Thread: Stupid driving.... Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026313
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Not parking, no reversing required.
I've just had a lousy run to and from a swimming class.
Out was irritating, but bearable. All the way I was following a learner who was driving 10 mph below the speed limit. I was a learner once, so no complaints, apart from being too late to fit a little personal swim in before the children got in.
Back was infuriating.
1. At a roundabout, I'd waited for someone turning to their right, my left, saw the next car was not signalling and was placed to travel straight ahead, down the road I'd just come up, started forward, and saw the woman suddenly turn to go across in front of me. Stopped in time, and saw she had been hit in the side at some time before.
2. Down the hill, at a small roundabout where a road joined from the right. A car is signalling to turn to his right, so I wait, then start to move again, only to find that the man in the SUV which has pulled up to my right is not turning right, but cutting across in front of me to take the single exit ahead. He then shoots off at over 40 mph in a 30 mph zone.
3. In the middle of that zone, a car pulls out from a side road without pausing and turns to go ahead of me, also exceeding the limit. (Gender of driver not visible).
4. Further up the road, a Ford Ka pulls out of a side road from stationary, but fully able to see me. I manage not to hit it by releasing the accelerator and braking a small amount as I approach. The driver, an elderly lady, continues very slowly in the 40 mph zone I am now in until we hit the next 30 mph zone and the next roundabout, where she turns right.
5. I am going straight ahead, but there is a car opposite me signalling to his right, and I assume he has right of way, so I wait (remembering the damaged car further back). The car behind, a taxi, assumes differently, and hoots at me. The car opposite changes its mind (gender not observed) and goes straight ahead, but by this time, another car has drawn up to my right, signalling to its right, again having right of way. Again, the taxi disputes this with gesticulations visible in my mirror while hooting again.
Thereafter, no problems. I am pleased to see that my prediction that the taxi driver is on his way to the local special school, which he is supposed to reach at a particular time, is correct. The Ka must have held him back badly.
I have observed before that particular instances of bad driving tend to occur in clusters* - but I only had two cases of coming out of side roads on this trip. Hmmm.
* I know this makes no sense, but it happens. Not an assortment of bad driving, but the same thing during the same trip.

[ 26. September 2013, 15:12: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I don't think you should consider driving in Brazil.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't think you should consider driving in Brazil.
Maybe if I were in Brazil I would expect it - it's unusual round here. At this time of day, at any rate.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
Was the car turning right crossing your path? If so, why did you assume it had right of way?

(BTW there is no such thing as right of way as nobody has a "right" to do anything and you won't find that term anywhere in the Highway Code, or any other official driving publication. The correct word is Prority)
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Was the car turning right crossing your path? If so, why did you assume it had right of way?

(BTW there is no such thing as right of way as nobody has a "right" to do anything and you won't find that term anywhere in the Highway Code, or any other official driving publication. The correct word is Prority)
There is. A Right of Way is a path, road or track you have a legal right to walk, cycle, ride a horse or drive a motor vehicle down. But in the terms used in the OP, indeed, it doesn't exist.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
It was turning across my path - or would have been if it had continued as it was signalling. Perhaps I should have used the term "priority". Anyway, I remember being taught that one gives way to people doing what he appeared to intend to do.

Oops, I've been carefully using non-gendered constructions where I couldn't identify the driver. Got it wrong here.

[ 26. September 2013, 15:26: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
There is something about this week, I think, The roads were full of idiots at the start.

Of course, we might have different definitions of idiots....
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It was turning across my path - or would have been if it had continued as it was signalling. Perhaps I should have used the term "priority". Anyway, I remember being taught that one gives way to people doing what he appeared to intend to do.

Oops, I've been carefully using non-gendered constructions where I couldn't identify the driver. Got it wrong here.
Normally you have priority over someone cutting across your path, unless they're on a roundabout.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It was turning across my path - or would have been if it had continued as it was signalling. Perhaps I should have used the term "priority". Anyway, I remember being taught that one gives way to people doing what he appeared to intend to do.
Eh? Where does that come from?
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
Priority? Here in Tunisia the one who has priority is the one who takes it without flinching, regardless of any official rules.

I have to adopt two completely different styles of driving depending on whether I am in the UK or Tunisia. But you can't mix the styles with the wrong country. And in the UK generally you expect more adherence to the Highway code than here...
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Was the car turning right crossing your path? If so, why did you assume it had right of way?
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It was turning across my path - or would have been if it had continued as it was signalling. Perhaps I should have used the term "priority". Anyway, I remember being taught that one gives way to people doing what he appeared to intend to do.
Eh? Where does that come from?
This action at a roundabout is the classic symptom of a shit driver who inherited their parents' bad skills instead of learning from a proper driving instructor. Instead of getting taught the correct "give way to other cars already in the roundabout" they pick up "give way to the right" instead.

The effect of this is commonly seen in the state of Victoria (a great place to get yourself maimed or killed if you're a cyclist) where drivers will stop at the entry to a roundabout if any other cars are approaching from another entrance, and then once the other drivers have approached and stopped everyone plays a game of chicken where somebody eventually makes the brave decision to go first and let the traffic flow again. All the while there will be a queue forming up behind each entrance, with drivers of all walks of life and political persuasions united in a steadily growing belief that maybe eugenics wasn't such a bad idea after all.

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
(BTW there is no such thing as right of way as nobody has a "right" to do anything and you won't find that term anywhere in the Highway Code, or any other official driving publication. The correct word is Prority)
I'm assuming you're British right? In Australia we also don't use "right of way" in reference to what you would call priority, the Australian Road Rules refer consistently to which road users must give way rather than who should go first.

The Australian Road Rules also don't use "right of way" in the context that Karl referred to either (read the PDF version if you require a cure for insomnia) as the National Transport Commission did a bloody good job of eradicating archaic terms.

[ 26. September 2013, 16:04: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Lucia: Priority? Here in Tunisia the one who has priority is the one who takes it without flinching, regardless of any official rules.
In Brazil the one who has priority is the one who has the kind of car that says "I don't care if it gets scratched."
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
You can always come and live in my town (not my slapline) where cars have tried to run me over three times this month, and four times in August.

I walk across the bridge to get the mail at the post office. Perfectly ordinary thing. Except there are three traffic lights and the arse-hole drivers in this town don't remember that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road in a pedestrian lane with a walk signal.

No, you cannot turn left into me, you stupid morons!!!
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
The roads in Britain are full of idiots who can't be bothered to follow the rules and we get a lot of them round here. However, they pale into insignificance in some parts of the world where traffic lights and pedestrian crossings are mostly just decorative, and the figures on a speed limit sign are there to tell you the minimum speed you should be going at.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I walk across the bridge to get the mail at the post office. Perfectly ordinary thing. Except there are three traffic lights and the arse-hole drivers in this town don't remember that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road in a pedestrian lane with a walk signal.

No, you cannot turn left into me, you stupid morons!!!
We have a great many of exactly that sort of jerk here too. I have practiced my glare at them until even taxis tend to stop or back up.
 
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
... In Australia we also don't use "right of way" in reference to what you would call priority, the Australian Road Rules refer consistently to which road users must give way rather than who should go first.
The rules in the US vary by state with regards to wording, but there is some bit of standardization of intent. At least when I learned to drive, they specified who was required to yield the right of way to the other driver. That doesn't mean, of course, that the other driver has the right of way: a defensive driver knows that it belongs to whoever takes it, regardless of which driver was legally required to yield it.


But my worst experience in a roundabout was on a pushbike in Christchurch, where a merging car forced me into the inside lane, from which it was difficult to go fast enough to merge back out. I think I went around 3 times before a courteous driver gave me a chance to escape.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It was turning across my path - or would have been if it had continued as it was signalling. Perhaps I should have used the term "priority". Anyway, I remember being taught that one gives way to people doing what he appeared to intend to do.
Well, you were taught incorrectly and you should demand your money back!
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It was turning across my path - or would have been if it had continued as it was signalling. Perhaps I should have used the term "priority". Anyway, I remember being taught that one gives way to people doing what he appeared to intend to do.
It sounds like the common denominator in all these incidents is that you're a shit driver who doesn't know the road rules and sucks at reading what else is going on around you.

Learn to use public transport or buy a good pair of walking shoes before your ignorance gets you, or even worse somebody else, killed.
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Well, you were taught incorrectly and you should demand your money back!
It was probably her parents who taught her all those bad behaviours, both as a kid in the back seat watching their bad habits and when learning the ropes as a new driver. What if they counter her demand for a refund with a demand to give back everything they gave her?
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Are you this sanctimonious behind the wheel, Burger Boy?

I pray for your missus when she drives you....
 
Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :
 
quote:
Further up the road, a Ford Ka pulls out of a side road...
Wait, Ford named a car after the Egyptian version of a soul? That sends a positive message. [Paranoid]
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
I swear that in the 7 years I've been living in London the standard of driving has got worse - both in the suburbs and the centre. We live on a road that has a school on it, so has a 20mph speed limit, with a board that tells you how fast you're driving *so you know to slow down*. But we have assholes steaming along the road at 40/50mph. It is incredibly dangerous - there are many side streets with poor visibility coming on to the road due to parked cars.

In central London people regularly run zebra crossing almost hitting those crossing on a regular basis. People regularly run red lights. And don't get me started on indicators. When did they become optional? If you're turning, bloody tell people with those orange things.

But if people don't face any consequences for bad driving, they'll continue to do it.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
We live on a road that has a school on it, so has a 20mph speed limit, with a board that tells you how fast you're driving *so you know to slow down*. But we have assholes steaming along the road at 40/50mph.
And the worst offenders are the parents in their 4X4s who then park on the zig zag lines outside the school, while justifying their choice of ridiculous car with the claim that they need to keep their children safe.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Quite recently I've seen the following:

* Someone in a traffic queue on a busy main road, behind a car blocking her way to turn left into the supermarket car park, decided she couldn't wait for the lights to change and the traffic to move on, so just turned left there and then and drove onto and up the pavement to get into the car park, giving me a cheery grin as she passed.

* A driving instructor on his way to pick up a pupil turned the corner of my road, one hand on the steering wheel, the other out of the window with a cigarette in it. He clipped the corner of the pavement, mounted it and trundled off round the corner into the next road.

* Twat of the Year managing to park his car so that when he next got in to start it up, he was going to have to reverse (on the wrong side of the road) over a speed hump into a crossroads.

And so it goes.
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
I am waiting to hear how it is the cyclists who are the source of every problem on the road. I know this because my dad lives in England and he has told me so.

JtW
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I swear that in the 7 years I've been living in London the standard of driving has got worse - both in the suburbs and the centre. We live on a road that has a school on it, so has a 20mph speed limit, with a board that tells you how fast you're driving *so you know to slow down*. But we have assholes steaming along the road at 40/50mph. It is incredibly dangerous - there are many side streets with poor visibility coming on to the road due to parked cars.

In central London people regularly run zebra crossing almost hitting those crossing on a regular basis. People regularly run red lights. And don't get me started on indicators. When did they become optional? If you're turning, bloody tell people with those orange things.

But if people don't face any consequences for bad driving, they'll continue to do it.
When I am Empress of Everything, turning without indicating will be a capital offence. [Devil]
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It was turning across my path - or would have been if it had continued as it was signalling. Perhaps I should have used the term "priority". Anyway, I remember being taught that one gives way to people doing what he appeared to intend to do.
Well, you were taught incorrectly and you should demand your money back!
It's in the Highway Code!

When you have stepped off the kerb onto a Zebra Crossing
Which must have black and white stripes, studs and lighted beacons
You have the right-of-way
But allow approaching vehicles ample time to give way
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
a. That was 1966
b. The words were probably changed to scan better with the music
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
Just goes to show its long-established usage as perfectly fine British English. [Razz]
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
My memory is that right of way is just that - having the right to proceed. In the UK drivers of cars, lorries, buses etc don't have that right on the public road (is it still the Queen's Highway?) - they buy it via the Road Fund Licence. Cyclists and pedestrians do. Not sure how the freedom to roam legislation from a few years ago fits into that. I am happy to be proved wrong on this if I am.

As a driving instructor I used to talk about who has priority. And, of course, how to spot those times when, even if the rules give you priority, some dickhead may have decided to steal it from you.

These days if someone else wants to drive like a twat I find the best reaction is to smugly congratulate myself on spotting them before I get caught up in it and then tell myself that if it takes me a few seconds longer to arrive because of it then that really isn't a problem. Getting wound up behind the wheel/handlebars never improves your own driving.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
... Road Fund Licence ...

Vehicle Excise Duty [Razz]

quote:
As a driving instructor I used to talk about who has priority. And, of course, how to spot those times when, even if the rules give you priority, some dickhead may have decided to steal it from you.
That is the difference between "Priority" and "Right of Way". Priority must be given and, as you say, if the other road user doesn't give you priority, be prepared to give way. Right of Way implies that the other driver must give way, no matter what.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
Priority? Here in Tunisia the one who has priority is the one who takes it without flinching, regardless of any official rules.
This is almost the rule in Chicago. The rule in Chicago is, whoever is caught making eye contact first loses. If I look at you and you are already looking at me, I get the right of way. It's a bizarre system and takes some getting used to.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
There are rules in driving? Well, I never knew that.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
There are 2 rules in driving:

1. Don't kill anyone.

2. Try not to hit anything.

Many people drive as if these rules were optional; perhaps because they learned to drive by playing video games.

FWIW I too was taught to deal with roundabouts in the same way - by a driving instructor, and I passed my test first time, so don't blame my parents. My driving instructor told me to give way to someone who is approaching the roundabout at the same time as me from my right.

I do like the terminology the Americans use, though - instead of 'Give Way' they say 'Yield'. It makes me think of Douglas Fairbanks and Basil Rathbone having a sword-fight. 'Yield! Yield, knave!'
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Road fund? Didn't that get killed off in about 1950?

Pedantry - maybe - but when on a bike you've had a few drivers express the view that they can drive in a manner that risks your life because you "don't pay road tax" and "don't pay for the road", you start to get prickly.

Reality - there is no hypothecation, no "road tax" or "road fund" that pays for any roads. VED goes into the general taxation pot. Trunk roads and motorways - which cyclists don't very much or can't use - are paid for out of general taxation. Most roads are maintained by the local authority. Everyone pays for them out of council tax.

It is correct, however, that cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads as of right. Motorists are there under licence.

[ 27. September 2013, 08:37: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike
And the worst offenders are the parents in their 4X4s who then park on the zig zag lines outside the school, while justifying their choice of ridiculous car with the claim that they need to keep their children safe.
The worst thing about those awful "Chelsea tractor" status symbols is that they have such a wide track width that they can zoom straight over the top of many of the traffic calming devices.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
I have seen bumper stickers that say

VISUALIZE USING YOUR TURN SIGNALS

Moo
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
The roads in Britain are full of idiots who can't be bothered to follow the rules and we get a lot of them round here. However, they pale into insignificance in some parts of the world where traffic lights and pedestrian crossings are mostly just decorative, and the figures on a speed limit sign are there to tell you the minimum speed you should be going at.
Ah, you've visited Tunisia then? Traffic lights, one way streets, pedestrian crossings? Merely suggestions to be ignored if they in anyway inconvenience you. And throw in on top the fact that the pedestrian is king here and they just step into the road in front of you even when you are moving at speed and it is your job to avoid them however stupid they have just been.

[ 27. September 2013, 11:18: Message edited by: Lucia ]
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
Priority? Here in Tunisia the one who has priority is the one who takes it without flinching, regardless of any official rules.
This is almost the rule in Chicago. The rule in Chicago is, whoever is caught making eye contact first loses. If I look at you and you are already looking at me, I get the right of way. It's a bizarre system and takes some getting used to.
So everyone studiously ignores each other while pulling straight out? Great...
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
mousethief: This is almost the rule in Chicago. The rule in Chicago is, whoever is caught making eye contact first loses. If I look at you and you are already looking at me, I get the right of way. It's a bizarre system and takes some getting used to.
In Brazil, the windows of most cars are darkened to such a degree that it isn't possible to see the other driver.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
Oh and while I'm at it having a rant about people's driving here my pet hate is the complete inability to drive junctions properly in heavy traffic. The number of time I have sat in grid locked traffic because people impatiently push into the junction when there is a queue on their route out of it. So they end up totally blocking the junction. OK you impatient idiot, you have moved a few feet forward but you aren't actually going anywhere and now neither can any of the rest of us!
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
My driving instructor told me to give way to someone who is approaching the roundabout at the same time as me from my right.
It leaves a logical problem though for two motorists who approach a roundabout from opposite directions, each indicating to turn to the right, since each is equally "to the right of" the other.

It is a little like the advice allegedly given once by a magistrate to a motorist that when driving on full headlights one should always wait for the other driver to dip theirs before dipping one's own!
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
My driving instructor told me to give way to someone who is approaching the roundabout at the same time as me from my right.
It leaves a logical problem though for two motorists who approach a roundabout from opposite directions, each indicating to turn to the right, since each is equally "to the right of" the other.

It is a little like the advice allegedly given once by a magistrate to a motorist that when driving on full headlights one should always wait for the other driver to dip theirs before dipping one's own!
No problem at all. They enter at the same time, are on opposite sides all the way round, and leave at the same time.

The problem only comes in with mini roundabouts when idiots drive across them instead of around them.

(for those benighted souls who've been misinformed about mini roundabouts, https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/roundabouts-184-to-190 - rule 188. Note the MUST which means there's a law mandating this rule)

Similarly, if one is approaching a roundabout and will enter it at the same time as a motorist approaching from the other direction, signalling to turn right, you should be safe to enter. You're not of course, because odds on it's driven by a complete tit who will cut across it straight at you.

[ 27. September 2013, 11:43: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
For comparison, here's the California Driver Handbook. Right of way rules are under Laws and Rules of the Road.
 
Posted by Coffee Cup (# 13506) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
For comparison, here's the California Driver Handbook. Right of way rules are under Laws and Rules of the Road.
Which at roundabouts contains the very bland requirement that
quote:

Vehicles entering or exiting the roundabout must yield to all traffic including pedestrians.
Which should be considered jointly with the fact that even though you have a green light there is no reason that the pedestrians crossing the road do not also have a green light (white illuminated man)...
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No problem at all. They enter at the same time, are on opposite sides all the way round, and leave at the same time.

The problem only comes in with mini roundabouts when idiots drive across them instead of around them.
Or when the length of one or both the vehicles or the very small size of the mini roundabout is such that each vehicle is then prevented from turning right by the rear end of the other vehicle. In that case someone has to give way by not entering the roundabout. For this situation the advice of the highway code is just that you should give way if it will avoid an accident - which both drivers sometimes proceed to do.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No problem at all. They enter at the same time, are on opposite sides all the way round, and leave at the same time.

The problem only comes in with mini roundabouts when idiots drive across them instead of around them.
Or when the length of one or both the vehicles or the very small size of the mini roundabout is such that each vehicle is then prevented from turning right by the rear end of the other vehicle. In that case someone has to give way by not entering the roundabout. For this situation the advice of the highway code is just that you should give way if it will avoid an accident - which both drivers sometimes proceed to do.
Can't say that's ever happened to me. I think this is a case where eye contact needs to be made. It's not really that different to unmarked junctions where there's no priority assumed.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Coffee Cup:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
For comparison, here's the California Driver Handbook. Right of way rules are under Laws and Rules of the Road.
Which at roundabouts contains the very bland requirement that
quote:

Vehicles entering or exiting the roundabout must yield to all traffic including pedestrians.
Which should be considered jointly with the fact that even though you have a green light there is no reason that the pedestrians crossing the road do not also have a green light (white illuminated man)...
In California there typically aren't any streetlights at roundabouts. Here's a photo of the biggest traffic circle in my town. Two or three lanes of traffic feed in from each road into a circle with no lane markers, with no streetlights, no stop signs, and no crosswalks -- just yield signs for the cars. Pedestrians and cyclists just avoid the whole thing.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
The nearest roundabout to me is a similar design nightmare for pedestrians (GSV link). It combines the following fantastic safety features:
It would be hard to design more of a deathtrap. Fortunately, the ambulance would only have a 30-second drive to the nearest A&E, so anyone getting run over stands some chance of being brought round.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I think all roundabouts should be like this [Snigger]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think all roundabouts should be like this [Snigger]
Apparently learner drivers in Swindon have the highest failure rate in Britain in driving tests. This is basically because examiners usually like to make them attempt the Magic Roundabout (as shown in the photo).
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I would accept that I am an aggressive driver. Bearing in mind that I mostly drive in South-East England in peak times, I don't think that is either surprising or a big problem - to drive in the suburbs rush hour, you need to be fairly aggressive.

But aggressive does not mean a bad driver, or a dangerous driver. On the whole, at least.

At roundabouts, I will give way to vehicles on the roundabout, but giving way does not mean always letting them go. It means that all other things being equal, they have priority. But if I can get onto the roundabout without disrupting someone else's driving, I will.

I do see all sorts of other drivers who are "idiots". There are the first type, who seem not to know about lane discipline on the motorways. And yes, that is dangerous and can cause accidents and problems. I blogged about this a while back.

There are also the second type, who cut me up, weave all over the motorway, overtake when there is no space to do so, drive in a way that is dangerously aggressive.

Penny S - although we might have different ideas about what counts as an idiot, I do think that idiots on the roads are a pain.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I would accept that I am an aggressive driver. Bearing in mind that I mostly drive in South-East England in peak times, I don't think that is either surprising or a big problem - to drive in the suburbs rush hour, you need to be fairly aggressive.
Why is it that London has this suburban/exurban ring of lunacy? It seems that drivers inside the North and South Circulars are basically courteous, and then everything goes mad for about 30-50 miles outside them until people finally start driving like they're in the West Country.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I had the third side turning incident. And realised the Ka lady had been using an unfamiliar route, as her usual road was closed, so was probably confused. And met a guy who decided it was a good idea, after dropping his passenger off at the entrance of the road to the car park at the Women's Institute market and elderly people's chat session, to keep driving down between the parked cars though someone else was already driving out. I should have read his intention and reversed instead if assuming I could get past him in the space at the wider bit he had stopped in. I had to go up on the pavement (where cars were parked).
My parent's paid for lessons, and I passed first time, the day after my A-Levels. My Dad's advice was such: "Assume everyone else is an idiot, and don't exclude yourself on occasions. Don't assume the other car is going to do what it is signalling, until you see the wheels turn." and he took me out the day of the test to go over parallel parking (which wasn't included then) and changing a wheel.
Not reverse parking. which I did between two cars at the above car park.
One of the things I find fascinating about watching other cars is the way there are often subtle signs about what they are going to do, almost like body language, and even when the driver is not visible. And I don't mean the indicators. In the absence of their use. (Yesterday's lot at roundabouts weren't predictable. the side turning lot were, because of the speed approaching the main road.

pererin's comment is interesting - I do feel that a lot of the drivers on these little rural lanes just off the M25 do not drive like rural people.

[ 27. September 2013, 22:04: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think all roundabouts should be like this [Snigger]
Apparently learner drivers in Swindon have the highest failure rate in Britain in driving tests. This is basically because examiners usually like to make them attempt the Magic Roundabout (as shown in the photo).
The magic roundabout in Swindon is a piece of cake to drive - there's lots of ways through it. I drive it regularly and have had no problems even in rush hour.

The worst part about is are the pedestrian traffic lights on each exit - no sooner have you looked right than you have to look left again straight away.

The worst roundabout in Swindon is what's called the 4 bridges - 4 roundabouts set in a big square with 100 m sides - with many pedestrian crossings with lights to add to the unholy mix.

Mind you, in Swindon, you get plenty of practice at roundabouts. Someone must've bought shares in roundabout companies.
 
Posted by argona (# 14037) on :
 
I stopped driving 3 years ago. My last car was written off when a truck rolled back into it in a traffic-light queue. It was Romanian, on the A2, obviously heading for Dover and home. The driver looked at my car's mangled front end, said 'Is not my problem' and drove off. Ridiculously, I was too shaken to take his number, but that would have been fruitless anyway. By the time his details got on the police system he'd have been halfway across the continent.

Anyway, my partner and I both have freedom passes (giving free public transport around Greater London), our rail station is 12 minutes from London Bridge, local buses are fine and our kids are independent now... we were using the car less and less anyway, so decided to pack it all in, just rent a car or van whenever we need one. I've always hated driving around town. A country road in a fun car (I once had an MG) is great but city roads and motorways... give me a break, which is what I'm taking. If circumstances change I might think again.

Were I to nominate 'dumbest drivers in the cosmos' it would be those who can't even keep their eyes open. Since I got my licence in 1969 I've had - just added them up - 7 accidents. 3 my fault, no excuses. The other 4 were being smacked from behind by daydreamers who hadn't clocked that the car ahead was stationary - at a red light (twiice), a give-way line and a pedestrian crossing. 'He wasn't there the last time I looked' said one of those drivers to a police officer, who promptly cautioned him (in American, that's read him his rights).
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I would accept that I am an aggressive driver. Bearing in mind that I mostly drive in South-East England in peak times, I don't think that is either surprising or a big problem - to drive in the suburbs rush hour, you need to be fairly aggressive.

But aggressive does not mean a bad driver, or a dangerous driver. On the whole, at least.
Well, I'm going to disagree with you here, unless you mean a different thing from 'aggressive'. Being aggressive in a half-tonne steel vehicle capable of speeds over 100mph which goes pretty much where you point it? That's a recipe for disaster - if not yours, certainly the people you spend time on the road with.

Mrs Tor's being doing here Advanced Driving this year. Unsurprisingly, they're not teaching her to drive aggressively, and it's a pernicious myth that driving aggressively is somehow acceptable. Or laudable. Or even safe.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Forgot to add a third Dad rule - don't do anything which depends on someone else's brakes to avoid an accident.
And my corollary - don't do anything which forces someone else to change gear.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
People are impatient and think their journey is a burden. They don't realize that they need to enjoy the trip.

Anyone who describes themselves as an aggressive driver is a problem. Are you also an aggressive eater? Is that why you fart such nonsense out of your mouth? Are you also aggressive in the pay line at the local grocery store? Do you swear at the old person struggling to find the correct money or pay card? Do you beat up grandmothers? Smarten the hell up. Grow the hell up. Or have a stroke and die.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Another way of putting it: better to arrive late and alive than to become THE late.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Better late to the party than on time to your funeral.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Yes, my driving instructor used to say, "Better late and alive than dead on time."

There was a time when 50 or 60 mph would have been considered extremely fast.

I wonder if part of the problem is that cars are fitted with speedometers capable of registering speeds that in practice most of us never get to use - where are you legally going to be able to do 120 mph in this country? When the dial pointer is on 40 mph, and leaving 2/3rds of the dial untouched, it's not surprising that some people might subconsciously start to feel disgruntled that they're only travelling at a third of the car's potential full speed.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Time was that 10 miles per hour was fast, what's your fucking point?

In reality, experiments show that with actual humans driving modern cars, a fun thing happens: Where speed limits have increased, accidents went down. Where speed limits have been decreased, accidents went up. This is the first Google hit I found here looking for relevant data.

The basic idea being that the safest speed tends to be where the 85th percentile of drivers tend to drive. If you have significant speed differential from the pack, either faster or slower, regardless of arbitrarily assigned speed limits, you are a hazard.

Feel like everybody else is in too much of a hurry? Get off the fucking road and walk, you self-righteous obstacle.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
regardless of arbitrarily assigned speed limits
Good thing they're not arbitrarily assigned, then.

I follow the assigned speed limits because I understand the basis on which they're decided. So no, going faster than that isn't justified by the desire to 'fit in' with a bunch of uneducated morons who don't understand the laws of physics.

And I can recall giving you a physics lesson a few years back, after you claimed reaction times and stopping distances that would actually cause tires to melt.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

Feel like everybody else is in too much of a hurry? Get off the fucking road and walk, you self-righteous obstacle.
Quite. And just as a completely random example, in the early evening, the majority of employed people around here get in cars and drive home. They are all in a hurry - they'd all like to see their children before they go to bed or whatever. They all want to get home safely and efficiently.

This is not the time for you to saunter along admiring the scenery.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Also, that study has things completely arse-backwards. It's not the case that they set the speed limits based on what the 85th percentile does. Around here they set the speed limit on the basis of the nature of the road - it's width, connections and the types of things on either side of the road are among the criteria - and approximately 15% of assholes decide they know better.

That study also MOSTLY says that speed limits don't affect the number of accidents - some of the text, and then there's the expression of the confidence levels. And it says precisely nothing about the severity of the accidents that happen. Sure, maybe the idiot that crashed on the main street of my suburb a few years back might still have crashed at a lower speed, but maybe he wouldn't have killed his 2 passengers in the process. Force = mass x deceleration and all that.

[ 05. October 2013, 04:37: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I follow the assigned speed limits because I understand the basis on which they're decided.
Which, sadly, has no relation to how speed limits are set in North America. Though I am amused to hear about how speed limits are set on a continent that is essentially completely flat and featureless.

quote:
And I can recall giving you a physics lesson a few years back, after you claimed reaction times and stopping distances that would actually cause tires to melt.
I recall the occasion differently. You effectively admitted defeat on the second post when you suggested a brand-new compact car with ABS as your basis for bottom-threshold stopping distance comparison. Did you forget all the pointing and laughing?
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's not the case that they set the speed limits based on what the 85th percentile does.
Indeed not. I appears that they use some sort of roulette wheel, lubricated with the tears civil engineers.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
on a continent that is essentially completely flat and featureless.
I live 650 metres above sea level. How the fuck do I manage that on a continent that is essentially flat and featureless?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Feel like everybody else is in too much of a hurry? Get off the fucking road and walk, you self-righteous obstacle.
Quite. And just as a completely random example, in the early evening, the majority of employed people around here get in cars and drive home. They are all in a hurry - they'd all like to see their children before they go to bed or whatever. They all want to get home safely and efficiently.

This is not the time for you to saunter along admiring the scenery.
I'm not a slow driver. I just think that some people are too impatient, and on a day to day basis you can always see driving that isn't safe or efficient. Some of it is stupidly dangerous, for the sake of shaving literally a few seconds off the journey - and it is stupid to overtake at 20mph above the speed limit on a main road when everybody else is travelling at the speed limit and traffic is coming in both directions.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
...and stuoid passengers...

A car turning right (this is UK, think left for some other areas) was stopped in the middle of the junction to let other traffic through. Nothing wrong there...

...but...

...BUT...

[Eek!]

... that was the place the passenger decided to get out.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The magic roundabout in Swindon is a piece of cake to drive - there's lots of ways through it.
Why is there always this fuss about the Magic Roundabout? I know of at least two others, one in Hemel Hempstead and the other beside Heathrow Terminal 4.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I live 650 metres above sea level. How the fuck do I manage that on a continent that is essentially flat and featureless?
Using the magic of mathematics, one would assume that you manage with an amazing 0.6% grade. Break out your squirrel suit!

[ 05. October 2013, 15:38: Message edited by: RooK ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
A person with a horsebox, of the larger sort, who choose a route where the width of the road was less than the width of the box plus a car with enough room to pass without contact.
The person in the car following, who was so close that she had no option but to keep coming forward, though she had just passed a place with a farm gate which added width.
The person following me, who reluctantly reversed to a place wide enough for them and stopped.
I am very glad that the deep cutting of the road was into sands rather than clay with flints, though there were some knobbly tree roots sticking out.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
orfeo:
quote:
I follow the assigned speed limits because I understand the basis on which they're decided.
I follow the speed limits because I'm allergic to traffic fines and high insurance rates. And it has worked, too. Forty years of driving and no moving violations.

(Lyda being not at all smug. [Biased] )
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
Guy driving on the M6 in Lancashire apparently didn't notice ('phoning?) that the three lanes in front of him were occupied by static traffic. He hit the back of a stationary artic at 70mph+. The first traffic bobby on the scene told me that the chap was almost OK - airbags and curtains had gone off and his seatbelt had kept him from impaling himself on the steering wheel - only problem was..................


finding the guy's head.

It was finally discovered in the front passenger foot-well, having been removed from his shoulders by the map book he kept on the rear parcel shelf. If it has to be in the space meant for people - under the seat or, if too big, secured behind the drivers seat please folks.

Talking of airbags - they expand at a starting speed of 200mph. If the front passenger has their feet on the dash (as often observed on motorways) when the bag goes off their kneecap only meets something capable of stopping it when it reaches the inside of the back of their skull.

And please don't do as a local lady did - I thought her front seat passenger headrest was loose until I stopped behind them at lights and the movement was clearly a Yorkshire Terrier trying to get comfortable on headrest and passenger's shoulder. Even if she was the world's best driver (she wasn't) someone else could have hit her - imagine the carnage a Yorkie's skull can do zipping around at head height in an enclosed space.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I'm not a slow driver. I just think that some people are too impatient,
[..]
it is stupid to overtake at 20mph above the speed limit on a main road when everybody else is travelling at the speed limit and traffic is coming in both directions.
I am thinking more in terms of the people that I encounter noodling along at 10mph below the posted limits in good weather, who cause:
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I am thinking more in terms of the people that I encounter noodling along at 10mph below the posted limits in good weather, who cause:
Exasperated people behind them not to be delayed by a few seconds, but by an entire cycle of the traffic lights
Maddening, yes. However, if this makes someone late, it is typically they who did not allow enough time for the journey. Regardless, when anger or frustration is too great a component, it is time for public transportation.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Less patient exasperated people behind them to attempt overtaking maneuvers that they probably shouldn't
No. You are the cause of every move you intentionally make. And at least some you do not.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Guy driving on the M6 in Lancashire apparently didn't notice ('phoning?) that the three lanes in front of him were occupied by static traffic. He hit the back of a stationary artic at 70mph+. The first traffic bobby on the scene told me that the chap was almost OK - airbags and curtains had gone off and his seatbelt had kept him from impaling himself on the steering wheel - only problem was..................


finding the guy's head.

It was finally discovered in the front passenger foot-well, having been removed from his shoulders by the map book he kept on the rear parcel shelf.
How did that work? The driver's seat had no headrest?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Guy driving on the M6 in Lancashire apparently didn't notice ('phoning?) that the three lanes in front of him were occupied by static traffic. He hit the back of a stationary artic at 70mph+. The first traffic bobby on the scene told me that the chap was almost OK - airbags and curtains had gone off and his seatbelt had kept him from impaling himself on the steering wheel - only problem was..................


finding the guy's head.

It was finally discovered in the front passenger foot-well, having been removed from his shoulders by the map book he kept on the rear parcel shelf. If it has to be in the space meant for people - under the seat or, if too big, secured behind the drivers seat please folks.
Real event or an as heard? Given the mass and construction of a map-book and construction of the human neck, this seems a tad improbable.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No. You are the cause of every move you intentionally make. And at least some you do not.
Does the impatient driver bear the responsibility for deciding to overtake dangerously? Yes.

Does the fact that he's following a selfish pillock excuse him putting other road users at risk? No.

Does this mean that the slowcoach in front is in the clear? No.

Everyone has an obligation to deal courteously with other road users. Part of that courtesy is accelerating smartly to a sensible speed (which in the case of all the roads around here in dry weather is the posted legal limit) rather than dawdling.

Now, if the thing that is impeding your progress is a herd of sheep being moved from one field to another, you got unlucky, just as you get unlucky if you arrive at a railway crossing as the barriers come down and the first few wagons of a mile-long freight train chunter in to view. The sheep, or the train, are moving as fast as they can - they're just slow.

But Dawdling Dennis is just rude.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Does the impatient driver bear the responsibility for deciding to overtake dangerously? Yes.
The rest of your statement is irrelevant. Driving too slowly can be a danger, however in the situation you describe, the impatient motorist is completely at fault.
Trust me, I understand. I am not patient on the road, though I am trying to be. I become frustrated with people, but I realise this is my issue.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Regardless, when anger or frustration is too great a component, it is time for public transportation.
Assuming there is any. Many villages have no train station and an infrequent bus service - some buses might even only run once a week, with one journey to the nearest town mid-morning and back again in the afternoon. This is why most people have cars; but because most people have cars, there's no need for public transport in those places.

Besides, if someone is an angry and frustrated driver they will probably only be an angry and frustrated bus/train passenger.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Regardless, when anger or frustration is too great a component, it is time for public transportation.
Yes well. One of the few traffic accidents I have been in was in a bus being driven by someone (I was sitting directly behind him) in such a lather of fury at other road users that I'd already decided to get off at the next stop and walk so obviously was he on a - literally - collision course.

It was when bus services had just been deregulated in Embra, and there were lots of carriers competing on the main routes at peak times - so I suspect back of this chap was pressure to complete the journey ASAP. Twenty years on we're back to a virtual monopoly by the municipally owned ones - which is fine by me as I would rather Service (and safety) before Profit.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
A mere 10 miles per hour under the limit is not dawdling. I know the whole world decided that a speed 'limit' is actually some kind of mandatory minimum, but there's very few areas where that's legally the case.

(I encountered a couple of minimum speed limits in Hawaii, driving on the right hand side of the road, and I complied. Damn proud of myself I was. Then I got to the point where I was comfortable driving at the UPPER speed limit, and still 95% of cars were overtaking me. So much for a laidback lifestyle on Maui.)
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A mere 10 miles per hour under the limit is not dawdling. I know the whole world decided that a speed 'limit' is actually some kind of mandatory minimum, but there's very few areas where that's legally the case.
I'm glad someone posted that.
Last Sunday I set off on a trip, and realised there was a problem with my ability to pay attention - I've described this as not being able to engage the autopilot which normally takes care of accelerator and gear changes while I pay attention to the variables on the route. It was like being a learner again. So I cancelled the journey and made my way home.
I was suddenly overtaken by someone exceeding the speed limit, in the part of the road hatched to show that it should not be used. (This was on Death Hill in Kent, originally designed for three lanes, one east, one west, and one overtaking in either direction - not a safe manoeuvre.) I checked my speed, which seemed the same as usual, and found I was doing 50 instead of 60. The sports car which passed me was doing about 70, and making that irritated acceleration noise.

My point being that if someone is doing 10 mph less than the limit, there may be a reason.

Mind you, if the limit is 20, and they are doing 10 in a place where the visibility is good, or doing 20 in a 30 limit, or 30 on a 40 limited road, I feel differently. At those speeds, 10 below is quite a large chunk of speed lost. Even so, they may have a reason - but I think should keep tabs on the numbers behind and pull in to let people pass if possible.

Above 50, and I'm not bothered.

Stuck behind someone slow once, I did some sums, and worked out the time lost by doing a 60 mile journey at 60 instead of 70. Basically, if the difference in arrival time was that critical, the driver had not allowed enough time for the journey in the first place.

The real irritation I find is in having to match braking, accelerating and gear changes with someone else's natural pattern, which cannot be easily predicted. (The sports car hadn't been following me long enough for that to kick in. Hardly saw him in the mirror. I assume him...)
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
It is pointless and stupid to be angry at people driving slower than everybody else. The simple fact is that some vehicles/drivers have a maximum safe speed that might not conform with everybody else. I regularly drive my ancient, wheezy pickup heavily laden and with a big tarp holding it all in - and it sometimes is simply not appropriate to push it above 45 MPH even in ideal conditions. Short of banning such vehicles, the best thing is for the general pack to adapt to accommodate them.

BUT, let's not pretend that there is only one speed to be considered. There is ground speed, but there is also speed relative to other vehicles. If a driver wishes to travel 20 MPH slower than the traffic average, they are effectively driving backwards through the pack at 20 MPH. This difficult feat is best accomplished driving in a predictable manner, and in the path of least rearward resistance. Meaning: the motherfucking slow(er) lane(s).

Traffic is about flow, and if you are obstructing flow, you are a problem.
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Guy driving on the M6 in Lancashire apparently didn't notice ('phoning?) that the three lanes in front of him were occupied by static traffic. He hit the back of a stationary artic at 70mph+. The first traffic bobby on the scene told me that the chap was almost OK - airbags and curtains had gone off and his seatbelt had kept him from impaling himself on the steering wheel - only problem was..................


finding the guy's head.

It was finally discovered in the front passenger foot-well, having been removed from his shoulders by the map book he kept on the rear parcel shelf. If it has to be in the space meant for people - under the seat or, if too big, secured behind the drivers seat please folks.
Real event or an as heard? Given the mass and construction of a map-book and construction of the human neck, this seems a tad improbable.
The officer was based at Lancashire Constabulary's M6 traffic HQ. We were just chatting - I sold them kit that was a vital part of their traffic car technology and we were always working with them to maximise the system's effectiveness. He said that he was the officer who was first to arrive at the scene he described. I offer what I told others later that day.

I think his main point was that he and his colleagues are often seen only as well paid drivers who are allowed to have great fun at public expense showing off their advanced driving skills (he was probably Class 1) in very fast cars whilst upsetting other drivers. Other drivers who, of course, think everyone else is a bad driver who should be punished severely for breaking the law but know that, whatever they do, they are perfectly safe drivers who shouldn't be classed with all the other idiots. The local, unofficial, term for the bobbies "customers" was numpties. Whilst, I'm sure, agreeing that that is a part of the job that he much enjoyed, he was pointing out that sometimes we need someone who can sort out human tragedies with the minimum of disruption and the maximum of efficiency. As with the British Transport Police staff who sometimes have to walk up to two miles of track filling a black sack with bits of a suicide; being a bobby is not always fun and sometimes can be very distressing.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Traffic is about flow, and if you are obstructing flow, you are a problem.
It's a wonder that people don't tell trees, rocks and telephone poles to get out of the way and stop obstructing flow.

Oh, and bends. Bends are dreadful flow-obstructors. They should just get out of the way.

[ 10. October 2013, 02:54: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
You do realize that we blast holes through mountains, build bridges, and generally leave relatively few trees on roadways, right?

Unless you're arguing that traffic should flow through obstacle courses. Which would actually be kind of fun for me, personally. But might not exactly conform to the ideal of safety the public might seem to aspire.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A mere 10 miles per hour under the limit is not dawdling. I know the whole world decided that a speed 'limit' is actually some kind of mandatory minimum, but there's very few areas where that's legally the case.
I was speaking about courtesy rather than legality - it is legal to be rude and selfish, but that doesn't make it acceptable. And obstructing the flow of traffic by doing 35 on a 45 mph limit straight road with clear sight lines, in dry weather, is dawdling, and is rude.

Unless you're the leaf sweeper truck or a bicycle or something. If your car is not capable of safely driving at 45 mph, you shouldn't be driving it on the roads.

quote:
Then I got to the point where I was comfortable driving at the UPPER speed limit, and still 95% of cars were overtaking me. So much for a laidback lifestyle on Maui.)
Around these parts, the highway has a 55mph speed limit (the double nickel was an attempt at a gasoline-saving device, rather than anything related to what might be safe) and a minimum speed of 45 mph. If you drive at less than 70 mph, you will be passed by almost every other vehicle.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
you know you're all just stroking RooK's automotive hard-on, right?

okay. so long as you know.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Like many others, when I passed my test and got my first car I usually drove about 10 mph under the speed limit on the faster roads, because driving lessons hadn't really prepared me for solo driving on these, and had certainly not taught me to deal wth motorways. I got beeped at a lot by impatient motorists and some bloke actually leant out of his window and called me a twat after experiencing my braking on winding country roads. The bends can be a bit intimidating if you're new to it and the idea of hurtling round them at 50 mph terrified me in those early days.

There isn't always any indication that someone is a new driver and feeling out of their depth in the early stages - any adult at any age may be newly qualified, it's not the preserve of the young - and I don't think there's anything wrong in remembering, from time to time, that driving can be dangerous and it's better to be over-cautious if you aren't sure. Not everyone is equally confident on the road or even a frequent driver, and not eveyone is naturally at home behind the wheel, either.

[ 10. October 2013, 06:02: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
Funny that a number of slower drivers that I have seen travelling around 35 in a 40 speed up a tad when we then enter a 30 zone.

Idiots.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
not everyone is equally confident on the road or even a frequent driver, and not eveyone is naturally at home behind the wheel, either.
Driving is like sex, there is a lot more confidence than ability.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
you know you're all just stroking RooK's automotive hard-on, right?

okay. so long as you know.
It's okay, nobody's mentioned the correct location of the engine. Not yet at least. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I was speaking about courtesy rather than legality - it is legal to be rude and selfish, but that doesn't make it acceptable. And obstructing the flow of traffic by doing 35 on a 45 mph limit straight road with clear sight lines, in dry weather, is dawdling, and is rude.
Rudeness depends on intention, though.

I admit that I occasionally fantasise about slowing down or doing the speed limit in the fast lane purely for the purpose of pissing people off, but in reality that's not usually my goal.

My goals are far more selfish than that and have to do with (1) keeping safe control of my vehicle in the relevant circumstances and (2) avoiding unnecessary financial penalties.

I imagine that's the case for other people who also don't follow the flow of the traffic like a herd of sheep. Or should I say lemmings (NB many of the stereotypes of lemming behaviour are myths, but for THESE purposes I am referring to the stereotype rather than the actual creature).

I am not obliged to share the over-inflated confidence of most drivers (75% of drivers considered themselves 'above-average' in one survey, which is of course completely impossible if one is referring to a median average and highly unlikely with a mean average).

Nor am I obliged to share the fantastical beliefs about the laws of physics that many drivers possess, as evidenced by their tailgating and complete rejection of the 2-second gap recommended when following another vehicle.

If not sharing such beliefs is 'rude' then you might as well call me 'rude' for not sharing a whole range of other beliefs that I consider fanciful and lacking a factual basis, such as that the moon landing was a conspiracy, Barack Obama was really born in Kenya and John Lennon's Imagine is the greatest song ever written.

Frankly I spend most of my life dealing with people who stagger me with their lack of foresight and planning. Driving just happens to be one of the situations where I hope to God the lack of foresight and planning on the part of others doesn't lead to my physical injury.

When there's a vehicle going slower than myself, I can frequently see it from 50 or 100 metres away and make decisions about whether to slow down or change lanes. And yet day after day I see people who come right up behind such vehicles, brake suddenly, change lanes at the last possible minute or just get really worked up that the slower vehicle doesn't miraculously speed up for them.

I can also see the whacko tailgating/speeding/lane changing drivers from 50 or 100 metres away. Seriously. I have been known to slow down a bit to avoid coming alongside that kind of whacko driver because I can TELL that in 30 to 60 seconds' time, when we reach that issue further up the road that I've already noticed, that whacko driver is going to do something whacko and I don't want to be anywhere near them when it happens.

I actually find it deeply amusing that anyone would say "oh no, I don't know how to get past the slow car" because I'm personally capable of figuring how WAY before I get to the slow car whether or not I can take action. If I can I take it, if I can't I just wait until I can.

You know what's rude? Thinking the road belongs to you. Thinking that it's the role of other people to facilitate your passage. It really isn't. It isn't the job of other people to make it so you don't have to make any decisions of your own or plan ahead. It isn't the job of the slow vehicle to solve your impatience.

[ 10. October 2013, 07:43: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
You do realize that we blast holes through mountains, build bridges, and generally leave relatively few trees on roadways, right?

Unless you're arguing that traffic should flow through obstacle courses. Which would actually be kind of fun for me, personally. But might not exactly conform to the ideal of safety the public might seem to aspire.
Sure. So long as you comprehend that it's your job to avoid the obstacle, rather than the obstacle's job to avoid you.

The lack of public safety on an obstacle course would, it seems to me, be far more likely to arise from the public than from the course.

[ 10. October 2013, 07:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
You know what, Leorning Cniht? I'm going to have another go because I realised I've got something else to say.

What exactly is it about driving that makes people think they're entitled to make those kinds of arguments?

If you tried saying things like that about real life people engaged in lots of other activities, you'd be howled down. Just try it. Try saying that if children, the elderly and the disabled can't walk on the footpath as fast as you, it's 'rude'. Jesus Christ that man with cerebral palsy was rude, slowed me down on the way into the coffee shop. Someone should get him off the streets.

But put people in cars and suddenly this kind of thinking becomes okay. Suddenly it's "if you can't do it to my standards you shouldn't be allowed to do it all".
 
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I was speaking about courtesy rather than legality - it is legal to be rude and selfish, but that doesn't make it acceptable. And obstructing the flow of traffic by doing 35 on a 45 mph limit straight road with clear sight lines, in dry weather, is dawdling, and is rude.
Rudeness depends on intention, though.

Yes - it isn't courteous to drive faster than you feel is safe so that you won't slow down the traffic behind you. It is courteous to pull in at regular intervals and allow the traffic to progress at its own speed rather than be restricted by yours.

I live in an area of tiny, hilly, winding lanes, and although I can make good progress through them, I fully understand that many people cannot. I don't hassle them (although I do wish they would pull in where possible).

It would be really nice if people showed me the same understanding when I'm faced with complicated lane manoeuvring on the busy roads that are outside my comfort zone. Never happens though.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
I live in an area of tiny, hilly, winding lanes, and although I can make good progress through them, I fully understand that many people cannot. I don't hassle them (although I do wish they would pull in where possible).
What I don't get is why horse box drivers are incapable of doing this. Perhaps we should make them learn to drive a tractor before they even go near a horse box.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
What it boils down to is this: I cannot stop you from driving like a dick.

Once I learnt to accept that, I could mitigate your dickishness by changing how I drive. You want to drive slowly down a country road, knock yourself out. You want to do 85 down the motorway, be my guest. You want to do 45 in a 30 limit, okay. I have no points on my licence, 30 years without an accident, and joyously low insurance premiums. I'm not even a particularly confident driver, but I can spot a dick behind the wheel of a car and take the required action.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
orfeo:
quote:
Try saying that if children, the elderly and the disabled can't walk on the footpath as fast as you, it's 'rude'. Jesus Christ that man with cerebral palsy was rude, slowed me down on the way into the coffee shop. Someone should get him off the streets.
Sadly, some people do have this attitude towards other pedestrians who are impeding their exquisite progress towards their goal. ISTR a previous thread where someone expressed the opinion that old people should not be allowed on the streets during rush hour, for example.

Oh, and what Doc Tor said as well.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Try saying that if children, the elderly and the disabled can't walk on the footpath as fast as you, it's 'rude'.
If they're walking three or four abreast and blocking the whole footpath, then you bet your ass it's rude. Walk slowly if you must, but leave space for those of us who move with a bit more pace to get past.

Which, oddly enough, is no more nor less than what I demand of slow drivers. I don't mind in the slightest if someone is going 20 mph below the speed limit so long as they're doing it in the slow lane. If they're doing it in the middle (or, God forbid, even the fast) lane then they're in the wrong. I can't wait for the police to actually start enforcing lane discipline on all the fuckwits who hog the middle lane rather than moving over to the slow lane to let the rest of us past.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Sure. So long as there's an actual rule about which lane to use (and in many places there is), then go ahead and enforce it.

I think you'll find, though, that police are only authorised to enforce actual laws. Not to enforce 'politeness'.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
Not sure how this works in the UK or Oz, but here we have a statute about "impeding traffic", which is enforceable by ticket (a petty misdemeanor).
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sure. So long as there's an actual rule about which lane to use (and in many places there is), then go ahead and enforce it.

I think you'll find, though, that police are only authorised to enforce actual laws. Not to enforce 'politeness'.
Well, the law has now changed:
Lane hogging and tailgating on-the-spot fines in force
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
I live in an area of tiny, hilly, winding lanes, and although I can make good progress through them, I fully understand that many people cannot. I don't hassle them (although I do wish they would pull in where possible).
What I don't get is why horse box drivers are incapable of doing this. Perhaps we should make them learn to drive a tractor before they even go near a horse box.
I have the terrible problem with the concept of horse boxes of thinking like a peasant about horses. They are supposed to be a means of transport, aren't they?
I went on a pony trek holiday once. I was bemused by the way we had to get off to climb up hills, and stay on to go down horrid narrow tracks with steep drops and boulders below. Then I found a Native American saying - "If a man has to stay on a horse going downhill, that man isn't a man. If he has to get off to go uphill, that horse isn't a horse.".
My feeling is, if it has to be towed somewhere, there's no point to having it. Round here, they spend a lot of time, when not in horse boxes, being ridden on the roads. Sometimes the riders get very irritated if they have signalled a car to go past, and that driver does not go, because the driver knows that the rider cannot see far enough ahead to know it's safe, and there is not room to get past at the speed one must use to go past horses at a decent distance from the horse before the next bend. Grrr. Can't see the fun of riding on a road, anyway. It's what put me off investigating the possibility of taking up hacking again.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
[munches horse burger in agreement]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
There's a lot of equines round here, confounding my omnivore argument that the best way of getting enough food for people includes grazing on land unsuitable for arable use. Some are gypsy ponies, notable by their being piebald and having feathery fetlocks (or whatever the name is for their ankles), others upper middle class, notable by neat haircuts and warm coating in this weather. I've more patience with the former, even when they are out on the roads with trotting carts - some of us here would find that really really rude.
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sure. So long as there's an actual rule about which lane to use (and in many places there is), then go ahead and enforce it.

I think you'll find, though, that police are only authorised to enforce actual laws. Not to enforce 'politeness'.
Well, the law has now changed:
Lane hogging and tailgating on-the-spot fines in force
Sounds good doesn't it.

UK police forces have 29% less traffic bobbies than ten years ago*. Who does this numpty think is going to turn his rhetoric into action? To me it's just empty words designed to con a gullible public - again.

*pity about the cleverly accurate-but-misleading graph though

In Sweden it is (as of four years ago at least) illegal to travel with less than half a second between your vehicle and the one in front. We developed suitable software and supplied systems to permit enforcement. As I recall the penalty was simple, the video recording proved the facts and you lost your licence for a period (one month?). By lost it I mean you walked home from the scene unless you arranged for a legally competent driver to take you and your car away.

Seemed like a good system to me.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

If you tried saying things like that about real life people engaged in lots of other activities, you'd be howled down. Just try it. Try saying that if children, the elderly and the disabled can't walk on the footpath as fast as you, it's 'rude'.
Nope, it's not about children, the elderly or the disabled. In terms of footpath traffic, the elderly are the leaf sweeping trucks, and the school field trip is the freight train. They're making the best progress they can, but are inherently slow. That's fine.

It's about people who are entirely capable of moving quickly and efficiently, but choose not to. If you were to link arms with your friends, and saunter arm-in-arm down a busy footpath obstructing the foot traffic, or were to stand in the middle of a single person-width footpath and not move to the side when someone else came along, it would be just as rude. There's nothing unique about driving a car here.

The difference is that it's hard to know a person's abilities, level of physical fitness and so on just by looking at him, so you have no reason to think that a slower walker is being obstructive rather than doing the best he can. It is much easier to look at someone's car and know that it is capable of traveling at the posted limit, so much easier to make the assumption that someone driving at 35 mph in a 45 mph zone in good weather is neglecting his duty of courtesy to other road users.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The difference is that it's hard to know a person's abilities, level of physical fitness and so on just by looking at him, so you have no reason to think that a slower walker is being obstructive rather than doing the best he can. It is much easier to look at someone's car and know that it is capable of traveling at the posted limit, so much easier to make the assumption that someone driving at 35 mph in a 45 mph zone in good weather is neglecting his duty of courtesy to other road users.
Knowing that IT is capable. The car.

Yeah. Because the car just drives itself, doesn't it. The abilities of the individual inside it just disappear from relevance.


[Roll Eyes]

[ 10. October 2013, 23:08: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Which is a truly lovely segue into my fervent hope for the rapid development of autonomous vehicles. Because most people really don't care enough about the function of driving vehicles, but in NAFTA having personal motorized transportation is virtually necessary.

And also expediting the singularity, which is a plus.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't mind in the slightest if someone is going 20 mph below the speed limit so long as they're doing it in the slow lane. If they're doing it in the middle (or, God forbid, even the fast) lane then they're in the wrong. I can't wait for the police to actually start enforcing lane discipline on all the fuckwits who hog the middle lane rather than moving over to the slow lane to let the rest of us past.
And herein lies the problem. There is no such thing as a "slow lane" or a "fast lane". The correct place for all drivers is the left hand lane unless overtaking, regardless of speed.

[ 11. October 2013, 06:59: Message edited by: Spike ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't mind in the slightest if someone is going 20 mph below the speed limit so long as they're doing it in the slow lane. If they're doing it in the middle (or, God forbid, even the fast) lane then they're in the wrong. I can't wait for the police to actually start enforcing lane discipline on all the fuckwits who hog the middle lane rather than moving over to the slow lane to let the rest of us past.
And herein lies the problem. There is no such thing as a "slow lane" or a "fast lane". The correct place for all drivers is the left hand lane unless overtaking, regardless of speed.
Well, that depends on the rules in your particular jurisdiction AND on their application to a particular road.

There is at least one major road that I use frequently where I spend time in the right hand lane, irrespective of overtaking, because I'm going to have to make a right hand turn and it's rather difficult to get across into the right hand lane IMMEDIATELY before the turn. That is rather different to a highway that is set up with on and off ramps such that one only ever enters and exits the highway on the left hand side.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Yeah. Because the car just drives itself, doesn't it. The abilities of the individual inside it just disappear from relevance.
If you are not capable of driving your car safely at 45 mph in clear weather, because of some deficiency in your ability to control the car, you are not safe to drive, and should be medically disqualified from doing so.

If you can't drive safely at 45 mph in clear weather, you will not be able to respond safely to any number of fairly common driving situations that come upon you at slower speeds.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Yeah. Because the car just drives itself, doesn't it. The abilities of the individual inside it just disappear from relevance.
If you are not capable of driving your car safely at 45 mph in clear weather, because of some deficiency in your ability to control the car, you are not safe to drive, and should be medically disqualified from doing so.

If you can't drive safely at 45 mph in clear weather, you will not be able to respond safely to any number of fairly common driving situations that come upon you at slower speeds.
Well if that's your opinion, I encourage you to make some effort to get it implemented in the licensing laws. Meanwhile, other duly licensed drivers are quite free to ignore your opinion.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't mind in the slightest if someone is going 20 mph below the speed limit so long as they're doing it in the slow lane. If they're doing it in the middle (or, God forbid, even the fast) lane then they're in the wrong. I can't wait for the police to actually start enforcing lane discipline on all the fuckwits who hog the middle lane rather than moving over to the slow lane to let the rest of us past.
And herein lies the problem. There is no such thing as a "slow lane" or a "fast lane". The correct place for all drivers is the left hand lane unless overtaking, regardless of speed.
Well, that depends on the rules in your particular jurisdiction AND on their application to a particular road.

There is at least one major road that I use frequently where I spend time in the right hand lane, irrespective of overtaking, because I'm going to have to make a right hand turn and it's rather difficult to get across into the right hand lane IMMEDIATELY before the turn. That is rather different to a highway that is set up with on and off ramps such that one only ever enters and exits the highway on the left hand side.
OK, fair point. I was referring to UK motorways where nearly all slip roads join or leave on the left. (I think there's one somewhere in Scotland where it's not the case). If it's a dual carriageway with a turning to the right then yes, of course you need to move to the right hand lane. That said, when another motorist is turning right, this is one of the occasions when it's acceptable to overtake on the left, so my point still stands (or is even reinforced) that there's no such thing as a fast or slow lane.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
There still seem to dicks on this thread.

LC - it's a speed limit not a speed target.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
And herein lies the problem. There is no such thing as a "slow lane" or a "fast lane". The correct place for all drivers is the left hand lane unless overtaking, regardless of speed.
Leave it to a driving instructor to reveal the glaring flaws in my terminology. The point that drivers should be in the leftmost lane unless overtaking is exactly the one I was making.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
OK, fair point. I was referring to UK motorways where nearly all slip roads join or leave on the left. (I think there's one somewhere in Scotland where it's not the case).
Yeah, there are a couple of right-hand exits on the M8 in Glasgow. There's also one on the A167(M) in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, so you don't quite need to go to Scotland for that particular weirdness.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't mind in the slightest if someone is going 20 mph below the speed limit so long as they're doing it in the slow lane. If they're doing it in the middle (or, God forbid, even the fast) lane then they're in the wrong. I can't wait for the police to actually start enforcing lane discipline on all the fuckwits who hog the middle lane rather than moving over to the slow lane to let the rest of us past.
I think the bigger problem is the morons who do 20mph over the speed limit in the middle lane, but don't have the awareness that they will have to move out when someone doing 5mph under the speed limit tries to overtake someone doing 15mph under the speed limit. If there's a high enough density of 20mph over drivers, the 5mph under drivers won't move back in, because they'll struggle to get out again.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Penny S:
quote:
Can't see the fun of riding on a road, anyway.
Most riders would agree with you (because of all the arseholes who think it's their God-given right to drive at 60 mph on narrow twisting country lanes) but unfortunately, it's almost impossible to ride anywhere in the UK without going along a public road for part of the way. I think the Queen manages it, but then she has the whole of Windsor Great Park to ride in. Some of those people in horseboxes might be taking their horses somewhere that they can ride without worrying about traffic, in fact; lots of Forestry Commission land has bridleways.

I prefer to sneer at the people whizzing along the motorway with four bikes strapped to the boot, myself. Do they think the car uses less petrol if they have an environmentally friendly totem fixed to it?
 
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well if that's your opinion, I encourage you to make some effort to get it implemented in the licensing laws. Meanwhile, other duly licensed drivers are quite free to ignore your opinion.
It already is implemented in the licensing laws via the driving test. You can fail that for driving with undue hesitation (I think it's called) just as much as you can for speeding. And if you can't drive as well as you could when you passed your test, surely at the very least you're due for a re-test?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Jane, I do agree really - though some of those out and about round here unaccompanied are too young to understand about road traffic. I've had a look at the maps, and there are very few bridleways, which is a shame.
I was lucky to have classes on a fairly extensive estate, so off road riding was the norm - it wasn't, and didn't need to be as large as Windsor! The horse box the other day was very unusual - I haven't seen one on that road in years. If they were on their way to a good off road venue, I'd expect to have seen them before. There's an equestrian centre which has events, and on those days there can be a lot of pantechnicon sized boxes, but they follow a fairly reasonable route with plenty of visibility and passing places - and once having seen one, one knows to expect others.
(Actually, if it had been only me and the horsebox, we'd have managed OK - it was the vehicles behind which were problematical.)
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
And if you can't drive as well as you could when you passed your test, surely at the very least you're due for a re-test?
If the failing is permanent or long term, yes, and a medical.
If the failing is temporary, and in your assessment you can get home safely by driving with greater care and somewhat slower than usual, why not do so? Obviously, any passing speed merchant isn't going to know this is a one-off, are they?
If the choice is that, or sitting as a solitary female alone on the car until it wears off in a place without many people about, what do you suggest? Saudi Arabian rules?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Passed by a car today which had this message in the back window:

"I stick to speed limits so keep your self-defeating narcissistic impatience for your therapist!"
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
OOH! I want one!
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Years ago my brother added a little switch to the dash to turn the brake lights on. I'm sure it's illegal, and might be impossible on modern cars, but it did discourage tailgaters.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
I just touch my brakes lightly when some jerk huffs my exhaust. Usually works, although I have to be prepared for him/her to make a whippy move to get around me.

Yesterday I was driving 25 mph, the usual limit in a school zone at dismissal time- kids everywhere- and some young bitch in a sporty red car almost climbed my Ford's ass, then dived into the right lane and hit the accelerator. [Mad]

I'm glad the school had attentive adults herding the kids.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
May I just add that it is not unusual for car drivers to deliberately move to block my (Motorcycle) riding. Even seeing a German car ahead of me makes me turn my spidey sense up to 11. Yes they (on purpose) try and knock me off. It has happened so often I take it as part of riding now. My current theory is they hate the thought of ANYTHING getting there before them.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Passed by a car today which had this message in the back window:

"I stick to speed limits so keep your self-defeating narcissistic impatience for your therapist!"
WANT.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
May I just add that it is not unusual for car drivers to deliberately move to block my (Motorcycle) riding. Even seeing a German car ahead of me makes me turn my spidey sense up to 11. Yes they (on purpose) try and knock me off. It has happened so often I take it as part of riding now. My current theory is they hate the thought of ANYTHING getting there before them.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e
Not anything. I've mentioned before, passing German cars in my Toyota Rav 4 elicited no particular response. Doing so in my MINI infuriates the buggers.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
There's a strange twist to reality that causes all drivers to TRY TO KILL ALL MOTORCYCLISTS. At first it is a little unnerving. You have brush with death, and wonder what the chances were that that particular car would pick that particular instant to suddenly change lanes without signaling. But, eventually, you come to accept it, and just correctly assume that each and every driver is trying to kill you.

And then they pretend that they're annoyed with you for fitting in places where they can't go, just to cover their frustration at failing to kill you that time.

Incidentally, I don't ride motorcycles in the city any more. Too many potential murderers.
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
Pushbikes as well.
It's a cruel twist of animal farm.

Four wheels good, two wheels bad.

But don't worry.

“The creatures outside looked from bike rider to driver, and from driver to bike rider, and from bike rider to driver again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I just touch my brakes lightly when some jerk huffs my exhaust. Usually works, although I have to be prepared for him/her to make a whippy move to get around me.
You also have to be prepared for what happened to me: a bout of intense road range that involved him racing past on the wrong side of the road, hanging out the window swearing at me, and stopping further down the road and getting out of his car and waiting for me.

Not fun.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Yes. We had some road-rageous asshole actually FOLLOW US INTO A BANK so he could beat up my husband (our sin was to have distracted him somehow, causing him to rear end somebody because he wasn't watching the road, poor baby.). He spent about an hour lurking in the lobby, collaring every Asian he saw, because of course all Asians look exactly the same, damn furriners.... Mr Lamb haad the good sense to act bewildered and speak Vietnamese at him, before we exited the building separately and I picked him up a block away.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What it boils down to is this: I cannot stop you from driving like a dick.

Once I learnt to accept that, I could mitigate your dickishness by changing how I drive. You want to drive slowly down a country road, knock yourself out. You want to do 85 down the motorway, be my guest. You want to do 45 in a 30 limit, okay. I have no points on my licence, 30 years without an accident, and joyously low insurance premiums. I'm not even a particularly confident driver, but I can spot a dick behind the wheel of a car and take the required action.
I have to concur, Doc Tor. I got my first ticket in about 10 years a few months ago, because I was reacting to the behavior of a dick. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
We even have a term for it Defensive Driving, basically give dicks enough rope that they only hang themselves and do not pull you along with them.

Jengie
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
We even have a term for it Defensive Driving, basically give dicks enough rope that they only hang themselves and do not pull you along with them.

Jengie
Good link.
It's reminded me of the two occasions I decided to practice commentary driving as taught by the Advanced Driving people. One Sunday, round the lanes, I met a car with a Sunday driver coming round a corner too wide. This prompted the commentary, careful positioning when approaching bends, and appropriate speed. Which was helpful when I met the tractor and trailer coming so fast that as he veered into the hedge the trailer wheel bounced into my offside wing. I had had time to pull in and stop (though not enough to get into reverse.)
On the second, I don't know what prompted the commentary practice. I was driving down a quite wide road with parked cars to the left. I saw someone in one, commented on either opening the door without looking, or starting to move off, and chose to travel close to the white line. That expect the unexpected bit failed. I had not expected the driver to attempt a U-turn at speed into the side of my lovely turquoise Hillman Imp. Nor for him then to reverse back on to the footpath, drive round a bus queue back on to the road and take off round the next junction. I was in a bit of a state. Lovely elderly carpenter in the bus queue took charge. And the number.
It turned out the car had just been left by a mechanic at the nearby garage, to whom it did not belong, as it did not belong to the driver, who was in the process of stealing it.He abandoned it around a corner or two. I was never convinced that there had not been some sort of arrangement involved in that theft, immediately after the car was parked. But the accident would have been worse if I had been closer, I think.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I was taught that stuff as a child. The fact that it needs a website speaks volumes.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I drive defensively, but I also drive rather quickly. I'm not sure if that is a contradiction.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Had a doozy yesterday. Driving along a winding country lane, had to slow down behind a cyclist because it wasn't safe to pass. Tailgated by a nincompoop in a flashy black car who seemed to be annoyed because I was only doing about 15 miles an hour (what? Should I have driven over the cyclist to avoid making Mr Arsehole late for his appointment at the pub?). I passed the cyclist at the first opportunity, whereupon Mr Arsehole flashed past me at high speed and met another car coming in the opposite direction.

No, he didn't hit it. But all of us had to slam our brakes on to avoid a collision.

About five miles further down the road, we caught up with Mr Arsehole again at a roundabout; he was in the middle of a line of three cars, so after his encounter with us he'd obviously whizzed past someone else and then got stuck behind another car that was going slowly (without the excuse of a cyclist).

Overtaking us and nearly killing the driver of the car coming in the opposite direction saved him about five seconds journey time.

I do not know whether he was driving a German car, because he was going too fast for me to read the maker's mark on the back.

[ 14. October 2013, 11:06: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I drive defensively, but I also drive rather quickly. I'm not sure if that is a contradiction.
If it minimises the time you're on the road, it could be a Good Thing.
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
Eldoret rush hour (Think idiots in charge of about 35% of vehicles)....I have nothing more to say!

(Opinion shared by most of my local friends)
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
There I was sticking to the speed limit on a country road today. Someone sat on my tail for a while, then decided to overtake and shot past clearly doing 70-80 mph, and was out of sight within seconds.

I caught up with him about 10 minutes later. He was stuck behind a large, slow-moving combine harvester doing an average of 20 mph assuming the wind was behind it and it was going downhill. We wended our way in a slow, stately procession along a main road, passing through an assortment of country villages where it was sometimes necessary to go in single file, for probably about 25 minutes. The scenery was quite pretty. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Heartwarming, isn't it Ariel. I was once driving along a country road in the Welsh borders when I was overtaken by someone in a flashy car. Shortly afterwards we got to a point where we could see ahead for about a mile or so, and noticed a familiar-looking car doing a three-point turn in the middle of the (narrow, twisting) road. Then it came whizzing back in our direction and flashed past us at high speed.

"Wasn't that the same car that overtook us earlier?"

Yes. It was.

[Killing me]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Many years ago I was driving at night with my mother in the passenger seat. A car came speeding up from behind me and zoomed past me in a no passing zone. He then zoomed past the car ahead of me... The car ahead of me put on its lights and siren and pulled him over.
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
My dad (a police driver) used to drive an ex-police car as the family car when I was a kid. Basically it was a "jam butty car" (white with an orange stripe in the middle) with the stripe removed.
They hadn't removed the "Police Stop" sign from the back window, though, and occasionally dad would frighten the driver behind us by switching it on when the other driver got too close to our back bumper.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Eigon: They hadn't removed the "Police Stop" sign from the back window, though, and occasionally dad would frighten the driver behind us by switching it on when the other driver got too close to our back bumper.
My dream would be to have one of these with programmable texts in the rear window [Snigger]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
It would have to be on voice control, though, wouldn't it?

Yesterday I found myself in the narrow lanes with several cars coming towards me, and several following close. I try to follow, and appreciate others who do behind me, with a gap the distance of that between passing places - not very far in these lanes. It makes it much easier for cars to get past each other, if there's only one. I was pushed into having to squeeze really close to a wall because there were three trying to use the space behind me, and three trying to get past. Not easy. And the guys behind were held up for quite a while, as it took a time for their lights to appear in my mirror.

I would have liked to be able to suggest they left spaces between the convoy vehicles.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0