Safe Speed Forums

Just a quick one.

I feel I have to defend my old home town - There doesn't seem to be any inbreeding there Or carnal relations with sheep (Just who exactly told you that anyway? Can't say I have ever heard it before).

Oddly enough, nor do the drivers there seem any worse than in other areas - certainly more patient than inner city ones (no offence to city dwellers, just my general expirence).

Still, I daresay most the town is looking forward to April the 20th this year.

_________________
If you think everyone else around you is driving badly, perhaps it's time to examine your own driving.

Hitler's birthday?

If you have a copy of the local rag you would know. As it is, I'll leave Squirrel to explain if he sees fit.

_________________
If you think everyone else around you is driving badly, perhaps it's time to examine your own driving.

Start of the Thornbury Arts Festival.... am i right ?

Abercrombie - I wouldn't say driving below the speed limit is always rightful. Indeed casting my mind back to my driving test I remember my examiner telling me he nearly failed me for driving too slowly. I was doing 35 in a 40 during, what I thought was at the time, heavy rain. Instead he gave me two minor faults for 'not achieving maximum speed' and one minor fault for 'undue hesitancy'. I have since learned my lesson and drive faster.

It seems to me that someone who persists in driving below the speed limit would fail their driving test should they take it again. Here is a quote from the examiners fault sheet. I've highlighted the relevant text to aid those with poor eye-sight.

He's bloody right too. Well remembered Jigs.

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

All of the above should be enough reasons for a "pull" and talking to by trafpol....if we had enough trafpol.....

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

In most of Australia driving too slowly would get you pulled and breath tested. If that is negative you would be drug tested. (We have pure random breath and drug testing; police do not have to have a reason to breath test you) Your licence would be checked (most States require you to carry it at all times and all our licences are plastic cards with a photo) and your vehicle would get a visual safety check.

Driving excessively slowly, eg more than 10 kph under the open road limit, is not only a nuisance but endangers others and gets appropriate disapproval. It is not strictly illegal but can result in some interesting interaction with the traffic police.

On most highways you would incur the wrath of the truckies; they are limited to a nominal 100 kph (actual 104) and as most trips are long (Melbourne to Sydney is about 1000 Kilometres; Sydney to Brisbane is about the same) they do not appreciate being held up. I am told that having a heavy vehicle close behind is a little scary and being overtaken by a B-Double is unpleasant. I have never been overtaken by one and I never get tailgated. In Europe you do not have to deal with them but they are up to 65 tonnes, up to 26 metres long and up to 34 road wheels. Not to be confused with Road Trains which are much bigger but only operate in the less populated areas.

_________________
The only thing that should be prohibited is prohibition.

That's reasonable in Australia, because there is so little to see out out the car window. You can devote your full attention to the road,
because there's no point looking elsewhere! It's like that in Canada too, in the prairies - interminably boring.

In Britain, there are frequent, interesting distractions, so they sometimes tend to go quite slowly, especially on Sundays!
Different strokes for different folks, as they say...

Then as things stand, there is a disconnect, with the law saying one thing, and the checklist another. The law is as follows:

You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits. The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. You should always reduce your speed when weather conditions make it safer to do so. In your case, it was raining, so draw your own conclusions. But just to get back to the logic - if you have to drive at the max, and you mustn't drive under the max, then you can only drive at the max, which is absolute crap. You'd have to spend all your mental effort keeping the needle fixed at, say, 30 mph!!! Utter nonsense.

PS: I'm referring to the checklist, not your post. But I'd still like to see how they defend this - is there a minimum speed limit? The answer is yes or no.

What is it people always say: if you can demonstrate your ability during your test (as well as know the highway code)......


Of course it's crap, that's because you Strawmanned. What you have stated is not the exact opposite of:
- Crawls along at slow speeds on clear roads.
- Makes no attempt to achieve maximum speeds for the road when safe to do so.
- Reduces speed excessively when the conditions do not merit doing so.

There is a middle ground (reasonable) which isn't described by yourself or the quoted test sheet.

Also, have you already forgotten HC 169?


this has already been answered, so why do you need to repeat that same question? Remember, that sub-thread ended when it became apparent that the basis for your argument was your lack of knowledge of the HC.

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

Codswallop! Even in the scrub there is plenty to see and plenty of large fauna to be aware of and in the more fertile and better rainfall areas the scenery is fascinating and ever changing. Clearly you are pontificating from a position of zero knowledge.

There is never an excuse for obstructing others whether inadvertently or willfully; descriptors for such behaviour range from ineptitude through ill-mannered to dangerous. Surely no-one who contributes to these forums, even if opposed to the philosophy of Safespeed, would admit to such a standard of behaviour. Is it not the essence of safe involvement with the world at large that one should be aware of all that is going on around you and thus avoid adverse impact with others?

_________________
The only thing that should be prohibited is prohibition.

You got it. You practically must drive under the limit, else you'll break the law. And you must drive under the limit given any excuse, like a bit of rain, or when it's dark. That's the law, so who was wrong? The law, or the examiner?

You have to look on the bright side. That's how I feel back in Canada, surrounded by endless flatlands, bleakly extending to the horizon in all directions. In the summer, it's baked and parched and full of flies. It's surprising we don't see more Australians. They all seem to live in Earls Court, for some reason.



I dunno - it's just the way it is. I often go out for a pleasant ride in the car, and I never drive very fast. It's just the way I am, after the smash. Truck drivers don't realize how much damage they can do, with relative impunity.

My knowledge of the HC tell me "do not treat speed limits as a target". Yet the examiner's checklist penalises "failure to attempt to reach the maximum speed for the road". So there's a problem here. Should I follow the the law, or some examiner's different opinion?

Both; there is no problem or conflict. The 'maximum speed for the road' need not be the same as the posted 'speed limit' for it.


What a stupid way to word it. It is given any reason, not excuse. Rain or darkness needn’t be a reason (given how low many limits are already).


Neither, so you obviously haven’t got it.
The Law or the examiner (or their guidance) need not be wrong in this case. The only party who is in the wrong are those who refuse to heed HC 169 when travelling significantly below what would be a nominal speed when there is a queue behind them. If they can't manage it (let alone pull over when appropriate) then they should hand in their licence (they obviously cannot fulfilled the obligations assessed during the driving test); those who can manage it but choose not to should and will be pulled by police for their spiteful/selfish/anti-social behaviour.

This is in the HC, it is tested in the driving test (theory and practical), and people can be pulled for not respecting it. You should have already realised that no amount of strawmanning, misrepresentation, misquoting, selective quoting, lying, or withholding the full set of possible options, is going to give justification people who drive needlessly slowly.

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

you missed blatent baiting and national stereotyping.

Please at least give us a clue - what is needlessly? Who decides this? Who is it "needless" for? You can't just come up with some vague term and spin it into some kind of rule for all to follow blindly.

No matter how woolly your ideas may be, please try to give them some substance instead of charging off making wild allegations and getting personal. If you can't manage it, then quit this silly facade. We all know there's no minimum limit, and we all know we can go 20 in the 30 zone or 25 in the 40. That's what the highway code says - don't treat the max as a target. It can't be clearer. OK?

I've got nothing at all against the English. My own mother came from that country.

PS nor Australians, but I could tell you some stories about Canadians. Especially Quebecois

Let me make it clear - you should ALWAYS reduce your speed when driving at NIGHT.

PS: it is interesting, though. The examiners' rules seem to suggest that the limiting factor for speed should be safety.
Yet my limiting factor for speed is comfort, or enjoyment, or whatever. I not only go slow enough to be safe,
but slow enough to feel good as well. That is how I drive. It has to please me, without rushing. I don't do "rushing".
I'm the type of chap who doesn't walk up escalators, for example. I like to see what's going on around me.
That's why I like driving... not racing.