Speed Cameras - You are not above the law no matter where you are caught!

Ronan H

maoleary wrote:

We as a nation are a bunch of "me me me me me" drivers and will remain so as long as there are people like Head and Srameen getting licenses. The rest of us know that driving is a privilege, not a right. You have no right to drive as you like, you are privileged to be allowed to do so, so treat it as such. You have a duty to other drivers because it is a priviledge, not a right.

I have one question for yourself:

Scenario: Ordinary road, one lane each way with a hard shoulder on both sides. 60KMPH speed limit. I am driving at the speed limit and (say) 20 cars have built up behind me. Nobody seems to be too bothered that i am driving at the speed limit and the queue of cars behind me are all driving at generally the same speed. In that situation, do you expect me to pull onto the hard shoulder purely based on the fact that there is a queue of cars behind me?

Queue Head

Seth Brundle

There is no legal requirement to pull over. However, if you have 20 cars lining up behind you then maybe you should show a level of consideration and allow them to pass.
One consequence of not letting them go is that one of the cars behind may try to do a multiple car overtaking manouvre when it isn't safe and then there is an incident! you would not be at fault if they did, but they may not have tried it had they not been held up.

Ronan H

IrishRover wrote:

His point was that there are lots of things that are illegal, which if enforced rigorously would be farcical. Therefore he is saying that the concrete statement that "speeding is speeding" (I take that to mean that there can be no mitigating circumstances or leeway given or discrection in enforcement) is not a reasonable attitude to adpot. It's a bit like the distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. We all know it is possible to abide by the letter of the law, and yet be making a mockery of the spirit of the law (the reason it was created, or effect its existence was hoped to achieve in the first place).

Sorry about the individual posts, im not yet used to the multiple-quotes-in-one-post thing...

My "speeding is speeding" comment is largely based on people being pissed off that they are caught speeding in an area that they feel they shouldnt be caught, notsomuch the "no mitigating circumstances" part. It is a bit of a black and white statement i admit but when it was in my head it made sense to me in the context that i was thinking about it. I think its silly for people to get pissed off when they are caught speeding just because they feel its an area in which they shouldnt be caught. In THAT situation i would apply the term "speeding is speeding", if that makes it a bit clearer? Apologies about the ambiguity...

You have to ask the question, generally, but also to all the people in this thread that have blatantly admitted to speeding:

Why do you feel the need to break the speed limits when its a major cause of RTA's and deaths on the roads?


Blatant Head

Ronan H

kbannon wrote:

There is no legal requirement to pull over. However, if you have 20 cars lining up behind you then maybe you should show a level of consideration and allow them to pass.
One consequence of not letting them go is that one of the cars behind may try to do a multiple car overtaking manouvre when it isn't safe and then there is an incident! you would not be at fault if they did, but they may not have tried it had they not been held up.

Why on earth would i pull in if the people behind me are not bothered about my speed? Thats incredible to expect that.

:rolleyes: I knew someone would say that. So bearing your answer in mind, when exactly do you think its appropriate for me to obey the speed limit? By answering in the way you did you are asking me to facilitate people breaking the law, as such, purely because there are cars behind me? To me that makes zero sense and is totally unreasonable, if that were the case why bother having speed limits if you expect people to pull in even when theres no hassle behind them :rolleyes:.

Zero Head

IrishRover

I suppose what I should have included in the interpretation of "speeding is speeding" is the implication that all cases of exceeding the posted speed limit are equally dangerous (I wouldn't agree with that btw).

Am pretty sure that the major cause attributed to most RTAs in this country is still put down as "driver error".

Seth Brundle

Head wrote:

Why on earth would i pull in if the people behind me are not bothered about my speed? Thats incredible to expect that.

Apologies - I misread your post

Ronan H

Would speeding not fall into the category of driver error though? In any case, i would imagine that speeding is definitely up there with driver error, drunk driving etc... as a major cause anyway...

HelterSkelter

Head wrote:

I have one question for yourself:

Scenario: Ordinary road, one lane each way with a hard shoulder on both sides. 60KMPH speed limit. I am driving at the speed limit and (say) 20 cars have built up behind me. Nobody seems to be too bothered that i am driving at the speed limit and the queue of cars behind me are all driving at generally the same speed. In that situation, do you expect me to pull onto the hard shoulder purely based on the fact that there is a queue of cars behind me?

Queue Head

What I usually do is look at the driver behind me and if he looks like he wants to overtake (driving near the centre of the road, closing the gap between his car and mine) I will move into the hard shoulder for a few seconds and give him a chance to overtake. If he doesn't take the opportunity then I will move back into the driving lane.

Gatster

Originally Posted by Head
Why do you feel the need to break the speed limits when its a major cause of RTA's and deaths on the roads?

Do you have 100% evidence of this, elsewhere here someone mentioned a study that proved it's actually quite a low % cause of RTA's and deaths. Saying this is just regurgitating politcal soundbites. Speeding and drunk driving are very different things, and general driver error is different again.

HelterSkelter

Head wrote:

Why do you feel the need to break the speed limits when its a major cause of RTA's and deaths on the roads?

I don't agree with this statement. I think it is all too easy to blame all the ills on our roads on speeding. It gets the Government off the hook of addressing many of the real problems, i.e. poor driver training, poor roads, lack of enforcement of anti-drink driving laws, lack of Garda traffic cops on the roads where most accidents occur (rural roads)

BrianD3

No matter how wide the hard shoulder is or how much/little someone pulls into it I think something basic is being overlooked here by some posters. If someone needs to pull into the HS to let the guy behind past then there must be oncoming traffic, correct? Otherwise there would be no need to pull in.

Picture the overtake - one car is driving in the HS, another is overtaking him and on the other side of the white line the traffic is travelling at 100 km/h in the opposite direction. At best, there is a few feet of separation between each of the cars. At worst, it's a few inches. All at a closing speed of 200+ km/h three abrest with no median or barrier. Also, it's common for the overtaking car to stray over the white line as the guy being overtaken has half pulled into the HS so there is nearly (but not quite) enough room to overtake without crossing the white line.

Now picture what happens if the the driver being overtaken makes a mistake, loses concentration, has a heart attack, swerves etc. High potential for carnage there.

Another thing I don't like about this kind of overtaking is that following drivers may feel encouraged or even pressurised to overtake just because the guy in front has pulled over. And some drivers will assume that because the guy in front has pulled in, that it's safe and they will just go without a thought for what could happen.

Works the other way too, the driver in front may feel hassled into pulling over even though they're not 100% about whether it's safe or not. The guy behind might perceive things differently and doesn't understand why they won't move over.

I think it's a messy situation and what's in the ROTR is a cop out especially when it advises driver that they "may" move over to the HS instead of saying they "should", "must", "must not" etc.

Now as I said already, if very slow moving vehicles like tractors didn't use the HS on N roads, there would be chaos. So while the situation is unsatisfatory, I don't know the solution. Maybe it could be speed based - eg vehicles travelling @ 60 km/h or less MUST use the hard shoulder if holding up traffic and if it's safe to do so. While vehicles travelling at >60 km/h MUST NOT use the hard shoulder. I'd also like to see a specific mention of how dangerous it is to travel at speed in the HS at night with just dipped headlights.

Ronan H

HelterSkelter wrote:

What I usually do is look at the driver behind me and if he looks like he wants to overtake (driving near the centre of the road, closing the gap between his car and mine) I will move into the hard shoulder for a few seconds and give him a chance to overtake. If he doesn't take the opportunity then I will move back into the driving lane.

Fair enough but i dont think it should be expected from everyone to do that. Seriously, would it kill (no pun intended) people to have a bit of patience? This is exactly what i am saying about driving attitudes, people just seem to have an allergic reaction to staying at the speed limit, its bizarre.

@ Gatster: No i certainly dont have evidence of it but you hear it on the news, radio etc... every day of the week, maybe its an unsubstantiated claim by myself, but surely it has a bigger part to play than just a minor role in accidents? I would very very surprised if its not near the top of the hit list, and my statement was very much based on what i hear around me all the time, so it was an assumption made on that basis, which i really believe was true, but maybe not. Doesnt speeding increase the chance of driver error if something unexpected happens?

Bizarre Head

HelterSkelter

Head wrote:

but you hear it on the news, radio etc... every day of the week...based on what i hear around me all the time,

I used to hear everyday that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq also, point being you can't believe everything you hear/read from the media. The media often regourgatate what has been fed to them by PR companies without questioning it at all. I am not suggesting that speed does not play a role in many accidents, my gripe is that ALL the emphysis is put on speed and it convienently distracts from the failings of the Government/NRA/NSC with regard to road safety.

Alun

Usually, when an accident is investigated (at least in other countries where they do it properly ), a number of different 'contributory factors' are noted in order of relevance to the accident in question. Some will be more important than others, but not unsurprisingly, 'excessive speed' often crops up somewhere on the list. Not always right at the top, in fact very rarely. Usually there's something like 'momentary lapse of attention', 'falling asleep at the wheel', 'dangerous overtaking' or 'drink driving' instead, but when the media get involved the only thing they notice is that the word 'speed' occurs in practically every accident report and draw the obvious, but wrong, conclusion.

ambro25

BrianD3 wrote:

No matter how wide the hard shoulder is or how much/little someone pulls into it I think something basic is being overlooked here by some posters. If someone needs to pull into the HS to let the guy behind past then there must be oncoming traffic, correct? Otherwise there would be no need to pull in.

I think I've alluded to that particular one a fair few times already.

I also think it's being quite conveniently/deliberately overlooked/unacknowledged by the relevant parties.

Ronan H

HelterSkelter wrote:

I used to hear everyday that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq also, point being you can't believe everything you hear/read from the media. The media often regourgatate what has been fed to them by PR companies without questioning it at all. I am not suggesting that speed does not play a role in many accidents, my gripe is that ALL the emphysis is put on speed and it convienently distracts from the failings of the Government/NRA/NSC with regard to road safety.

Alun wrote:

Usually, when an accident is investigated (at least in other countries where they do it properly ), a number of different 'contributory factors' are noted in order of relevance to the accident in question. Some will be more important than others, but not unsurprisingly, 'excessive speed' often crops up somewhere on the list. Not always right at the top, in fact very rarely. Usually there's something like 'momentary lapse of attention', 'falling asleep at the wheel', 'dangerous overtaking' or 'drink driving' instead, but when the media get involved the only thing they notice is that the word 'speed' occurs in practically every accident report and draw the obvious, but wrong, conclusion.

Well i must say if the above is true then the bloody media have a lot to answer for, and im sure im not the only one who has been misled. It just shows how the media can warp the portrayal of an issue and make it into something its not .

I want to ask a question from above again though and would be interested in peoples thoughts:

Doesnt speeding increase the chance of driver error if something unexpected happens?

Misled Head

Gatster

doesnt speeding increase the chance of driver error if something unexpected happens?

I think it would depend on the driver, conditions, car, lots of other circumstances. Rain could increase the chance of driver error if something unexpected happens, for example.

impr0v

This thread is amusing for a number of reasons.

There's a group that I'm not sure how to categorise, but for which the moniker 'self-righteous element' will suffice, who never tire of whining about speed cameras, and citing all the other factors involved in accidents/collisions/whatever that cameras don't spot. They say the Gardaí should be clamping down on those issues.

They should, and I'm sure they will. Currently they're clamping down on speeding, something for which there is endless evidence available in this country and others that it is a contributory factor in a large percentage of accidents, and the crew are out bemoaning it as a cynical, revenue gathering exercise. You might not think you're exceeding a safe speed on the holy grail example of the dual carriageway with an 80kph limit, or the M50 with a 60kph limit, but seeing as drivers as a whole in this country have consistently proven themselves to be unable to determine what safe driving is, the authorities have taken the not unreasonable step of objectively defining safe limits for roads in line with empirical criteria, and you're exceeding them. Unfortunately, it's not possible to have one set of limits for the person who's incapable of using a wide open road safely at 80kph, and you, who's obviously capable of driving it at 85, or 95, 145, so it's set at what is determined to be an objectively safe limit.

The argument re revenue gathering is facetious, it's a self-righteous indignation arising from getting caught breaking the law when you felt you weren't really breaking it as bad as others often do, without consequence (e.g. the infamous phantom red civics seen every other day driving on the hard shoulder, etc.). Again, it's not down to what you consider to be a safe limit, or how badly other breach it, you broke the law, you pay the penalty.

The argument re there being dangerous sections of rural road in Mayo with an 80 kph limit, while the M50 has a 60kph limit applied is also facetious. There are such stretches in Mayo, but what are you saying? That their existence logically means that you should also be able to drive legally at a dangerous speed on the M50 while there are roadworks underway? Because the authorities have applied a safe limit to one stretch of dangerous road, and not another, it invalidates the act of applying a limit to any road? I believe I've justified the M50 situation earlier in this thread, and a similar argument can be used to justify the majority of what you consider to be unjust limits nationally. Sure, there are some aberrations where excessively low limits have been applied to low risk roads, and the authorities have admitted so, but surely the holier than thou side to your personality can admit it's better to err on the safe side.

The whining on about how cameras don't detect other driving offences is logically indefensible. They're colloquially called speed cameras for a reason; they detect speeding vehicles, vehicles that are factually breaking the above-referenced objectively defined safe speed limit, and hence the law, and are statistically more likely to be involved in a serious accident. Should we ignore the offence of speeding until the technology exists to erect an omni-offense camera that can simultaneously check your blood alcohol level, assess your knowledge of the rules of the road, check for modifications under the hood, bald tires and the existence of sufficient intelligence to be in control of a vehicle before we install any road-side checking devices?

In that scenario, you'd be spouting on about how your tyre thread was only half a millimeter shallower than it should have been and you were on a newly surfaced road in dry conditions. Why aren't the gardai off catching people who are thinking about other things when they should be concentrating on the road, like that guy in the red civic who overtook you, obviously thinking about football and big chested women.

And then there's the hypocrites, that talk about the country being full of 'me me me' drivers, while they berate someone for a theoretical scenario where that person is driving at the legal limit and doesn't pull over to let them overtake...farcical. Nobody is obliged to do so, and should never be so. You wish a law abiding citizen to increase the risk, however slightly, to themselves in order to facilitate you breaking the law?? And you talk about me me me drivers? In a strict legal sense that makes him an accomplice before the fact to your offense.

There are situations, such as when drivers of low speed agricultural vehicles are unnecessarily obstructing traffic, where it's incumbent upon the driver to consider pulling in, but only to consider. If a driver is properly qualified to drive, has paid their road tax on the vehicle in question, etc. and is using the road in a safe, legally compliant manner, they will never be obliged to go out of their way to facilitate your law breaking because you consider the speed limits to be set too low for a driver of your competence, or because you're going to be five minutes late for your allocated tee time.

Stark

Head wrote:

Doesnt speeding increase the chance of driver error if something unexpected happens?

Yes, but that's why you learn to slow down when the likelihood of something happening increases. It's why you'd drive past a school at 30kph for instance, as a kid could run out at any moment.

HelterSkelter

[SNORE]Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz[/SNORE]

nastysimon

Head wrote:

I have one question for yourself:

Scenario: Ordinary road, one lane each way with a hard shoulder on both sides. 60KMPH speed limit. I am driving at the speed limit and (say) 20 cars have built up behind me. Nobody seems to be too bothered that i am driving at the speed limit and the queue of cars behind me are all driving at generally the same speed. In that situation, do you expect me to pull onto the hard shoulder purely based on the fact that there is a queue of cars behind me?

Queue Head

It is generally safer to not travel in convoy, so you should not want people lined up behind you. The safest course of action for yourself is to let them pass and if they show no inclination to do so, to even force them to pass. Pulling in to the side of the road is often the safest way to do this. Similarly, if you find yourself behind a line of cars, which you feel it is unsafe to pass (usually due to the cars being too close together, a far more common event these days), the best course of action is to sit well back from the car in front so that you have much more than the standard 2 second gap. This will give you a much more relaxing drive (less speeding up and slowing down, less severe braking) and allow others to safely pass as they feel the need to (they'll probably pass anyway, but without the space it'll be far less safe).

Describing the line of cars behind you as a queue implies that they are queued to pass you, and to a degree, that they should pass you in turn (which is not true). The fact is that we should all drive at a safe speed at which we feel comfortable and with as much time and space between ourselves and other road users as is feasible. A convoy of cars is far more likely to have a serious accident than the same cars spread out.

I drive a "quick" car, and while I rarely exceed the limit (and never do so in built up areas), I can very easily accelerate to pass others with much greater ease than most. Thus I often find myself behind a car which can't pass the vehicle in front of it, and will need a much more space and time to do so than I will, but because they travel too close to it, I can't pass them, and therefore can't pass the vehicle in front of them. If they left enough room, I could get past both safely and be on my way. Nobody would be any worse off for it.

So, why do people feel the need to travel close to the car in front? And why do people feel that it is somehow their responsibility to enforce the speedlimit? If you see someone doing something which is blatently very dangerous (and not just disagreeable), fine report it, but trying to enforce speed limits is likely to be more dangerous than letting someone do 5, or 10km/h over the limit.
[/RANT]

Ronan H

nastysimon wrote:

It is generally safer to not travel in convoy, so you should not want people lined up behind you. The safest course of action for yourself is to let them pass and if they show no inclination to do so, to even force them to pass. Pulling in to the side of the road is often the safest way to do this. Similarly, if you find yourself behind a line of cars, which you feel it is unsafe to pass (usually due to the cars being too close together, a far more common event these days), the best course of action is to sit well back from the car in front so that you have much more than the standard 2 second gap. This will give you a much more relaxing drive (less speeding up and slowing down, less severe braking) and allow others to safely pass as they feel the need to (they'll probably pass anyway, but without the space it'll be far less safe).

Describing the line of cars behind you as a queue implies that they are queued to pass you, and to a degree, that they should pass you in turn (which is not true). The fact is that we should all drive at a safe speed at which we feel comfortable and with as much time and space between ourselves and other road users as is feasible. A convoy of cars is far more likely to have a serious accident than the same cars spread out.

I drive a "quick" car, and while I rarely exceed the limit (and never do so in built up areas), I can very easily accelerate to pass others with much greater ease than most. Thus I often find myself behind a car which can't pass the vehicle in front of it, and will need a much more space and time to do so than I will, but because they travel too close to it, I can't pass them, and therefore can't pass the vehicle in front of them. If they left enough room, I could get past both safely and be on my way. Nobody would be any worse off for it.

So, why do people feel the need to travel close to the car in front? And why do people feel that it is somehow their responsibility to enforce the speedlimit? If you see someone doing something which is blatently very dangerous (and not just disagreeable), fine report it, but trying to enforce speed limits is likely to be more dangerous than letting someone do 5, or 10km/h over the limit.
[/RANT]

:eek: I am completely and utterly gobsmacked at your logic. Im not even going to bother replying in detail much as i really really want to but i have said it all already in previous posts, which by the looks of your response you havent read properly / misundestood etc...

HelterSkelter wrote:

[SNORE]Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz[/SNORE]

If you are not going to add anything constructive to the debate then dont bother wasting bandwidth with silly comments like that . What you have contributed so far, with the exception of the snores, has been interesting and relevant, so why go ruining it...

impr0v, once again, has summarised pages and pages of posts from people with great objectivity and knowledge, and had i such skills to summarise everything i have said so far to justify and answer for nastysimon in his "quick" car, indeed i would do so, but for me personally it was the most ridiculous response so far in this thread, particularly the part about "forcing" people to pass, beyond comprehension...

Bewildered Head

HelterSkelter

Head wrote:

If you are not going to add anything constructive to the debate then dont bother wasting bandwidth with silly comments like that . What you have contributed so far, with the exception of the snores, has been interesting and relevant, so why go ruining it...

It was in response to the 999 pages of drivel impr0v just posted. Too much to deal with on a Friday afternoon for me!
[/QUOTE]

gyppo

IrishRover wrote:

I can tell you that yes there are. I've driven on Irish national routes where both the lanes and the hard shoulders are so wide and of such good quality that English friends ask, genuinely confused, why it is not simply made into a dual carriageway.

Well, if they are, they're few and far between. My point, if you read it again, was there are lots of private entrances (some not so visible) that connect out onto N Primary routes. I would be very very suprised if there are any roads in this country (with the exception of motorways, and recently made primary sections) that are free of dwelling or agricultural entrances.

If you are driving within the hard shoulder to let faster traffic pass by, and something appears out of an entrance, ditch, hedge, over a wall, etc.. (take your pick), wheres your escape route? Back out onto the left lane again?? You tell me.

MrPudding

Head wrote:

:eek: I am completely and utterly gobsmacked at your logic. Im not even going to bother replying in detail much as i really really want to but i have said it all already in previous posts,

Humour us, please reply. I actually thought it was a good post.

MrP

IrishRover

gyppo wrote:

Well, if they are, they're few and far between. My point, if you read it again, was there are lots of private entrances (some not so visible) that connect out onto N Primary routes. I would be very very suprised if there are any roads in this country (with the exception of motorways, and recently made primary sections) that are free of dwelling or agricultural entrances.

For example, there is a very wide road with hard shoulders with as good surface as the rest of the road between the end of the M9 and Carlow. It's only intersected by junctions, not houses. The actual lanes are so wide as well, people seem to use it as if it was a dual carriageway. Also at various points on the N11 there are straight sections of such wide road with good hard shoulder and nothing coming on to it, where you do genuinely wonder why they didn't make a dual cariageway in the space.
As I said though, I think everybody is picturing in their mind thier own stretch of road with hard shoulder when talking about how safe or not it is to move over into.

Aside from that though, you can even just keep to the left of the normal lane instead of holding the middle of the road and it will help the person behind you so much to get a view of the road ahead to see if it is safe to overtake.

If you are driving within the hard shoulder to let faster traffic pass by, and something appears out of an entrance, ditch, hedge, over a wall, etc.. (take your pick), wheres your escape route? Back out onto the left lane again?? You tell me.

I agree with you in this scenario that it is potentially lethal and this is where the good judgement and common sense comes into play.

nastysimon

Head wrote:

:eek: I am completely and utterly gobsmacked at your logic. Im not even going to bother replying in detail much as i really really want to but i have said it all already in previous posts, which by the looks of your response you havent read properly / misundestood etc...

Bewildered Head

I have read, I am just pointing out that having a "queue" of cars behind you is dangerous and by sitting at the head of such, whether you are doing the speed limit or not, and whether the other show any inclination of passing you or not does not change this fact. Driving in such a manner means that you are needlessly creating a risk for other road users and for yourself.

Please point out the flaws in my logic. If you can, it might help me alter my driving to make it even safer than it already is.

Speeding (exceeding the posted speed limit) is often less dangerous than this above action, especially when the speeds involved are safe. The posted speed limit rarely bares any resemblance to a safe speed limit, often being either too high or too low by a considerable margin. Similarly, some cars are safer at speed than others (braking distances, agility, etc. all vary between cars). Only 5% of accidents in the UK involve a speeding car (www.safespeed.co.uk). I doubt that it is much greater here.

Your attitude is that not only are you entitled to obey the speed limit (which of course you are), but also that you do not have to go out of your way to facilitate other drivers when they are likely to break the limit themselves. When you drive, you have to go out of your way to facilitate other drivers, whether they are going to speed or not. You have to drive as safely as possible and make it as safe as possible for them. Stopping them from speeding is no safer than forcing other road users to drive well below the limit. It makes people irrate and causes accidents which kill people. As a responsible driver, you will not try to get in anyone's way anymore than is necessary for you to get your own journey out of the way.

I have a right to drive at the speed limit and if people behind me dont like that then thats not my problem.

I get the feeling that you will do everything you have the right to do, whether that is the safest course of action or not. Please remember that there are many dead people who were in-the-right. I pull in when it is safe to do so and thus allow others to make safer passes. I won't pull in when it is not safe to, such as when there is oncoming traffic, or where I can't see that the hard shoulder is clear and has no junctions.

Whats the big deal with just obeying the bloody speed limit.

I for one have no problem, but I don't feel the need to "encourage" others to do so and definitely don't feel the need to make it more difficult for those that do.

I am not trying to block other peoples advancement, im driving a the speed limit ...

If you don't block others advancement (whether that is at the limit or not), fair enough. That's the safe way. But if you only block those that would otherwise exceed the limit, well that's where I would have a problem with you. What about where you don't feel that it is safe to do the limit? Do you make it easier for others to pass or not?

No doubt because i am driving at the speed limit and they want to go faster they will "think" that im a bad driver holding up the whole road, but i am a safe driver and i definitely dont put people in danger with my driving.

No, but if you cause a dangerous situation, such as allow a line of cars to build up behind you, you are a bad driver. It is not enough to not directly put people's lives at risk, you must actively prevent them from being put at risk by allowing them to get on with their journeys.

Stark

Head wrote:

I am completely and utterly gobsmacked at your logic. Im not even going to bother replying in detail much as i really really want to but i have said it all already in previous posts, which by the looks of your response you havent read properly / misundestood etc...

I was a bit puzzled by "forcing people to pass you". The rest of the post is spot on though.

Ronan H

nastysimon wrote:

I have read, I am just pointing out that having a "queue" of cars behind you is dangerous and by sitting at the head of such, whether you are doing the speed limit or not, and whether the other show any inclination of passing you or not does not change this fact. Driving in such a manner means that you are needlessly creating a risk for other road users and for yourself.

So can you outline a situation to me exactly when and where in your opinion it is OK for me to drive at the speed limit WHEN there are cars behind me? It seems from all that has been said that such a circumstance does not exist and regardless of whether there are 1 or 101 cars behind me, i should still pull over? Are you (and others) saying that for the rest of my life if i am driving on a single lane road with a hard shoulder that on all occasions where there are cars behind me that i have a duty to pull in? Where does my right to drive at the speed limit come into it? Why do the rights of the people behind me, who may want to break the law, supercede my right to stay within the law? That my friend is not logical.

nastysimon wrote:

Speeding (exceeding the posted speed limit) is often less dangerous than this above action, especially when the speeds involved are safe. The posted speed limit rarely bares any resemblance to a safe speed limit, often being either too high or too low by a considerable margin. Similarly, some cars are safer at speed than others (braking distances, agility, etc. all vary between cars). Only 5% of accidents in the UK involve a speeding car (www.safespeed.co.uk). I doubt that it is much greater here.

I am aware from some of the recent posts, if you have read them correctly, that speed is not a major factor. See the posts between myself and HelterSkelter earlier today in relation to that.

nastysimon wrote:

Your attitude is that not only are you entitled to obey the speed limit (which of course you are), but also that you do not have to go out of your way to facilitate other drivers when they are likely to break the limit themselves. When you drive, you have to go out of your way to facilitate other drivers, whether they are going to speed or not. You have to drive as safely as possible and make it as safe as possible for them. Stopping them from speeding is no safer than forcing other road users to drive well below the limit. It makes people irrate and causes accidents which kill people. As a responsible driver, you will not try to get in anyone's way anymore than is necessary for you to get your own journey out of the way.

[ For everyones information, i have highlighted part of the above quotation in bold for the sake of clarity, the section was not highlighted in bold in its original context, although the wording is identical.]

That is a big statement to make, to say that road users have to go out of their way to facilitate other road users, whether they are going to speed or not... Once again i feel that is not logical. Again why do the "rights" (using the term loosely) of someone who wants to break the law overrule my rights not to break the law?

People are getting hung up on this idea of me stopping people speeding, its been a constant undertone in the whole thread. People have been talking about "other people" and "other drivers" constantly, again alluding to the suggestion that the law abiding people ike myself are the ones who need to mend their ways and pull over for those who wish to break the law. I dont want to sound like a stuck vinyl but FFS who is trying to make an effort here to do the right thing? Me or the people who dont have the patience to drive their cars within the speed limits? Logic?

nastysimon wrote:

I get the feeling that you will do everything you have the right to do, whether that is the safest course of action or not. Please remember that there are many dead people who were in-the-right. I pull in when it is safe to do so and thus allow others to make safer passes. I won't pull in when it is not safe to, such as when there is oncoming traffic, or where I can't see that the hard shoulder is clear and has no junctions.

I for one have no problem, but I don't feel the need to "encourage" others to do so and definitely don't feel the need to make it more difficult for those that do.

If you don't block others advancement (whether that is at the limit or not), fair enough. That's the safe way. But if you only block those that would otherwise exceed the limit, well that's where I would have a problem with you. What about where you don't feel that it is safe to do the limit? Do you make it easier for others to pass or not?

No, but if you cause a dangerous situation, such as allow a line of cars to build up behind you, you are a bad driver. It is not enough to not directly put people's lives at risk, you must actively prevent them from being put at risk by allowing them to get on with their journeys.

Jaysus im getting sick of quoting your post all in little bits, im ending up saying the same thing over and over again, obviously to no avail. Im worn out with this thread to be honest, no matter what i say it seems that what other people on the roads want to do is more important, even if it means them breaking the law.

Look man, i think your logic is flawed and would appreciate if you could respond to some of the questions that i have asked. Im not trying to pick fights with people here or anything like that but i genuinely am finding it difficult to understand the logic behind your last couple of posts and some by other people also. WHat more can i say, im headwrecked by it all. I had no idea that this thread would attract so much interest and cause so much grief :rolleyes:.

Just Head

BostonB

Personally I would give someone behind me every opportunity to pass even if I'm at the speed limit. Why? because I'd prefer to have someone like that well ahead of me, than try some lunatic overtaking manoeuvre because they've no patience. Usually it means at a straight clear section I'll gradually slow down for a minute, and keep slowing until they pass. Thats the end of the problem. At the bendy sections I keep the speed up. I usually won't use the hard shoulder as you can hit potholes and all sorts of debris in there.