For those people who drive everywhere at 20mph

[Obelix]

Because if there is a button there some people, rightly or wrongly assume that you MUST use it, and it's "wrong" not to use it. I've had this discussion with my mother many times - she insists on using the button because you "are not allowed to cross unless you've pushed it first because the red man is on"

 

Crazy yes, but some people are like that and you will never persuade them otherwise.

[Chris_Sleeps]

No one has said there is. However driving too slowly - ie failure to make adequate progress is both a reason for failing a driving test, and is also considered driving without due care and consideration, which is an offence.

I've not disputed that.

 

We have a subjective law for a subjective crime. How slow is "too slow"?

[Obelix]

Yes you have. You said "The act of driving slow is still not an offence by and of itself." I've given you the exact law and reasons why it is.

 

If you are now going to claim the polar opposite of that I'll have to consider you have no interest in debate and are just in this for the wind up. Which is it?

[Unisol]

Because if there is a button there some people, rightly or wrongly assume that you MUST use it, and it's "wrong" not to use it. I've had this discussion with my mother many times - she insists on using the button because you "are not allowed to cross unless you've pushed it first because the red man is on"

 

Crazy yes, but some people are like that and you will never persuade them otherwise.

 

Unfortunately some people don't have the aptitude to use their own common sense.

[Chris_Sleeps]

The following examples are typical of what we are likely to regard as inconsiderate driving:

 

unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause"

I said driving too slow wasn't an offence in and of itself. It isn't, thus I am correct. When I start my car at a traffic lights from 0mph upwards, I am not breaking a law, even though I am driving slow. If I am slowing down for traffic lights I am not breaking a law, even though I am driving slow. Driving slow is not an offence in and of itself.

 

You've not contradicted anything I've said, or proven me wrong.

[big_g]

Because if there is a button there some people, rightly or wrongly assume that you MUST use it, and it's "wrong" not to use it. I've had this discussion with my mother many times - she insists on using the button because you "are not allowed to cross unless you've pushed it first because the red man is on"

 

Crazy yes, but some people are like that and you will never persuade them otherwise.

 

There are also people who will have experienced the drivers who, upon seeing a pedestrian on a crossing, will accelerate towards the crossing. Trust me, it happens - a lot.

 

I am a good judge of the speed at which cars are approaching things and how long it will take them to get there. As soon as one puts a foot on a crossing, some drivers will deliberately speed up forcing that person to have to speed up crossing over the crossing. I would say three out of ten drivers do this. Unfortunately, this means that in me (and other people) trying to avoid being 'aimed at' by 30% of drivers, 70% of drivers are forced to stop where their natural instinct would have been to slow down and let drivers and pedestrians use the road in harmony. My humblest apologies to anyone who is in the 70% category.

[Obelix]

I said driving too slow wasn't an offence in and of itself. It isn't, thus I am correct. When I start my car at a traffic lights from 0mph upwards, I am not breaking a law, even though I am driving slow. If I am slowing down for traffic lights I am not breaking a law, even though I am driving slow. Driving slow is not an offence in and of itself.

 

You've not contradicted anything I've said, or proven me wrong.

 

So you are in it for the wind up then. I expected better from you.

 

---------- Post added 27-03-2013 at 17:36 ----------

 

There are also people who will have experienced the drivers who, upon seeing a pedestrian on a crossing, will accelerate towards the crossing. Trust me, it happens - a lot.

 

I am a good judge of the speed at which cars are approaching things and how long it will take them to get there. As soon as one puts a foot on a crossing, some drivers will deliberately speed up forcing that person to have to speed up crossing over the crossing. I would say three out of ten drivers do this. Unfortunately, this means that in me (and other people) trying to avoid being 'aimed at' by 30% of drivers, 70% of drivers are forced to stop where their natural instinct would have been to slow down and let drivers and pedestrians use the road in harmony. My humblest apologies to anyone who is in the 70% category.

 

Yup, there are drivers like that for sure out there and I don;t think you are far off with your estimates of percentages either.

 

The other category of pedestrian, which my mother now falls into is the "blind as a bat" one - she can see a car coming but has no idea how fast it's going. Ergo she pushes the button as it's the only way she can cross safely, and for that I cannot really fault her now.

[Mr_Squirrel]

Once again, this is a 'grey area' of the road laws with no specific rights or wrongs.

 

There is no 'set minimum speed' on any road in the same context of a 'maximum speed limit' because there may be good legitimate reasons for not being able to adhere to that minimum speed. Even the often misunderstood 50mph 'minimum' on a motorway is actually inaccurate as even in good conditions, there may be some vehicles permitted to use the motorway that cannot for a variety of possible reasons, reach or maintain that speed.

 

The Official Driving Manual, essentially an 'advanced' publication of the highway code produced by the DSA recommends that drivers drive in 'A brisk business like manner' wherever safely possible. It is also worth noting that on all vehicle categories of practical driving tests in the UK, there is a section... 'Maintain progress by' with 2 sub categories within.. these are 'An appropriate speed' and 'Avoid undue hesitation'.

Failure to maintain good progress where road conditions dictate would acquire the candidate a minor mark in one or both of those sub categories. 3 or more minor marks within any one sub category would earn the candidate a 'Fail'.

 

Just a couple of points worth considering.

[Chris_Sleeps]

So you are in it for the wind up then. I expected better from you.

I don't respect the tactic of trying to tarnish me as a 'wind-up' when you can't say anything further to my point. Ad hom. Deal with what I say, if you want "debate".

[Obelix]

Once again, this is a 'grey area' of the road laws with no specific rights or wrongs.

 

There is no 'set minimum speed' on any road in the same context of a 'maximum speed limit' because there may be good legitimate reasons for not being able to adhere to that minimum speed. Even the often misunderstood 50mph 'minimum' on a motorway is actually inaccurate as even in good conditions, there may be some vehicles permitted to use the motorway that cannot for a variety of possible reasons, reach or maintain that speed.

 

The Official Driving Manual, essentially an 'advanced' publication of the highway code produced by the DSA recommends that drivers drive in 'A brisk business like manner' wherever safely possible. It is also worth noting that on all vehicle categories of practical driving tests in the UK, there is a section... 'Maintain progress by' with 2 sub categories within.. these are 'An appropriate speed' and 'Avoid undue hesitation'.

Failure to maintain good progress where road conditions dictate would acquire the candidate a minor mark in one or both of those sub categories. 3 or more minor marks within any one sub category would earn the candidate a 'Fail'.

 

Just a couple of points worth considering.

 

When I was driving police cars, the rule of thumb was that if you were doing half the speed limit, all other things being favourable, (ie no snow, traffic, parked vehicles) then that was a reasonable minima. A third of the speed limit was generally held to be too slow and you would almost certainly get tugged for it.

 

If you travel up near York though you will often see Mr Emsleys cranes on the motorway and they have a top end of about 40 I think. Perhaps much less for the chunky ones. As you say it's if it s capable of doing that speed and what is reasonable. I got pulled once for doing 30mph down a dual carriageway, when I pointed out I had the emergency space saver spare on and the roads felt as greasy as anything there was no problem, they waved me on without any issues. It's all down to the reasonableness of it, but if you are driving unreasonably slowly then you will get nailed sooner or later I expect.

 

---------- Post added 27-03-2013 at 17:49 ----------

 

I don't respect the tactic of trying to tarnish me as a 'wind-up' when you can't say anything further to my point. Ad hom. Deal with what I say, if you want "debate".

 

But I don;t have anything to say to your point. I'm arguing against your point, where you have said there is no offence of driving too slowly. I've provided evidence that there is, which so far you have refused to deal with.