Rules for the 10/20/30 under the limit game?

[Cyclone]

So basically you're trying to argue that there is no speed that is unreasonable to drive at on the public road.

 

The police and driving examiners obviously disagree with you as lack of progress would be a reason to fail the test and someone driving at that low a speed could be charged with driving without due care.

[Cyclone]

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.

 

Right, exactly, so you accept that the slow driver has created a situation where people WILL overtake, and that even a safe overtake increases the risk compared to not overtaking.

[Eater Sundae]

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.

 

Yes, by being on the road they are a hazard, as is every vehicle. And they are a hazard because they are there, not because of the speed they are travelling. In my earlier example of driving at 40 mph (I'm assuming, in a 40 limit). The only time that a driver in front is not a hazard to this driver is if they are travelling at 40 or above, in which case the following driver never sees them. Would you consider a driver travelling at 39 mph in this 40 limit as being a danger because they are too slow?

[Eater Sundae]

Right, exactly, so you accept that the slow driver has created a situation where people WILL overtake, and that even a safe overtake increases the risk compared to not overtaking.

 

A safe overtake increases the risk. Some drivers will look to overtake, some will not. It is always the decision of the following driver.

 

Is the driver of a milk float dangerous because of their speed?

[Eater Sundae]

So basically you're trying to argue that there is no speed that is unreasonable to drive at on the public road.

 

The police and driving examiners obviously disagree with you as lack of progress would be a reason to fail the test and someone driving at that low a speed could be charged with driving without due care.

 

Slow speed is unreasonable because it is inconsiderate. It is not intrinsically unsafe. As I said earlier, if it were, parked cars are a bigger danger.

 

Why do people fail their test for low speed? It doesn't mean it is dangerous.

[Cyclone]

It isn't intrinsically unsafe, however it contributes to increasing the danger on the road.

 

Edit and if you parked a car in the centre of a carriageway then it would be removed as a dangerous obstruction. Cars are not driven (even slowly) in the same position that they would be parked.

[Cyclone]

A safe overtake increases the risk. Some drivers will look to overtake, some will not. It is always the decision of the following driver.

 

Is the driver of a milk float dangerous because of their speed?

 

Do they spend a lot of time driving on trunk roads where the NSL applies? Are tractors allowed on the motorway?

[Cyclone]

Yes, by being on the road they are a hazard, as is every vehicle. And they are a hazard because they are there, not because of the speed they are travelling.

The speed they travel at alters the level of (and type) of hazard.

In my earlier example of driving at 40 mph (I'm assuming, in a 40 limit). The only time that a driver in front is not a hazard to this driver is if they are travelling at 40 or above, in which case the following driver never sees them. Would you consider a driver travelling at 39 mph in this 40 limit as being a danger because they are too slow?

 

No, they're unlikely to cause many drivers to overtake them.

 

Look, if you're so convinced that it's not dangerous, go and drive around at some ridiculous speed until arrested, then argue your case in court!

I don't really need to convince you, most people seem to agree with my opinion anyway, and we're both only expressing an opinion.

[John]

A safe overtake increases the risk. Some drivers will look to overtake, some will not. It is always the decision of the following driver.

 

Is the driver of a milk float dangerous because of their speed?

 

No, because the milk float is not going to increase speed in an attempt to prevent overtaking which is what this game is about.

 

Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.

 

When the road ahead is clear and someone decide to overtake but find that the driver in front prevents overtaking then the danger is not the driver doing the overtaking, it is the driver in front that preventing it.

 

For that reason, anyone one who post their stats on Facebook and can be identified, IMO, should be slapped with a 3 point penalty and a fine for careless driving.

[Eater Sundae]

It isn't intrinsically unsafe, however it contributes to increasing the danger on the road.

 

Edit and if you parked a car in the centre of a carriageway then it would be removed as a dangerous obstruction. Cars are not driven (even slowly) in the same position that they would be parked.

 

It doesn't need to be parked in the centre of the carriageway. It's not just whether the vehicle is in the middle of the lane, it also depends on the width of the lane. If the car wishing to pass it has to cross over the centreline and risk coming into contact with oncoming traffic, then it is no different from an overtaking car which also has to cross into the opposing traffic. In both cases, the passing car has to wait until it is clear ahead. Similarly, if an overtaking car does not have to pass into the opposing lane, there is less danger.