Originally posted by SuzianneGoing slow isn't the only time drivers get tailgated. Most of the people who drive too close seem to be wanting to go noticeably faster than the speed limit.
So, you're one of these fools spending 90% of their driving time looking in the rear mirror. Now [b]that's really safe. No wonder your foot's on the brake instead of the gas, which is where it belongs, because I'm sure there's no one in front of you, as slow as you're driving to get tailgated in the first place.[/b]
However, isn't the best advice for when you are being tailgated to slowly decelerate. A sudden slow down and they'll be into the back of you.
Originally posted by orfeoThe whole thing with speed is a compromise though. It's all very well saying the risk will be noticeably less by cutting 5kph off your speed, but then were you to drive at 5kpm the risk would be virtually nil (assuming no road rage attacks).
Okay. Hands up EVERYONE who thinks they can control a car as well at 60 miles per hour as they can at 50? In particular, if you can stop in time at 50, then if you can't stop in time at 60 you'll still only be doing a measly 10 mph at impact?
Congratulations. Your certificate saying "I'm an over-confident fool who doesn't understand the laws of physi ...[text shortened]... ccident risk at 65 kmh is TWICE the risk at 60 kmh. The risk at 70 kmh is over 4 times as much.
You have to alter your speed according to the conditions and type of road. There can be a greater stopping distance required at higher speeds, but the roads upon which you can legally do such speeds, you are far less likely to have to make such a sudden halt.
Of course conditions can be so bad on such roads it'd be stupid to drive even close to the speed limit - whereupon the sensible driver would slow down.
So I can't (and wouldn't have said) I could control a car at the higher speed, but then the type of road I'd be driving on would be in all likelihood be different.
Originally posted by PeakiteI agree. Absolutely.
The whole thing with speed is a compromise though. It's all very well saying the risk will be noticeably less by cutting 5kph off your speed, but then were you to drive at 5kpm the risk would be virtually nil (assuming no road rage attacks).
You have to alter your speed according to the conditions and type of road. There can be a greater stopping distanc ...[text shortened]... her speed, but then the type of road I'd be driving on would be in all likelihood be different.
What I'm saying, basically, is that I would far rather that everyone used the assessment of what is a 'safe' speed that's decided by experts - the people whose job it is to decide. Because I'm a lot more confident of their ability to judge this than I am of (a) MY ability and (b) the ability of a fair proportion of my fellow road users.
If it's left to us to decide the right speed individually, then some of us will get it horribly wrong. That especially applies to young people. I vividly remember an accident here a few years ago in which a 17-year-old killed himself and a couple of his friends. He went way too fast on one of our major roads, and lost control on a rather mild bend.
And the tragic thing is that he had no opportunity to learn from his mistake. Going slower would have both decreased the chance of him losing control and decreased the consequences if he had done so.
Originally posted by fiestaThankyou Diane
have to say whats all this hands up malarky stuff... we are all guilty of driving maybe a little too fast the point roger was trying to make was people who drive too slow for the road they are on... maybe just maybe we dont all horse around at brake neck speed but we actually want to be somewhere too... without getting irate at other road users who arent conf ...[text shortened]... se slow drivers are as much of a hazard as fast drivers...sorry but thats my view on the subject
You understood my point perfectly, that's appreciated. 🙂
1 edit
Being a New Yorker, I get aggravated when people from Massachusetts come over here. Either they still drive 40mph(which is the limit on most roads in Mass.), or they will speed excessively doing the likes of 75-80mph on main roads. And on the highways, forget it. I see more cars pulled over on the highways with Mass. plates then I do NY ones. Its ridiculous. I've driven on the Henry Hudson pkwy, Garden state pkwy, and the Jersey trnpk all during rush hour. I would rather do all that than drive on the Mass. Pike. They are by far, the worst drivers I've ever seen. They are in the top 5 for drunk driving. Boston is listed as the worst metro areas in the entire U.S. for driving and rates 6th in the top 10 worst cities do drive in the world. What's more Mass. drivers scored 48th out of 50(with 1 being the best) in a test of the worst drivers in America. I wish they would stay in their own state. But I can wish in one hand and crap in the other, I know which one will fill first.
Originally posted by zakkwylderYou are a revealing moronism 75mph is slow. On the interstate you should not have been in the way. Then you compound your moronism with a total jerk move, a passive aggressive loooozor move.
Some years ago, I was driving on Interstate 90 in NY, USA, when I noticed a car tailgating me. Since I was going about 75mph, I considered this to be quite unreasonable. I subsequently layed into the brakes and sped up again to 80mph. The car in question sped back up and came along side me. To my dismay, it was an elderly woman who upon making eye contact with me, stuck her middle finger up at me and took off.
Somebody said before that all the experts always say "speed was a factor" in accidents. Well, no skidmark Sherlock! That is so obvious that it's completely uninformative! The problem is speed combined with moronism.
In the above case, the old woman flipped you off for good reason. She should have thrown her dentures at your car as she hummed "real men of genius" on her way by. Your little superfluous jerk stunt might have created the bassackward conditions wherein speed would have combined to make an accident happen.
...and then the experts would have been more informative by saying that "the presence of an asshat was a factor".
You can only be responsible for your own moving well. If I were a cop and saw people pull this kind of passive aggressive...road rage inspired idiocy, I'll pull them over. I'd also be tempted to plant drugs on them...get them off the road and maybe save somebody's life
3 edits
Originally posted by orfeoIf we are talking interstates or restricted access road with no oncoming traffic, just what does one exactly have to break for besides a slow driver who's causing a traffic wave.... who is assisting probably in creating 4 lanes of misery (and danger) as people jockey to drive around them. ...what else does one have to break for besides some moron who doesn't know how to merge except by slowing down and using his signals as though that's sufficient to create a space!
Okay. Hands up EVERYONE who thinks they can control a car as well at 60 miles per hour as they can at 50? .....
This is the whole point of speed limits! People WOEFULLY underestimate how long it takes to stop once they've hit the brakes, and have no appreciation of what a dramatic difference their initial speed makes.
Unfortunately, the point of speed limits is to A> create a scenario for increased tax collection B> to errect a lowest common denomenator restriction based on the assumption of stupidity.
Point B>, then, assumes stupidity. It helps breed the very mindlessness it's ostensibly created to control. And the speed limit is always at least 10mph slower than it should be because it's also assumed that everybody ignores such inherently insulting numbers...and will drive at least 10mph faster.
....everyone except people on some kind of "safety" crusade, who go on to make life miserable for everyone else with their anal retentive obsession with lecturing about the virtues of driving like a mindless machine!
Teach people how to drive... to actually drive... and you wouldn't have to have stupid signs trying to make the world idiot proof....and in fact, ironically, creating a world full of idiots.
Originally posted by XHerakleitosYou attend a major car accident and bury some guys brains in the ground and come back and say that you stupid fcuking idiot.
Unfortunately, the point of speed limits is to A> create a scenario for increased tax collection B> to errect a lowest common denomenator restriction based on the assumption of stupidity.
1 edit
Originally posted by PullhardI think with some reflection it will be clear that the fact of car accidents and grisly burial scenes does not invalidate my point.
You attend a major car accident and bury some guys brains in the ground and come back and say that you stupid fcuking idiot.
Driving well can only ultimately be a matter of autonomy. External prompts and mechanical rules will never erase tragedy.
The question here is who is more often the cause of bad accidents and ugly burials.... a question you appear to be begging.