Safe Speed Forums

You do have to wonder whether s/he is actually old enough to drive at all.... It would explain why they seem to know absolutely nothing about the subject. I wonder whether they realise how blatant their lack of knowledge is.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Well of course, but the same also applies to the speeders from people like myself who dare to drive at the speed limit.



I would disagree, I would say that it has every opportunity to affect me directly, whilst deliberately impeding the (illegally fast) traffic flow only affects the people who want to break the speed limit.




What if someone was being threatened?



And you would be happy with the police turning up three hours later would you?




In your opinion.



I don't believe that it's actually a law that says you mustn't drive in the middle lane at the speed limit.



You know, it's not universally accepted (apart from on this site) that only 4% of crashes are down to speed.



Because I'm not paid to do that. But I can simply uphold the law as I go about my daily business.



Of course!



And what do you consider to be "a few"? I consider it to be three. You're just lying when you say that motorists that want middle lane drivers out of the way are only going to do a few mph over the limit. People on here keep saying that I'm stressed or something when I'm not, so perhaps I will admit that that is one thing that I do find annoying, when people talk about motorists just doing "a few" miles per hour over the limit.



Because I know that many people are killed and seriously injured on the roads each year due to speeders.



And I just wish that people would adhere to the speed limit!

So you can't reply to anything I say and instead simply agree with an insult. Rather childish and pathetic.

As for the other two sentences, you're just making stuff up again in your sheer arrogance. Not much of an argument is it now.

(By the way, do you actually know what the word arrogant means?)

what is your point?

is it that speed kills?

is it something else?

is it that you just like to argue?

do you agree that driving in L2 when L1 is free is bad practice?

Er, yes, that's what I've been trying to get across all along, that most people on this subject are hypocrites!



So yet again you completely ignore my response to this speedo accuracy point! And you say that my arguing style is puerile!



That "one"? I've made it quite clear that I accept that you don't speed.



No I haven't!!! What is it with people on this site making things up?




Hmmm, statistics say a lot of things. Some people would say that one-third of crashes are down to speed. That's a statistic too.



In your opinion.



I actually don't know what you mean when you come out with that phrase. The fact of the matter is that you haven't responded to most of what I've said. If you can't respond to it, fine, but don't try and take it out on me.

Why don't you just try reading through all the messages I've written.

Hilarious!

Forgetful too.

So I have people moaning at me when I don't reply to every post, and then people moaning at me when I reply to as many posts as I can! Crazy!

No you obviously misunderstood that. That was a general "you". And I stick to my point that the vast majority of people on here who are moaning about middle lane drivers are also speeders.

How would you define a "speeder"?

If it's anyone who ever exceeds speed limits by any amount, then there are precious few drivers who don't qualify - see my sig.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Who said that?



A critical point ahs been missed: no-one has yet managed to justify the action of lane hogging - which is not the same as ‘why should I relinquish’.

There is no reason for it, it is socially unacceptable because it causes unnecessary congestion - so why do it?.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

You use all available road space. If we all stay in L2 - it cause all manner of potential mayhem - undertaking.. cutting in und out etc or too late a lane change when wanting exit or road merge to left

I also zip merge. That accepted practice abroad und it keep traffic in all lanes flowing in refined orderliness.

Perhaps we foreigners are just more polite than some moronic Brits, smegs Liebchen

(He would be fined for being moron back home .. they have CCTV cams. They use them to cop morons as speed not really issue on many A/bahn stretches )

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

I have, I've failed to identfiy any rational arguement so i'm asking you to spell it out.

You have decided to engage in 'debate' this forum on a topic relating to 'lane hogging'.

Please, for my benefit if nothing else, write a few lines outlining your position with respect to road safety and the speed kills debate. If you could do this then at least we could understand where you were coming from. Who knows we may all be on the same side.

All road regulations, Highway Code, etc, require and advise that drivers keep the the left hand lane except when overtaking. Here we have a person who does not accept that those publications should apply to him and chooses to ignore them.
So, when other drivers meet him happily driving along at c.65 mph in the middle lane (i.e. an indicated 70 mph) they will know how to handle him. If he can't obey the accepted rules, then let's feel free to pass on either side of him. I know I would. His 'holier-than-thou' attitude deserves that response. Eventually a police patrol will stop him and caution him about his poor driving technique.
On here, he is clearly 'trolling' and we may be best just ignoring him. After all, you can't tell those that won't be told and he is never going to listen to common sense.

And the fact that the Highways Agency put "keep left unless overtaking" on enormous matrix boards over the motorways (at least they do on the M27) makes me think they wish you would observe correct lane discipline.

So, at the risk of repeating myself, if even the HA are asking you not to, why drive in L2 if L1 is clear?

I hope that hjeg1 will answer this as (s)he appears to have ignored most of my reasonable questions thus far...

Accepting that your speedo is inaccurate (it is, just accept it) and you could be travelling anything up to 10% slower than it's telling you.

Lets say you're on a 3 lane motorway and there is a temporary 50mph limit. Would you still sit in L2? Bearing in mind that you could be travelling as slow as 45mph.

So behind you and in L1 is a HGV. HGV speedos are callibrated and inspected biannually and are required to be accurate to within 2%, so an indicated 50mph may be as low as 48mph. Thus in this situation the HGV COULD be gaining on you at 3mph. He can't legally use L3 to overtake you, but he's NOT speeding. What would be your reaction to being undertaken in these circumstances, forcing another road user to perform a (possibly) illegal menueovre for no reason. (Also if its a left hooker placing yourself into a VERY dangerous position in deed.)

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Unless we drive on these motorways in the middle of the night - or after everyones gone somewhere else - then the inside l1 is never empty or empty enough to warrant a move into l1 for less than a 1/2 minute. All to allow someone who feels they are more important than you to fly by over the speed limit.

To express this in easier terms at 60mph your going 88 feet per second. (102fps at 70mph)
Very simple maths here - the 5 second or so gap should be held for a lorry at these speeds - so thats the equivalent of 440 feet for 60mph or a whopping 510 feet when zinging along at 70mph - thats 1/10 of a mile!!!.

Nobody I see gives the lorries or other large vehicles enough respect in l1 - and if you believe this thread on the forum and jump out of the way immediately when some p*at comes up behind you at well over the speed limit - then bare in mind the lorry your running in front off cant stop as quickly as you can.

I'm all for better, faster and safer roads - but balanced arguments are needed first or we loose sight of the real dangers and problems.

And again peegee, what you're discribing wouldn't be considered lane hogging. We're talking about staying out in L2 when there is NOTHING in L1.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Seems like I'm going in a different direction to Sixy.


Where did the 5 second figure come from?
Where did 60mph come from? (I thought truck limiters were set to 54+/-2 ?)

Be honest, do you really expect truck drivers to maintain such gaps when they can still see right over cars to the road ahead, when passing slip roads, especially in peak time traffic?

What about trucks overtaking trucks, need they remain in L2 until a 5 second gap in L1 is achieved? Why not apply basic maths to that to see how long the new 5 second gaps in L2 must be preserved. Doesn’t really work does it!


No-one expects anyone to ‘jump’ out of the way. I’ve pulled you up on this before because it is a loaded statement.
If you feel the need to react in such a way then you clearly aren’t aware of your surroundings. If you are able to jump (or whatever) out of the way then perhaps you should not have been in that lane in the first place.


There is no reason for lane-hogging, it is socially unacceptable because it causes unnecessary congestion - so why do it?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign