Tailgating and Road Rage

dukedalton

doolox wrote: »

We are reaching the situation in this country when a pile up will happen because of overzealous enforcement of unduly low speed limits on what I call Revenue Roads; Busy, wide dual carriageways with ridiculously low speed limits of 60 or 80 kph where a majority of the users persistently go 10 to 20 kph faster than the posted speed limit and to go at the speed limit causes hold ups and weaving traffic and aggravation to other road users.

We are being told until we are sick in the face being told that excessive speed is dangerous but it is also true that untypically slow speeds in an inappropriate place is also hazardous to other road users.

While trucks and other speed-limited vehicles are forbidden from using the outer lane of most multilane roads a lot of them do so at 100kph, much to the frustration of faster cars and bikes coming up behind them.

Some car drivers insist on driving in the outer lane at 20kph below the speed limit forcing traffic to undertake or otherwise endanger themselves and others by their thoughtless behaviour.

Somewhat analagous to formation flying of bombers in WW2, close formation driving, forced on other road users by slow drivers in the outside lane is dangerous, requires a lot of concentration at long distances and should be avoided at all costs.

I usually try and get by them but undertaking is illegal in most jurisdictions and inadvisable.

The other alternative is to slow down and drift back out of the pile of cars until such time as the slow driver in the overtakeing lane move back to the slower lanes, usually to exit the motorway and then you can be on your merry way.

If any mistake is made in such a pile of slow moving cars it can result in a multicar pile up. Slow drivers should minimise their use of the outer lane and keep and eye on their rear view mirror, many do not do this.

But haven't you read the wisdom above? Apparently the speed limit has nothing to do with how fast people should go. We should all decide to go at whatever (slow speed) we judge safest.

The implied assumption of the phrase "speed kills" is that you are a danger if you drive too fast. And I do agree, speeding does kill. But driving too slow is also a hazard. Would be interesting to know how many crashes are caused by drivers being frustrated by unreasonably slow moving vehicles.

el diablo

Idiots that potter along at 70-100KPH in the overtaking lane of a motorway (with no cars in front of them) and totally oblivious to a line a traffic behind them really piss me off. :mad:

Lollers

If you tailgate. You will never have the intellect or skills to be a great driver.

If you want to overtake someone, who you think is driving too slow.

Keep a distance from the car you wish to overtake, get clear road and accelerate. I mean, how difficult is that to grasp ?. Even for the slow of understanding.

Iwannahurl

dukedalton wrote: »

1. Apparently the speed limit has nothing to do with how fast people should go. We should all decide to go at whatever (slow speed) we judge safest.

2. The implied assumption of the phrase "speed kills" is that you are a danger if you drive too fast. And I do agree, speeding does kill. But driving too slow is also a hazard. Would be interesting to know how many crashes are caused by drivers being frustrated by unreasonably slow moving vehicles.

1. Quote/link?

2. Motorists who like to drive fast seem to be fond of the "slowness kills" mantra. I suspect the causes of crashes allegedly due to "frustration" are not simply down to "unreasonably slow" drivers, and that there are a number of factors at play. There is some evidence that crashes are caused by speed variation, which is another theory popular among drivers who resent speed controls, but AFAIK the evidence is not as strong as it is for the risks associated with higher speed.


.

dukedalton

Iwannahurl wrote: »

1. Quote/link?

2. Motorists who like to drive fast seem to be fond of the "slowness kills" mantra. I suspect the causes of crashes allegedly due to "frustration" are not simply down to "unreasonably slow" drivers, and that there are a number of factors at play. There is some evidence that crashes are caused by speed variation, which is another theory popular among drivers who resent speed controls, but AFAIK the evidence is not as strong as it is for the risks associated with higher speed.


.

For someone who chided me earlier for making presumptions, you're awfully fond of it yourself. Do you have a link for any of the pearls of wisdom you present?

Just to be clear, in case you box me into the category you've described, I have no points on my licence, and I make a point not to speed. And anyway, whether you speed or not is irrelevant to the nuisance of slow-moving drivers.

Iwannahurl

dukedalton wrote: »

1. For someone who chided me earlier for making presumptions, you're awfully fond of it yourself.

2. Do you have a link for any of the pearls of wisdom you present?

3. Just to be clear, in case you box me into the category you've described, I have no points on my licence, and I make a point not to speed. And anyway, whether you speed or not is irrelevant to the nuisance of slow-moving drivers.

1. What presumptions am I making? If it's about fast drivers and "slowness kills" check out various Motors threads, eg the Speed Camera Mega-Thread IIRC.

2. Link to what exactly?

3. Slow-moving drivers may be a pain in the neck but they're not necessarily as dangerous as fast drivers. What is relevant is that some fast drivers like to pin a lot of the blame for road crashes on slow drivers. I don't think the evidence is there to support that, or at least not to the same degree.

dukedalton

Links that substantiate anything you've written here:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Motorists who like to drive fast seem to be fond of the "slowness kills" mantra. I suspect the causes of crashes allegedly due to "frustration" are not simply down to "unreasonably slow" drivers, and that there are a number of factors at play. There is some evidence that crashes are caused by speed variation, which is another theory popular among drivers who resent speed controls, but AFAIK the evidence is not as strong as it is for the risks associated with higher speed.


.

Where is the "some evidence"?

Stovepipe

Well, I had the pleasure of seeing one aggressive tailgater get his come-uppance, of a sort. I was going over Bohernabreena, towards the M50 and was just after passing the reservoir at the top when a guy in a big SUV came right up behind me, lights flashing, horn going, the whole lot. I had just slowed down, because I knew it was the time when deer go back uphill into the trees for the night and they often come out of the fenceline on the left as you descend. I had narrowly missed one the evening before and had seen them frequently. So I slowed right down and SUV guy overtakes in a fierce hurry, angry written all over him, fingers, roars,etc. Just in time for three deer, one mother and two young, to appear out of the fenceline. The mother and one stopped at once but one kept going and was promptly mowed down by SUV guy. I waved as I went by and I didn't use my whole hand. Pity a deer had to die to put manners on yer man.

regards
Stovepipe

TheChizler

Stovepipe wrote: »

Well, I had the pleasure of seeing one aggressive tailgater get his come-uppance, of a sort. I was going over Bohernabreena, towards the M50 and was just after passing the reservoir at the top when a guy in a big SUV came right up behind me, lights flashing, horn going, the whole lot. I had just slowed down, because I knew it was the time when deer go back uphill into the trees for the night and they often come out of the fenceline on the left as you descend. I had narrowly missed one the evening before and had seen them frequently. So I slowed right down and SUV guy overtakes in a fierce hurry, angry written all over him, fingers, roars,etc. Just in time for three deer, one mother and two young, to appear out of the fenceline. The mother and one stopped at once but one kept going and was promptly mowed down by SUV guy. I waved as I went by and I didn't use my whole hand. Pity a deer had to die to put manners on yer man.

regards
Stovepipe

Ah but don't you see? Your reckless cautious driving forced him to overtake dangerously so it was completely your fault he hit the deer!

Neewbie_noob

el diablo wrote: »

Idiots that potter along at 70-100KPH in the overtaking lane of a motorway (with no cars in front of them) and totally oblivious to a line a traffic behind them really piss me off. :mad:

Agreed, there should be penalty points for this. According to the blue sign entering the motorway you must do >50kph on the motorway, I feel this is too lenient, it should be >100kph.

I am sick to my teeth hearing "Uncle Gaybo" saying "speed kills". It doesn't !!! If I speed on this road at 120kph, then I might end up in an accident.

http://goo.gl/maps/k7TPS

But on straight stretches of motorway, the "speed kills" is nonsense. Bad driving kills, and undertaking slow drivers kills.

On roads such as the M1/A1 to Belfast or the M6 Westbound, the speed limit should be a tonne / 160 kph. With penalty points for going above 160kph and penalty points for lane hoggers.

TheChizler

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Agreed, there should be penalty points for this. According to the blue sign entering the motorway you must do >50kph on the motorway, I feel this is too lenient, it should be >100kph.

I am sick to my teeth hearing "Uncle Gaybo" saying "speed kills". It doesn't !!! If I speed on this road at 120kph, then I might end up in an accident.

http://goo.gl/maps/k7TPS

But on straight stretches of motorway, the "speed kills" is nonsense. Bad driving kills, and undertaking slow drivers kills.

On roads such as the M1/A1 to Belfast or the M6 Westbound, the speed limit should be a tonne / 160 kph. With penalty points for going above 160kph and penalty points for lane hoggers.

If you come around a bend on a motorway at 170 into a column of cars overtaking a truck doing 80 you tell us again that speed isn't dangerous.

Muir

If people get that stressed out and wound up by slower drivers, you shouldn't be on the road. If you get so annoyed that you will tailgate or speed or engage in other dangerous driving behavior then you shouldn't be driving. & I'm not encouraging driving slowly, you should be making progress on the road, but you are far more of a danger than a slower driver if you are getting stressed out over it.

You can't control what they do, only what you do.

Elfinknight

dukedalton wrote: »

If he/she doesn't have the ability to drive to the speed limit then he/she should not be on the road. Simple as that.

I do a fair bit of mileage and the most infuriating thing is to see someone plodding along at half the limit in normal driving conditions. This to me is as dangerous as someone speeding, because it can get the person behind frustrated into attempting an overtaking maneuver they shouldn't carry out.

The speed limit is there for a reason. If you can't handle that, get off the road.

As another poster has said the speed limit is exactly that, a limit, not a target.

The road outside my ma's house is 80 KPH. None of the locals will even try to do that on it and the last guy who tried it wrote off his car a hundred yards from her house.

The limits posted are not always the right one

Iwannahurl

dukedalton wrote: »

Links that substantiate anything you've written here:

Where is the "some evidence"?

These will do you for a start:

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/ruralspeed/RURALSPEED.PDF

http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/ACC672-Down-with-speed.pdf

http://www.trg.dk/elvik/740-2004.pdf

Pay particular attention to any mentions of Solomon and speed variance...

Iwannahurl

Muir wrote: »

If people get that stressed out and wound up by slower drivers, you shouldn't be on the road. If you get so annoyed that you will tailgate or speed or engage in other dangerous driving behavior then you shouldn't be driving. & I'm not encouraging driving slowly, you should be making progress on the road, but you are far more of a danger than a slower driver if you are getting stressed out over it.

You can't control what they do, only what you do.

"Encouraging or forcing slow drivers to speed up beyond their comfort level is contrary to road safety wisdom. Not only is this strategy likely to increase the crash risk of the slowest drivers, but, if these drivers subsequently became involved in a crash, any injuries would be much more severe than if they had travelled at slower speeds. Thus, rather than encouraging slow drivers to increase their speed and expose themselves to greater risk, a more beneficial road safety measure would be to encourage them to pull over periodically at safe locations if they hold up traffic.

It is fast drivers, rather than slow drivers, however, who comprise the core safety problem, and encouraging all speeding drivers to slow down would have great benefits for overall road safety. There are no increased risks associated with this approach."

From a report I linked to earlier: http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/ACC672-Down-with-speed.pdf

Muir

Iwannahurl wrote: »

"Encouraging or forcing slow drivers to speed up beyond their comfort level is contrary to road safety wisdom. Not only is this strategy likely to increase the crash risk of the slowest drivers, but, if these drivers subsequently became involved in a crash, any injuries would be much more severe than if they had travelled at slower speeds. Thus, rather than encouraging slow drivers to increase their speed and expose themselves to greater risk, a more beneficial road safety measure would be to encourage them to pull over periodically at safe locations if they hold up traffic.

It is fast drivers, rather than slow drivers, however, who comprise the core safety problem, and encouraging all speeding drivers to slow down would have great benefits for overall road safety. There are no increased risks associated with this approach."

From a report I linked to earlier: http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/ACC672-Down-with-speed.pdf

Yeah, that would be the smart thing.

dukedalton

This thread is going around in circles. I'm not advocating speeding. But from my first post I said there is no reason why people should drive significantly below the speed limit under normal conditions (i.e. reasonable weather, good surface, relatively straight road). In these conditions, your "comfort level" should be the speed limit. If it isn't you have to ask the question, why? The purpose of driving tests is to ensure people are competent to drive. If it's a lack of ability, then I would question why the person is on the road to begin with. And it's not good enough to say, I don't feel comfortable. If you're on a road, driving in normal conditions, you should be at or near the speed limit.

A Dub in Glasgo

Looks like the ethos here is to dumb down to the lowest ability driver rather than raising standards of the lower ability driver. Is it any wonder that the standard of driving in Ireland is terrible?

TheChizler

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Looks like the ethos here is to dumb down to the lowest ability driver rather than raising standards of the lower ability driver. Is it any wonder that the standard of driving in Ireland is terrible?

Is driving slow dumb driving? I would consider it smart to know when it's appropriate to slow down.

dukedalton

It is if it's unnecessary. Just like speeding.

Iwannahurl

What's 'necessary speeding' when it's at home, or away?

dukedalton

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What's 'necessary speeding' when it's at home, or away?

Who said anything about "necessary speeding" (whatever that is)?

Iwannahurl

dukedalton wrote: »

It is if it's unnecessary. Just like speeding.

Are you not even reading your own posts now?

Iwannahurl

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Looks like the ethos here is to dumb down to the lowest ability driver rather than raising standards of the lower ability driver.

Quote/link?

Fuinseog

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

If you cannot drive at a reasonable speed you should not be driving at all.
End of

thats the spirit. anyone not driving to the speed you want them to should be driven into the ditch or forced off the road.

dukedalton

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Are you not even reading your own posts now?

The question was asked by a previous poster, is slow driving dumb driving. I said it is, if it's unnecessary, just like speeding.

I'm flattered to see that you just dive straight for the keyboard as soon as you see a post by me, not bothering to read what I was actually replying to

:rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

TheChizler wrote: »

Is driving slow dumb driving? I would consider it smart to know when it's appropriate to slow down.

Slow driving irrespective of the road conditions or the limit on the road is dumb driving.. how can you claim it is not?

Fuinseog

even if you have a full licence it takes time to build up confidence in driving.

Iwannahurl

dukedalton wrote: »

The question was asked by a previous poster, is slow driving dumb driving. I said it is, if it's unnecessary, just like speeding.

I'm flattered to see that you just dive straight for the keyboard as soon as you see a post by me, not bothering to read what I was actually replying to

:rolleyes:

Q. Is driving slow dumb driving?

A. It is if it's unnecessary. Just like speeding.


So, does your response imply (1) speeding is also dumb driving, or (2) "unnecessary" speeding is also dumb driving, or (3) something else?

Your answer not as clear as you seem to think it is.

dukedalton

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Q. Is driving slow dumb driving?

A. It is if it's unnecessary. Just like speeding.


So, does your response imply (1) speeding is also dumb driving, or (2) "unnecessary" speeding is also dumb driving, or (3) something else?

Your answer not as clear as you seem to think it is.

It's clear that (1) is correct- a sentiment I have expressed more than once on this thread already. Not to sure how you managed to construe any other meaning, but I'm happy to have relieved you of your confusion

TheChizler

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Slow driving irrespective of the road conditions or the limit on the road is dumb driving.. how can you claim it is not?

If for no reason you're going so slow that people have to significantly adjust their speed in order to avoid you, then I would agree. For example 50-70ish in a single laned 100 zone. If you're just going annoyingly slow for no reason and all danger can be attributed to the impatient driver behind you, I would put that in the inconsiderate driving category. If you're within 20-30% of the limit and others can easily overtake then I have absolutely no issue with that.

All figures are ballpark estimates.

I try not to get too worked up on the road. No reason to be angry, even if people are deliberately trying to piss you off. Just relax and get there safe.

Topper Harley

Iwannahurl wrote: »

By the same token other people breaking any of the road rules is not your concern.

Presumably.

I point out some of the rules of the road, which I regularly see being broken by people who drive along oblivious to them, with the hope of helping to educate motorists in this country. I do this on a popular internet forum. What I don't do (unlike some), is try enforce the rules while on the road and then justify this on the basis of other's wrongdoing. Perhaps I'll rephrase in order to avoid any further evasion of the issue. Other people speeding is your concern but on the road is not the place for you to do something about it. Leave that to the Gardai.

I accept that tailgating and speeding are wrong. I don't try to justify these actions by blaming excessively slow drivers and nor should you justify excessively slow drivers just because other people are wrong to speed and tailgate.

dukedalton wrote: »

It's clear that (1) is correct- a sentiment I have expressed more than once on this thread already. Not to sure how you managed to construe any other meaning, but I'm happy to have relieved you of your confusion

I suspect that was an opportunistic misinterpretation in order to easily knock your argument rather than actually accept your real point that unnecessary slow driving is a bit stupid. In any case, necessary speeding... how about Emergency Services?

SuperInfinity

Slow driving for no reason can be highly dangerous and cause an accident. If a driver can't learn to drive at the correct speed, then they shouldn't be on the road... or at least on that particular road where they refuse to keep up with the traffic. Merging from a busy lane onto a busy motorway is something that could legitimately make a person nervous, can you imagine someone who refuses to go above 40-50mph on a straight normal main road matching the speed of the other traffic and doing this well?

It's just a bad policy anyway. You need to be confident to go at the normal speed. If you go way below the speed limit for no reason, it is just irrational and poor. If it's a windy/narrow road or something and you don't know the road, sure that could be a legitimate reason to slow down. But if there's a person in front "leading the way" then by keeping up with them, (NOT tailgating yourself obviously!) you'll avoid all surprising hazards because they will slow down in time.

rachel101

I'm not a driver but I'm a nervous passenger, if only people realised how intimidating it is! :eek:

Chauncey

rachel101 wrote: »

I'm not a driver but I'm a nervous passenger, if only people realised how intimidating it is! :eek:

I love giving lifts to people like you.

"You will drive slowly, won't you? I get very nervous in cars."
"Yes, I will, yeah."

NNEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAOOOWWWW! Beep beep! Get the **** out of it! BEEP! BEEEEEEEEEEP!
And so on.

Shenshen

TheChizler wrote: »

If for no reason you're going so slow that people have to significantly adjust their speed in order to avoid you, then I would agree. For example 50-70ish in a single laned 100 zone. If you're just going annoyingly slow for no reason and all danger can be attributed to the impatient driver behind you, I would put that in the inconsiderate driving category. If you're within 20-30% of the limit and others can easily overtake then I have absolutely no issue with that.

All figures are ballpark estimates.

I try not to get too worked up on the road. No reason to be angry, even if people are deliberately trying to piss you off. Just relax and get there safe.

I do tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I've been lost before/looking for an address. I also at one point had to drive while suffering from a fierce migraine, and no way in hell would anyone make me do more than 80 when I'm not feeling able to cope with it. Note that I would not willfully set out in such a condition, but it developped while I was at work and I had to get home.

You never know who the person in front of you is, and what their reason for being slow might be. So why get worked up over it? Hang back, wait till it's safe and then overtake.

Shenshen

Chauncey wrote: »

I love giving lifts to people like you.

"You will drive slowly, won't you? I get very nervous in cars."
"Yes, I will, yeah."

NNEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAOOOWWWW! Beep beep! Get the **** out of it! BEEP! BEEEEEEEEEEP!
And so on.

My husband liked doing that.
He stopped when I pointed out that it was his car, and if I wet the seat he'd be the one having to clean it up.

Iwannahurl

dukedalton wrote: »

It's clear that (1) is correct- a sentiment I have expressed more than once on this thread already. Not to sure how you managed to construe any other meaning, but I'm happy to have relieved you of your confusion

I'm ecstatic too. The terminological inexactitude is in "just like".

IMO there's a cohort of motorists who believe driving as fast as possible as often as possible is not just perfectly acceptable but often 'necessary' (cf. the use of the term "excessive speeding" on Boards).

Fuinseog

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Slow driving for no reason can be highly dangerous and cause an accident. If a driver can't learn to drive at the correct speed, then they shouldn't be on the road... or at least on that particular road where they refuse to keep up with the traffic. Merging from a busy lane onto a busy motorway is something that could legitimately make a person nervous, can you imagine someone who refuses to go above 40-50mph on a straight normal main road matching the speed of the other traffic and doing this well?

It's just a bad policy anyway. You need to be confident to go at the normal speed. If you go way below the speed limit for no reason, it is just irrational and poor. If it's a windy/narrow road or something and you don't know the road, sure that could be a legitimate reason to slow down. But if there's a person in front "leading the way" then by keeping up with them, (NOT tailgating yourself obviously!) you'll avoid all surprising hazards because they will slow down in time.

with a full driving licence you can be on any road but if the road is unfamiliar to you caution is advised. on country roads I drive slower.
some people I know drive at 90km on the motorway to save fuel and cos they are not in a hurry. that is way below the speed limit.

Iwannahurl

Fuinseog wrote: »

some people I know drive at 90km on the motorway to save fuel and cos they are not in a hurry. that is way below the speed limit.

Perfectly legitimate, I would think.

However, even I would probably go (a bit) ballistic if they decided to do so in a, um, relaxed fashion in the wrong lane...

Iwannahurl

SuperInfinity wrote: »

...if there's a person in front "leading the way" then by keeping up with them, (NOT tailgating yourself obviously!) you'll avoid all surprising hazards because they will slow down in time.

:eek:


Try starting a thread with that statement over in Motors...

--Kaiser--

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Perfectly legitimate, I would think.

However, even I would probably go (a bit) ballistic if they decided to do so in a, um, relaxed fashion in the wrong lane...

Nope, it's not. Why do you think you can fail a driving test by 'failing to make progress' i.e. driving too slow for the conditions?

Fuinseog

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Perfectly legitimate, I would think.

However, even I would probably go (a bit) ballistic if they decided to do so in a, um, relaxed fashion in the wrong lane...

I have never seen anyone drive at that speed in the fast lane but I find it odd that people here find it outrageous that I should drive at 120 and stay in the right lane. people not breaking the speed limit are a pain.

I notice some people driving at 50 through housing estates where children play on the roads. an accident waiting to happen.

MagicSean

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Nope, it's not. Why do you think you can fail a driving test by 'failing to make progress' i.e. driving too slow for the conditions?

I don't think that's failing to make progress. Not making a turn when it is clear to do so, not taking off at traffic lights when they turn green. They are failing to make progress.

Fuinseog wrote: »

I have never seen anyone drive at that speed in the fast lane but I find it odd that people here find it outrageous that I should drive at 120 and stay in the right lane. people not breaking the speed limit are a pain.

The right lane is for overtaking. If you are not overtaking you should not be in it. it is not your job to enforce speed limits. And you have no idea why a person may be breaking a speed limit either so who are you to make a judgement on what speed they should be doing.

--Kaiser--

MagicSean wrote: »

I don't think that's failing to make progress. Not making a turn when it is clear to do so, not taking off at traffic lights when they turn green. They are failing to make progress.

I know several people who failed their tests for basically, driving too slow, not for being too cautious at roundabouts etc...

The right lane is for overtaking. If you are not overtaking you should not be in it. it is not your job to enforce speed limits. And you have no idea why a person may be breaking a speed limit either so who are you to make a judgement on what speed they should be doing.

+a million on this one

dukedalton

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm ecstatic too. The terminological inexactitude is in "just like".
).

Pick the bones out of that!

rogieop

Fuinseog wrote: »

I have never seen anyone drive at that speed in the fast lane but I find it odd that people here find it outrageous that I should drive at 120 and stay in the right lane. people not breaking the speed limit are a pain.

I notice some people driving at 50 through housing estates where children play on the roads. an accident waiting to happen.

Are you thick? They are not called the fast and slow lanes.

Its the driving land and overtaking lane.

If you are not overtaking another vehicle get the **** out of the right hand lane.

Seriously you are part of the main problem on Irish motorways and you dont even realise it.

Debs_Mann

I you are being tailgated the chances are you are driving to slow and hogging the outside lane in your own little world. When it comes to being let out are you looking people in the eye, or looking elsewhere.

bluecode

I said earlier I don't tailgate and considering I normally drive at or slightly above the speed limit am rarely tailgated.

But occasionally I come across absolute idiots who drive well below the limit, usually on twisty difficult to pass roads. I don't tailgate them because they're unpredictable just wait my chance to overtake.

But sometimes you meet a real loon. They drive below the speed limit and when you get a chance to pass. They actually sound the horn and flash the lights at you. One guy did it to everyone who passed him. This even happened on a motorway. It was unbelievable.

I got one good once though. One nut was holding up everyone. When it was my turn, he flashed his lights at me. So I slowed to find out what he wanted;). Really slow, boy did he back away. At that point everyone behind him starting passing us. I got some nice waves and smiles. I reckon he was a psycho who enjoyed holding dozens of people up for no reason. Those people are dangerous.

Shenshen

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I know several people who failed their tests for basically, driving too slow, not for being too cautious at roundabouts etc...

Check back, I've already posted the explanation of "failing to make reasonable progress". It refers almost exclusively to waiting too long after lights change, when merging into traffic, etc.
Not to not making the speed limit.

http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/progress.html

If you know people who failed for going too slow, it would have been either due to them waiting too long at a junction or at traffic lights, or simply to the tester being a dick.