SLOW driving is DANGEROUS

[Eater Sundae]

We aren't talking about dangerous overtaking per se. A safe overtaking manoeuvre is more dangerous than not over taking. And without the excessively slow vehicle on the road, even safe overtakes won't be necessary and so the road would be safer.

 

There is no way to avoid the fact that the slow vehicle increases the danger on the road.

 

Like anything on the road, be it a parked vehicle, a slow moving one, one travelling at the speed limit, or lots of other things, it is a hazard. How a driver reacts to the hazard determines the level of danger.

 

A slow vehicle is no more dangerous than one travelling at or around the speed limit.

[Cyclone]

A slow moving vehicle is a hazard (you agree with this already) which is (rightly) overtaken, which carries a level of risk.

Hence a slow moving vehicle increases danger on the road.

 

The logic is simple and inarguable, you can claim as many times as you like that the driver overtaking is responsible for themselves (they are, I agree), but the slow vehicle contributes by creating the situation. Rather than just repeating the same answer, explain what part of my logic is incorrect.

[Waldo]

So many angles on this. Of course, the slow moving driver is a contributing factor, as are a million other factors (the sun blinded me, and caused the accident, etc). Are we discussing factors contributing to the cause of accident, or moral responsability, or legal responsability, etc...

 

Are we all on the same page, discussing the exact same angle? Probably not.

[Waldo]

Hence a slow moving vehicle increases danger on the road.

 

Yes, there is an increase in the number of hazards (obstacles) on the road. A slow moving car, is I would agree, more of an obstacle that a faster (normal speed) one. However, just like any othe obstacle, if we drive in to it or something else, as we swerve to avoid it. The fault is with us, for lack of due dilligence and care. I imagine this to be the case both morally, and legally.

 

If the 'obstacle' drives in to us however, all different ball game.

[Cyclone]

I haven't made any argument about apportioning blame in the event of an accident, I'm only making the argument that a slow moving car increases the level of risk on the road, hence it is more dangerous than one driven at a normal speed.

 

You wouldn't blame the giant boulder (example I used earlier) if someone drives into it. But that doesn't mean that a giant boulder in the road isn't dangerous.

[Annoni_mouse]

I haven't made any argument about apportioning blame in the event of an accident, I'm only making the argument that a slow moving car increases the level of risk on the road, hence it is more dangerous than one driven at a normal speed.

 

You wouldn't blame the giant boulder (example I used earlier) if someone drives into it. But that doesn't mean that a giant boulder in the road isn't dangerous.

 

You cannot legislate for the boulder being in the road. But you should legislate for slow moving vehicles - if it's a car travelling at less than the speed limit or a wagon pulling a heavy load, you should ALWAYS be expecting something on the road which may be travelling slower than your current or desired speed.

 

Let me try and contextualise this to make it a bit simpler to understand. The other day, in my car, i was travelling between Ecclesfield and Meadowhall train station. I was travelling along wooly wood bottom, a national speed limit road, and infront of me was a slower moving nissan micra driven by an older driver at probably 10mph than the speed limit.

 

There was only her and I on the road and although a little later it was still light, and the road was dry and clear. Could she have gone quicker? Without doubt. Did I have to overtake her? No, I could easily have sat behind her and arrived at my destination a fraction later than I did. As it happens, I decided to overtake her (I didn't have to, it came down to my choice). As soon as I decided to overtake, she became a hazard, but not because of her actions, because I had decided, of my own volition, to overtake her. So it was me that created the hazard by deciding to overtake her.

 

I don't see what's so hard to understand about that?

[alchresearch]

This argument is going round in circles. I'd rather have to deal with a slow driver than a fast one.

[Xt500]

This argument is going round in circles. I'd rather have to deal with a slow driver than a fast one.

 

No way and look at this.....

 

YES they failed their test for....Wait for it......DRIVING TOO SLOW!!!!

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=831866

[Cyclone]

You cannot legislate for the boulder being in the road. But you should legislate for slow moving vehicles - if it's a car travelling at less than the speed limit or a wagon pulling a heavy load, you should ALWAYS be expecting something on the road which may be travelling slower than your current or desired speed.

I never suggested that you shouldn't.

 

Let me try and contextualise this to make it a bit simpler to understand. The other day, in my car, i was travelling between Ecclesfield and Meadowhall train station. I was travelling along wooly wood bottom, a national speed limit road, and infront of me was a slower moving nissan micra driven by an older driver at probably 10mph than the speed limit.

 

There was only her and I on the road and although a little later it was still light, and the road was dry and clear. Could she have gone quicker? Without doubt. Did I have to overtake her? No, I could easily have sat behind her and arrived at my destination a fraction later than I did. As it happens, I decided to overtake her (I didn't have to, it came down to my choice). As soon as I decided to overtake, she became a hazard, but not because of her actions, because I had decided, of my own volition, to overtake her. So it was me that created the hazard by deciding to overtake her.

She was an obstacle for the whole time, and she made the road more dangerous because it caused you to over take.

 

I don't see what's so hard to understand about that?

 

Nothing, it's all easy to understand, the only problem is you refuse to see that whilst it was your decision, you couldn't have made that decision were she not there, and so she contributed to the increase of the danger on the road as did you.

[DT Ralge]

Seems to me that "slow" is dangerous only if it is perceived by the faster driver as being offensive i.e. If he/she takes it personal in some way and attributes some sort of motivation to the slow driving.

Where the reason or motivation for the slowness is interpreted as "ok, I'll get on with that, it can't be any other way (eg a hearse, a milk float, a clapped-out vintage car, a fully laden trailer behind a tractor, a cyclist, a mobility scooter, a truck travelling at its speed limit, an ambulance with a very ill, do-not-shake me patient, a military convoy ... etc) I guess the OP understands and lives with the consequences.

If there's no obvious reason for the slowness it's offensive. What would the OP and other offended thread contributors like the slow driver(s) to do, pin a notice in the back window with a full explanation?

My point here and above is that "slow" comes in all shapes and sizes and all hues of competence and incompetence or easily justified. The ONLY way to deal with it is just that, refuse to personalise it and get on with it and arrive safely. The moment any contributor sees slowness as offensive, he/she risks a "red mist", poor attitude and a reflex reaction of "I can't be seen dead behind this driver" and, perhaps, yet another unsafe manoeuvre.