Lootman wrote:It is not the exact same action but it does display the self selfish indifference to other road users, as had been explained to you.
Go on, have the last word.
Scott.
Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site
Lootman wrote:It is not the exact same action but it does display the self selfish indifference to other road users, as had been explained to you.
Lootman wrote:richlist wrote:So there are people on this forum who think that whilst driving within the 20mph speed limit one should actually pull over and stop to allow other drivers to pass. Absolute madness.
WHY ?
Ultimately it has nothing to so with the speed limit. It has to do with being a considerate road user.
So if you have a tail of twenty vehicles behind you, are you saying that you would stubbornly continue to obstruct their progress out of spite? Rather than pulling over at a safe opportune moment to let them pass? Do you also hog the "fast lane" on motorways rather than pull over to allow others to pass?
On rural lanes it is quite common for tractors and other slow moving vehicles to pull over from time to time to allow this. I suspect the UK does not yet have a law enforcing that because historically UK drivers have not been selfish, but that may change if too many drivers think they have a right to dawdle and obstruct.
That said, having an artificially slow speed limit compounds this problem.
Arborbridge wrote:Here we have a guy seriously suggesting that we should pull over and allow people to break the law, adding in a vain attempt at moral blackmail, that not to do so is somehow immoral or selfish!
I can hardly believe what I'm reading here: it's tantamount to urging people to break the law by condoning people who drive over the limit.
Lootman wrote:As I said before I do not think anyone should feel intimidated into driving faster, limit or not. But refusing to let others overtake seems like taking puritanism a bit far. And if I had an angry, frustrated driver behind me, I'd rather he passed me and disappear into the distance.
Arborbridge wrote:The tractor is a man of straw argument, and you know it. If the tractor cannot travel at 20 mph, fine - they will often move over. But why would they move over if they can travel at or slightly above the limit. I see not reason whatsoever.
Mike4 wrote:Arborbridge wrote:The tractor is a man of straw argument, and you know it. If the tractor cannot travel at 20 mph, fine - they will often move over. But why would they move over if they can travel at or slightly above the limit. I see not reason whatsoever.
It's a straw man argument on another front too. The mahoosive £150k tractors farmers around here drive appear to be perfectly capable of 50mph on the public highway.
richlist wrote:So there are people on this forum who think that whilst driving within the 20mph speed limit one should actually pull over and stop to allow other drivers to pass. Absolute madness.
WHY ?
Lootman wrote:So for example a tractor doing 10 mph in a natural 30 mph zone is the same problem as someone driving 20 mph in a natural 35 mph or 40 mph zone.
If you are blocking traffic then move the freak over and stop being an obstacle!
swill453 wrote:Lootman wrote:So for example a tractor doing 10 mph in a natural 30 mph zone is the same problem as someone driving 20 mph in a natural 35 mph or 40 mph zone.
If you are blocking traffic then move the freak over and stop being an obstacle!
There's no such thing as a "natural 35 mph or 40 mph zone". The subject under discussion is a road where the legal maximum speed is 20 mph, at pain of prosecution.
Someone driving at 20 mph there is not an obstacle.
Lootman wrote:You seem obsessed with the law above all else. Whereas I consider the law as just one input into real-life decision making.
Unless of course you are going to claim that your Scottish puritanism means that you have never, ever technically transgressed the law ever? You are Gordon Brown and I claim my five pounds.
didds wrote:richlist wrote:So there are people on this forum who think that whilst driving within the 20mph speed limit one should actually pull over and stop to allow other drivers to pass. Absolute madness.
WHY ?
yeah... i know.
how do you as the lead driver doing 20mph in a 20 zmne, with a queue of vehicles behind you, know that they want to more than 20 mph ?
I can see you pulling over, the stream of traffic passing you, you jumping on the end - to find everyone is still doing 20 mph because they were all in fact following the speed limit.
not that there is an issue with that particularly of course.
It just made me laugh to think of it.
Lootman wrote:Mike4 wrote:Arborbridge wrote:The tractor is a man of straw argument, and you know it. If the tractor cannot travel at 20 mph, fine - they will often move over. But why would they move over if they can travel at or slightly above the limit. I see not reason whatsoever.
It's a straw man argument on another front too. The mahoosive £150k tractors farmers around here drive appear to be perfectly capable of 50mph on the public highway.
The absolute speed is less important than the relative speed.
So for example a tractor doing 10 mph in a natural 30 mph zone is the same problem as someone driving 20 mph in a natural 35 mph or 40 mph zone.
If you are blocking traffic then move the freak over and stop being an obstacle!
Lootman wrote:swill453 wrote:Lootman wrote:So for example a tractor doing 10 mph in a natural 30 mph zone is the same problem as someone driving 20 mph in a natural 35 mph or 40 mph zone.
If you are blocking traffic then move the freak over and stop being an obstacle!
There's no such thing as a "natural 35 mph or 40 mph zone". The subject under discussion is a road where the legal maximum speed is 20 mph, at pain of prosecution.
Someone driving at 20 mph there is not an obstacle.
And that is where we disagree, as you well know. It is not like I am going to agree with you just because you keep repeating the same thing over and over no matter how dumb I have explained that is.
You seem obsessed with the law above all else. Whereas I consider the law as just one input into real-life decision making.
Unless of course you are going to claim that your Scottish puritanism means that you have never, ever technically transgressed the law ever? You are Gordon Brown and I claim my five pounds.
airbus330 wrote:If you don't notice the BMW 6" off your rear bumper, you're not using your mirrors enough
airbus330 wrote:I'll freely admit that the dawdling driver running 23 in a 30 does my head in and I will try and pass before someone equally irritated tries to pass from 3 cars back. The vast majority of speed limits, particularly outside residential areas are very conservative and the limit is really the minimum sensible speed.
and the limit is really the minimum sensible speed.
Arborbridge wrote:The speed limit is a maximum not a minimum. You may feel they are an indication of the a minmum sensible speed, but that's a concept in your mind which could be the result of your wanting to drive too fast. In the real world, those limits have been set to keep all roads users safe - it is independent of one's own desires or feelings which should not come into it.
swill453 wrote:Arborbridge wrote:The speed limit is a maximum not a minimum. You may feel they are an indication of the a minmum sensible speed, but that's a concept in your mind which could be the result of your wanting to drive too fast. In the real world, those limits have been set to keep all roads users safe - it is independent of one's own desires or feelings which should not come into it.
I remember the introduction to the police driving manual has a comment that people who think speed limits should be higher than they are, are statistically in more accidents than the average driver.
Scott.
Arborbridge wrote:I'd just like to comment, that I've pretty much said all I want to say on this subject, and have made my position and opinions clear.
Arborbridge wrote:Lootman wrote: I consider the law as just one input into real-life decision making.
Unless of course you are going to claim that your Scottish puritanism means that you have never, ever technically transgressed the law ever?
Try that with a shopping lifting charge or worse
Of course there are times when one might accidentally transgress the speed laws, but since I left my youth behind, never deliberately as far as I remember. Indeed I have been punished for doing so, and one of those punishments resulted in a fine and points which made me more careful ever after.
But here you are advocating not only deliberately breaking the law . .
Return to “Cars, Driving, Motorbikes or any Transport”