Tailgating and Road Rage

cyrusdvirus

Nippledragon wrote: »

Arseholes who cannot drive properly are what cause crashes ie tailgating, speeding etc...

Don't forget brake testing just for giggles n squirts.

If you had been in front of me in the situation i described earlier i would have driven into the back of you, then drove on.

Then come after you for the damage you caused to my car.

Nippledragon

If someone knew how to drive properly they should have enough clear space in front of them to make an emergency stop. Tailgating is complete disregard for other road users. I had a t0sspot in a van doing it to me once, I slammed on the brakes and he backed the fook off the gob****e. I hope he soiled himself a little too

ejmaztec

Nippledragon wrote: »

Its worse when you see learner drivers getting bullied off the roads, do some people not remember they were learner drivers at some stage too? Pig ignorant arseholes.:mad:

If you are being tail-gated, slam on your brakes. Offender wont have a leg to stand if he hits you as he/she was driving too close.

You only need to press the brake pedal enough to switch the brake-lights on, then watch them slamming their brakes on. That way, you won't have to waste any time standing in the middle of the road waiting for the Guards and the ambulance to show up to sort out the carnage. Afterwards you won't have to waste even more time fighting to get your car repaired, or writing letters backwards and forwards to the solicitor and insurance company.

Nippledragon

Nippledragon wrote: »

Tailgating is complete disregard for other road users.

So is deliberately causing car crashes.

cyrusdvirus

Nippledragon wrote: »

If someone knew how to drive properly they should have enough clear space in front of them to make an emergency stop. Tailgating is complete disregard for other road users. I had a t0sspot in a van doing it to me once, I slammed on the brakes and he backed the fook off the gob****e. I hope he soiled himself a little too

you sound like a wonderful human being.

Watch out you don't hurt your head when you fall from that impossibly ignorant and high horse

RustyNut

Nippledragon wrote: »

If someone knew how to drive properly they should have enough clear space in front of them to make an emergency stop. Tailgating is complete disregard for other road users. I had a t0sspot in a van doing it to me once, I slammed on the brakes and he backed the fook off the gob****e. I hope he soiled himself a little too

If someone knew how to drive properly they would know the danger they put themselves and every body else in by slamming on the brakes and risking the tailgaiter or themselves losing control. The law of unintended consiquences might just kick in here.

marcsignal

marshbaboon wrote: »

My brother has the most incredible solution to tailgating. He slows down. Doesn't matter if he has somewhere important to be, he'll drive as slow as he can get away with, and feed on their tears of rage.

I used to do that too.

If you're doing the speed limit, on a normal suburban road, tailgaters deserve no quarter. However, consider that when the dickhead tailgating you, gets the opp to pass, he/she will tear off past you swearing in his rear view mirror, and flatten an old woman crossing the road ahead of him/her.

Tailgating should get you 4 points on your licence imo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf5d2DP4Pp0

Nippledragon

gatecrash, your story is an exception - if you see a car coming speeding with flashing lights and hazards you would know something very serious was up.

Why resort to insults?... I have never been on a snobby horse that was taking drugs

RustyNut

Nippledragon wrote: »

Tailgating is complete disregard for other road users. I had a t0sspot in a van doing it to me once, I slammed on the brakes and he backed the fook off the gob****e that was driving in front of him. I hope he soiled himself a little too

FYP there.

ejmaztec

A few years ago in the UK, I was on a stretch of newly re-surfaced road, so naturally I slowed down because of the loose grit. Some guy appeared behind me, almost in the boot egging me on to speed me up. I kept on going at the same speed, despite him being in a hurry, and because he was so feckin close, it was only a matter of seconds until his screen went, and he had to pull in.

About an hour after I arrived at the office, I saw his car being towed onto the forecourt of a garage across the road, and he was stuck there for about three hours while they sorted his screen out.

He got held up for at least half a day for being a tail-gating knob.

Nippledragon

Fair enough, 'slam - slammed' was probably the wrong word to use in my description but you know what I mean....

sunnysoutheast

Has anyone got/used a rear-facing camera?

I'd expect taking a memory stick down to the cops and making a complaint might get some of these idiot drivers sorted out.

Tailgating should be treated as dangerous driving.

ahnowbrowncow

Speedometers are not 100% accurate so people who think they are doing 119kph could be doing close to 110kph so you could well be slowing people down who are driving faster than you and also complying with the law.

I do get pretty annoyed when there's one person who is doing 60/70kph on a 100kph road and creates a huge line of traffic. Not only does it slow everyone down and who are they to dictate everyone's speed but it also creates some dangerous situations with mad people overtaking 2-3 cars coming up to a corner

Larbre34

About 10 years ago, before the M50 would bear you safely to west Dublin, I was on one of the windey hill routes at the back of Rathfarnham

I was third car in a short queue at the Ticknock cross hairpin, from the Larch Hill side heading around to Mount Venus Road. Those who know it will be aware that you have to pull way over onto the right side of the road to get a swing at the hairpin to line up for the main road.

Car 1 was taking its sweet time moving off as it had not gone way over to the right so was sat at the yield with no line of sight to what was coming down hill. Car 2 was sitting right up on its rear bumper, half onto the other side of the road, and after a moment began beeping at Car 1 and I could see the driver loosing the plot inside the car. So Car 2 decides to pull out around Car 1, cut across its nose and head away around the hairpin, beeping and effing away the whole time, much to my amusement

Car 1 then decided enough was enough and took off with a swing of the handbrake in pursuit. I couldnt see what happened for the next 20 seconds, but by the time I got around the corner myself, Car 1 had rammed Car 2 hard in the rear corner and put the two of them into the stone wall at Mount Venus road, and the two lads were bating 40 shades of grey out of each other on the grass verge.

Now ideally the cops wouldve loved a blow by blow about what happened to lead to that conclusion but the 2 lads were clearly fighting so viciously I kept going and left them at it. Ive never seen anything so lunatic on the road before or since

marcsignal

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

Has anyone got/used a rear-facing camera?

I'd expect taking a memory stick down to the cops and making a complaint might get some of these idiot drivers sorted out.

Tailgating should be treated as dangerous driving.

Was heading down the Stillorgan road, towards Donnybrook, on a PX125 Vespa about 3 years ago, and was tailgated by a 'fat bald middle aged knob end' in a 5 Series. I was in the slow lane, doing about 80km. This retard began weaving behind me, and flashing his lights.

Now, he could have overtaken me easily by just moving to the outside lane, problem solved. However, he chose to drive up my arse (so close in fact, that I couldn't see his reg plate), overtake me in the slow lane, and cut me off.

When I caught up with him at the lights in Donnybrook, I pulled up in front of him, and put the bike on the stand, right across his path. I got off the bike, and walked towards his car, and roared at him to get out of the car. He wouldn't even look at me. I proceeded to write down his insurance details. He lifted his mobile and phoned the Guards. I refused to move the bike. The Guards arrived.

I explained what happened to the guard, and although the Guard was reasonable, I still I got a bit of a bolliking. We were both allowed on our way.

...now here's the cream on the cake.

Unbeknownst to 'fuck face' in his beamer, I had a sports cam mounted on the rear of the bike, for exactly this reason, having had similar experiences in the past. I put the clip on a CD and posted it with a very detailed letter to his insurance company.

I got a very rewarding phone call from them a few days later. Although, I never found out what happened in the end, probably nothing, but it was worth the effort imo.

Shenshen

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Speedometers are not 100% accurate so people who think they are doing 119kph could be doing close to 110kph so you could well be slowing people down who are driving faster than you and also complying with the law.

I do get pretty annoyed when there's one person who is doing 60/70kph on a 100kph road and creates a huge line of traffic. Not only does it slow everyone down and who are they to dictate everyone's speed but it also creates some dangerous situations with mad people overtaking 2-3 cars coming up to a corner

As so many people in this thread seem to believe that speedometers are by default faulty, I had a look online to see what information I could find.

"In many countries the legislated error in speedometer readings is ultimately governed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Regulation 39 which covers those aspects of vehicle type approval which relate to speedometers. The main purpose of the UNECE regulations is to facilitate trade in motor vehicles by agreeing uniform type approval standards rather than requiring a vehicle model to undergo different approval processes in each country in which it is to be sold.

European Union member states must also grant type approval to vehicles meeting similar EU standards. The ones covering speedometers are similar to the UNECE regulation in that they specify that:

The indicated speed must never be less than the actual speed, i.e. it should not be possible to inadvertently speed because of an incorrect speedometer reading.
The indicated speed must not be more than 110 percent of the true speed plus 4 km/h at specified test speeds. For example, at 80 km/h, the indicated speed must be no more than 92 km/h.

The standards specify both the limits on accuracy and many of the details of how it should be measured during the approvals process, for example that the test measurements should be made (for most vehicles) at 40, 80 and 120 km/h, and at a particular ambient temperature. There are slight differences between the different standards, for example in the minimum accuracy of the equipment measuring the true speed of the vehicle."

Apparently, it's part of the NCT to check speedometer accuracy, as it can be impacted by wheel and tyre sizes.
So unless you drive a car that has been tinkered with severely, your speedometer will be highly accurate. Most importantly, you will not be driving around at 100 thinking you're doing 120.
If someone doing 5kph under the speed limit causes you to tailgate them, you need your head examined.

veryangryman

Call this a contraversial opinion but...

Given that the roads pay for themselves with motor tax, fuel etc, why not give priority to the motor vehicles over pedestrians. Including in towns and cities. Remove all traffic lights, replacing them with pedestrian crossings so that the old biddys can also cross where necessary.

Im sick to death of waiting at pedestrian lights where there are no pedestrians

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

The suggestions in here are ridiculous. It's disgusting that I have to compete with this on the roads every day. I don't even travel that far and the the level of driving I witness is a disgrace.

CasaBonita

Shenshen wrote: »

As so many people in this thread seem to believe that speedometers are by default faulty, I had a look online to see what information I could find.

"In many countries the legislated error in speedometer readings is ultimately governed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Regulation 39 which covers those aspects of vehicle type approval which relate to speedometers. The main purpose of the UNECE regulations is to facilitate trade in motor vehicles by agreeing uniform type approval standards rather than requiring a vehicle model to undergo different approval processes in each country in which it is to be sold.

European Union member states must also grant type approval to vehicles meeting similar EU standards. The ones covering speedometers are similar to the UNECE regulation in that they specify that:

The indicated speed must never be less than the actual speed, i.e. it should not be possible to inadvertently speed because of an incorrect speedometer reading.
The indicated speed must not be more than 110 percent of the true speed plus 4 km/h at specified test speeds. For example, at 80 km/h, the indicated speed must be no more than 92 km/h.

The standards specify both the limits on accuracy and many of the details of how it should be measured during the approvals process, for example that the test measurements should be made (for most vehicles) at 40, 80 and 120 km/h, and at a particular ambient temperature. There are slight differences between the different standards, for example in the minimum accuracy of the equipment measuring the true speed of the vehicle."

Apparently, it's part of the NCT to check speedometer accuracy, as it can be impacted by wheel and tyre sizes.
So unless you drive a car that has been tinkered with severely, your speedometer will be highly accurate. Most importantly, you will not be driving around at 100 thinking you're doing 120.
If someone doing 5kph under the speed limit causes you to tailgate them, you need your head examined.

Not doubting any of the above but try the satnav test. Use your satnav to get a speed reading and compare to your cars speedometer. When I am doing 100kph according to the cars speedometer the satnav shows a speed of 92-93kph.

cyrusdvirus

Alicia Gentle Infant wrote: »

The suggestions in here are ridiculous. It's disgusting that I have to compete with this on the roads every day. I don't even travel that far and the the level of driving I witness is a disgrace.

Are you talking about those who condone brake testing, those who are self appointed guardians of the unbreakable speed limit, or those who say "just let them by when it's safe to do so and don't get stressed over it"?

RustyNut

gatecrash wrote: »

Are you talking about those who condone brake testing, those who are self appointed guardians of the unbreakable speed limit, or those who say "just let them by when it's safe to do so and don't get stressed over it"?

Jasus I'd start a pole with those options if I only knew how.

jackal

To those that berate a gentle "brake check" on a tail-gater, would it still be the leading car's fault if they actually did have to hit the brakes hard for some reason or another?

The whole bloody point is to show the tailgater that they are far to close to the leading car to react, and unless they have x-ray vision and/or light-speed reactions they are going to go into the back of the car in front.

What is the difference? If a car gets hit from behind it is ALWAYS 100% the fault of the car behind. If you cannot stop in the space you can see to be clear you are too close/going too fast.

Antagonising a tail-gater needlessly is not something I would condone, (sitting in the overtaking lane when a lane to the left is free) because regardless of who is right and wrong, there is no point in engaging these guys.

Once driving on a national (one lane with a hard shoulder) road at night, just had the dipped headlights on as there was traffic in both directions, and can see a car weaving past all the cars behind me, driving like a dickhéad. Arrives behind me, sits an inch off my bumper due to traffic in the opposing lane. I go into the hard shoulder to get him out of my hair and next thing there is a fecking traffic cone sitting in the hard shoulder, I just managed to avoid it and get back on the road. Lesson learned, don't put yourself out for these people. I caught up with him in traffic in the next town, so his manoeuvres saved him absolutely no time.

Shenshen

CasaBonita wrote: »

Not doubting any of the above but try the satnav test. Use your satnav to get a speed reading and compare to your cars speedometer. When I am doing 100kph according to the cars speedometer the satnav shows a speed of 92-93kph.

Which would be within the legal limits posted...

Again, I checked for official sources of the accuracy of this kind of testing. There's not much out there apart from a few newspaper articles. But most agree that on a straight road and at constant speed, your GPS will be accurate. The moment there are bends, or your speed changes slightly, the accuracy will go down quite significantly.

qwert2

A fair few country drivers (Yes, people outside of Dublin) are bloody wreckles on the road. Tailgating you, going mad to pass you out, passing you out on a continous line, not ****ing indicating.

summerskin

qwert2 wrote: »

A fair few country drivers (Yes, people outside of Dublin) are bloody wreckles on the road. Tailgating you, going mad to pass you out, passing you out on a continous line, not ****ing indicating.

Drive faster than 50kmh everywhere and then we wouldn't have to.

qwert2

summerskin wrote: »

Drive faster than 50kmh everywhere and then we wouldn't have to.

So if I'm doing 84km on a 100km, is that a problem? Becasue it seems to irritate the locals

summerskin

qwert2 wrote: »

summerskin wrote: »

Drive faster than 50kmh everywhere and then we wouldn't have to.

So if I'm doing 84km on a 100km, is that a problem? Becasue it seems to irritate the locals

If it's a straight enough or wide enough road then yes.

Same way it irritates Dubs when a culchie takes a fraction too long to leave the traffic lights.

Shenshen

summerskin wrote: »

Drive faster than 50kmh everywhere and then we wouldn't have to.

Why would I risk having to pay a fine just because you decide to sit on my bumper?

Where I live, there is a blanket 60kph speed limit for around 4 miles around. I stick to that.
I have recently been overtaken by a mad tailgater, just to turn a corner and spot a camera van. He slammed in the brakes, went down to around 30, but I think it was too late (well, forgive me, I hope it was too late).
Not only did he endanger me by driving up too close, endanger other drivers because he couldn't see round the bend the camera van sat behind, he then then endangered me and other traffic behind me by stepping on the brakes nearly performing an emergency stop.

If that had been an emergancy rather than a simple d*ckhead, I'm sure the camera van would not have had such an effect on him.

Mind you, it was short-lived enough. Round the next bend he was off again, hassling the next guy in front.

qwert2

summerskin wrote: »

If it's a straight enough or wide enough road then yes.

Well how about waiting til it's safe to over take? No risks, no problems

summerskin

Shenshen wrote: »

summerskin wrote: »

Drive faster than 50kmh everywhere and then we wouldn't have to.

Why would I risk having to pay a fine just because you decide to sit on my bumper?

I'm talking about in 100kmh zones

qwert2

summerskin wrote: »

I'm talking about in 100kmh zones

Just becasue the limit is 100km, doesn't actually mean you should be going 100km. Saying that it doesn't mean you should be going 50 or 60 km either

Shenshen

qwert2 wrote: »

So if I'm doing 84km on a 100km, is that a problem? Becasue it seems to irritate the locals

If those locals had a tractor or a lorry in front of them, they would have to contend themselves with their speed as well.
Seriously, don't let anyone bully you into driving in a way you'r not comfortable with.

Shenshen

summerskin wrote: »

I'm talking about in 100kmh zones

So? I've had people tailgate me on roads with a limit of 60, of 80, of 100...
No matter what the speed limit may be, the one thing you can count on is that there will be idiots who think that this is the minimum speed anyone should go.

summerskin

Shenshen wrote: »

summerskin wrote: »

I'm talking about in 100kmh zones

So? I've had people tailgate me on roads with a limit of 60, of 80, of 100...
No matter what the speed limit may be, the one thing you can count on is that there will be idiots who think that this is the minimum speed anyone should go.

And you'll have idiots going dangerously slow too...

Shenshen

summerskin wrote: »

And you'll have idiots going dangerously slow too...

And how is creating further dangers for yourself and others by tailgating them going to improve anything at all about that situation?

ejmaztec

summerskin wrote: »

If it's a straight enough or wide enough road then yes.

Same way it irritates Dubs when a culchie takes a fraction too long to leave the traffic lights.

I have time to eat my sandwiches, drink a flask of coffee, and read a newspaper when I'm waiting for the traffic to move when the lights change to green in Tralee:(.

qwert2

summerskin wrote: »

And you'll have idiots going dangerously slow too...

I reckon more people go too fast than too slow. Anyway it's more dangerous to go too fast than too slow

summerskin

qwert2 wrote: »

summerskin wrote: »

And you'll have idiots going dangerously slow too...

I reckon more people go too fast than too slow. Anyway it's more dangerous to go too fast than too slow

Search google for dangerous slow driving and you'll find many studies to argue that point. That's why motorways in most countries have a minimum speed requirement too. I saw a woman on the M7 going 60kmh on Monday, she was a far bigger danger than the ones going 140.

Shenshen

summerskin wrote: »

Search google for dangerous slow driving and you'll find many studies to argue that point. That's why motorways in most countries have a minimum speed requirement too. I saw a woman on the M7 going 60kmh on Monday, she was a far bigger danger than the ones going 140.

And do you think this danger is going to get less if you sit on her bumper and tailgate her?
Just out of curiosity.

RustyNut

jackal wrote: »

To those that berate a gentle "brake check" on a tail-gater, would it still be the leading car's fault if they actually did have to hit the brakes hard for some reason or another?

The whole bloody point is to show the tailgater that they are far to close to the leading car to react, and unless they have x-ray vision and/or light-speed reactions they are going to go into the back of the car in front.

What is the difference? If a car gets hit from behind it is ALWAYS 100% the fault of the car behind. If you cannot stop in the space you can see to be clear you are too close/going too fast.

Ok so just for argument sake say you have Damo and Jacinta sitting on your ass and you decide to show them the error of their ways. Just as you "break test" him he looks down to check the text that just came in. That's one bad to you ie. breaking for no good reason and two to Damo tailgating and texting so you are less wrong.
What happens next? Damo has hit the back of you causing you to spin out of control into the tree at the side of the road, at the same time Damo has gone over the ditch on the far side of the road rolled the car throwing Jacinta out the windscreen and getting killed him self by a fence post in the face, but it is ok because you were less wrong and you can tell the judge as much at your compo hearing.
You will probably get a nice few bob but you will need it to pay the carrer who will have to change your nappy and feed you three times a day but at least you will have Jacinta in the wheelchair next to you to talk to.

All a bit far fetched I know but sh1t happens every day.

Driving on the road is not a combat sport.

Lord TSC

I still don't get how someone going well below the speed limit can be classified as "dangerous". "Irritating", maybe. But at the end of the day, their slow driving does not force you to do something dangerous. Your impatience does.

Don't get me wrong, someone going at 50kmph on a motorway in the wrong lane is obviously something I can understand causing irritation. But the danger comes from the driver behind him/her deciding their patience has run out and trying a dangerous move to get past her.

Even still, that doesn't excuse people trying dangerous moves to get past someone doing the speed limit, which is far more common a problem in my experience. Going back to my earlier post, I've had instances where I'm doing 60 in a 60 zone and still have people try overtaking on bends or without clear visibility ahead.

"Slow" drivers do not create dangerous situation; people with no patience who want to speed create the dangerous situations.

Sunnyisland

Team Shadowclan wrote: »

I still don't get how someone going well below the speed limit can be classified as "dangerous". "Irritating", maybe. But at the end of the day, their slow driving does not force you to do something dangerous. Your impatience does.

Don't get me wrong, someone going at 50mph on a motorway in the wrong lane is obviously something I can understand causing irritation. But the danger comes from the driver behind her deciding their patience has run out and trying a dangerous move to get past her.

Even still, that doesn't excuse people trying dangerous moves to get past someone doing the speed limit, which is far more common a problem in my experience. Going back to my earlier post, I've had instances where I'm doing 60 in a 60 zone and still have people try overtaking on bends or without clear visibility ahead.

"Slow" drivers do not create dangerous situation; people with no patience who want to speed create the dangerous situations.

Slow drivers are one of the biggest dangers on the road and should be treated like speeders, a report says

Nearly a third of motorists have had a 'near miss' caused by someone travelling slowly.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016721/Slow-drivers-dangerous-roads-cause-crashes.html#ixzz24NxX2pC5

qwert2

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I still don't get how someone going well below the speed limit can be classified as "dangerous". "Irritating", maybe. But at the end of the day, their slow driving does not force you to do something dangerous. Your impatience does.

Don't get me wrong, someone going at 50kmph on a motorway in the wrong lane is obviously something I can understand causing irritation. But the danger comes from the driver behind her deciding their patience has run out and trying a dangerous move to get past her.

Even still, that doesn't excuse people trying dangerous moves to get past someone doing the speed limit, which is far more common a problem in my experience. Going back to my earlier post, I've had instances where I'm doing 60 in a 60 zone and still have people try overtaking on bends or without clear visibility ahead.

"Slow" drivers do not create dangerous situation; people with no patience who want to speed create the dangerous situations.

Frustrating as it may be, this is the reality

RustyNut

realies wrote: »

Slow drivers are one of the biggest dangers on the road and should be treated like speeders, a report says

Nearly a third of motorists have had a 'near miss' caused by someone travelling slowly.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016721/Slow-drivers-dangerous-roads-cause-crashes.html#ixzz24NxX2pC5

Daily mail shocker?
143 accidents a year caused by slow drivers, out of 40,000 serious accidents.

Lord TSC

realies wrote: »

Slow drivers are one of the biggest dangers on the road and should be treated like speeders, a report says

Nearly a third of motorists have had a 'near miss' caused by someone travelling slowly.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016721/Slow-drivers-dangerous-roads-cause-crashes.html#ixzz24NxX2pC5

Oh well, if the Daily Mail is reporting it... :P

Reading the article though, I notice it says....

These drivers create such frustration that six out of ten motorists feel stress rise and about half are tempted to 'undertake'.


That goes back to what I was saying though; the danger does not arise because someone is going slow. It arises because the person behind them doesn't have the patience, and decides that they would rather take a risk and do something dangerous than sit behind someone going slow.

In otherwords, the dangerous action is taken by the driver behind the slow person, not the slow person themselves.

And, as Rusty nut says, 143 accidents a year is a minor amount considering the size of England and the amount of accidents that must take place every year...

EDIT: I'll also apologies for the sexism I spotted in my earlier post, where I used the term "her" to refer to the slow driver. Obviously guys can be just as irritating. :P

qwert2

No one is saying that driving too slow isn't dangerous, of course it can be. The problem is the impatience of drivers tailgating and desperately trying to overtake drivers going at a more than adequate speed

Chuck Stone

I'm not big on authority but when it comes to the roads rigorous policing is the only solution imo. There are too many useless drivers out there getting away with being dicks every day who are blissfully unaware of their lack of competence.

I would like to see a far larger police traffic corps with real teeth (being able to seize vehicles for dangerous driving, removing dangerous drivers licences and making them sit an advanced driving course etc). Traffic cameras are a cost effective way of policing the roads too (not speed cameras mind).

Sunnyisland

RustyNut wrote: »

Daily mail shocker?
143 accidents a year caused by slow drivers, out of 40,000 serious accidents.

The report is from the UK Department for Transport,The daily mail was one of many that printed it.

Peter Rodger, chief examiner from the Institute of Advanced of Motorists (IAM), said: "All forms of inconsiderate driving need to be tackled. Drivers who are unnecessarily excessively slow lead others to make rash moves."

Abi

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I still don't get how someone going well below the speed limit can be classified as "dangerous". "Irritating", maybe. But at the end of the day, their slow driving does not force you to do something dangerous. Your impatience does.

I have to pick you up on this. I'm all for "it's a speed limit, not a target", but if you're driving well below a limit you are looking to antagonise people. A happy medium is perfectly fine, and if they're not happy with it, keep left and let them over take you. If you're doing a silly slow speed especially around an area with bends, you may make the most rational driver a bit cheesed off. Asking for patience is one thing, but most people don't have all day to get to their destination.

When a driver is familiar with their route, eg. going to work, they have allowed a certain amount of time to get to said destination. They haven't accounted for someone with all of the time in the world, and make take a silly chance just to make it to work on time.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

gatecrash wrote: »

Are you talking about those who condone brake testing, those who are self appointed guardians of the unbreakable speed limit, or those who say "just let them by when it's safe to do so and don't get stressed over it"?

Those advocating dangerous driving.