anywebsite Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 I was just going to say the same thing! You could also argue that because only 5% of the accidents are caused by speeding its obviously safer! Figures mean nothing! (not that I'm condoning speeding) I think more than 5% of drivers speed, so if only 5% of accidents involved speeding drivers, then it must be safer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxxy Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Ive done alot of miles but never come across that.What has that got to do with the topic? This topic has obviously hit a nerve with you and its drivers like you i fear the most. Did you know that overtaking is NOT illegal?Did you know it can be done quite safely? Try it sometime!!Well on second thoughts dont!! I totally agree with you. I am sick to death of being stuck behind a row of idiots who are incapable of achieving the speed limit and in many cases prefer to travel 10-20mph below it. Overtaking, although legal and safe if done right, has now become socially unacceptable because of all the idiots. I remember when I had not been driving long, I had the misfortune to follow an old guy from Whitby. He was driving way below the limit and every time I tried to get past him, he sped up. If that's not dangerous, then I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 What's "dangerous" is the random combination of a violator meeting someone who is in a lapse of concentration or awareness and/or with someone who is about to make a mistake. "Dangerous" is any one of these three taking an inflexible, unplanned, unsystematic, unresponsive (I'm going to carry on at this speed regardless) approach to the task of driving. "Dangerous" is paying full attention to where the cameras are but paying little attention to the clues given by road-paint, signage, surfacing (...) as to the actual and potential hazards and where others have already come to grief. "Dangerous" or "Foolhardy" is claiming you are driving to the "conditions" without being to say what your tyre pressures or tread currently are and having little idea what the function of tyre tread is. "Dangerous" is driver ignorance and inexperience and, although relying on modern car technology, not fully appreciating what ABS and ESP can do for you in emergency braking and steering situations (let alone ever having had any training in their use). Problem is, drivers leave a little or a lot to be desired and fall short as regards knowledge, experience and training in the use of the machine they get into haphazardly, blithely and blissfully each day AND they get away with it until something bites them in the bum. What other dangerous occupation can we obtain a licence-for-life at a very young age? So, my view is that annual UK road death rates have reduced from 3500 (in 2004) to 1857 (in 2010) DESPITE the drivers out there and any discussion about low speed drivers and overtaking "skills" turns the risk-laden task of driving into a macho, simplistic, Clarkson-style one-dimensional debate that suggests that everyone in front of you on the road is in your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 So someone who overtakes and causes an accident is not at fault, the driver who was overtaken is the one who is at fault. What a load of rubbish. Could only be in the Daily Mail So if somebody is driving so slowly that they obstruct other traffic requiring other cars to pass them, you do not consider that obstruction to be the cause of the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 This, presumably, would be the bits of "the road of death" that are littered with floral tributes and that suffer from hidden dips/dead ground, road-narrowing (for traffic calming) and Wacky Races junctions on which you managed to get away with an overtaking manoeuvre?You presume entirely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 So if somebody is driving so slowly that they obstruct other traffic requiring other cars to pass them, you do not consider that obstruction to be the cause of the problem? They aren't the cause of any accidents. Drivers who wish (not require, because it's never necessary) to overtake them must do so in a safe place. Failure to ensure that will not be the fault of the slow-moving vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 They aren't the cause of any accidents. Drivers who wish (not require, because it's never necessary) to overtake them must do so in a safe place. Failure to ensure that will not be the fault of the slow-moving vehicle. Semantics! Other obstructions such as broken down vehicles are a matter of misfortune, which the emergency services will move as quickly as possible because of the obvious fact that obstructions on the road are hazardous. Excessively slow drivers are either choosing to cause an obstruction, or else they are not aware they are doing so, in which case it demonstrates what most other drivers realise anyway - that their behaviour displays an utter lack of awareness of what is going on around them and how they are effecting other road users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 I still don't believe slow drivers are the danger here, apart from the militant ones who vary their speed - especially when being overtaken. If someone is moving at 20mph lower than the speed limit, and they pull over regularaly to let built up traffic past, and allow others to overtake them, that's not dangerous. I therefore conclude that the danger is from the militant drivers (slow or fast) who think everyone else should drive like they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 I still don't believe slow drivers are the danger here, apart from the militant ones who vary their speed - especially when being overtaken. If someone is moving at 20mph lower than the speed limit, and they pull over regularaly to let built up traffic past, and allow others to overtake them, that's not dangerous. I therefore conclude that the danger is from the militant drivers (slow or fast) who think everyone else should drive like they do. That is a big 'if' and ceratainly not my experience. Most the excessively slow drivers I get stuck behind seem mostly unaware there is other traffic on the road at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted July 23, 2011 Author Share Posted July 23, 2011 So if somebody is driving so slowly that they obstruct other traffic requiring other cars to pass them, you do not consider that obstruction to be the cause of the problem? Apsolutley and its not just their speed its their attitude.Follow any slow driver and you will normally find that they arnt just going slow but braking at every lamp post unable to drive straight and often their speed isnt static but varies alot more than is nesercary causing everything behind it to continually brake and unable to make predictions on whats going to happen next.This makes driving very uncomfotable and as a result raises the desire to pass them.It is very very rare nowadays slow drivers make the effort to allow others to make a safe pass and actually make it their goal to make the pass as dangerous as possible by sitting as close to the centre line as possible and not one single driver reading this can truthfully say they havnt seen it. Its not speed that needs addressing its attitude,its that which is causing the accidents,NOT where the speedo points! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.