Cyclone Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 And how many parked cars, in the carriageway have you come across on the snake pass. Any idea how long it would take before it was towed away as an obstruction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 Do they spend a lot of time driving on trunk roads where the NSL applies? Are tractors allowed on the motorway? No, but it was an example of something you might come across. I wouldn't be shocked if I saw one on Wolley Wood bottom - its not that far from civilisation. More importantly, it would be unacceptable to drive in such a way that if you did come across one, you couldn't stop/slow down in time. I don't know if you can take tractors on motorways. I don't see why you ask? It's not relevant to this thread, as surely it is about non-motorway roads - and single lane in the direction being travelled, otherwise there is not really a problem with holding up other traffic. It is intended that slow vehicles are not allowed - eg mopeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 The speed they travel at alters the level of (and type) of hazard. 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. So, you do not think that 39 mph is a problem. What about 38 mph? What about 37 mph? What about 36 mph? etc etc. At what speed does it suddenly become a danger? This was the point of my earlier post that there is not a speed at which the slower driver becomes a danger. The slower the driver, then the more likely it is that the following driver decides to overtake. In this situation, the following driver balances the benefits and the risks. The slower the leading driver then the lower the risk (as an overtake is quicker), but the benefit as perceived by the following driver is greater (ie they might not mind too much being held up by someone doing 38 mph, but they do mind being held up by someone doing 20 mph, and therefore see a big benefit in overtaking the slower driver). Each person decides the benefit/risk balance for themselves. There is no problem with this unless the following driver makes a bad judgement and overtakes when it is not safe. If all the following drivers are good drivers and do not make that sort of mistake, then there is no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 And how many parked cars, in the carriageway have you come across on the snake pass. Any idea how long it would take before it was towed away as an obstruction? I cannot remember if I ever have. No idea at all, as I do not know what, if any, parking restrictions are in place there. I have come across tractors and trailors, cyclists, sheep and slow cars on this particular road. Its a lot easier and safer to overtake a car that is doing 20 to 30 mph less than I am than it is to overtake one doing 10 to 15 mph less than I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 No special restrictions, it's not a clear way. But it also doesn't happen and would be removed as an obstruction. It's more dangerous for you to overtake something than to not have to at all. You can't deny that, and if that driver wasn't driving slower than you then you wouldn't have to overtake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 No special restrictions, it's not a clear way. But it also doesn't happen and would be removed as an obstruction. It's more dangerous for you to overtake something than to not have to at all. You can't deny that, and if that driver wasn't driving slower than you then you wouldn't have to overtake. I agree that overtaking is more dangerous than not overtaking, but it still comes back to the same point. You don't HAVE to overtake, you choose to. How can someone else be responsible for the risk/danger involved in something YOU choose to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 It's a straw man argument to discuss having to or not, I've never claimed that anyone HAS to. The fact is that people DO overtake slow moving cars, and the risk IS increased, and if that vehicle wasn't there it wouldn't happen. QED the slow moving vehicle has increased the danger by contributing to overtaking manoeuvres happening. It's not a question of responsibility for danger, it's a question of whether slow moving vehicles increase the danger or not, it's incontrovertible that they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 It's a straw man argument to discuss having to or not, I've never claimed that anyone HAS to. The fact is that people DO overtake slow moving cars, and the risk IS increased, and if that vehicle wasn't there it wouldn't happen. QED the slow moving vehicle has increased the danger by contributing to overtaking manoeuvres happening. It's not a question of responsibility for danger, it's a question of whether slow moving vehicles increase the danger or not, it's incontrovertible that they do. No it is not a straw man argument. Are you able to answetr my question at to what speed the slower driver suddenly causes a danger? At 39 mph you said that the following driver would not overtake, so presumably no added danger. There is only one person making the decision whether or not to overtake. Your attitude looks suspiciously like trying to accuse someone of causing danger because you do not like them holding you up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 It's a straw man argument to discuss having to or not, I've never claimed that anyone HAS to. The fact is that people DO overtake slow moving cars, and the risk IS increased, and if that vehicle wasn't there it wouldn't happen. QED the slow moving vehicle has increased the danger by contributing to overtaking manoeuvres happening. It's not a question of responsibility for danger, it's a question of whether slow moving vehicles increase the danger or not, it's incontrovertible that they do. See post No 14. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 No it is not a straw man argument. Are you able to answetr my question at to what speed the slower driver suddenly causes a danger? There is no sudden danger, so no because your question doesn't apply. A danger is created by slow moving vehicles though, when that danger manifests is dependent on additional factors, as you would expect. At 39 mph you said that the following driver would not overtake, so presumably no added danger. Probably wouldn't, I can't speak for every driver in the country. There is only one person making the decision whether or not to overtake. And there is only 1 person making the possible over take choice exist. Your attitude looks suspiciously like trying to accuse someone of causing danger because you do not like them holding you up. No, I'm saying that they do create danger by holding people up, or more accurately by getting in the way and requiring to be overtaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.