Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.



In MsgID<[email protected]> within
uk.rec.driving, 'Just zis Guy, you know?' wrote:

>>And the position of greatest hazard is... ?
>>- Right in front of him or her.
>
>Immaterial. You are not causing the hazard. If and when
>they get past you they will merely be a hazard to someone
>else. In some ways you could see it as your civic duty to
>restrain their urge to speed...

And become a martyr to a cause I don't even believe in. I
doubt that to be a good idea.

>>>Their reactions and attitude are entirely wrong, and it
>>>will be their driving, not yours, which is most likely to
>>>cause a crash.
>
>>But it will be my lack of politeness and common sense that
>>causes them to crash into *me*.
>

>never been the best policy for dealing with them.

No, the best policy is usually to get out of the way.

Making them angry without teaching them anything beyond
confirming a belief that the rest of the population are
obstructive fools is not really a clever idea.

Thinking it safe to go at a faster speed than I am capable
is not a reason to be angry, having me deliberately obstruct
his progress is.

In your case it's even worse because the *only* reason you
think it safe to drive at your chosen speed is that it
happens to be the speed 'limit'

Maybe your speedo is innacurate and you're driving at 6mph
*below* the speed limit, in which case you are obstructing
without even being correct.

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]
 
"Dave J" <[email protected]>
> uk.rec.driving, 'Conor' wrote:
>
> >But again, why should I? REmember I'm in my car, not in a
> >lorry, and I'm doing 40MPH in a 40 limit.
>
> Depends on your values for 'should', mine say that I
> should follow the highway code and show consideration.
> They also say I should not cause a hazard by sitting in
> front of someone that wishes I wasn't.

The usual method of helping people get past is continue to
drive steadily and smoothly. They have to make and take the
opportunities.

It is only possible to help in advance if they leave a
buffer space. The tailgater, by their own action, not the
tailgatee's, close off all the options.
 
"Dave J" <[email protected]>
> uk.rec.driving, 'Conor' wrote:
>
> >But again, why should I? REmember I'm in my car, not in a
> >lorry, and I'm doing 40MPH in a 40 limit.
>
> Depends on your values for 'should', mine say that I
> should follow the highway code and show consideration.
> They also say I should not cause a hazard by sitting in
> front of someone that wishes I wasn't.

The usual method of helping people get past is continue to
drive steadily and smoothly. They have to make and take the
opportunities.

It is only possible to help in advance if they leave a
buffer space. The tailgater, by their own action, not the
tailgatee's, close off all the options.
 
On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:43:19 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>>>But it will be my lack of politeness and common sense
>>>that causes them to crash into *me*.

>>never been the best policy for dealing with them.

>No, the best policy is usually to get out of the way.

Letting them get away with it is *never* the best way to
deal with bullies.

>Making them angry without teaching them anything beyond
>confirming a belief that the rest of the population are
>obstructive fools is not really a clever idea.

Neither is reinforcing their incorrect belief that they are
roight and the rest of the world is wrong. Every time they
get away with it, they become bolder and more likely to try
it on again.

>Thinking it safe to go at a faster speed than I am capable
>is not a reason to be angry, having me deliberately
>obstruct his progress is.

The assumption that driving lawfully is "deliberately"
obstructing his progress assumes a disturbing level of
paranoia on the part of your

>In your case it's even worse because the *only* reason you
>think it safe to drive at your chosen speed is that it
>happens to be the speed 'limit'

The quotes are superfluous: it is in fact (and in law) the
speed
limit.

>Maybe your speedo is innacurate and you're driving at 6mph
>*below* the speed limit, in which case you are obstructing
>without even being correct.

My speedo is more accurate than that. And again, a driver
going at the speed limit is obstructing nobody.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Tue, 18 May 2004 20:28:54 +0100, "PeterE"
<peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>>> IME many tractor drivers have a very good understanding
>>> of the principle of Rule 145.

>> Especially the three which drove in convoy at a stately
>> 25mph for overiles from St Clears, accumulating one of
>> the most impressive tailbacks I have ever seen along
>> the way.

>As we have often discussed, "many" does not necessarily
>mean "most".

No indeed. Most tractor drivers IME do not pull off to let
following traffic pass. This is not often a big problem, as
the length of their road journeys tends to be short.

>I have also from time to time encountered friendly
>behaviour from truckers who have helped following traffic
>to pass, although regrettably this seems to be becoming
>less common nowadays.

Your truckers may vary. In my experience truckers are
generally disciplined and courteous (with the exception of
those in 7.5 Tonners).

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
This thread has now attracted the Usual Suspects, and is
headed the way of all x-posted threads.

Armageddon (outta here).

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

>>If there's a queue built up behind them, then - yes - they
>>should. http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.shtml#145

> You forgot to include
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 - and the
> meaning which attaches to the word "MUST" in the
> Highway Code.

Apparently, the thread has moved from what was being
discussed - the OFIAHs doing 30 in NSLs - to the usual speed-limit-
pedant rant. I hadn't noticed. In that case, I'll be bowing
out, as it's moved away from a potentially useful thread to
the usual trite bollocks.

> Obviously you wouldn't stand on an advisory rule in the
> Highway Code to require people to allow others to break a
> law which is also described in the Code - that would be
> hypocritical.

It wasn't what I understood us to be talking about, since I
agree with you.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

>>If there's a queue built up behind them, then - yes - they
>>should. http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.shtml#145

> You forgot to include
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 - and the
> meaning which attaches to the word "MUST" in the
> Highway Code.

Apparently, the thread has moved from what was being
discussed - the OFIAHs doing 30 in NSLs - to the usual speed-limit-
pedant rant. I hadn't noticed. In that case, I'll be bowing
out, as it's moved away from a potentially useful thread to
the usual trite bollocks.

> Obviously you wouldn't stand on an advisory rule in the
> Highway Code to require people to allow others to break a
> law which is also described in the Code - that would be
> hypocritical.

It wasn't what I understood us to be talking about, since I
agree with you.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
>
> >> Although safe driving experts such as Paul Ripley have
> >> been known to mention that safe drivers keep within the
> >> law...
>
> > And he has also stated that drivers who obstruct others
> > are more of a menace than those who use speed
> > appropriately when passing slower traffic.
>
> But of course since he has repeatedly said that one should
> not speed, the driver observing the speed limit cannot, by
> definition, fall into the category of those causing a
> menace by obstructing others.

Ripley has not "repeatedly" said that one should not
speed. His advice has always ben that one should make safe
progress, be aware of hazards, and be courteous to other
drivers. You may think that a recommendation that a good
driver also observes the speed limits in force is an
excuse for a poor driver to act as a mobile road block. I
don't and Ripley has explicitly and clearly stated that
neither does he.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need
help but are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to:
uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free
environment.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
>
> >> Although safe driving experts such as Paul Ripley have
> >> been known to mention that safe drivers keep within the
> >> law...
>
> > And he has also stated that drivers who obstruct others
> > are more of a menace than those who use speed
> > appropriately when passing slower traffic.
>
> But of course since he has repeatedly said that one should
> not speed, the driver observing the speed limit cannot, by
> definition, fall into the category of those causing a
> menace by obstructing others.

Ripley has not "repeatedly" said that one should not
speed. His advice has always ben that one should make safe
progress, be aware of hazards, and be courteous to other
drivers. You may think that a recommendation that a good
driver also observes the speed limits in force is an
excuse for a poor driver to act as a mobile road block. I
don't and Ripley has explicitly and clearly stated that
neither does he.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need
help but are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to:
uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free
environment.
 
Dave J wrote:
> In MsgID<[email protected]> within
> uk.rec.driving, 'Just zis Guy, you know?' wrote:
>
>> The ones who annoy me are the people who drive at a
>> steady 40mph through all speed limits and conditions,
>> though.
>
> Add those to the others I mention and you describe my main
> (human) sources of irritation on the road.
>
> The biggest physical irritation though has to be traffic
> 'calming' measures. They seem designed to do totally the
> opposite from calming the traffic by introducing holdups
> that are only holdups because they've been introduced. The
> result being that people drive faster elsewhere in an
> attempt to make up the wasted time.

You really do get very irritated don't you?

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
 
Dave J wrote:
> In MsgID<[email protected]>
> within uk.rec.driving, 'Just zis Guy, you know?' wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 May 2004 12:35:34 +0100, Dave J
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> the solution is to attempt to turn us all into
>>> brainlessly slow sheeple.
>>
>> According to the latest figures if all men reduced our
>> risk-taking to the level accepted by women, there would
>> be an immediate and substantial drop in road crashes.
>
> If I remember rightly, there is a certain distance which
> if we maintained it between ourselves and the car in front
> would remove most traffic jams and hugely reduce
> casualties.

Heres a website that gives some rigour to the theory of
"calm down and get there faster"

http://amasci.com/amateur/traffic/traffic1.html

http://tinyurl.com/3clg9

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
 
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 May 2004 14:03:09 +0100, usenet-
> [email protected] (Steve Firth) wrote in message
> <1gdzivv.16r9ebc4gnlbpN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>:
>
> >> Although safe driving experts such as Paul Ripley have
> >> been known to mention that safe drivers keep within the
> >> law...
>
> >And he has also stated that drivers who obstruct others
> >are more of a menace than those who use speed
> >appropriately when passing slower traffic.
>
> Which, of course, they have no reason (or right) to do if
> the "slower traffic" is already travelling at the speed
> limit. Or are you conveniently ignoring that bit?

They have both reason and right, by virtue of hte fact that
the vehicle being overtaken has no right to obstruct traffic
wishing to overtake.

Tell me how do these drivers know that they are driving at
the speed limit? Most of the drivers I have seen behaving
in this dog-in-a-manger way are actually driving below the
speed limit, usually anywhere between 8 and 12 mph below
the limit.

And when did these drivers become special constables?

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need
help but are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to:
uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free
environment.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:

> > No, if you don't know the road you should allow other
> > traffic to pass,
>
> Of course if you are doing the speed limit, you cannot, by
> definition, be holding other traffic up, since they may
> not legally go any faster.

How do you know you are doing the speed limit?

> If you move out of their way you are arguably aiding and
> abetting someone in the commission of an offence.

No, only a mindless nitpickign moron would think this way.
Sadly in current English society mindless nitpicking morons
seem to be the majority.

> Naughty. All that is, of course, a long way from the
> original suggestion that people deliberately obstruct
> overtaking. I have not seen that except in very rare
> circumstances (and all have been horse boxes, as far as I
> can recall).

I see it every day. I see drivers who accelerate when being
overtaken, drivers who move into the path of other vehicles
to obstruct them and drivers who position their vehicle to
make an overtake dangerous or impossible (e.g. by tailgating
a vehicle that they have no intention of overtaking, by
positioning their vehicle to block the way ahead).

> > Sadly most drivers now feel that it is their duty to
> > obstruct others.
>
> So most people are now obeying the speed limit?
> Excellent news.

Do you get to be as stupid as you appear to be by surgery or
by taking lessons?

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need
help but are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to:
uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free
environment.
 
On Tue, 18 May 2004 23:46:09 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> > No, if you don't know the road you should allow other
>> > traffic to pass,
>>
>> Of course if you are doing the speed limit, you cannot,
>> by definition, be holding other traffic up, since they
>> may not legally go any faster.
>
> How do you know you are doing the speed limit?

The same way, presumably, that you "know" they are "in
fact doing 6-12 mph below it", as you proclaimed in a
previous post. Seeing as "most" drivers who are
attemptiong to remain inside the speed limit are,
according to you, that far below, perhaps it's you who
needs to have your speedo checked?

>> If you move out of their way you are arguably aiding and
>> abetting someone in the commission of an offence.
>
> No, only a mindless nitpickign moron would think this way.
> Sadly in current English society mindless nitpicking
> morons seem to be the majority.

Then we're well on our way to becoming a better place.

>> Naughty. All that is, of course, a long way from the
>> original suggestion that people deliberately obstruct
>> overtaking. I have not seen that except in very rare
>> circumstances (and all have been horse boxes, as far as I
>> can recall).
>
> I see it every day. I see drivers who accelerate when
> being overtaken, drivers who move into the path of other
> vehicles to obstruct them and drivers who position their
> vehicle to make an overtake dangerous or impossible
> (e.g. by tailgating a vehicle that they have no
> intention of overtaking, by positioning their vehicle to
> block the way ahead).

So what you see is lots of people who don't get out of
*your* way. The complete and utter bastards. Seeing as lots
of people seem to have it in for you personally, perhaps
you'd better have your head examined while your speedo's
being done.

>> > Sadly most drivers now feel that it is their duty to
>> > obstruct others.
>>
>> So most people are now obeying the speed limit?
>> Excellent news.
>
> Do you get to be as stupid as you appear to be by surgery
> or by taking lessons?

Funny how obedience of the law appears to some as stupid.
Presumably if it's stupid to obey one law, it's stupid to
obey any of them if breaking them happens to suit you at
them time? Surely you couldn't be inconsistent in your
attitude to the law, could you? Now, that *would* be stupid.

--
Trevor Barton
 
In MsgID<[email protected]> within uk.rec.driving,
'AndyMorris' wrote:

>> The biggest physical irritation though has to be traffic
>> 'calming' measures. They seem designed to do totally the
>> opposite from calming the traffic by introducing holdups
>> that are only holdups because they've been introduced.
>> The result being that people drive faster elsewhere in an
>> attempt to make up the wasted time.
>
>You really do get very irritated don't you?
>

I take that to be a comment on the sheer scale of council
controlled spurious holdups.

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]
 
In MsgID<[email protected]> within
uk.rec.driving, 'Just zis Guy, you know?' wrote:

>On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:43:19 +0100, Dave J
><[email protected]> wrote in message
><[email protected]>:
>
>>>>But it will be my lack of politeness and common sense
>>>>that causes them to crash into *me*.
>

>>>never been the best policy for dealing with them.
>
>>No, the best policy is usually to get out of the way.
>
>Letting them get away with it is *never* the best way to
>deal with bullies.

They are not bullying, they are just trying to let you know
that they would appreciate a clearer road and would gladly
get out of your way if you got out of theirs.

>>In your case it's even worse because the *only* reason you
>>think it safe to drive at your chosen speed is that it
>>happens to be the speed 'limit'
>
>The quotes are superfluous: it is in fact (and in law)
>the speed
>limit.

It is not a limit, the only reason not to go faster is the
risk of being chased by cars with blue lights. There is no
limit except your ability to recognise hazards.

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]
 
On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:11:50 +0100, Richard <[email protected]>
wrote (more or less):

>No, the analogy is more that you're standing in front of a
>jeweller's window and a potential burglar moves up and
>tells you to get out of the way so he can lob a brick
>through it and nick something.

Or rather, that he moves right up beside you and starts
yelling in your ear.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
 
In MsgID<[email protected]> within uk.rec.driving,
'DavidR' wrote:

>It is only possible to help in advance if they leave a
>buffer space. The tailgater, by their own action, not the
>tailgatee's, close off all the options.

You're right there, though the tailgateee can also help by
slowing down on straigth bits of road, or by doing what
anyone with common sense would do and getting out of the way
for ten seconds.

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]
 
On Wed, 19 May 2004 10:10:17 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote
(more or less):

>In MsgID<[email protected]> within
>uk.rec.driving, 'AndyMorris' wrote:
>
>>> The biggest physical irritation though has to be traffic
>>> 'calming' measures. They seem designed to do totally the
>>> opposite from calming the traffic by introducing holdups
>>> that are only holdups because they've been introduced.
>>> The result being that people drive faster elsewhere in
>>> an attempt to make up the wasted time.
>>
>>You really do get very irritated don't you?
>>
>
>I take that to be a comment on the sheer scale of council
>controlled spurious holdups.

You consider child protection spurious?

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.
Replies
0
Views
489
UK and Europe
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
D
Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.
Replies
0
Views
538
UK and Europe
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers
D
T
Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.
Replies
7
Views
611
UK and Europe
Gawnsoft
G
J
Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.
Replies
149
Views
4K
UK and Europe
Dave J
D
A
Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.
Replies
167
Views
5K
UK and Europe
Gawnsoft
G
Top Bottom Back