Eater Sundae Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 If it were blocking an entire carriageway then yes, passing it would be more dangerous than not (although completed more quickly than passing a slow moving care). What's your point. I didn't attribute the danger to anyone, I was talking about the overall danger of the entire situation. I didn't mention inappropriate overtaking either. So it's a valid and 'safe' over take of a vehicle that is travelling well below a reasonable speed. Are you going to tell me that there is no risk at all? Or do you accept that the situation is slightly more dangerous than if the slow vehicle wasn't there? 40 would be the lowest risk as you'd have never caught it up and not be on the wrong carriageway at any point. Their lack of consideration and/or ability increase the danger to other road users indirectly. I never mentioned unsafe over taking. You had based the danger on people HAVING to overtake. The point is that they don't HAVE to, the CHOOSE to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 You had based the danger on people HAVING to overtake. The point is that they don't HAVE to, the CHOOSE to. Are you suggesting, just because they choose to overtake, then there is no additional risk involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 Are you suggesting, just because they choose to overtake, then there is no additional risk involved? No, certainly not. Every time someone overtakes then there is a risk. My point was that the only person who can determine whether it is a worthwhile risk to take, balanced against the benefits gained by completing the overtake, is the person who does the overtaking. Each person makes their own decision. In any set of circumstances, different drivers will react differently. Some drivers will overtake, and some will not. In every case, it is nothing to do with the driver they are overtaking (in this thread, people who are perceived to be driving slowly for the conditions). A "slow" driver (inside " " because it is slow in the opinion of the following driver - it doesn't really matter whether or not it is slow in absolute terms) does not cause any additional danger due to their slow speed in comparison with the driver coming up behind them. It is how the following driver reacts which does or does not increase any danger. In my opinion, some drivers try to blame the slow driver for themselves "having" to overtake. That was my point about "having" to or "choosing" to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 No, certainly not. Every time someone overtakes then there is a risk. My point was that the only person who can determine whether it is a worthwhile risk to take, balanced against the benefits gained by completing the overtake, is the person who does the overtaking. Each person makes their own decision. In any set of circumstances, different drivers will react differently. Some drivers will overtake, and some will not. In every case, it is nothing to do with the driver they are overtaking (in this thread, people who are perceived to be driving slowly for the conditions). A "slow" driver (inside " " because it is slow in the opinion of the following driver - it doesn't really matter whether or not it is slow in absolute terms) does not cause any additional danger due to their slow speed in comparison with the driver coming up behind them. It is how the following driver reacts which does or does not increase any danger. In my opinion, some drivers try to blame the slow driver for themselves "having" to overtake. That was my point about "having" to or "choosing" to. Fact is it is the slow driver (driving at half the limit in the example I gave) that necessitates other drivers who do wish to drive up to the speed limit to overtake. If they were not there, driving at half the limit, other drivers would not need to overtake in order to continue their journeys at a reasonable speed. Just wondering, would you think driving at 35mph on a motorway in a car, in favourable conditions, would be acceptable? -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 You had based the danger on people HAVING to overtake. The point is that they don't HAVE to, the CHOOSE to. The problem with this game is that they lose if someone overtakes them, which means that the odd one or two drivers will deliberately speed up when someone attempts to overtake in order to prevent such overtaking to take place purely to preserve points. This is where the danger comes in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 You had based the danger on people HAVING to overtake. The point is that they don't HAVE to, the CHOOSE to. I've based it on the fact that they WILL overtake. Yes it's a choice, but it's not an unreasonable or incorrect one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 No, certainly not. Every time someone overtakes then there is a risk. My point was that the only person who can determine whether it is a worthwhile risk to take, balanced against the benefits gained by completing the overtake, is the person who does the overtaking. Each person makes their own decision. In any set of circumstances, different drivers will react differently. Some drivers will overtake, and some will not. In every case, it is nothing to do with the driver they are overtaking Clearly it is. If that driver was driving normally, or at home then no one would overtake them. You cannot absolve them of the situation they create just because it requires someone else to make an obvious choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 Fact is it is the slow driver (driving at half the limit in the example I gave) that necessitates other drivers who do wish to drive up to the speed limit to overtake. If they were not there, driving at half the limit, other drivers would not need to overtake in order to continue their journeys at a reasonable speed. Just wondering, would you think driving at 35mph on a motorway in a car, in favourable conditions, would be acceptable? -- Your motorway example is completely different. On a motorway (and on some other high speed dual carriageways) there are overtaking lanes and no traffic coming in the other direction. The issue with low speed on a motorway is a safety issue, to do with differential speeds and the expectation that there should not be slow moving (or stationary) vehicles on the carriageway. This doesn't apply on non-motorway roads, where slow moving vehicles (cycles, milk floats etc) and horses may be expected. But it still comes back to the "need" to overtake. Yes, you need to overtake if you are to maintain (what YOU regard as) a reasonable speed, but you do not NEED to maintain a reasonable speed. The decision to overtake is in the hands of the overtaker, who has to decide whether or not it is safe enough to do so. Yes, the driver of the slow car is a hazard, and if he wasn't there then the faster driver would not be affected at all. But that does not make him a danger. He is just one of many hazards on the road. Any two vehicles travelling at different speeds, and getting closer together, become a hazard to each other. That does not make either of them a danger. That's why I believe that driving slowly (on non-motorway type road) is, in itself, not a danger. Of course if the driver being overtaken suddenly accelerates or similar when being overtaken, then that is dangerous. But the basic action of driving slowly is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 I've based it on the fact that they WILL overtake. Yes it's a choice, but it's not an unreasonable or incorrect one. It's not unreasonable if they do it safely. It is their decision whether the benefits of overtaking outweigh the risks, and there will be risks. That is what the overtaking driver has to determine. The driver being overtaken is not a part of that decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 The problem with this game is that they lose if someone overtakes them, which means that the odd one or two drivers will deliberately speed up when someone attempts to overtake in order to prevent such overtaking to take place purely to preserve points. This is where the danger comes in. I agree that reacting in such a way to being overtaken is dangerous, but that is a separate issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.