I would just comment that we don't know why the person ahead is driving slowly any more than they know why you (generic) want to drive faster. Frankly, if one is having a medical emergency, I don't think racing along in a private vehicle is any safer (for anyone) than waiting for an ambulance, but ... As I noted, most roads have minimum speeds as well as maximum - if the person is driving at least that, there's no legitimate reason to bellyache. They're driving within the law. (On most freeways around here, the minimum speed is 45 mph, maximum 70 mph, btw.)
To be honest I think that people who drive too slowly are just as dangerous as those who drive too fast (when I said sanctimonious I was referring to posts on both sides of the debate). Driving too slowly for the conditions causes anger and frustration which can result in dangerous driving. One might argue that these reactions are the fault of the other driver, but frankly that would be ignoring the fact that we are all subject to emotions and our actions have an effect on those around us including provoking their emotions. It would be quite an arrogant way to palm off all blame for our bad driving by castigating others for reacting to it.
Rightey-o, my bad, then. We don't actually have minimum speeds, just one recommended speed for each road. And yeah, Finland is enough of a backwood that we don't always have ambulances available or it's so far into the other direction that it's much faster to go to the hospital with your own car. And of course sometimes an emergency situation might arise while you're already in your own car, who knows, there are a countless number of situations where you might end up having to get from A to B as fast as possible with no other option but to drive there. That being said, maybe it's best if everyone would try to drive according to the recommended speeds or, if they feel their skills aren't up to par, consider taking additional driving classes before risking traffic. I'm not an exceptional driver by any means, I have only 14 years under my belt and two cross-Europe excursions, but then again, I've seen some truly horrible and downright dangerous drivers who've been driving for decades, so maybe your age vs. how long you've been driving isn't that good of a measure since a young kid might become an excellent driver in a couple of years while someone who doesn't give a damn about their own skill level can suck even after 40 years.
I don't feel any responsibility for the emotional state of other drivers. If my driving causes anger and frustration, then it's another drivers fault for letting themselves get out of control. They are operating a brick of steel, barreling down unforgiving asphalt at speed that are dangerous to anyone. If they flip the fuck out over the other driver's behavior that is on them. In Colorado the rear-ender is always at fault. Even if they're rear ending a car that has stopped in the middle of the highway, there is no excuse.
In terms of your last line I think that is true in most places (unless someone pulls out in front of you inappropriately). But taking no responsibility for the effect your actions have on other people isn't a positive, no matter what spin you put on it.
I'll put it another way. I'm not going to endanger myself, or my loved ones, just because another driver can't keep his emotions in check. And if he freaks the fuck out and damages his car of his body, I'm not going to have any sympathy. Behind the wheel of a car is not a place where you can let your emotions guide your actions.
Yes it is. I mean it is a very noble thought to say it isn't or that it shouldn't be; but a manifestly false one (until such time as we have self-driving cars).
So those of us who are mature enough to control ourselves appropriately should pull off the road in deference to those who aren't? No. Just, no. If you (generic) can't control yourself, then you're the one who needs to quit driving. Either that or put up with the consequences when the other guy puts you in your place.
Got it. Sorry if anyone was offended by my 'digs'. It didn't seem like the same thing to me, since the other aside I was referring to was a personal snipe at another member, but I take your point.
It's true, this one time a tailgater shot up behind me, unimpressed with the way I was driving only 10 miles above the speed limit. He was trapped between a semi on one side and a police cruiser on the other. Finally he shot forward through the gap and sped down the road. The cop immediately turned his siren on and waved the guilty party over onto the side of the road. I got a ticket for hurting the tailgater's feelings, and making him drive dangerously. I totally deserved it.
The speed differential between, say, a car and a tree? I agree. The speed differential is what would cause the injury, there. Re. the guns - T. Trian mentioned them twice in that post. Apparently he thought there was a connection?
Not absolutely nothing. I think both guns and cars are potential weapons, and someone who's careless and arrogant with one seems likely to be careless and arrogant with the other. I was giving examples of jackass behaviour, not examples of YOUR jackass behaviour. So, you agree with me, then? The danger isn't caused by the slow driver him or herself, it's caused by jackass responses TO that slow driver. I think we're on the same page, here. Yeah, slow reaction time. I think that's a big one. Slow enough that you know it's not safe for you to drive at high speeds, but still okay for you to drive at slower speeds. When I was young and stupid, my friends and I would rant about old men with hats, who always seemed to drive slower than we wanted and hold up traffic. Now that I've got some maturity and look at accident stats, I know it isn't the old men with hats who are having all the accidents. It's the young stupid people. Dude, seriously, if you don't want us to RESPOND to your comments about guns, STOP TALKING ABOUT GUNS. If you're okay with bringing guns into the conversation, STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT US TALKING ABOUT GUNS. No, I caught it. Do you want to reread my post and catch the stuff about all the OTHER possible hazards that the person in front of you might be aware of? Do you honestly think car manufacturers put lights in your vehicles with High and Low beams just for fun? If there's no down side to using the High beams, wouldn't we use them all the time? Is it really just for fog, where you live? Really? What if a DRAGON was chasing you?!? Would it be okay to tailgate, then? Or if you were in a chase scene and you had to get close enough so your gun-toting side kick could leap through your shattered windshield and launch himself onto the trunk of the car in front of you... oh, nope, talking about guns again! I expect there are lots of exceptions we could come up with. As a general rule? I strongly disagree with your driving practice.
I think (hope) that maybe we're mixing up driving a bit close and actual tailgating. If you're actually tailgating, you are causing the dangerous situation. To my way of thinking, it doesn't matter if it's a slow car or a group of cyclists - you slow down and don't get on their ass. You temper your rage and impatience, wait at a safe distance until you can safely pass, and then do so.
I don't tailgate (I am a cautious driver); however, by suggesting that people might get frustrated with someone who drives below the safe and legal speed for a road, it seems that I am now consigned to the bad and wrong "ooh, those people make me angry!" side of the debate. So be it. People are only ever this judgemental as a narcissistic form of deflection. By the antagonistic nature of many of the posts in this thread I would be very surprised if certain posters were mature behind the wheel of a car or anywhere else for that matter.
It's fine to be angry if someone is driving in a way that inconveniences you. It's not fine to risk their lives and the lives of others on the road in response to this anger. Right?
I think the debate had progressed somewhat beyond this point. Certainly my only input was that those who drive too slowly for the conditions can be as dangerous as those who drive too fast.
Oh. Okay. So, do you want to take a crack at explaining how they're dangerous? Annoying, I'll give you. But actually as dangerous as people who drive too fast? I found this site, http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/overview-of-fatality-facts, that shows that about 30% of driving fatalities are related to speeding (the chart's down toward the bottom of the page). So for slow driving to be just as dangerous, that would mean that about 30% of of fatalities would be slowness related. Does that seem likely to you? Can you find anything that would back it up?
Dude, we're at the bottom of page 3. How am I stirring up anything that isn't already stirred? Is it possible you meant, "Bayview is now expecting us to back up our proclamations with some sort of evidence or logic"?
No, because it won't be a debate, it will be you with your fingers in your ears repeating "I'm right, I'm right" until everyone else gets bored and leaves.
:chill: Guys, let's steer this thread back on topic. Even though this means I have to keep a close eye on this thread, I'd rather people vented out their driving frustration on an internet forum than by actually rear-bumping another vehicle or something else destructive out on the road. As long as you drive safely, it doesn't matter what you say or think while behind the wheel. And yeah, tail-gating and driving close to another car are getting conveniently mixed up here. And no, you can't judge someone's driving practice based on who they think should have a license and who don't. At the very least, know your limitations and take the car to places where you know you can control it. My mom avoids driving in our capital city altogether because she doesn't have the courage to speed up when you're joining a motorway and she knows that's when she's a danger to others. I'm shit scared every time my sister-in-law is driving because she too is afraid to accelerate appropriately (I get claustrophobic when riding shotgun, so I avoid accepting a ride from her, or my mom, or my mother-in-law... or my brother. The only people whose skills I actually trust are my hubs and dad, come to think of it.). They attract tailgaters sometimes, but in general I think, what we call 'ass flies' and you tailgaters, are pretty rare over here.
Did you miss the part where I gave evidence to support my idea? My ears are unblocked, and I'm ready to hear evidence to support your side. I'm just not ready to change my mind just because you repeat your initial statement a bunch of times WITHOUT evidence to support it. ETA: Crossposted with the angry unicorn. So... I guess... tailgating is bad.
We should stick to tailgating. Gun debates along with Circumcision, abortion, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are on my list of waste of time debates. But you must know I didn't make the claim up about as the stats. I don't know if they apply in Scandinavia. The US CDC has stats that people with guns in the home are more likely to be killed or injured by that gun than they are likely to use it for protection. Of course the pro-gun people claim it's because incidents of the gun protecting someone are not as well documented. And I'll leave it there. I'd suggest you start a different thread but I won't be joining it.
I think Bayview actually has a very good point. Can you (or @T.Trian) come up with any actual accidents where slowness was the cause?
