Slow/dangerous driving.

frozenfrozen

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

What you say may be correct, but you will acknowledge that that is more likely due to such courses slowing down the 'ill go at the speed I think is safe rather than on the sign' rather than speeding up slow drivers.

Blaming the slow driver for 'causing' someone else to speed and cause an accident is has no more logic than the 'but she made me beat her your honour' defence.

Back pedal for a second with the rape thing, 100% not going there. There is a difference between rape and driving too closely so that a car that wants to overtake has to overtake multiple cars at once, if they want to go at all.

I agree it would be madness to ever encourage people to drive faster than they believe safe to do so. If you look at the reasons they feel unsafe to go any faster, though, that is where I see a big issue.

Tractors, trucks, vintage vehicles, etc, incapable of going faster -- A-OK in my book

Old person who can't see through their windscreen because they haven't cleaned it in 5 years and gets dizzy with the feeling of speed over 50km/h? Definitely don't go any faster!!!! but definitely don't drive!

Someone driving slowly due to their own perception of road conditions, information links re: seeing straw on the ground, assuming there will be a slow moving tractor ahead ---> very valid reason to drive slowly.


If someone feels their car is only safe to go at a certain number below the speed limit, that is quite dangerous.

It's like the people who do under 100km/h on the motorway because their vehicle shakes violently at that speed. and they think people sailing past at 150km/h must be TERRIBLY dangerous, when in reality in some cars 150km/h is just a number and feels no different at all to 80.


But I think it is fair to say slow vehicles and vehicles behind them who don't leave a gap and don't overtake, are creating dangerous situations where a bad decision from someone behind would be punished very severely. Yet the person making that bad decision is still to blame.

If they all had a two second gap between them, and slow moving vehicles pulled in when they've created a tailback that is not sorting itself out, that would definitely reduce dangerous overtaking accidents, in my best guess.

Lavinia

savagethegoat wrote: »

but it's not the slow driver who is dangerous, it's the driver who passes them when it's not safe who is dangerous.

Slow driver is one causing distress in other normal regular drivers. That is how it is.

The Rape of Lucretia

Lavinia wrote: »

Slow driver is one causing distress in other normal regular drivers. That is how it is.

Wha ?

Lavinia

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Wha ?

Reality

Lavinia

Btw hope you don't get me wrong, I'm just saying how it is.
I am personally driving for over 15 years and never caused any danger, but I do drive fast and follow the rules.

While I admire people in their 80sand even 90s being able to drive themselves, I am not sure they should be allowed as they do drive slowly and their reflexes are not as quick.

Ofcourse there are learner drivers and newly fresh drivers and you can simpathise and understand, Im just saying normally if the road is eg 50 you should not drive 20 on that road as it is obstruction of normal traffic flow.

Not to mention CO2emissions etc.

savagethegoat

Lavinia wrote: »

Slow driver is one causing distress in other normal regular drivers. That is how it is.

maybe so (whatever that means) but they are not dangerous

People driving a 95km/h cause me distress, still not dangerous though

Jayop

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

So in the overall scheme of causes of dangerous driving, driving slowly hardly registers. And compared to it, speeding is about 100 times more a contributor to accidents.

Looks like slow driving is almost a non issue in road safety.

No one has said it's the most dangerous thing. It's ****ing annoying though.

The Backwards Man

Lavinia wrote: »

Slow driver is one causing distress in other normal regular drivers. That is how it is.

Normal regular drivers (presuming you mean experienced drivers) don't get stressed (and most definitely do not get distressed) by slow drivers.

The Rape of Lucretia

Jayop wrote: »

No one has said it's the most dangerous thing. It's ****ing annoying though.

The title, op, and subsequent posts throughout this thread are on the danger and accident risks from slow driving though. Not on whether it is annoying or not.

.red.

OP here again.
I honestly think all drivers should have to do a driving test every 10ish years. After 60, maybe every 5 years.
The test is flawed, everyone knows that. I passed mine almost 20 years ago and haven't driven like I did that day since.
I had to get an eye test before I could get a licence, my sight could have deteriorated massively in that time but the RSA don't care. My eyes were fine 20 years ago and that's all that matters.
"Paddy" in this case wouldn't have a hope in hell of being given a licence now if he sat the test, a hell of a lot of (so called good) drivers would be the same. But he was fine to drive 50years ago or whenever he did it. Again, that's all that matters according to the RSA.
He also doesn't wear glasses, now that I think about it. Theres not too many people in their 70's that don't, especially for driving.
I'm not looking to pick on poor ould Paddy here, he's just like many others on the road.

One other thing, people on about lads taking a chance of overtaking when it's not save to do so, that's just stupid and reckless. Sure the snail ahead made them WANT to get past, they didn't make them stupid tho.

savagethegoat

.red. wrote: »

OP here again.
I honestly think all drivers should have to do a driving test every 10ish years. After 60, maybe every 5 years.
The test is flawed, everyone knows that. I passed mine almost 20 years ago and haven't driven like I did that day since.
I had to get an eye test before I could get a licence, my sight could have deteriorated massively in that time but the RSA don't care. My eyes were fine 20 years ago and that's all that matters.
"Paddy" in this case wouldn't have a hope in hell of being given a licence now if he sat the test, a hell of a lot of (so called good) drivers would be the same. But he was fine to drive 50years ago or whenever he did it. Again, that's all that matters according to the RSA.
He also doesn't wear glasses, now that I think about it. Theres not too many people in their 70's that don't, especially for driving.
I'm not looking to pick on poor ould Paddy here, he's just like many others on the road.

One other thing, people on about lads taking a chance of overtaking when it's not save to do so, that's just stupid and reckless. Sure the snail ahead made them WANT to get past, they didn't make them stupid tho.

that's the most Ageist post I've seen for a long while. 60 is not old.

Jayop

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The title, op, and subsequent posts throughout this thread are on the danger and accident risks from slow driving though. Not on whether it is annoying or not.

None of them said it was the "most" dangerous thing. That's my point which you do a good job of missing. Of course other things are more dangerous, loads of them are, but this too is a danger and a contributory factor in a lot of accidents. It's never going to be put down as the main cause because the rsa types wouldn't like that.

.red.

savagethegoat wrote: »

that's the most Ageist post I've seen for a long while. 60 is not old.

Your right its not, but are 10 year old cars much more dangerous than 9 year old ones?
The RSA had to pick an age for a yearly test and decided on 10 as from then on it would have more issues. They should pick an age for driving, around about 60 and do similar.
Like I said, our rules for driving are seriously flawed, a motor bike doesn't ever need to do a test(till after 2022 at the earliest anyway) and their a lot more dangerous than a car.

frozenfrozen

.red. wrote: »

One other thing, people on about lads taking a chance of overtaking when it's not save to do so, that's just stupid and reckless. Sure the snail ahead made them WANT to get past, they didn't make them stupid tho.

You're really missing the point. It's not wanting anything, and it's not all 'lads taking a chance'

They force even the safest drivers who want to make progress to be in a more dangerous position by reducing the safe opportunities for overtakes. You assume the safest thing is to sit behind them indefinitely. What about motorbikes who don't want to be smashed in the case of a concertina crash from behind, caused by people arriving at the speed limit to the back of the queue, and this being amplified by every subsequent car arriving, before a truck driver who has fallen asleep smashes into everyone?


In that case it's very obviously clear why making progress for certain vehicles is safer.


So it's not just about people being impatient. And it's not just about people making bad overtaking decisions. With a queue of cars who are too close, and one person goes to overtake a group, and someone further up pulls out without checking, that crash was caused not by the overtaker was it?

not exactly a bulletproof example there but I'm starting to get bored of typing so much here and none of it is being responded to

.red. wrote: »

Your right its not, but are 10 year old cars much more dangerous than 9 year old ones?
The RSA had to pick an age for a yearly test and decided on 10 as from then on it would have more issues. They should pick an age for driving, around about 60 and do similar.
Like I said, our rules for driving are seriously flawed, a motor bike doesn't ever need to do a test(till after 2022 at the earliest anyway) and their a lot more dangerous than a car.

Unfathomable ignorance. Motorbikes are generally maintained to a whole other level of mechanical perfection in comparison to cars. Find some numbers for bike crashes caused by mechanically unsafe bikes, and not drunk drivers, texters, or bikers speeding. And also see if you can find the statistics that don't include stolen bikes, they totally skew all numbers.

beauf

What people want is to only allow cars that can do 180 are less than 3 yrs old and drivers between the age of 18 and 25 with the best reflex's.

Of course any driving offences and you lose your licence for ever. Your insurance will be 50k a year with such a small pool of drivers.

End of problem.

beauf

visual wrote: »

Or do they toddle on their merry way because some else had to take emergency action to avoid hitting them and resulting action causing accidents behind them. So they don't show up statically.

In this alternative universe of yours you'd think people constantly getting caught out and having accidents would learn from it.

visual

beauf wrote: »

visual wrote: »

Or do they toddle on their merry way because some else had to take emergency action to avoid hitting them and resulting action causing accidents behind them. So they don't show up statically.

In this alternative universe of yours you'd think people constantly getting caught out and having accidents would learn from it.

Has your excel sheet crashed Alt contr del you be fine

beauf

frozenfrozen wrote: »

...With a queue of cars who are too close, and one person goes to overtake a group, and someone further up pulls out without checking, that crash was caused not by the overtaker was it?...

It was caused by the overtaker who pulls out without looking.

Estrellita

Lavinia wrote: »

Slow driver is one causing distress in other normal regular drivers. That is how it is.

The use of this word in here tells me a lot about how you drive. If you get 'distressed' because of a driver travelling at a slower speed than you, then maybe you should consider getting the bus? Let's face it, by 'distressed', you do mean angry. People with anger issues need to deal with them, or they put others in danger.

It's not that I haven't seen some of these a.rse riding nut jobs on Dublin roads but it's a way of life for a lot of country folk. It's like every car in front of them is a target and they will do what it takes to get passed you. I've seen some of the mentalist things on country roads where you are left with your heart in your mouth by watching an over taker not anticipate a bend and is now facing a tractor or bigger.

If an old chap is tipping along in front of me then I stay back until it is safe to pass him. The last thing I want to do is cause an accident by intimidating an elderly driver. He's probably arguably safer on the road than a lot of younger folk I've seen. Why the hurry? Why not wait till you get a straight that you can pass? I just don't understand it.

It's like everyone is in this mad hurry everywhere. I've commented to my OH that they are all in a hurry for their coffins.

Lavinia

Estrellita wrote: »

The use of this word in here tells me a lot about how you drive. If you get 'distressed' because of a driver travelling at a slower speed than you, then maybe you should consider getting the bus? Let's face it, by 'distressed', you do mean angry. People with anger issues need to deal with them, or they put others in danger.

It's not that I haven't seen some of these a.rse riding nut jobs on Dublin roads but it's a way of life for a lot of country folk. It's like every car in front of them is a target and they will do what it takes to get passed you. I've seen some of the mentalist things on country roads where you are left with your heart in your mouth by watching an over taker not anticipate a bend and is now facing a tractor or bigger.

If an old chap is tipping along in front of me then I stay back until it is safe to pass him. The last thing I want to do is cause an accident by intimidating an elderly driver. He's probably arguably safer on the road than a lot of younger folk I've seen. Why the hurry? Why not wait till you get a straight that you can pass? I just don't understand it.

It's like everyone is in this mad hurry everywhere. I've commented to my OH that they are all in a hurry for their coffins.

Oh so you told me, you must feel soooo good now dontya :rolleyes:

I never had an incident in my entire driving life which is about 17 years now. That may tel you what kind of driver I am.
But I have no intention ever traveling 20 if I can and is allowed to go 50.
I am aware of other people ho do not have all day to go from point a to point b and that's actually 10km distance for example.

ps. btw putting labels on people you do not actually know tells lots about you actually.

Lavinia

Btw..

there is another category of slow drivers that is even worse - and those are ones that stick to the middle line, even they have perhaps whole slow lane on their left so they could make it easier for other people to take them over but nope - they stick to the middle of the road like drunk for the railing.

It makes it even worse if it is a truck...

HeidiHeidi

Lavinia wrote: »

Btw..

there is another category of slow drivers that is even worse - and those are ones that stick to the middle line, even they have perhaps whole slow lane on their left so they could make it easier for other people to take them over but nope - they stick to the middle of the road like drunk for the railing.

It makes it even worse if it is a truck...

:eek:

*gets popcorn*

Lavinia

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

:eek:

*gets popcorn*

Estrellita

Lavinia wrote: »

Oh so you told me, you must feel soooo good now dontya :rolleyes:

Grow up.

ps. btw putting labels on people you do not actually know tells lots about you actually.

I don't need to do anything of the sort. You call yourself 'distressed' behind drivers slower than you. Then this attitude -

Lavinia wrote: »

Btw.. there is another category of slow drivers that is even worse - and those are ones that stick to the middle line, even they have perhaps whole slow lane on their left so they could make it easier for other people to take them over but nope - they stick to the middle of the road like drunk for the railing..

There is no such thing as a slow lane. And just as a heads up, the other one isn't a fast lane. It's called an over-taking lane.

I don't know why you are getting snotty with me. I pointed out that you shouldn't be 'distressed' while driving. It just sounds like a softened down word for losing the head with other drivers.

Lavinia

Estrellita wrote: »

Grow up.

hahah, this actually made me laugh

I don't need to do anything of the sort. You call yourself 'distressed' behind drivers slower than you. Then this attitude -

there ya go - you read what you wanted as i never said that - not about myself anyway

There is no such thing as a slow lane.

are you a driver? there are those lanes and believe it or not

And just as a heads up, the other one isn't a fast lane. It's called an over-taking lane.

i never said that either
as i didn't speak about two parallel lanes in one direction...
but even with those it is a common thing that the one is for slower and the other for faster traffic irl..
ther is also hard shoulder that you can use to let the traffic behind you overtake you.. i cannot remember in which country you are obliged to do this in case if 5 cars is stuck behind you..
all i'm saying is in general, you should let other vehicles past if you are holding them up, and make it easy or easier for them to do so - if you can to do so safely.

I don't know why you are getting snotty with me. I pointed out that you shouldn't be 'distressed' while driving. It just sounds like a softened down word for losing the head with other drivers.

and again, go back and read what i wrote so you'll see i never said that either..
i love & enjoy driving btw

beauf

Lavinia wrote: »

I am aware of other people ho do not have all day to go from point a to point b and that's actually 10km distance for example..

How long does it take you to do this 10km and have you worked out how long extra it takes you if you meet a slow driver.

Lavinia

beauf wrote: »

How long does it take you to do this 10km and have you worked out how long extra it takes you if you meet a slow driver.

To me? Idk, this was rhetoric example. But there is some difference for sure.
And also it is not the same if it is in the city or in rural area, not the same if there is one lane in one direction or two or three...

I also think if it is possible to get for those 10km in say 15 minutes, why drive 30 minutes, it is not ecological either.

Peregrinus

Lavinia wrote: »

To me? Idk, this was rhetoric example. But there is some difference for sure.
And also it is not the same if it is in the city or in rural area, not the same if there is one lane in one direction or two or three...

I also think if it is possible to get for those 10km in say 15 minutes, why drive 30 minutes, it is not ecological either.

To spend 30 minutes driving 10km, you'd have to be stuck the whole time behind someone doing 20km/hr. Be honest; that doesn't happen often.

At 110 km/hr, you'll cover 10 km in about 5 minutes 30 seconds. At 60 km/hr, it will take 10 minutes -a loss of 4 minutes 30 seconds. That's not a huge chunk out of your life, all things considered; certainly not worth risking a road accident over. Don't overtake unless it's safe and, if there really are no safe overtaking opportunities in the entire 10 kilometres, well, you'll survive a four-and-a-half-minute delay. Don't stress over it.

As for being kind to the environment, what matters is not how long you spend on the road but how much fuel you burn. Once you get much over about 60 km/hr, increased speed costs you more in wind resistance than it saves in rolling resistance, so your fuel economy gets worse. If you really want to minimise the environmental impact of your driving, accelerate steadily but not aggressively to somewhere around 60 km/hr and then maintain a steady speed, neither braking nor accelerating more than is necessary for safety. Drive like a slowcoach, in other words.

Lavinia

Peregrinus wrote: »

To spend 30 minutes driving 10km, you'd have to be stuck the whole time behind someone doing 20km/hr. Be honest; that doesn't happen often.

At 110 km/hr, you'll cover 10 km in about 5 minutes 30 seconds. At 60 km/hr, it will take 10 minutes -a loss of 4 minutes 30 seconds. That's not a huge chunk out of your life, all things considered; certainly not worth risking a road accident over. Don't overtake unless it's safe and, if there really are no safe overtaking opportunities in the entire 10 kilometres, well, you'll survive a four-and-a-half-minute delay. Don't stress over it.

As for being kind to the environment, what matters is not how long you spend on the road but how much fuel you burn. Once you get much over about 60 km/hr, increased speed costs you more in wind resistance than it saves in rolling resistance, so your fuel economy gets worse. If you really want to minimise the environmental impact of your driving, accelerate steadily but not aggressively to somewhere around 60 km/hr and then maintain a steady speed, neither braking nor accelerating more than is necessary for safety. Drive like a slowcoach, in other words.

You missed my line it is rhetoric example I didn't bother to do any math, its too early for that lol, hope at lease you got the point??? of what I said which is more important.

However I'm sure that cars that are stuck in traffic and when you need half an hour to pass 500m - that happens in the city every single day specially around the bridges, have a huge impact on the CO2 emission, pardon me saying.

Btw - when we are on the 'subject' - there are 'drivers' on the road who really do not know how to drive but are driving anyway, e.g. who want to turn left but get to the middle of the road - almost stopping there before turning left well they obviously 'don't know what they are doing', simply because to do a left turn you should go near the curb not to the middle of the road, as this also is causing obstruction of traffic..

but well....

Peregrinus

Lavinia wrote: »

Im sure that cars that are stuck in traffic and when you need half an hour to pass 500m - that happens in the city every single day specially around the bridges, have a huge impact on the CO2 emission, pardon me saying.

Yes. But that reinforces what I said. Optimal driving, from an environmntal point of view, is in the 50-70 kmh range, with minimal acceleration and deceleration - ironically, precisely the driving behaviour that is being criticised here. Traffic jams are bad because (a) they're slow, and (b) they involve constant acceleration and deceleration. Plus (c), leaving the planet aside aside, they have a bad effect on the immediate environment, because you have a lot of particulates being emitted in a confined location, so local air quality suffers.

But none of this makes accelerating to 110 km/h good, from an environmental point of view. It isn't good.