 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Driving (UK group) / April 2004Age restriction on motorways
Having been down the M6 today I am convinced that we need to ban anyone over the age of 70 from driving on motorways. Car doing 60 in lane 2, completely oblivious to anything going on around them, sat an inch behind the wheel peering over it with a fixed gaze...... Ian > Having been down the M6 today I am convinced that we need to ban > anyone over the age of 70 from driving on motorways. Car doing 60 in > lane 2, completely oblivious to anything going on around them, sat an > inch behind the wheel peering over it with a fixed gaze...... So if this car had been being driven by a black man, would you be advocating banning all blacks from the motorway? -- http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William Pitt, 1783) > > Having been down the M6 today I am convinced that we need to ban > > anyone over the age of 70 from driving on motorways. Car doing 60 in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So if this car had been being driven by a black man, would you be advocating > banning all blacks from the motorway? I'm not sure that race has been linked with any increased incidence of accidents. Age and general incompetance has, however. > -- > http://www.speedlimit.org.uk > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William > Pitt, 1783) > I'm not sure that race has been linked with any increased incidence of > accidents. Drive around Birmingham long enough and you'll come to the conclusion that alot of Asians, especially the women, can't drive for toffee.  SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. > Drive around Birmingham long enough and you'll come to the conclusion > that alot of Asians, especially the women, can't drive for toffee. In the same way as you come to the conclusion that all BMWs drive with their foglights on? It's called looking for a pattern where non exists. If Asian women were genuinely all poor drivers, it would be reflected in their insurance premiums. Signature*Gun Control: Use both hands. Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn > > Drive around Birmingham long enough and you'll come to the conclusion > > that alot of Asians, especially the women, can't drive for toffee. > > In the same way as you come to the conclusion that all BMWs drive with > their foglights on? How long have you been dyslexic? SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. > > Drive around Birmingham long enough and you'll come to the conclusion > > that alot of Asians, especially the women, can't drive for toffee. > > In the same way as you come to the conclusion that all BMWs drive with > their foglights on? How did this start off if it isn't true? It is true! While we're on the subject, does anyone know why Polo's are slow and hold everyone up, but Golf's are fast and cut everyone up? I've been thinking about it for a while now, but I can't work out why. Is it the type of buyer? > It's called looking for a pattern where non exists. If Asian women were > genuinely all poor drivers, it would be reflected in their insurance > premiums. > It's called looking for a pattern where non exists. If Asian women were > genuinely all poor drivers, it would be reflected in their insurance > premiums. Maybe the insurance companies aren't allowed to do this as some might complain it's racist and sexist - even if it's true that they can't drive for toffee!! Dave Plowman raved thus: :: It's called looking for a pattern where non exists. If Asian women :: were genuinely all poor drivers, it would be reflected in their :: insurance premiums. Maybe it is; I'm not an Asian woman so I don't know. SignatureAbo www.pickuptruckracing.com Jerry (me@itagain.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying >> > Having been down the M6 today I am convinced that we need to ban >> > anyone over the age of 70 from driving on motorways. Car doing 60 in >> > lane 2, completely oblivious to anything going on around them, sat an >> > inch behind the wheel peering over it with a fixed gaze...... > I'm not sure that race has been linked with any increased incidence of > accidents. > Age and general incompetance has, however. I think you'll find that the important part of that is the second. General Incompetence. Age can be a cause of (or at least strongly linked to) incompetence, but it's certainly not the sole factor. > > Having been down the M6 today I am convinced that we need to ban > > anyone over the age of 70 from driving on motorways. Car doing 60 in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So if this car had been being driven by a black man, would you be advocating > banning all blacks from the motorway? C'mon, most old people are poor drivers! > C'mon, most old people are poor drivers! Isn't that a rather sweeping generalisation, rather akin to Conor's "most Asian women are poor drivers"? -- http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William Pitt, 1783) > > C'mon, most old people are poor drivers! > > Isn't that a rather sweeping generalisation, rather akin to Conor's "most > Asian women are poor drivers"? Its akin to your habit of not actually posting what I said. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. > > C'mon, most old people are poor drivers! > > Isn't that a rather sweeping generalisation, rather akin to Conor's "most > Asian women are poor drivers"? Is is a generalisation, but it is mostly true isn't it? If you got a bunch of 30 year olds and a bunch of 60 year old to do a driving test, which group's likely to come out best? > > C'mon, most old people are poor drivers! > > Isn't that a rather sweeping generalisation, rather akin to Conor's "most > Asian women are poor drivers"? Is is a generalisation, but it is mostly true isn't it? If you got a bunch of 30 year olds and a bunch of 60 year old to do a driving test, which group's likely to come out best? >>> C'mon, most old people are poor drivers! >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > bunch of 30 year olds and a bunch of 60 year old to do a driving test, > which group's likely to come out best? Insurers generally reckon people around 60 have the lowest accident risk. -- http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William Pitt, 1783) > >>> C'mon, most old people are poor drivers! > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Insurers generally reckon people around 60 have the lowest accident risk. But they see plenty in their rear view mirror ;o) I'm joking of course, because they never actually bother to look in that mirror. 70yr old woman pulled out in front of me today on a 60mph road - not a problem as she was quite some distance ahead - but when I caught up to her she was dawdling along at less than 30mph. > > > > > C'mon, most old people are poor drivers! > > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > problem as she was quite some distance ahead - but when I caught up > to her she was dawdling along at less than 30mph. But at least you had plenty of time to stop, I had some 20-odd year old with his girlfriend (I presume) in some Renault Clio sport thing that came down the slip road and pulled out straight across L1 (through a very small gap) and infront of me (I was in lane 2) going about 60 when I was doing about 80, had to brake pretty damn hard, he then sped up to what must have been over 100. At least if you crash with an elderly person they're not going to do much damage! > > >>> C'mon, most old people are poor drivers! > > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > problem as she was quite some distance ahead - but when I caught up to her > she was dawdling along at less than 30mph. Yeah, speed kills, so her speed must have been very safe ;-) > > > >>> C'mon, most old people are poor drivers! > > > >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Yeah, speed kills, so her speed must have been very safe ;-) Yeah, it could've been quite bad. The junction she pulled out from is on the brow of the hill, so I never saw her dawdling along until I'd reached the crest. My foot was completely off the accelerator as soon as I saw her pull out ahead, but surely the VW Lupo has a 0-30mph time of faster than 15 seconds? And it's not exactly clever is it to accelerate so slowly when pulling onto a NSL road is it? Especially when she saw me coming - or did she? Old drivers, should be banned from birth! > Having been down the M6 today I am convinced that we need to ban > anyone over the age of 70 from driving on motorways. Car doing 60 in > lane 2, completely oblivious to anything going on around them, sat an > inch behind the wheel peering over it with a fixed gaze...... To be fair the majority of people I see sat in L2 or L3 blocking it while the lane to the left is clear are not over 70. Just today someone was hogging L2 (out of 2) on the A34 while L1 was empty for a good minute or so. Long enough for me to accelerate up behind him, drop back, wait for a few seconds, move into L1, wait for a few more seconds, then pass in L1. He appeared to be about 30, white, wearing sunglasses, and driving a black Honda if it makes any difference :-) After people have passed their driving test they should have to do a motorway test before going on the motorway, or maybe have to do it within 6 months of passing their test or something but still be allowed to drive on the motorway. It could just be an electronic one like the theory test, might be cheaper. I'm sure it would cut down on congestion a lot. > To be fair the majority of people I see sat in L2 or L3 blocking it while > the lane to the left is clear are not over 70. Just today someone was > hogging L2 (out of 2) on the A34 while L1 was empty for a good minute or so. > Long enough for me to accelerate up behind him, drop back, wait for a few > seconds, move into L1, wait for a few more seconds, then pass in L1... If L2 is for *overtaking only* and you say L1 was "empty" then what were you doing in L2? > > To be fair the majority of people I see sat in L2 or L3 blocking it while > > the lane to the left is clear are not over 70. Just today someone was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If L2 is for *overtaking only* and you say L1 was "empty" then what were you > doing in L2? Waiting for the pillock in L2 to move left perhaps? >> To be fair the majority of people I see sat in L2 or L3 blocking it >> while the lane to the left is clear are not over 70. Just today [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If L2 is for *overtaking only* and you say L1 was "empty" then what > were you doing in L2? L1 was empty ahead, but not behind! We had just overtaken another car in L1 and I was expecting him to move back into L1 straight away, after a few seconds I realised I wasn't going to be overtaking anything so moved back into L1. > > Having been down the M6 today I am convinced that we need to ban > > anyone over the age of 70 from driving on motorways. Car doing 60 in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the motorway. It could just be an electronic one like the theory test, > might be cheaper. I'm sure it would cut down on congestion a lot. No, people wouldn't use the correct lanes even if they knew how to. People's driving is terrible! > > > Having been down the M6 today I am convinced that we need to ban > > > anyone over the age of 70 from driving on motorways. Car doing 60 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > No, people wouldn't use the correct lanes even if they knew how to. > People's driving is terrible! I'm sure some people would improve if taught :-) Ian Bailey raved thus: :: Having been down the M6 today I am convinced that we need to ban :: anyone over the age of 70 from driving on motorways. Car doing 60 in :: lane 2, completely oblivious to anything going on around them, sat an :: inch behind the wheel peering over it with a fixed gaze...... Sounds like every other car... SignatureAbo www.pickuptruckracing.com > Having been down the M6 today I am convinced that we need to ban > anyone over the age of 70 from driving on motorways. Car doing 60 in > lane 2, completely oblivious to anything going on around them, sat an > inch behind the wheel peering over it with a fixed gaze...... > > Ian What about young, white females doing the same thing? > What about young, white females doing the same thing? Depends on how good looking and co-operative they are when stopped. :0 SignatureThe poster formerly known as Skodapilot. http://www.bouncing-czechs.com > Having been down the M6 today I am convinced that we need to ban > anyone over the age of 70 from driving on motorways. Car doing 60 in > lane 2, completely oblivious to anything going on around them, sat an > inch behind the wheel peering over it with a fixed gaze...... I see all varieties of people with that sort of muppet gaze when driving. Ban the lot of them. Peter > > Having been down the M6 today I am convinced that we need to ban > > anyone over the age of 70 from driving on motorways. Car doing 60 in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I see all varieties of people with that sort of muppet gaze when > driving. Ban the lot of them. I see quite a lot of rally drivers with stupid muppet looks on their faces bouncing around in their cars. They seem to drive quite well ;-) > Having been down the M6 today I am convinced that we need to ban > anyone over the age of 70 from driving on motorways. Car doing 60 in > lane 2, completely oblivious to anything going on around them, sat an > inch behind the wheel peering over it with a fixed gaze...... So you'd ban something on a sample of one? And also someone who wasn't actually breaking the law? Signature*We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse. Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn > So you'd ban something on a sample of one? And also someone who wasn't > actually breaking the law? If L1 was clear they could be guilty of driving without due care and attention. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. > > So you'd ban something on a sample of one? And also someone who wasn't > > actually breaking the law? > > > If L1 was clear they could be guilty of driving without due care and > attention. If the OP had time to observe the behaviour of this old chap I'd assume he was stuck behind him. With the nearside lane full of trucks as usual. Signature*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things? * Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn > If the OP had time to observe the behaviour of this old chap I'd assume he > was stuck behind him. With the nearside lane full of trucks as usual. Aye, all the trucks in L1 thus showing that we're the only drivers on the motorway using the correct lane. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. > > If the OP had time to observe the behaviour of this old chap I'd > > assume he was stuck behind him. With the nearside lane full of trucks > > as usual. > > > Aye, all the trucks in L1 thus showing that we're the only drivers on > the motorway using the correct lane. They certainly cause enough damage to it to call it their own. Signature*A closed mouth gathers no feet. Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn > > Aye, all the trucks in L1 thus showing that we're the only drivers on > > the motorway using the correct lane. > > They certainly cause enough damage to it to call it their own. Lets reduce the maximum weight of goodss vehicles to 7.5t then. Alternatively, the Highways Dept could actually try building roads properly. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. > > > Aye, all the trucks in L1 thus showing that we're the only > > > drivers on the motorway using the correct lane. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Alternatively, the Highways Dept could actually try building roads > properly. Indeed, I remember when they built the newbury bypass, what a joke, it was broken within a few months. I wonder how much money was wasted on that and other screwed up projects? > > Lets reduce the maximum weight of goodss vehicles to 7.5t then. > > Alternatively, the Highways Dept could actually try building roads [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > broken within a few months. I wonder how much money was wasted on that and > other screwed up projects? Sadly most new builds seem to need repairing within a few months. OTOH, the concrete road sections of the A1 around Markham Moor to Newark hadn't been touched for decades save some crack filling and apart from being noisy were far better than the tarmac bits inbetween and prett much devoid of rutting. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:06:58 +0100, Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> was popularly supposed to have said: >> > Aye, all the trucks in L1 thus showing that we're the only drivers on >> > the motorway using the correct lane. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Alternatively, the Highways Dept could actually try building roads >properly. According to the transport research labs, damage to roads is caused in line with the fourth power of the axle weight. That means that a small increase in axle weight causes a lot more damage. Conversely, a small reduction will reduce the damage quite considerably. So, why not add in a tax on HGVs based on the maximum axle weight that the vehicle can experience? This will cause HGV makers to add extra axles to the vehicles, so that this tax is mitigated, and in doing so we'll have achieved our stated aim, which was to reduce damage to roads. SignatureDan Holdsworth PhD dan1701usennet@ntlworld.com By caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, By the beans of Java do thoughts acquire speed, hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning, By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion > On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:06:58 +0100, Conor > <conor_turton@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > doing so we'll have achieved our stated aim, which was to reduce > damage to roads. What costs more though, adding an extra axle to every HGV that uses a road, or repairing the road every 10 years rather than every 12 years? > > On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:06:58 +0100, Conor > > <conor_turton@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > What costs more though, adding an extra axle to every HGV that uses a road, > or repairing the road every 10 years rather than every 12 years? He also forgot several things... 1) Reduced cornering ability 2) Increased costs and therefore charges due to needing 30 odd tyres 3) Increased environmental damage from the manufacturing process and tyre disposal 4) THE FACT THAT THE INCREASED SCRUBBING WHEN CORNERING WILL WEAR THE ROAD OUT FASTER. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. ... >> What costs more though, adding an extra axle to every HGV that uses a road, >> or repairing the road every 10 years rather than every 12 years? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >4) THE FACT THAT THE INCREASED SCRUBBING WHEN CORNERING WILL WEAR THE >ROAD OUT FASTER. The increased scrubbing has an effect, true. But only at the superficial level. The increased axle loading has a massive effect - it follows a power law - damage increasing IIRC with the third poewer of axle load (although someone else recently posted that it's the fourth power). This damage affects teh surface, /and/ it damages teh structure of the road two. Resurfacing is a triivial task compared to rebuilding the road from the foundations upwards. Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk > 4) THE FACT THAT THE INCREASED SCRUBBING WHEN CORNERING WILL WEAR THE > ROAD OUT FASTER. So straight bits of motorways don't get worn out? Signature*There are two kinds of pedestrians... the quick and the dead. Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn >> 4) THE FACT THAT THE INCREASED SCRUBBING WHEN CORNERING WILL WEAR THE >> ROAD OUT FASTER. > So straight bits of motorways don't get worn out? I'm trying to follow that logic, but I can't quite get there... How does "scrubbing wears faster" imply that straight equals zero wear, Dave? > > 4) THE FACT THAT THE INCREASED SCRUBBING WHEN CORNERING WILL WEAR THE > > ROAD OUT FASTER. > > So straight bits of motorways don't get worn out? So you sort out one problem of a class of road thats highly maintained to create a fairly non existent one on a type of road thats lucky to see any maintenance in a decade. WE used to have a road surface that didn't suffer from this problem. SAdly moaning c.nts in cars kept complaining about the level of road noise so it got replaced with softer Tarmac. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. In article <slrnc8kc5o.3i4.dan1701usenet@spc1-burn1-3-0- cust97.manc.broadband.ntl.com>, dan1701usenet@ntlworld.com says... > So, why not add in a tax on HGVs based on the maximum axle weight that the > vehicle can experience? This will cause HGV makers to add extra axles to the > vehicles, so that this tax is mitigated, and in doing so we'll have achieved > our stated aim, which was to reduce damage to roads. Whilst thus making the vehicle completely unmanouverable to any acceptable degree. Delivering in any urban area thats not dual carriageway will be out. Ever seen the turning circle on a STGO rig with 10 axles? THe last one I drove couldn't make a left hand turn to go over a bridge on a single carriage road. THey had to remove one wall of the bridge and I had to drive past it then reverse over the bridge. At least there's one thing, you've made me laugh with your incredibly stupid suggestion. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. > In article <slrnc8kc5o.3i4.dan1701usenet@spc1-burn1-3-0- > cust97.manc.broadband.ntl.com>, dan1701usenet@ntlworld.com says... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > At least there's one thing, you've made me laugh with your incredibly > stupid suggestion. Perhaps they could have some axles that could be raised and lowered when necessary ;-) > > At least there's one thing, you've made me laugh with your incredibly > > stupid suggestion. > > Perhaps they could have some axles that could be raised and lowered when > necessary ;-) It gets better... SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. Conor raved thus: :: In article <c6h2sh$1vt5$1@news.f.de.plusline.net>, spam@spam.com :: says... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] ::: :: It gets better... Rear steering :) SignatureAbo www.pickuptruckracing.com > Conor raved thus: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Rear steering :) I was gonna say that! scott raved thus: ::: Rear steering :) :: :: I was gonna say that! :p SignatureAbo www.pickuptruckracing.com Conor raved thus: ::: They certainly cause enough damage to it to call it their own. ::: :: Lets reduce the maximum weight of goodss vehicles to 7.5t then. :: Alternatively, the Highways Dept could actually try building roads :: properly. It has to be said, there are certain stretches of the A1 which are a ball-ache to drive down, tramlining in the truck ruts. Needs fixing badly (or fixing well, even...) but closing it all will cause untold mayhem. Stupid poor quality road :( SignatureAbo www.pickuptruckracing.com > Conor raved thus: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (or fixing well, even...) but closing it all will cause untold mayhem. > Stupid poor quality road :( Amen to that. Sadly there are stretches of the A1 heavily used by trucks where such a problem doesn't exist. THe problem is they're mostly concrete and are being lifted to appease the nearby residents. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. Conor raved thus: :: Amen to that. Sadly there are stretches of the A1 heavily used by :: trucks where such a problem doesn't exist. THe problem is they're :: mostly concrete and are being lifted to appease the nearby residents. Still, I just found out my round trip from Teesside to Hertford tomorrow has been cancelled, so it's feet up instead of A1 badness :) SignatureAbo www.pickuptruckracing.com > > Having been down the M6 today I am convinced that we need to ban > > anyone over the age of 70 from driving on motorways. Car doing 60 in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So you'd ban something on a sample of one? And also someone who wasn't > actually breaking the law? On the contrary, they were very definitely breaking the law, in fact two offences, 1. failing to keep left except whilst overtaking 2.causing an unnecessary obstruction. > > > Having been down the M6 today I am convinced that we need to ban > > > anyone over the age of 70 from driving on motorways. Car doing 60 in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > offences, > 1. failing to keep left except whilst overtaking Would you care to enlighten us as to which specific offence that is? > 2.causing an unnecessary obstruction. That's so thin it's anorexic. SignatureMark Foster, IT Services, University of Sussex, Falmer, UK. BN1 9QJ E-mail: m.e.foster@sussex.ac.uk - VOICE/FAX: +44 1273 678902/873135 PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'" [Driving, HMSO] > > So you'd ban something on a sample of one? And also someone who wasn't > > actually breaking the law? > On the contrary, they were very definitely breaking the law, in fact two > offences, > 1. failing to keep left except whilst overtaking Then why pick on this old chap? 99.95% of all cars on a motorway do this - but usually in the outside lane. > 2.causing an unnecessary obstruction. Bollocks. There are vehicles restricted to 60 mph which are allowed to use the centre lane. Signature*Consciousness: That annoying time between naps. Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn >>> So you'd ban something on a sample of one? And also someone who >>> wasn't actually breaking the law? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Bollocks. There are vehicles restricted to 60 mph which are allowed > to use the centre lane. Speed has nothing to do with it, it's failing to move to the left lane when that lane is clear of traffic. > >> 2.causing an unnecessary obstruction. > > > > Bollocks. There are vehicles restricted to 60 mph which are allowed > > to use the centre lane. > Speed has nothing to do with it, it's failing to move to the left lane > when that lane is clear of traffic. How do you know that lane was clear of traffic? The OP said nothing about this. I'm not disputing you're correct, but I'd say the outside lane huggers who consider they're going quite fast enough are more of a problem. Signature*If you remember the '60s, you weren't really there Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn >>> So you'd ban something on a sample of one? And also someone who >>> wasn't actually breaking the law? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Bollocks. There are vehicles restricted to 60 mph which are allowed > to use the centre lane. The speed of the vehicle has got nothing to do with it. Failure to drive in an empty L1 has. http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/11.shtml#116 > The speed of the vehicle has got nothing to do with it. Failure to drive > in an empty L1 has. If it was empty. How often do you get this? Signature*I used up all my sick days so I called in dead Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn >> The speed of the vehicle has got nothing to do with it. Failure to >> drive in an empty L1 has. > > If it was empty. How often do you get this? Because the poster was able to move into it and pass the vehicle in L2 on the nearside. Your point about people hogging both/all the overtaking lanes is taken and well observed. > >> The speed of the vehicle has got nothing to do with it. Failure to > >> drive in an empty L1 has. > > > > If it was empty. How often do you get this? > Because the poster was able to move into it and pass the vehicle in L2 on > the nearside. I must have missed that post. L3 was full of Sprinters, then? Signature*Born free - taxed to death * Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn > If it was empty. How often do you get this? Quite frequently. OK it may not be empty but the distance from one vehicle to the next is great enough to warrant a change to L1. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. > > If it was empty. How often do you get this? > > > Quite frequently. OK it may not be empty but the distance from one > vehicle to the next is great enough to warrant a change to L1. When I'm driving in L2, as a rough guide I will move back into L1 if I think the car behind has time to undertake me and get safely back out infront of me. I see lots of people staying in L2 because a motorway junction is approaching, and they don't want to be in L1 incase a car comes down the sliproad. This is annoying. Also, if they are in L1, they will dive into L2 as soon as anything appears on the sliproad - this is also annoying, and sometimes quite dangerous. >> > If it was empty. How often do you get this? >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >L2 as soon as anything appears on the sliproad - this is also annoying, and >sometimes quite dangerous. Bunchacunts. Undertake. You know it makes sense. SignaturePaul My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003): http://paulrooney.netfirms.com scott raved thus: :: I see lots of people staying in L2 because a motorway junction is :: approaching, and they don't want to be in L1 incase a car comes down :: the sliproad. This is annoying. Also, if they are in L1, they will :: dive into L2 as soon as anything appears on the sliproad - this is :: also annoying, and sometimes quite dangerous. The same people who see a truck on the horizon and pull out to overtake with loads of clear road between them. Usually just as I've indicated and pulled out to overtake *them*. It makes me laugh though; if I then decide to dive through in Lane 1, these are the same people who flash their lights after I've done so... SignatureAbo www.pickuptruckracing.com > scott raved thus: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > loads of clear road between them. Usually just as I've indicated and pulled > out to overtake *them*. Not as bad as the people who start to indicate 'just' as you've reached their blind spot and you have to make a split-second decision to slam on the brakes incase they haven't seen you or pray that they're just a bit keen with the indicator - when happens to me I'm a bit keen on the horn :) using as it's intended, making them aware of my presence. > I see lots of people staying in L2 because a motorway junction is > approaching, and they don't want to be in L1 incase a car comes down the > sliproad. This is annoying. Also, if they are in L1, they will dive > into L2 as soon as anything appears on the sliproad - this is also > annoying, and sometimes quite dangerous. No it's not - it's good driving manners. Signature*Re-elect nobody Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn >> I see lots of people staying in L2 because a motorway junction is >> approaching, and they don't want to be in L1 incase a car comes down [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No it's not - it's good driving manners. Quite the opposite in fact, most of the time they needn't even have moved out because the car coming down the slip road moves out either infront of where they are or behind them. It is certainly not good manners to cause someone else in L2 to have to brake or move quickly into L3. Far safer to adjust your relative position by 1 or 2 car lengths *if necessary* to allow them to move in. >> Also, if they are in L1, they will dive >> into L2 as soon as anything appears on the sliproad - this is also >> annoying, and sometimes quite dangerous. > No it's not - it's good driving manners. It's good manners IF L2 is clear, and if the person joining would benefit from them moving over. It's not often that the two coincide. Certainly far less often than the "dive" is carried out. > > If it was empty. How often do you get this? > > > Quite frequently. OK it may not be empty but the distance from one > vehicle to the next is great enough to warrant a change to L1. I'd guess the oldbloke was terrified about having a truck 6 inches off his back bumper as they all do to someone driving slower than them. If they're smaller, of course. Signature*24 hours in a day ... 24 beers in a case ... coincidence? * Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn > > > If it was empty. How often do you get this? > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > back bumper as they all do to someone driving slower than them. If they're > smaller, of course. You must love the smell of bullshit. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. > > I'd guess the oldbloke was terrified about having a truck 6 inches off > > his back bumper as they all do to someone driving slower than them. If > > they're smaller, of course. > > > You must love the smell of bullshit. Are you really saying you've never seen a truck bully a smaller vehicle that it considers is going too slow? You must lead a sheltered life, Conor. Signature*Heart attacks... God's revenge for eating his animal friends Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn > > > I'd guess the oldbloke was terrified about having a truck 6 inches off > > > his back bumper as they all do to someone driving slower than them. If [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Are you really saying you've never seen a truck bully a smaller vehicle > that it considers is going too slow? You must lead a sheltered life, Conor. Yes I have but your post was suggestive of this being a common practice. To add, only a madman in a lorry would drive so close to the vehicle in front that he couldn't see their lights. So thats at least 3ft. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. >> Are you really saying you've never seen a truck bully a smaller >> vehicle that it considers is going too slow? You must lead a >> sheltered life, Conor. > Yes I have but your post was suggestive of this being a common > practice. It's not uncommon. > To add, only a madman in a lorry would drive so close to the vehicle in > front that he couldn't see their lights. So thats at least 3ft. There's a fair number of madmen with HGV licences, then. Sometimes, Conor, your defence of your profession does give you severely rose-tinted glasses. >>> Are you really saying you've never seen a truck bully a smaller >>> vehicle that it considers is going too slow? You must lead a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >It's not uncommon. Especially in temporary 50 limits. SignatureDon't get even - get odd. Mail john rather than nospam... > >> Are you really saying you've never seen a truck bully a smaller > >> vehicle that it considers is going too slow? You must lead a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Sometimes, Conor, your defence of your profession does give you severely > rose-tinted glasses. Not really. I just believe what I see with my own eyes for 120,000 miles a year. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. > > > You must love the smell of bullshit. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > vehicle in front that he couldn't see their lights. So thats at least > 3ft. ;-) Signature*Just give me chocolate and nobody gets hurt Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12 RIP Acorn > Having been down the M6 today I am convinced that we need to ban > anyone over the age of 70 from driving on motorways. Car doing 60 in > lane 2, completely oblivious to anything going on around them, sat an > inch behind the wheel peering over it with a fixed gaze...... > > Ian Thats a laugh - more than just 70 years olds do what you describe. MrBitsy. > > Having been down the M6 today I am convinced that we need to ban > > anyone over the age of 70 from driving on motorways. Car doing 60 in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thats a laugh - more than just 70 years olds do what you describe. I know - I was trying to wind you up. What they should do is ban *everyone* from the motorway - except me :) Ian > > > Having been down the M6 today I am convinced that we need to ban > > > anyone over the age of 70 from driving on motorways. Car doing 60 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I know - I was trying to wind you up. What they should do is ban > *everyone* from the motorway - except me :) and me, i'd keep out of your way :) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.