Safe Speed Forums

I don't get this argument , If accelarating hard is illegal then all motorbikes are illegal !
If I am bimbling along at the posted limit I will still leave most cars for dead at each junction purely because of my better power/weight ratio

Now if I am accelerating hard to keep up with someone then that could be racing

_________________
Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert

The problem is (or could be) the interpretation of accelerating hard in response to someone else who is keeping up.

I was actually referring to a lack of slowing down as much rather than booting it half way around the roundabout, so a matter of ensuring that the roundabout will be safe for such a thing when I reach it, followed by being able to handle my car correctly in that situation (of course AWD makes it a lot easier )

Paul's right. I haven't been goaded, but many years ago saw it happen on the M74. Two cars pass in L3. Car two is close enough to car one for us to remark on. Mile or two later both cars are on the hard shoulder and car two is in front with a flip-up sign in the back window. One lesson learnt.

These days I too just slow down and down and down if I can't see someones headlights. Most get the idea pretty quickly but one white van man just deliberately got closer - we ended up at 15mph in a NSL, by which time he'd gone nuts and was demonstrating that his horn and headlights worked.

Unmarked cars certainly have their uses and from watching the cops on the box seem to be used to follow nerdo wells discreetly and stop some of the more adventurous drivers.

I've only been stopped once by an unmarked car - a GMP Lotus Sunbeam a long time ago- and they were just being nosey.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

I'm sorry but I just loved "Nerdo Wells".

Sounds like a computer loving sci-fi enthusiast.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Me too, when I'm in a car. However, you may feel differently if you were on a motorbike and you have a car sitting on your tail at night in the rain.

If a standard police vehicle is out there and catches you for something then it's your own fault for not being more vigilent IMO.

Apart from catching unwary drivers for the heinous crime of speeding, what do unmarked police vehicles do that a conventional police vehicle doesn't do?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Catch wilful bad driving. The sort of bad driving that doesn't take place when a marked car is around.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I've been tailgated by a marked car down near Plymouth, dialled 999 and put my foot down a bit, explained that the car had been tailgating for about a mile (it had the chance to pass in lane 2) and was dangerously close, at that point I was over the limit.

Have a sneaky feeling that the control had a word with the car as it dropped back and turned off.

Would have been interesting in court though if they had of pulled me...

I've also noticed quite a few posts on pepipoo about drivers being tailgated by maked and unmarked cars.

A new trend? I hope not.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Bad driving like speeding then? (well, that's what they could easily say)

Doubtless they do catch the odd bad driver but who police's the police?

I guess I'm tainted by my own personal experience where the very bad driving came from the officer. Still, at least he got his quota for the day

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

It'd be a lousy cop that deemed 'speeding' in itself to be bad driving.

And you'll recall from my first reply in this thread that we have already covered the point.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I've just had a thought. There's likely to be very good alignment between 'wilful' bad driving and bad driving that's amenable to enforcement.

Someone who is unconsciously careless isn't amenable to enforcement because no conscious will contributes to the error. This sort needs education.

But someone who is knowingly 'pushing their luck' is capable of being influenced by threats of punishment.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?

With a legal system that does not view entrapment as a defence in itself, can we really eliminate the suspicion of this sort of behavior as a means to quota fulfillment?

Hmm, see i remember reading a few weeks back on here that a few people were arguing that drivers's shouldn't police one another by slowing down on purpose when a car behind wanted to get past. It may have been in relation to lane hoggers on dual carriageways and motorways, but i think the point stil applies.

however, i do see your point when they are a foot off the back bumper, but this does sound a little hippocritical.

Nope, completely different. If someone is driving dangerously behind you, and obviously wants to go faster than you, the best thing to do is let them past; if they are in front of you you can mitigate some of the risk through your own actions, slowing down eases their overtake. Furthermore, if they are leaving inadequate stopping distance then you can also mitigate this, by easing off and leaving a larger gap ahead of you, allowing gentler braking and giving the tailgater more time to react.

This is nothing whatsoever like willful obstruction, quite the opposite in fact, you want them to pass. Nor is it 'policing other drivers', since the actions are in fact taken to make oneself safer.

Being fair to insanity, it's not difficult to see why they might think a comment like "i slow down to piss them off" isn't suggesting anything of the sort... It's one thing to back off and make the overtake easier for the tailgating muppet, it's quite another thing to back off just to annoy them. The former is, as you suggest, a way to keep control over your own safety - a good idea. The latter merely seems like a good way to increase the risk to yourself - bad, bad idea.

_________________
Chris

I do see your point, but the term "to piss them off" to me does not fit in with this argument.

don't get me wrong, i'm not saying what's right or wrong, but just the arguments put forward a few weeks back seem to have been forgotten when it comes to dealing with someone who is up your arse.

After several months of closing the gas station and driving home at the same time in the same dircetion for about 25 miles five nights a week, Miri and I developed a rare driving relationship. Generally, we cooperated to increase our average speed by learning to use each other's position to synergistic effect. It may be obvious that we became comfortable driving at proximities that two strangers would probably never tolerate.

However, for some reason, one night, there were an unususal number of uniform clusters (group of cars taking up all lanes driving at a nearly uniform speed, making passing impossible). Since she was lead that night, and lacked the urge to manipulate anyone, I simply tucked in behind her - again, I was less than 1 second behind her. Call it tailgating.

On this same night, a midnight blue, unmarked Crown Victoria begins pacing me in my driverside blindspot, but quickly gives this up as there are too many cars doing less than the 60MpH (most cops in NYS won't write a ticket for less than the limit +10MpH unless there is something more to add).

After he begins tailgating me, he THEN continues closing our gap until I can no longer see the hood of his car. He proceeds to draft me for five miles, @ about 54 - 57 MpH. Miri never noticed the unmarked trooper.

I couldn't change speed safely at all. I had to wait until she changed lanes to exit the expressway, at which point I hit my hazard lights, gave a less-than-a-second throttle burst to gain some breathing room, then began pulling over about full second before he put his lights on and pulled me over.

I know what I did wrong, and I also know that what he did was potentially worse, especially since I know that NYS troopers don't get much additional driver training regarding rolling roadblocks or PIT maneuvers.

I was given a stern lecture, but the whole time, I had the feeling that I was actually part of some sort of weird experiment without my consent ...

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

It's a van. If you have a decently powerful car, that is the time to floor it and get back up to your preferred speed as quickly as possible. Eventually the van will catch up and start tailgating again, so you simply repeat the process until the van is sufficiently educated.

There is a safety argument for this too. Since you are being tailgated, which increases the risk of an accident, you need to go slower so that any resulting accident is less severe, however in all cases not being tailgated is less risky than being tailgated, so accelerating away gives you a period of time where you are safe.

Plus it's really really funny.

In this particular case the only way I could have given myself room would be to slow down as there was a fair bit of traffic all travelling at 50mph+. There was plenty of oncoming traffic too. I'm pretty confident in this case that my initial backing off a little just annoyed him and from then on for him it was a game of brinksmanship. I did eventually get swifty back up to traffic speed when he started the horn and lights and jesticulating as I figured he might be stupid enough to give me a nudge. And there he was again moments later. Fortunately I turned off soon after but if I had passed a layby I'd have let him go. It was an extreme example, and I don't drop my speed to 'piss people off', just to perhaps make them realise they are having to ride the brakes and there's maybe a reason for that.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

There is, however, a subtle variation on this. In a previous job, my late boss had a Volvo 850 T5 - pretty quick in it's time. He was, however, a less than "accomplished" driver. We'd go off on business trips in it and, living just on the edge of the Pennines, these nearly always started and finished with a run across the moors on NSL single carriageways. He would drive INFURIATINGLY slowly on any stretch that wasn't poker striaght. This would lead to a long line of vehicles (and a few hedgehogs!) stuck behind him waiting to overtake. As soon as we'd get to a straight, you'd see the right indicator on the next vehicle behind us go on and then my boss would accelerate and the poor sod behind would (nearly always) have to fall back and resume his frustration as soon as we got to another bend and we slowed right down.

Now, I'm all in favour of people driving within their limits and not being intimitated into going ANY faster than they feel competent to.

BUT ONLY when they do so courteously. I really felt for those poor sods behind us! Having a car capable of decent straight-line acceleration, he'd leave them no chance to get past on the straights.

Now here's the interesting bit, HE thought he was doing them a favour by getting out of their way. He felt that he WAS driving courteously!