Safe Speed Forums

Ah, the old ellipsis trick. Care to quote the sentence in its entirety?



On those escalators, do you obstruct those who wish to walk?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

well that is good to know... although it would be nice to think you could stick to the thread at hand.
(which has previously proven a fruitless venture)

I may be needlessly slow on this: But I've just got back from an exceedingly boring drive to Birkenhead, and back via Oxford.
My speed is set by the slowest vehicle on the road, apart from the gov deciding that I can only drive at 50 on a s/c road (and 60 on d/c), which is a truck.
Apart from those unalterables, I then have to decide if I have to/should do, pull over to let through mister 60+ on the s/c road when I'm doing 50+(slightly).
Since I am driving 3 tonnes I am highly unlikely to want to pull-over every half mile, or mile, or even two miles.
Since mister 60 (=+10%+ 2mph) is highly unlikely to want to drive at 50 (+ not-a-lot) there is a conflict.
I solve the conflict by not pulling over.
Oh, and I passed my driving test even though I did not drive at 60 on a s/c road, and also not at 70 on the d/c. Nowhere near either...trucks !
Maybe mister 60 (+10% + 2mph) should consider that he may be driving too fast for the conditions ? (those being: a lot of slower traffic)
The last time I got pulled over (for a check) I wandered through the check and and then told the cop he had a brake light out...
Anyway, I have little sympathy for those wanting to drive to the max. Maybe they should chill-out a bit...the trucks are not going to pull over for them.

_________________
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

Look it up for yourself - it's in the public domain, and Barclays haven't put an injunction on the highway code - yet!



Nope - there's room for two. If there wasn't, they would be stuck. Come on Robin, let's gang up on Steve. He's wrong, you know. You don't need to go at the limit all the time. Don't give the speed camera brigade more material. Imagine it - Camera opponents insist all should drive at the maximum speed allowed! On second thoughts, DO give them the material!!!

Wrong again! You should know better than to make sweeping generalisations, bw.

It is often wise to go slower at night, but on narrow country lanes in the middle of nowhere it is frequently safer at night than in the day, as headlamps give valuable warning of oncoming traffic.

I'm not saying those words. Those words are from the Highway Code. The full passage reads:


125 - The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous. You should always reduce your speed when

* the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends
* sharing the road with pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, particularly children, and motorcyclists
* weather conditions make it safer to do so
* driving at night as it is more difficult to see other road users



OK? That's always, as in always. You can't argue with that, man. If you follow the HC, you MUST drive lower than the limit when it's night time. There's no other interpretation. You've all had it, now. The games up.

Basingwerk, I insist that you desist from disingenuously attempting to attribute erroneous comments and points of view to others, myself in particular.

Nobody has said that you need to go at the limit all the time.

Driving best-practice, such as that found in the highway code and driving test, dictates that we make progress at a safe speed, without causing undue delay. If one wishes to drive slower for the purposes of leisure, then reasonable steps should be taken to avoid a negative impact on the journeys of others. Likewise, people should not feel pressured to drive outwith their comfort zone for the conditions. If the decision to drive significantly below a safe expedient speed is taken through necessity, due to a lack of driving ability, then it is questionable whether that driver possesses the required level of skill to drive; it could constitute a failure if done during a driving test and, if it represents a significant departure from the statistically safest speed, decreases road safety.

There is nothing here that is not encompassed by safe, courteous use of the road system.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Ah yes, the game is indeed up!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Lets have a look at a real MUST NOT from the highway code, and see if we can reconcile it with Abercrombie's point of view:



Considerately preventing them from achieving a safe legal expedient speed, right?

Also, lets not overlook this one, that you seem to have conveniently discarded:

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Part of the answer is being significantly below the limit and significantly below the nominal safe travelling speed for no good reason. Of course that's not a problem in itself, the real issue is when others are needlessly hindered. This will become obvious when there is a following queue, no-one in front and people are positioned to overtake (or are already passing). There is no fixed threshold because conditions vary, so just like a safe speed, there is no fixed number - but just like unsafe speeds within the speed limit, you can still be prosecuted your actions are deemed to be unreasonable. If you want something more specific then you might as well ask the numerical value of a safe speed, on all roads, in all conditions.


Nope, you've conveniently quoted; you missed the clause in the description. Yes it means the maximum safe speed it lowered, but if the speed limit is lower still then there is no need for a speed reduction, so this is not at odds with HC 125 - if you can see the other road users fine then there is no issue. Of course if you now cannot (for whatever reason) then you must slow down, enough to be able to stop in the distance you know to be clear - that's always been an important motto for safe driving. If visibility is reduced (such as due to darkness) such that you cannot stop in the distance you know to be clear then you must slow down (I do just that when on unlit country roads). Would you slow down if caught in a traffic jam crawling at 5mph simply because it became dark?


However, this is a wild diversion from the debate at hand.

We’re talking about drivers who go needlessly hinder other traffic; we’re not about drivers who have reason to go slow. In your referenced case, the conditions (darkness) applies to all drivers so all would be subject to the same factors, hence there is no needless hold up. But as I said, this is irrelevant: in this case slowing down isn't needless and there is no hindrance - HC 125 does not apply to this debate.

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

Surely even a barrack-room lawyer like you can't argue that "should always" is different to "must"! For God's sake man, is there no limit to your hair splitting!?!

Look, RobinXe, surely you, of all people, can see the unreality of arguing that safety is the only permissible cap on speed. It's a mad position that you have arrived at. Now it's time to abandon it. There are a plethora of other reasons, and it is not possible for those trailing behind to perceive what they are. You, as a trailing driver, MUST be patient, calm and accept the inevitability of your position when you are stuck. That's life. You can find a spot to pass, and good luck to you, but don't suppose for a moment that you "know" they are doing it to be a nuisance. That's just paranoia at work.

Steve, it says You should always reduce your speed when driving at night as it is more difficult to see other road users

If you cannot drive over the limit, then a reduction means you must drive slower than it. Please, stop this endless hair splitting and accept your fate.

It's good that you accept that driving slowly during nighttime is fine. That's about half the time, so at this point, you are at least half completely wrong! So now you insist that you must drive fast during only the daylight hours Great!

Next, you have avoided telling us what "needless" means. Needless for who? You mention a reason. Is enjoyment not a reason for driving? You mention a "needless hold up" - for whom is it needless? How do the stuck drivers know it's "needless"? If the person in front is enjoying themselves, is that a good reason, or should they be told to speed up? And if so, is that a great message to send to young and inexperienced drivers. Please think before you answer.

Surely someone with a working knowledge of the HC should know that it makes a distinction between should and must:

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

What is with this claptrap Abercrombie? Are you being intentionally obtuse because you accept that your points are invalid and just want to be argumentative, or are you genuinely unable to see the merit of the points being made to you, and the utter lack of merit or understanding in your own?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

No. Someone with a working knowledge of the HC MUST know blah blah blah...

But that doesn't obviate a working knowledge of the English language. We'd all be very much obliged
if you could explain the crucial difference between "must", and "should always". Go on, cheer us up!

You seem to be having one of your funny turns again. It's time to quit typing bile, and go outside for some fresh air.

This is one of those posts that is utterly without merit. To try to claim that there's no relevant difference, when discussing the Highway Code, despite the fact that the Highway Code makes the distinction very clear, just shows you up as someone who is not man enough to admit when they are wrong.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

If you take such exception to this then one can only infer that the former option was in fact the correct one!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

A ridiculous strawman.


This is getting silly.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/needless


For everyone.


No. At best that's incidental.



They don't have to. The lead driver - the one who is being inconsiderate - knows it is.


No.


If their reason for going needlessly slow is purely for 'enjoyment', and they are hindering others, then either resume normal speed or pull over and let others pass.


Think before you ask such silly questions.

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