_________________
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

There are so many examples of "ROAD CLOSED" signs which are blatant lies that it is not surprising that many motorists prefer to go and see for themself. There is such a sign where you turn off the main road into the lane leading to my house. It has been there for three weeks since the gas people spent a day digging the road up,

_________________
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

If the benefit was huge for others, but zero for you, it would be irrational to act if it cost you anything at all. How could it be otherwise? The motivation to act depends entirely on benefits being higher than costs. If it costs you more than you gain, your act would be damaging to you, and it is not rational to damage yourself unnecessarily, as far as I am concerned.



Yes. I used to get my thrills back in the 80's by remotely flying spacecraft at 15,000 mph; anything less is pretty tame by comparison!

Now is that comment from the point of view of the system (including the other road users), or the individual who is pulling over?
Of course there is a system benefit, but not necessarily one for the individual (but there can be, something else I have already explained which you probably conveniently forgotten - again); this is where consideration comes into play - rule 169 is to remind people of there responsibilities when interacting with others. What is the cost for someone who has resigned to doing 25 in a 40 anyway? It can't be time or fuel costs!


How am I wrong? The relation in that example is incidental, nothing more; in that case selfishness isn't required for ease of progress, plain old common sense will do. Besides, zip-merging isn't nearly the same as pulling in when appropriate, the inputs are too different. Either way, there is no place on the road for selfishness!

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