Safe Speed Forums

So .. you are on a bicycle on a normal 30 mph commute. You are at .. .. well if I can manage 20 mph without really trying that hard .. then presumably you would be at this and perhaps higher on average cadence - since you commute probably each day per week on bike compared to my one or two dependent on schedules and demands on time given I do like to spend time with my wife and family .. plus choir time and playtime..

You are closing in on a vehicle ahead at 10 mph. I would bet that like anyone else - you would be thinking this car is stopping or about to pull in to stop - and that YOU as CYCLIST could be taken by surprise when he or she suddenly starts to drift out towards you whilst you are overtaking.

Now that is dangerous enough on an urban road.


On that motorway - the action was potentially lethal and really it's pure luck nothing happened given the report that she was not even keeping in any one lane - but weaving between the hard shoulder and L2.


I would have tested for drink. I would also have been establishing whether or not any medication was affecting her ability. If either tested positive - would have prosecuted and got a proper ban of 12 months minimum.


Please stop deluding yourself for the sake of arguing that her driving was safe "because it was below the speed limit". It was not safe for the traffic conditions she was driving in. It was sub-standard. This was a motorway and she claimed "fear" as an excuse for her actions. I have my doubts on this and wonder if she was maybe trying something on - and playing on a milder form of stress which fortunately back- fired on her.. such is the cycnism I have developed after witnessing every trick in the book when it comes to trying to squirm out of a prosecution or a conviction by a court ..

Motorways are clearly signed after all and shops like Staples are reachable for those not qualified to drive on motorways all the same. I suspect, being the cynic I am really, perhaps she over-played the "panic card" in an attempt to keep her licence. I have seen this scenario played before and will probably do so again

It was very dangerous given the traffic condition and type of road. A trained police officer thought so. A court thought so. A judge in that court so. The woman herself accepted it was so as she pleaded guilty.


Not being disrespectful to you .. but please..


Get it into your head, weepej mate, that erratic, inconsiderate and downright dangerous driving can be so at any speed below , at and above the speed limit.. and that any police officer worthy of wearing his or her uniform will make a decision which will be objective and professional - and if he judges the standard warrants further action - then will be no hesitation.

Sigma Motion.. The majority of us would be defending ourselves against this woman.. diffusing the danger by using all the COAST skills as trained by tests and experiences. I think the majority did so given no one thankfully did have an accident as a result of this.

But dangerous driving is dangerous driving regardless of the speed and had anything hit her - then we'd be picking up bodies... and forensics would have pointed to her driving being the more dangerous in reality for the road in question. When we investigate any incident - every single detail gets examined. If the evidence points to any criminal liability/ serious traffic offence on the part of any one or more involved - then we can and do press charges.


Fortunately, a common sense police office, and the court, removed the hazard of this driver permanently in the real outcome of this case.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

It has long been suggested that the roads would be a safer place if every driver had done a few months on a motorcycle, it's a very effective way of honing your awareness skills, assuming survive long enough

In the case of this incident thankfully everyones 'spider senses' were working. But it only takes a moments inattention - and each and everyone of us is guilty of that sin, even Weepej - for events to overtake us.

Barkstar

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

I wouild never, ever let somebody tailgate me like that, I'd be slowing down and down until they either went around me, or dropped back.

Interesting situation for thise that are calling for a minimum speed limit.

Yours.

You can't just drive along using the back of the next vehicle as a guage, you've got to be looking further ahead than that.

Definitely not - go read the charging standard if you don't believe me. I was with you that they may have some civil liability. But I'm certain there would be no offence under criminal law. The difference between dangerous driving and civil liability is huge.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_b.html

She on the other hand could (and imo should have been):
Dangerous Driving - Section 2 RTA 1988
- speed, which is highly inappropriate for the prevailing road or traffic conditions;"

Driving without reasonable consideration - Section 3 RTA 1988
- unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;

I suspect they prosecuted her for the lower offence due to the following...

Irrelevant factors

the disability of a driver caused by mental illness or by physical injury or illness, except where there is evidence that the disability adversely affected the manner of the driving.

Ignoring the last five pages for a mo, how relevant is it making the lady retake her test, when the driving test has no motorway element?

If she was like that on the motorway, what’s she like on other roads. Making her take her test again might be a good idea. I just hope the examiner looks closely at her driving standard.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

I agree with that sentiment-no decent driver wouldn't-but lets just assume (and in the 'spirit of the original question') that car A was completely hidden from view by car B-let's say for example car A is a Fiat Panda and car B is a Discovery.
You physically can't see car A til car B moves no matter how far ahead you scan the traffic.

So, who's fault is it now?

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.

Also, where she is, the test route will hopefully involve at least one dual carriageway which is similar enough to a motorway for the purposes of testing her fear.

I hope there is at least one such dual carriageway nearby, because she's not going to be able to practise on the real thing.

_________________
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)

I think it's a fairly safe assumption that if she's doing 10mph and weaving around on a motorway she won't be capable of passing an extended test where they will probably take her on a dual carriageway.

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.

Damn, beat me to it

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.

I've said it on here more than once, I think we should all take our tests again every ten years or so.

As you said I can't believe that someone who (a) can't drive on motorways to this extent, and (b) can end up on the M32 by accident having been presumably driven around the area a great deal, could pass their test with ease.

In all honesty, anyone who has a sign (however well-intentioned) in the back of their car saying how slowly they drive is going to face an uphill struggle passing their test, as you can fail for not 'making good progress', and whatever weepej may think, 10mph and swerving on and off the hard shoulder is not 'making good progress'.

Still, if this kind of thing becomes commonplace, I may become an MLM myself, as L1 will be no place for anyone doing over about 40!

Edit: apologies for duplicating what nos & bombus said, while I half-wrote this, walked over to our nursery to get some rosemary, and came back again.......

Actually it'd be interesting if her fear extends to DCs, as it isn't mentioned.

Excellent question. (I thought of a similar one, but regrettably I've had to give up trying to get any answers out of weepej, following consistent and deliberate evasiveness.)

In practice everyone without fail finds themselves in such a "blind" situation at times. You can try to minimise it but, in busy traffic, some people will always find themselves behind vehicles which they can't see in front of, through no fault of their own. If everyone insisted on leaving such a large gap that they could see in front (and even that would be impossible on a straight road when behind a lorry), then huge amounts of tarmac would be wasted, it would be completely impractical, and it would totally change the way that people had to drive on the motorway, for no good reason whatsoever. A far better and more practical solution is to stop worshipping at the altar of "slow = good", acknowledge that driving at 10mph in free-flowing conditions is dangerous and unacceptable, and stop people doing it. Apart from anything else, that's why vehicles with low top speeds are banned from the motorway.

Why should everyone change their whole motorway driving style, and waste valuable roadspace, just to accommodate the very few people who insist on driving at ridiculously slow speeds when there is no reason at all why any remotely competent driver should need to do so? Why should the other 99.999% of drivers fit round those who are blatantly and avoidably causing the problem? Presumably this particular woman is unrepentant because she's been listening to "speedophobes" like weepej and other "speed kills" claptrap. Frankly, difficult though her life must be, it's very unhelpful and worrying that she still hasn't seen the error of her ways, and I wonder if she ever will. It's as much a problem of attitude as it is one of skill.

_________________
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)

Don't worry, you returned the favour (see above)! I make that 15-all.


No need to apologise, what you said was right. (I know what you mean about half-writing something then coming back to find that someone else has said it...it's a shame to waste what you've written, and I for one certainly don't object to being backed up by others! )

_________________
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)

"Weepej" it still comes back to the fact that irrespective of what speed she was driving at (10mph in this case) she was THE ROAD HAZARD TO OTHER MOTORISTS

When will you see the point that "In Gear" is trying to get you to understand this driver should not have been on this road as she was a danger to other road users

It is irrelevant that there was no accident caused (thankfully), as this driver did not drive her car in a manner which was "In Due Consideration For Other Road Users" as per the Highway Code

That has proved the officers case and as "In Gear" says he would have gone for a "FULL 12 Month Ban" as he would have been looking at a Breathalyser test as well (assuming the officer concerned didn,t do one)

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut

That's put it very well indeed.

The safest thing to do would be drive at roughly the speed of the surrounding traffic.

This talk of liability reminds me of a near miss I had about a year ago concerning a stationary car on a motorway. Posted here: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11787

I would be very curious to know had I hit the car in question, whether Weepej thinks I should be liable or not. And what the law says on such an incident.

_________________
Why can't we just use Common Sense?

Sorry, I do not think that slowing down with 10/20/30/40 tonnes behind you, and hoping the driver sees you, is an option.
At the end of the day, which may arrive at the same time as the end of your life if you follow that procedure, you are relying on a driver close to you, and high ABOVE you, doing the right thing.

Does "weepej" think that a truck weighing 44 tonnes is going to tailgate him and then lo & behold "just go round him" obviously he has no perception of a 44 tonne truck trying to "go round" such an idiot like him / her in such a short space as the truck shouldn,t be put in this precarious position, it only happens with IDIOTS like this who are determined to drive at whatever speed they see fit and do not care or worrry about the inconvenience or danger to anyone else by driving so slow that they are a menace to other law abiding drivers who WISH TO MAKE PROGRESS SAFELY!

This person should be taken off the roads as IMHO this driver, as I have said before is a danger to other road users and again "STILL HASN,T ANSWERED THE QUESTION ABOUT RESIDENTIAL AREAS" as he / she always evades the questions that can,t be answered so why do we bother with this person as he / she is just going over old posts time and time again and NEVER sees the other point of view

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut

Cor, do I get a record for being misrepresented by the most posters on one thread?

I do not think it ia a good idea to drive at 10mph on a motorway whilst other traffic is free flowing, I think it was a good idea she was taken off the motorway.

I just don't think somebody driving at 10mph on a motorway, or even stationary should automatically be hit by somebody else and deserve it, and the person that hit them let off scot free regardless of what led them to crash.

Unless you think the people going up other peoples arses on these are being sensible: -

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fe7w46nywzs

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ER3_PvMhJB4