SNES Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Seriously if you were to overtake someone and smash into someone else, you would be instantly at fault! Insurance company or police wouldn't even remotely consider the slow driver to be in any way shape or form responsible! Exactly same as if you smash into back of someone you are immediately at fault! Even if they slam anchors on for nothing because driver behind did not leave enough breaking distance! Same applies, driver behind has overtaken at a dangerous time so it is instantly driver behinds fault! It is very scary that people believe contrary to this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Well, I've been out to S25 today, on the A57 (NSL - 60 limit) before the road works, I had to follow someone doing 40 mph for about 5 miles. Then on the Crystal Peaks towards town, NSL - 60 limit, someone doing 50, holding up about 8 cars (and this was a bank holiday evening, quiet roads). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 And I was held up for a good mile or three on the NSL A47 to Norwich today. The lead vehicle was driving at 40mph, the road allowed no safe overtakes and everyone responded with stoical calm and patience (well, I couldn't see the impatient gestures or hear the groans). But, hey ho, the lead vehicle was a Tesco artic' with telematics and a disciplinary if the speed limit is broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Fair enough in that case I suppose. I was held up by a Corsa I believe, not sure about the second one. It didn't cause me to overtake inappropriately, but I did say out loud "why are they driving so slowly". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Squirrel Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Seriously if you were to overtake someone and smash into someone else, you would be instantly at fault! Insurance company or police wouldn't even remotely consider the slow driver to be in any way shape or form responsible! Exactly same as if you smash into back of someone you are immediately at fault! Even if they slam anchors on for nothing because driver behind did not leave enough breaking distance! Same applies, driver behind has overtaken at a dangerous time so it is instantly driver behinds fault! It is very scary that people believe contrary to this! I dont think that people DO believe contrary to this... I think most drivers are well aware that if they are involved in an accident because they overtook a slower moving vehicle, that they will ultimately be held responsible I think what people are saying though, is that given the fact that driving well below the speed limit can earn you a fail on your driving test.. it shouldnt be acceptable or excusable in day to day driving. Its ignorant, discourteous and dangerous. So dont do it without good reason. ---------- Post added 29-03-2013 at 22:02 ---------- And I was held up for a good mile or three on the NSL A47 to Norwich today. The lead vehicle was driving at 40mph, the road allowed no safe overtakes and everyone responded with stoical calm and patience (well, I couldn't see the impatient gestures or hear the groans). But, hey ho, the lead vehicle was a Tesco artic' with telematics and a disciplinary if the speed limit is broken. Bolds. Therefore, the Tesco artic was driving at the maximum permitted speed limit for his vehicle as set by the Department of transport and not 'well below' it as this thread is discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie_boy Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 if you really believe this, that the slower driver is at fault when its actually the inability of an impatient driver behind to just relax a little and wait for a safe moment to pass then your a fool eastwood141 worse than that your a dangerous fool who should have to resit his driving test. exactly!!! ---------- Post added 29-03-2013 at 22:06 ---------- Seriously if you were to overtake someone and smash into someone else, you would be instantly at fault! Insurance company or police wouldn't even remotely consider the slow driver to be in any way shape or form responsible! Exactly same as if you smash into back of someone you are immediately at fault! Even if they slam anchors on for nothing because driver behind did not leave enough breaking distance! Same applies, driver behind has overtaken at a dangerous time so it is instantly driver behinds fault! It is very scary that people believe contrary to this! According to EASTWOOD its the one driving safely at just under who is at fault for 'tempting' the driver to over take dangerously! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Fair enough in that case I suppose. I was held up by a Corsa I believe, not sure about the second one. It didn't cause me to overtake inappropriately, but I did say out loud "why are they driving so slowly". They have their reasons. We can't control their "why's" but we can control the appropriateness and safety of our response. An inflexible, intolerant knee-jerk response suggested by some contributors' comments on here is likely to end with tears or near-misses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unisol Posted March 29, 2013 Author Share Posted March 29, 2013 If you really believe this, that the slower driver is at fault when its actually the inability of an impatient driver behind to just relax a little and wait for a safe moment to pass then your a fool Eastwood141 worse than that your a dangerous fool who should have to resit his driving test. Unfortunately I rarely see an opportunity to safely pass, especially on B roads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarmOKnee Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 I don't. It'd be subjective. One man's annoying is another man's sensible - hence we have this thread. I draw the line at legal and illegal. If someone is not breaking a law, and following all the guidelines in the Highway Code - they're not doing anything wrong. But are they following the guidelines in the Highway Code driving everywhere at 20 just because they want to? Driving well below the speed limit can be dangerous. You should be driving at the appropriate speed for the road when its safe to do so in order to make progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 They have their reasons. We can't control their "why's" but we can control the appropriateness and safety of our response. An inflexible, intolerant knee-jerk response suggested by some contributors' comments on here is likely to end with tears or near-misses. Short of "faulty car being driven to garage" there were no valid reasons to be driving at an inappropriate speed. (And there are no garages open at 2000 on a bank holiday Friday). They were demonstrating fairly poor driving (there are lots of worse things they could do, which I didn't see, but if you followed such a driver around I expect they do a lot of them as well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.