The Lemon Fool

XFool wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:I was once stopped around Christmas time for driving too slowly - that is to say, on the speed limit of 30mph. The cop also noticed I had the window wound down too (it was a surprisingly warm evening), so putting those two facts together came to the conclusion I must have drunk too much.

Was this it?

I know somebody* (a non drinker) who was stopped because they were driving with the window open. When asked they were told by the police they take this as a sign of a likely drinking driver. Interestingly, I always drive with the window open (unless raining heavily).

* Somebody who seems not to recognise the concept of speed "limits". But that's another matter...

Yes, having the window open on a winter's evening was definitely a factor, the policeman told me that. Driving at the speed lmiit was also suspicious, I was told, for this is something drunks do to "be more careful". What ashame that road users in a non-drunk state aren't as careful to observe speed limits.

Arb.

Spet0789 wrote:I think if you are driving at the speed limit, that’s at most inconsiderate.

How "driving at the speed limit" can be "inconsiderate" is pretty mind boggling to me - assuming you are not, for instance, blocking emergency vehicles.

XFool wrote:

Spet0789 wrote:I think if you are driving at the speed limit, that’s at most inconsiderate.

How "driving at the speed limit" can be "inconsiderate" is pretty mind boggling to me - assuming you are not, for instance, blocking emergency vehicles.

A limit is a compromise number that is assumed to be a safe'ish speed for traffic in normal or average conditions. So if there is a designated 30 mph stretch then 40 mph might be perfectly safe at 6 a.m. on a sunny summer Sunday morning. Whilst on a foggy icy night in February 20 mph there might be too fast.

Ideally limits would be variable and dependent on conditions, like we see displayed electronically on some motorways. Absent that limits can be contrived, arbitrary and not relevent.

Most roads have "natural" speeds which will be the speed of prevailing traffic, which may be more or less than the limit. I can show you roads where everyone is 10% or 15% over the limit. In those cases, if a granny driver regards the limit as over-literal and sticks to it precisely, then she is paradoxically causing more of a hazard and a danger to herself and others than if instead she just "went with the flow" a few mph over.

Of course even worse is the driver who sticks to the limit in a snide attempt to police others to do the same. Not your job.

Rules is rules but the most important qualities for driving safety are awareness, judgement and reasonableness, not pedantry and dogmatism.

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote:

Spet0789 wrote:I think if you are driving at the speed limit, that’s at most inconsiderate.

How "driving at the speed limit" can be "inconsiderate" is pretty mind boggling to me - assuming you are not, for instance, blocking emergency vehicles.

A limit is a compromise number that is assumed to be a safe'ish speed for traffic in normal or average conditions. So if there is a designated 30 mph stretch then 40 mph might be perfectly safe at 6 a.m. on a sunny summer Sunday morning. Whilst on a foggy icy night in February 20 mph there might be too fast.

Ideally limits would be variable and dependent on conditions, like we see displayed electronically on some motorways. Absent that limits can be contrived, arbitrary and not relevent.

Most roads have "natural" speeds which will be the speed of prevailing traffic, which may be more or less than the limit. I can show you roads where everyone is 10% or 15% over the limit. In those cases, if a granny driver regards the limit as over-literal and sticks to it precisely, then she is paradoxically causing more of a hazard and a danger to herself and others than if instead she just "went with the flow" a few mph over.

Of course even worse is the driver who sticks to the limit in a snide attempt to police others to do the same. Not your job.

Rules is rules but the most important qualities for driving safety are awareness, judgement and reasonableness, not pedantry and dogmatism.

We will never agree on this - as in the previous debate on the matter
Your whole thesis rests on value judgements concerning the road and the time - human nature being what it is people will, and do, push the boundary which then tips into what would in any sober reckoning be risky driving, depending very much on the principle that nothing expected will happen.

That's why we have agreed limits (a blunt weapon, I agree) and why it is an offence to go over them regardless of your arguments about rationalising why you shouldn't.
And is it always about safety anyway? I used to walk up a stretch of road which had a 20mph limit (reduced recently from 30). It was a fast straight road tempting to speedsters (often middle aged people, but that's another subject) and thundering lorries. Even if it wasn't unsafe it felt it if you were walking, and was also jolly unpleasant and noisy unless the speed were kept to 20 mph. Pedestrians have rights to consideration too, something which road users seem to ignore - until they too try walking around our suburbs or country roads. Incidentally, as regards the latter, what were quiet country roads with scarcely any traffic and now race tracks for delivery drivers from Amazon etc who seem to treat them as though they are dual carriageways. Another reason to hate internet shopping.

On a slightly tangential point, I've often wonder what speed the authorities are expecting when within a limt they put a "slow" warning sign on the road. I take that as less than the limit, or are they warning people going over the limit that should really take note now?
How sensible in NZ where they put up a recommended speed for each major bend so one knows what to expect. I dare say over here the authorities wouldn't want to take responsbility, or they would be frightened of the "we have too much regulation already" lobby.

Arb.

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote:How "driving at the speed limit" can be "inconsiderate" is pretty mind boggling to me - assuming you are not, for instance, blocking emergency vehicles.

A limit is a compromise number that is assumed to be a safe'ish speed for traffic in normal or average conditions. So if there is a designated 30 mph stretch then 40 mph might be perfectly safe at 6 a.m. on a sunny summer Sunday morning. Whilst on a foggy icy night in February 20 mph there might be too fast.

Ideally limits would be variable and dependent on conditions, like we see displayed electronically on some motorways. Absent that limits can be contrived, arbitrary and not relevent.

Tell that to the magistrate!

Lootman wrote:Of course even worse is the driver who sticks to the limit in a snide attempt to police others to do the same. Not your job.

Not any driver's "job" to cause other drivers to have to take avoiding action, or pull up or stop. When I was learning to drive I was told it was bad driving if you caused another driver to have to take 'avoiding action'. Why do these speedsters not simply overtake? If the answer is: "it may not be safe to do so", then it may also not be "safe" to pull over and stop, without causing even more of an obstruction. It is also not safe to harass another car driver.

Lootman wrote:Rules is rules but the most important qualities for driving safety are awareness, judgement and reasonableness, not pedantry and dogmatism.

The speed limit is the law. OK, you may well think the law is "pedantic" or "dogmatic" and does not really need to apply to "me" (i.e. You!) - I remember, at least on TMF, that was the effective view of some drivers: "I know best". But whatever you or I may think, it's the law, speed limits AREN'T optional. Certainly not as far as the law is concerned.

Whatever people may choose to 'think', that is just the way it is.

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:Rules is rules but the most important qualities for driving safety are awareness, judgement and reasonableness, not pedantry and dogmatism.

The speed limit is the law. OK, you may well think the law is "pedantic" or "dogmatic" and does not really need to apply to "me" (i.e. You!) - I remember, at least on TMF, that was the effective view of some drivers - but whatever you or I may think, it's the law. Speed limits AREN'T optional. Certainly not as far as the law is concerned.

Actually no, speed limits are optional. All rules and laws are optional. Why? Because they do not actually stop you doing anything. They merely provide remedies if you ignore them (and you get caught, and the cops cares enough to write a ticket, and then shows up in court when you fight it, and . . ).

Law are inputs into decision making. There are always other and sometimes conflicting inputs. The final decision is always yours and mine about how much weight to attach to that law. And even though you are playing the stickler for rules on this TV show, I'd be willing to bet you have broken traffic and other laws in the past, regardless of whether you got caught. You had your reasons and so did others.

PS: I have had only had 2 non-parking traffic tickets in 45 years of driving. One was going the wrong way down a one-way street that I did not realise was one-way. The other for failing to yield at a yield sign just last year. My most frequent transgression is speeding but it is usually just 10% or so over and it is common knowledge that the cops aren't bothered about that.

Lootman wrote:My most frequent transgression is speeding but it is usually just 10% or so over and it is common knowledge that the cops aren't bothered about that.

Don't bank on that, I was on a speed awareness course (36 in a 30) with someone who was doing 32 in 30 (which I thought was a bit harsh, but she got caught)
not sure if it was a cop or camera though

XFool wrote:

Spet0789 wrote:I think if you are driving at the speed limit, that’s at most inconsiderate.

How "driving at the speed limit" can be "inconsiderate" is pretty mind boggling to me - assuming you are not, for instance, blocking emergency vehicles.

I would consider that if you are driving at the speed limit and had a queue of other cars behind you, obviously looking to pass, then not to pull over to let them safely pass would be inconsiderate.

An obvious example, as I mentioned earlier, would be when towing. In that case, your safe speed (and sometimes your legal speed) will obviously be lower than that for other traffic.

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:Rules is rules but the most important qualities for driving safety are awareness, judgement and reasonableness, not pedantry and dogmatism.

The speed limit is the law. OK, you may well think the law is "pedantic" or "dogmatic" and does not really need to apply to "me" (i.e. You!) - I remember, at least on TMF, that was the effective view of some drivers - but whatever you or I may think, it's the law. Speed limits AREN'T optional. Certainly not as far as the law is concerned.

Actually no, speed limits are optional. All rules and laws are optional. Why? Because they do not actually stop you doing anything.

Oh well, now that really is "pedantic"!

Murder is indeed, always an option.

Spet0789 wrote:

XFool wrote:

Spet0789 wrote:I think if you are driving at the speed limit, that’s at most inconsiderate.

How "driving at the speed limit" can be "inconsiderate" is pretty mind boggling to me - assuming you are not, for instance, blocking emergency vehicles.

I would consider that if you are driving at the speed limit and had a queue of other cars behind you, obviously looking to pass, then to not pull over to let them safely pass would be inconsiderate.

I would consider it inconsiderate to expect other motorists (in normal circumstances) to pull over to let you pass where it may not be safe to do either of those things. If it isn't unsafe, just overtake when it is clearly safe to do so. Your vehicle, your driving.

Spet0789 wrote:An obvious example, as I mentioned earlier, would be when towing. In that case, your safe speed (and sometimes your legal speed) will obviously be lower than that for other traffic.

Which is a particular case, which obviously does not normally apply. I, for instance, already mentioned "emergency vehicles".

So where is this common sense?

Barclayboy wrote:the policeman started to state his reasons for the stop, namely that he wanted to talk to me about my vehicle. Before he could continue any further his driver colleague suddenly said we’ve got to go there is an incident and that was that. No further explanations as to why I was stopped!

Location Tooting 6.30 pm in a 10 plus year old Vauxhall Zafira, not I would think a likely chosen getaway vehicle or a normal choice of boy racers and being driven by a 60ish couple.

It would have been a similar description Zafira being reported as being used for a nefarious purpose, and as soon as they stopped you they realised you didn't meet the profile of those being sought - but rather than say that and to make the stop worthwhile then the police officer then played the odds that a 60ish couple isn't likely to have something outstanding on them, so chose to focus on the car - a pedantic officer can find something wrong with a 10 year old car if they want to.

But then something more important came in (donuts ready?) and you were spared any grief.

XFool wrote:

Spet0789 wrote:

XFool wrote:How "driving at the speed limit" can be "inconsiderate" is pretty mind boggling to me - assuming you are not, for instance, blocking emergency vehicles.

I would consider that if you are driving at the speed limit and had a queue of other cars behind you, obviously looking to pass, then to not pull over to let them safely pass would be inconsiderate.

I would consider it inconsiderate to expect other motorists (in normal circumstances) to pull over to let you pass where it may not be safe to do either of those things. If it isn't unsafe, just overtake when it is clearly safe to do so. Your vehicle, your driving.

Spet0789 wrote:An obvious example, as I mentioned earlier, would be when towing. In that case, your safe speed (and sometimes your legal speed) will obviously be lower than that for other traffic.

Which is a particular case, which obviously does not normally apply. I, for instance, already mentioned "emergency vehicles".

So where is this common sense?

It feels like we have different perspectives on this.

My position is simply that if you are holding someone up, it’s inconsiderate not to allow them past when it’s safe for you to do so.

This would apply to walkers on a narrow path or to a driver on a road. Whether you would want (or consider it wise) to go at the same speed as them is moot.

Spet0789 wrote:My position is simply that if you are holding someone up, it’s inconsiderate not to allow them past when it’s safe for you to do so.

Let's be specific then. The person in front is doing the maximum speed permissible by law. The person behind (you?) would like to go faster than this.

What do you mean "allow them past"? Pull over into a layby and stop, thus slowing their progress? Or simply not obstruct you if a safe overtaking opportunity arises?

(Obviously I'd agree with the latter but not the former).

Scott.

Pulling in to help them break the speed limit is aiding and abetting in the committing of an offence?

One point to bear in mind is that many/most car speedometers overstate the vehicles speed by up to 5 to 7 mph. So you may think you are travelling at the maximum permitted speed when in fact you are not.

Itsallaguess wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:

Spet0789 wrote:


In that case he should have given her a summons for inconsiderate driving! At the very least he should have asked her what the speed limit was and fined her if she didn’t know.

Perhaps the otehrs road users were the ones who should have been judged inconsiderate?

From the RAC website -

Is driving too slowly illegal in the UK?

While there is no law for driving too slowly, the police can charge you for “driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other road users”.

This CD30 endorsement carries 3 to 9 penalty points.

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/speed-limits/

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Or to quote an earlier sentence:
It’s important to remember that speed limits should be treated as an absolute maximum – it’s not always safe to drive at this speed in all conditions.

Even the motorists' lobby, note, say the limit is an absolute maximum, not an elastic band to be rationalised away.

Unless there were exceptional circumstances, I would doubt any policeman would stop someone for obeying a speed limit with or without a queue behind them.
A drive obeying a speed limit is under no obligtion to "pull over" as this could in itself be dangerous - indeed one could not be sure that people behind wanted to go faster anyway. It has certainly happened to me that I've let someone go past who was tailgating me ont the assumption that he wanted to go faster, only to find that he didn't and was going at the same speed.

So, except in circumstances where the driver behind is making it obviously dangerous to continue by driving too close, I do not consider I have a duty to pull over. I apply the international coll regs at sea in my mind: the overtaking vessel keeps clear. What happens behind is the concern of those behind - if they want to go faster that's fine but it's their responsibility to overtake safely, otherwise the remedy is simple: stick with the maximum speed limit. If they get frustrated that they can't break the law, then the problem is entirely within their own heads. Learn some patience.


Arb.

Spet0789 wrote:
It feels like we have different perspectives on this.

My position is simply that if you are holding someone up, it’s inconsiderate not to allow them past when it’s safe for you to do so.

When it's safe they can overtake. Until that time it is equally inconsiderate of them to expect me to waste my time stopping to let them past, especially if it means my aiding them to break the law. They can wait until there is an opportunity. Their expectation of unimpeded passage has no greater weight than my own.

Arborbridge wrote:

Itsallaguess wrote:
From the RAC website -

Is driving too slowly illegal in the UK?

While there is no law for driving too slowly, the police can charge you for “driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other road users”.

This CD30 endorsement carries 3 to 9 penalty points.

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/speed-limits/

Or to quote an earlier sentence:

It’s important to remember that speed limits should be treated as an absolute maximum – it’s not always safe to drive at this speed in all conditions.

Even the motorists' lobby, note, say the limit is an absolute maximum, not an elastic band to be rationalised away.

Unless there were exceptional circumstances, I would doubt any policeman would stop someone for obeying a speed limit with or without a queue behind them.

Of course, but the CD30 endorsement of 'driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other road users' clearly allows policemen to judge whether such 'exceptional circumstances' might apply in any given situation of excessively-slow driving, and where they decide such exceptional circumstances do not apply, then it's clearly within their powers to punish drivers for driving too slowly...

A confused Audi 'lane hog' doing 40mph in an outside lane on the M1 has been fined by police.

The vehicle was crawling along the motorway at night in lane three of the four-lane motorway and was spotted by Derbyshire Police.

DerbyshireLive reported how the driver was causing other cars to take evasive action as a result of the inappropriate speed, causing a large amount of concern for the vehicle.

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/audi-driver-fined-going-slowly-4533850

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote:The speed limit is the law. OK, you may well think the law is "pedantic" or "dogmatic" and does not really need to apply to "me" (i.e. You!) - I remember, at least on TMF, that was the effective view of some drivers - but whatever you or I may think, it's the law. Speed limits AREN'T optional. Certainly not as far as the law is concerned.

Actually no, speed limits are optional. All rules and laws are optional. Why? Because they do not actually stop you doing anything.

Oh well, now that really is "pedantic"!

Not at all. You claimed that laws "stop" people from doing things. They do not. They are merely an advisory of the risks of doing so, and you are free to choose to accept or ignore those risks.

As I said, you have broken the law many times. Why did you do it? Why weren't you "stopped"? What were your reasons for doing so? Did you feel justified? Why?

Itsallaguess wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:Or to quote an earlier sentence:

It’s important to remember that speed limits should be treated as an absolute maximum – it’s not always safe to drive at this speed in all conditions.

Even the motorists' lobby, note, say the limit is an absolute maximum, not an elastic band to be rationalised away.

Unless there were exceptional circumstances, I would doubt any policeman would stop someone for obeying a speed limit with or without a queue behind them.

Of course, but the CD30 endorsement of 'driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other road users' clearly allows policemen to judge whether such 'exceptional circumstances' might apply in any given situation of excessively-slow driving, and where they decide such exceptional circumstances do not apply, then it's clearly within their powers to punish drivers for driving too slowly...

Right. Now can you show us a sensible example of a driver being prosecuted for "driving too slowly" when driving at the speed limit?

Itsallaguess wrote:A confused Audi 'lane hog' doing 40mph in an outside lane on the M1 has been fined by police.

The vehicle was crawling along the motorway at night in lane three of the four-lane motorway and was spotted by Derbyshire Police.

DerbyshireLive reported how the driver was causing other cars to take evasive action as a result of the inappropriate speed, causing a large amount of concern for the vehicle.

Which is one of those 'special' examples. i.e. Clearly a bad driver driving badly - or were both other lanes jammed with vehicles going at less than 40mph?

Honestly, I think it's a case of point made. All the 'alternative opinions', apparently requiring as they do, highly atypical and 'special' situations to justify their argument.

"Honestly squire, I was driving along at 50mph and there was a light aircraft wi' its engine on fire trying to land in the outside lane, and a hang glider in difficulty trying to come down just behind me when I noticed a bridge ahead crumbling as a train went over it. That's why I was entirely justified in the circumstances in unfastening my safety belt and using me mobile."

Lootman wrote:

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:Actually no, speed limits are optional. All rules and laws are optional. Why? Because they do not actually stop you doing anything.

Oh well, now that really is "pedantic"!

Not at all. You claimed that laws "stop" people from doing things. They do not.

Did I? Where? I said that speed limits were legal limits - they are - not optional, as some like to think. Manifestly they do not stop some people exceeding them, just take a drive on any motorway. (Or try driving around town at the legal limit.)

Indeed, this is the entire point being made.

Why should people obeying the law expect to be bullied by people who want to defy the law? How is this "considerate"? It isn't.