There's a stretch of road that I travel on every day at a pretty set time. There are three sets of traffic lights in quick succession. I have established that if I start off gently, change up into third and then drift on at tickover I catch all three lights without touching my brake. Faster than that and I know I'll have to brake to avoid rear-ending the last vehicle in the queue for the last lights. I've been undertaken, overtaken and flashed at. What's irritating is that the overtaker pulls in front of me, slams on his brakes to avoid the queue, and causes me to brake to avoid him when he's slow getting away again.
I wouldn't say that either. Lucky that's not what I was claiming in my previous post. I'll try one more time, but if you still (choose to?) misunderstand, I must accept that I simply can't explain this so that you'd get it: If person A is so bad at driving that they must drive below average speeds... it means person A's poor skills are caused by one or several limiting factors... factors other people who can drive at average speeds safely do not suffer from... those factors may include, but are not limited to things such as: -slow reaction time -lack of situatiional awareness -bad eyesight -bad hearing -inability to assess changing situations quickly enough -lacking understanding of traffic laws and regulations -being prone to panic in traffic Etc. I'm saying any of the above factors make person A an accident waiting to happen even if they try to compensate by e.g. driving 5km/h below the speed limit because that, in and of itself, does not erase all the dangers caused by the above factors. If driving the aforementioned 5km/h slower than any and all speed limits person A encounters erases all the possible factors that prompt person A to drive 5km/h slower than average, it is magic because slowing down does not cure e.g. lack of situational awareness or lack of understanding of traffic laws and regulations. Being aware fixes the lack of situational awareness and studying and learning traffic laws and regulations fixes the lack of understanding of traffic laws and regulations. See the end of this post. Yeah, I answered it, but I'll answer it again for your convenience (could you this time read the entire post, please?). The question is rigged. I don't drive faster than I feel is appropriate to the existing driving conditions and my abilities. To do otherwise would be dangerous. Then again, I only drive below the limit either momentarily or as long as specific conditions exist (depending on what is necessary for safe driving), conditions I excluded from my proposed scenario (e.g. bad weather, poor visibility, bad road, twisty road, sharp turns etc). If someone wants to tailgate me, go right ahead. I would, however, look for an opportunity to let them pass safely even if it meant a quick loop by a roadside gas station or blinking the right turn signal briefly when there's no crossing/turn in the vicinity, and I see there's no opposite traffic for a sufficient stretch when the only way to pass me is a visit to the opposite lane (I've done both several times) instead of being an asshole about it and forcing them to remain behind me for the entire drive. Has my ability to write coherent English deteriorated this badly? Rephrasing: -the study, not I, but the study indicated vehicles driving below average speeds cause more accidents than those driving at average speeds -what I consider "too slow" depends entirely on the situation, so without specific parameters, I can't answer the question of what I count as "too slow" Well, there's Cirillo 1968, West & Dunn 1971, Cowley 1987 etc. that generally indicate a U curve when it comes to the relationship of speed vs. chances to end up in a traffic accident. Do you dispute all those too? I think there were others, but seriously, what's the point? If you're set on believing that slower always equals safer, all the power to you. Since we're now waaay deep in the asked and answered territory, I'll bow out of the conversation with a picture of two of the most fearsome and awesome creatures in existence. Peace out.
Or the good ol' "have a different opinion of what's safe for conditions". Does it not seem a bit arrogant, to you, to be SO SURE that your opinion will be accurate and everyone else is either wrong or a poor driver? There's no room for two equally valid but different opinions? No room for you to, *gasp* make a mistake? I was driving in to work the other day and it was clear and beautiful out. I saw traffic slowing ahead and took my foot off the gas. I saw that traffic was slow because there was a truck in the ditch, totally upside down. I gently applied the brake... and absolutely nothing happened. I was on a sheet of black ice. The whole hill was black ice. I was lucky that the guy in front of me was having no better luck stopping than I did, or I would have rear-ended him. Not because of my reaction time or poor hearing or panicking, but because we were on black ice. The truck that was in the ditch was a semi. A professional driver, but he hadn't foreseen the black ice any more than the rest of us had. The moral of the story? Sometimes, shit happens. And sometimes other people see things that we miss. And sometimes other people are more careful of certain things for whatever reason. etc. It feels weird that we're expected to make all kinds of allowances for excessive aggression by bad drivers, but not for extra caution. How about we just say we're all out there together, cars are inherently dangerous, and if in doubt, it's better to be cautious than reckless? I read it, but didn't remember. This thread's been dragging on for quite a while. You're bowing out, now, so it'll probably die - I don't think anyone else thinks there's anything worth arguing about. And your answer seems to call back the same attitude I've already noted - this overconfidence that you are able to determine the exact right speed for all vehicles and all drivers. It's okay for you to drive slower than the limit when there's something you think is dangerous, but someone else making a similar decision that you disagree with? That person is a bad driver. Okay... Are these all still from the same Wikipedia article? Did you read the critique of the methodology?
You quoted "driving slow enough to increase your chances of ending up in a car accident" is driving slow enough to be dangerous. How circular can one get? You're also the one who keeps saying driving too slow is dangerous but you continually state that "too slow" is what you consider too slow. So, to be blunt, what the hell makes you the judge of what's actually too slow? But yeah, feel free to believe that the rest of us just don't understand English...
I know people in CA who have been ticketed for driving too slowly. I don't know whether that's common in other states, however.
That is a non sequitur to: "I don't need them to ride up on my tail even briefly, to know they would probably like to pass."
Really? http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_driving/index.html This is guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service, and the offence does not rely on a minimum speed limit. If you want to argue the law feel free to phone one of their many lawyers. Edited for correct link: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/index.html#a30
I do like the way that @T.Trian get's to decide who is a good or bad driver instead of, I don't know say, the people who issue the licenses.
What was that link meant to establish? It's got "going too fast, driving aggressively" listed under "dangerous driving", while "unnecessarily slow driving or braking" is listed under "careless or inconsiderate". I didn't see any other mentions of anything we're talking about?
Try reading the previous posts first for context. I mentioned that slow driving was an offence in the UK, Shadowfax argued the point, I provided CPS guidance on said offence.
That's not actually a rebutal. @Shadowfax said there was rarely a minimum speed limit. You provided a link that says that slow driving when directly the cause of an fatality is a punishable offense. There's no punishment for driving slowly at all. There's only an offense if some death occurs. These are not the same thing. (Edited, a lot, for italical clarity)
In California, however, there is. Not the UK, but at least some jurisdictions have considered the dangers of driving too slowly. It can be a serious problem on the freeways in Los Angeles.
I understand your statement, we have minimum speed limits in Colorado too. But my response was directed toward the links on UK driving laws.
Driving without reasonable consideration The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendants driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988. The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention. A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users. Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC Charging Practice This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving: flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way; misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers; unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane; unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause; driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians; driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed; driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers. Prosecutors must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the magistrates/youth court: R v Surrey Justices, ex parte Witherick [1932] 1 K.B. 340.
Which is nice, and I'm glad you clarified that. But doesn't explain why you're bringing it up. @Shadowfax said there was rarely a minimum speed limit. You showed proof that there were laws that don't rely on a minimum speed limit. I'm still not sure what you're arguing about here.
It should probably be noted there are different laws in different countries. @Chinspinner is citing a UK law to which I have a question, is that like not using a pullout when you have more than 5 cars behind you on a two lane highway? What about farm equipment? Does it make it illegal for a slow moving tractor to go on any public road?
Once again, if you want the context you actually have to read back through the thread rather than knee-jerking at one post.
Yeah, I've done that. Your argument is still extremely cloudy. @Shadowfax said that it was rarely enforced. You provided links that proved...something. That it's an offense, I guess. But that wasn't what Shadowfax was arguing. And then you point out that the law is prescriptive, so it's not even a strictly enforced law. Which still isn't what he was arguing.
No, Shadowfax quoted a section of an article off Wikipedia which stated that minimum speed limits are rarely used- try reading his post, it might help with your comprehension issues. My point was clearly that this is irrelevant as the law against slow driving does not require a minimum speed limit. Seriously, what is it with you and inventing arguments out of thin air based on some weird version of events that never happened?
That's not irrelevant at all. But I'm glad you're finally using your words to explain yourself. You'll notice that your original post contained none of that information. Just the word "Really?" and a quip about the prosecution. Emphasis mine. The argument that you made, then based on the link that you posted, only had to do with driver fatalities, and that was only cleared up when I called you on it. It's pretty clear that my "comprehension issues" are actually your "communication issues".
My bad for assuming that people might actually research their point when they tell me that a law doesn't exist (or discuss an entirely different law), rather than pulling the first result off a google search. But my response was aimed at correcting Shadowfax's incorrect assertion by providing the correct information (admittedly the original link was wrong, now corrected), it was not intended as the precursor to yet another round of pedantry.
Which speed limit? In the US, on highways, there's an upper and a lower. Why don't we scold people for not driving at the lower speed limit? Again, why is driving as fast as is legal, regarded as safer? When the law prescribes a range, why should we assume that the law was just joking, and it really wants us all to go at the top of the range? Again, there's a range. An operator who cannot operate safely somewhere within that range, should not be on that road. An operator who cannot operate safely at the veeeeery top of that range, is still within the range. The roads are not an athletic competition. They're a public resource for transportation. People who are not at the peak of human reflexes and other capabilities still need transportation. I'm sure that there are people who could safely drive at speeds of 100 miles per hour or more, and who could afford cars that drive at that speed. We're not building roads for those people. If a legal speed range of 50-75 miles per hour says to you that everyone MUST drive 75, then, OK, let's reduce the speed limits to 50. Could you drive at, say, 125 miles per hour? If not, would you agree that there are people who can? Does that mean that you should either learn to drive that fast, or get off the roads, because clearly you have not reached the human peak of driving ability and you are not a safe driver? There are people who are adequately safe at 65 miles per hour, who would not be adequately safe at the speed-limit-plus-5 of 80mph that is common on many American roads. I think that those people still deserve transportation. Again, if your issue is that they're sharing roads with those 80mph drivers, then let's reduce the speed limit and everyone can drive 50.
