SLOW driving is DANGEROUS

[Cyclone]

The jam? Did you miss the bit where my journey was at the weekend? And indeed the 20 mph woman was on the return, I've never been caught in a jam on the Sheffield side.

 

How many miles.. I've no idea, maybe a quarter of it is relatively straight, of the top of my head.

 

It's offensive because it's pointless with regards to road safety.

[DT Ralge]

The jam? Did you miss the bit where my journey was at the weekend? And indeed the 20 mph woman was on the return, I've never been caught in a jam on the Sheffield side.

 

How many miles.. I've no idea, maybe a quarter of it is relatively straight, of the top of my head.

 

It's offensive because it's pointless with regards to road safety.

 

Old figures, I know, taken from a file on my laptop (the Crest website that reports on Debyshire's crash hotspot PIC's and KSI's is less than friendly, it's late and I haven't been able to find if the info' has been updated - the current government are mandating local authorities to publish such data for all our edification. Debyshire's site is not that helpful but it is light years ahead of what was on offer from S Yorks some time ago - again I haven't checked recently)

 

Something less than pointless happened on the Snake on 1st November 2003 (what do you think that was?) In the 3 years prior to this date 16 personal injury collisions were recorded on this road. In the 3 years running up to November 2008 (a standard benchmark time set out for the whole report) this figure reduced to 5. (Please let's not divert on a regression to mean argument!)

 

In the same periods, 7 KSI's reduced to 2.

 

Not all roads have enjoyed the same welcome movement in such figures (and in human suffering, let's not forget) - the next line on the same report records that, on the A515 Alsop en le Dale PIC's moved from 15 precisely nowhere to 15 and KSI's moved from 5 to 6.

 

So maybe the Snake's figures went the wrong way again after 2008 - I'll have to find out when I've got more time.

 

Whatever is tried on these roads, it's not a science. Road planners and engineers work in a "let's try it 'cos it's worked elsewhere" context. You may think it's pointless but someone in authority disagrees and has serious intent to change outcomes for the better. Yes, we ought to train drivers better, get them to recognise how to use limit points in assessing speed on approach to a bend, know about vehicle dynamics and tyre grip trade-off. Drivers ought to check their tyres more regularly, plan their journeys and lots of other stuff. But how many on here ask questions to learn? How many volunteeer for extra driver training? (For driving prowess read sexual prowess.)

 

So let's do a U-turn and not expect to get too far on the road to Utopia - we aren't going to get there very easily. I'll settle for what's achievable: the extra vehicle stability safety margin generated by lower mean speeds on this road. The authorities have seen fit to act once again, more recently than November 2003, with a reduction in speed limit maybe because the figures suggest there's more work to do to improve the road's safety record and I'm with them.

 

What actions would you suggest they take?

[L00b]

Yes, we ought to train drivers better, get them to recognise how to use limit points in assessing speed on approach to a bend, know about vehicle dynamics and tyre grip trade-off. Drivers ought to check their tyres more regularly, plan their journeys and lots of other stuff. But how many on here ask questions to learn?

I'd have thought they wouldn't have to ask such questions, because such basic (and essential) knowledge would be imparted as part of the mandatory element of their training?

 

Or is the average UK driver tuition that lacklustre?

 

I trained and passed my driving test in France, age 16 (pilot scheme). Exact same tuition and assessment as the 'normal' training (same compulsory theory & practical).

 

All such knowledge as you refer to, and much more, was part of the 'standard' tuition. Including as well: overtaking (must actually overtake at least 2 cars on the road during practical tuition), motorway joining/driving/exiting (practical training plus tested on it if geographical location allows - I was).

 

Oh, and to always drive nearest the speed limit as circumstances allow. That's environmental + road + car circumstances, the driver is never assumed to be a factor (else the driver should not be driving at all).

[Cyclone]

Why does it feel the need to say that we should ignore important mathematical tools like the regression to the mean. What is the long term mean? Were those 3 years picked specifically to give a high figure, or were they indicative of the long term average?

And why were 2005 to 2008 picked... Not 2003 - 2006, immediately after the limit changed.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's likely that someone cherry picked there data set here to try to prove a pet theory.

 

Well, I didn't start out on this thread to complain about the 50 limit. I was actually complaining about the drivers doing 30 to 40, and particularly the one who dropped to 20 every time traffic came the other way.

I say that she was increasing the danger on that road in combination with other drivers who react badly to having a 30 minute trip turned into an hour, the fact that I had to over take her at all is more dangerous than if I hadn't, even though my over take was safe.

What can the authorities do? Don't really know, I know what the problem is, I don't have a sensible and workable solution.

[Cyclone]

I'd have thought they wouldn't have to ask such questions, because such basic (and essential) knowledge would be imparted as part of the mandatory element of their training?

 

Or is the average UK driver tuition that lacklustre?

You don't generally learn much about the limits of grip under cornering and acceleration whilst learning to drive.

If you want to actually find out where you car starts to slide, you need a day on a track.

 

I trained and passed my driving test in France, age 16 (pilot scheme). Exact same tuition and assessment as the 'normal' training (same compulsory theory & practical).

 

All such knowledge as you refer to, and much more, was part of the 'standard' tuition. Including as well: overtaking (must actually overtake at least 2 cars on the road during practical tuition), motorway joining/driving/exiting (practical training plus tested on it if geographical location allows - I was).

 

Oh, and to always drive nearest the speed limit as circumstances allow. That's environmental + road + car circumstances, the driver is never assumed to be a factor (else the driver should not be driving at all).

 

The French systems seems slightly more comprehensive, but I've seen some terrible driving in France as well as here, so it's not some sort of panacea.

[L00b]

You don't generally learn much about the limits of grip under cornering and acceleration whilst learning to drive.

So, I take it that trainees don't get to sit in a classroom and get explained, in simple terms, how Netwonian physics apply to a car under different conditions? I take it that the theory test does not cover this topic, either?

The French systems seems slightly more comprehensive, but I've seen some terrible driving in France as well as here, so it's not some sort of panacea.

And the worst driving I have ever seen was in Germany.

 

We're talking about averages here, Cyclone, not about those few exceptions that confirm the rule: if you raise the tuition/testing standards, it is bound to eventually translate into a better driving experience (or, at least, less instances of the type this thread is about) for the many.

[Annoni_mouse]

So after 9 pages, has anyone conclusively proved that slow driving is fundamentally dangerous yet? So far all I've seen is a catalogue of reasons why being stuck behind a slow driver is a bit of a pain in the 'arris?

[Cyclone]

Was it conclusively proven on page 1? The only rebuttal to my points has come from HeadingNorth who just kept repeating "no it's not".

 

I'll set it out in list form if you like.

 

Overtaking is more dangerous than not overtaking

An excessively slow driver increases the amount of overtaking that will take place by being an obstacle to normal traffic.

 

QED an excessively slow driver increases the level of danger, thus is dangerous.

[Cyclone]

So, I take it that trainees don't get to sit in a classroom and get explained, in simple terms, how Netwonian physics apply to a car under different conditions? I take it that the theory test does not cover this topic, either?

I wouldn't know, I never did a theory test.

I would know that all the theory in the world won't help you actually know what those limits are for your car.

And the worst driving I have ever seen was in Germany.

 

We're talking about averages here, Cyclone, not about those few exceptions that confirm the rule: if you raise the tuition/testing standards, it is bound to eventually translate into a better driving experience (or, at least, less instances of the type this thread is about) for the many.

True, and I wouldn't disagree with more rigorous training and testing and periodic retesting.

[Longcol]

Was it conclusively proven on page 1? The only rebuttal to my points has come from HeadingNorth who just kept repeating "no it's not".

 

I'll set it out in list form if you like.

 

Overtaking is more dangerous than not overtaking

An excessively slow driver increases the amount of overtaking that will take place by being an obstacle to normal traffic.

 

QED an excessively slow driver increases the level of danger, thus is dangerous.

 

Where was the "excessive" in the OP?

 

I agree excessively slow driving is dangerous - just not nearly as dangerous nor as prevalent as excess speed.

 

And are we to ban some of the delivery vehicles / heavy vehicles that struggle to get anywhere near the speed limit on uphill stretches of roads?