OT: The insanity spreads ...

Don Whybrow said:

From the Metro today:

Non-speeding drivers are nuisance - judge

A JUDGE has branded drivers who keep to the speed limit a nuisance.
Judge David Cooper made the controversial comments as he sentenced a
driver for careless driving and failing to stop and report an accident.
Mathew Musgrove, 27, had earlier admitted colliding with another car
when it slowed down to 50mph at a notorious accident blackspot on the
A14 in East Anglia in January. The judge told Musgrove at Lowestoft
Magistrates' Court: 'People who stick rigidly to the speed limit are a
bit of a nuisance. We all do behave badly on the road - I do, you do.'
He banned Musgrove, of Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, from driving for 30
days, fined him £500 and ordered him to pay £200 costs. His comments
were criticised by road safety groups.
Ian Tidy, of RoadPeace, said: 'This was an extremely unwise comment to
make and utterly stupid.'

He may have been being ironic.

Zog The Undeniable said:

Don Whybrow wrote:

Quoted message said:

He may have been being ironic.

Sounds more like he was euphoric...

"Don Whybrow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

From the Metro today:

Non-speeding drivers are nuisance - judge

A JUDGE has branded drivers who keep to the speed limit a nuisance.
Judge David Cooper made the controversial comments as he sentenced a
driver for careless driving and failing to stop and report an accident.
Mathew Musgrove, 27, had earlier admitted colliding with another car
when it slowed down to 50mph at a notorious accident blackspot on the
A14 in East Anglia in January. The judge told Musgrove at Lowestoft
Magistrates' Court: 'People who stick rigidly to the speed limit are a
bit of a nuisance. We all do behave badly on the road - I do, you do.'
He banned Musgrove, of Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, from driving for 30
days, fined him £500 and ordered him to pay £200 costs. His comments
were criticised by road safety groups.
Ian Tidy, of RoadPeace, said: 'This was an extremely unwise comment to
make and utterly stupid.'

Those who drive at 55mph on an otherwise clear motorway are more than just a
bit of a nuisance, they are inconsiderate and dangerous. I'm not talking of
speed-restricted lorries either. Sticking to the speed limit is right and
proper, it should be what we all expect. I am increasingly concerned for the
quality of law enforcement and judiciary in this country. (Present company
excepted, Sniper)

Was a speed restriction in force on the road, or did the driver of the car
that was hit slow up of his own accord? Not it makes any difference, what is
ahead of you is ahead of you and the defendant should have had his wits
about him.

--
David Lloyd,
The pub is responsible for my opinions.

David Lloyd said the following on 04/11/2006 09:33:

Quoted message said:

Those who drive at 55mph on an otherwise clear motorway are more than just a
bit of a nuisance, they are inconsiderate and dangerous. I'm not talking of
speed-restricted lorries either.

If the motorway is otherwise clear, how can someone driving at 55mph on
the motorway be inconsiderate and dangerous? OK, you might catch them
up a bit quicker than you were expecting, but you just overtake.

A question for the older generation (sliding OT) - I've heard it said
that the three lanes are for those doing 50mph, 60mph and 70mph
respectively. Some oldies appear to treat lanes like that. Was that
ever actually advised in the early days of motorways? I seriously doubt
it, but people are taught differently now to how I was taught 23 years
ago, for instance. I heard one elderly neighbour a while ago saying "I
just got into the cruising lane and stayed there." He was referring to
the middle lane - the inside lane was the "slow lane".

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd wrote on 06/11/2006 09:06 +0100:

Quoted message said:

A question for the older generation (sliding OT) - I've heard it said
that the three lanes are for those doing 50mph, 60mph and 70mph
respectively. Some oldies appear to treat lanes like that. Was that
ever actually advised in the early days of motorways? I seriously doubt
it, but people are taught differently now to how I was taught 23 years
ago, for instance. I heard one elderly neighbour a while ago saying "I
just got into the cruising lane and stayed there." He was referring to
the middle lane - the inside lane was the "slow lane".

A bit of old and still current folklore was calling them slow, middle
and fast lane but it was never promoted as such. The folklore has
though produced the middle lane residents association who feel affronted
at the thought of being thought "slow" if they pull over. There is a
smaller outside lane residents association that will occupy the outside
lane on an empty motorway in the belief its the "fast lane".

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Tony Raven said:

A bit of old and still current folklore was calling them slow, middle
and fast lane but it was never promoted as such. The folklore has
though produced the middle lane residents association who feel
affronted at the thought of being thought "slow" if they pull over. There
is a smaller outside lane residents association that will
occupy the outside lane on an empty motorway in the belief its the
"fast lane".

And oddly enough, it's a peculiarly British belief.

Paul Boyd said:

David Lloyd said the following on 04/11/2006 09:33:

Quoted message said:

Those who drive at 55mph on an otherwise clear motorway are more than just a
bit of a nuisance, they are inconsiderate and dangerous. I'm not talking of
speed-restricted lorries either.

If the motorway is otherwise clear, how can someone driving at 55mph on
the motorway be inconsiderate and dangerous? OK, you might catch them
up a bit quicker than you were expecting, but you just overtake.

A question for the older generation (sliding OT) - I've heard it said
that the three lanes are for those doing 50mph, 60mph and 70mph
respectively. Some oldies appear to treat lanes like that. Was that
ever actually advised in the early days of motorways? I seriously doubt
it, but people are taught differently now to how I was taught 23 years
ago, for instance. I heard one elderly neighbour a while ago saying "I
just got into the cruising lane and stayed there." He was referring to
the middle lane - the inside lane was the "slow lane".

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

I meant unrestriced in front of them, not void of all other traffic. If
you're going along at something that looks like the speed limit, and
you come across such a person, manouvering around them causes greater
impact on traffic flow than if they were also going at something like
the speed limit. They thus cause conjestion and increase the likelyhood
of an accident at that point. IMHO.

David

Sirius631 wrote on 06/11/2006 10:17 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I meant unrestriced in front of them, not void of all other traffic. If
you're going along at something that looks like the speed limit, and
you come across such a person, manouvering around them causes greater
impact on traffic flow than if they were also going at something like
the speed limit. They thus cause conjestion and increase the likelyhood
of an accident at that point. IMHO.

David

There is no minimum speed limit on the motorways (unlike some US
Freeways) so people are entitled to drive at a speed they feel to be
safe. Arguing they should go faster than they feel able - be it ability
or concern for fuel economy - or leave the motorway is playing the same
game as motorists who want cyclists off the road so they don't slow the
motorist's progress.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

David Lloyd said:

Those who drive at 55mph on an otherwise clear motorway are more than just a
bit of a nuisance, they are inconsiderate and dangerous. I'm not talking of
speed-restricted lorries either. Sticking to the speed limit is right and
proper, it should be what we all expect. I am increasingly concerned for the
quality of law enforcement and judiciary in this country. (Present company
excepted, Sniper)

Closing speeds of 20mph or less on multi-lane roads are not dangerous.
There's plenty of time to react if you are even slightly awake. And if
not, you just get caught behind the slower vehicle until it's safe to
overtake. Over 20mph, it depends.

Motorway rules exclude vehicles that cannot exceed 30mph. There are
all sorts of reasons why vehicles might not be able to exceed 40 or
50, and the law says they have as much right as faster vehicles to use
motorways. The argument is exactly the same as with pulling over on a
bike to let people pass, or using useless cyclepaths: why should my
journey be delayed so that yours can be quicker?

Riding back along the A40 (40 limit section) on Saturday, I caused
mild inconvenience to a couple of dozen motorists, and yes, I could
have gone another way, at the cost of at least 50% longer journey time.

But I caused no more inconvenience than the veteran car that turned up
doing about 25 just as I turned off.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Colin McKenzie wrote on 06/11/2006 10:26 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Closing speeds of 20mph or less on multi-lane roads are not dangerous.
There's plenty of time to react if you are even slightly awake. And if
not, you just get caught behind the slower vehicle until it's safe to
overtake. Over 20mph, it depends.

I get p****d off by motorists endangering me on the motorway when I am
on the inside lane obeying the 40mph roadwork or variable speed limit
and they are still steaming along at 80mph plus

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Colin McKenzie said:

David Lloyd said:

Those who drive at 55mph on an otherwise clear motorway are more than just a
bit of a nuisance, they are inconsiderate and dangerous. I'm not talking of
speed-restricted lorries either. Sticking to the speed limit is right and
proper, it should be what we all expect. I am increasingly concerned for the
quality of law enforcement and judiciary in this country. (Present company
excepted, Sniper)

Closing speeds of 20mph or less on multi-lane roads are not dangerous.
There's plenty of time to react if you are even slightly awake. And if
not, you just get caught behind the slower vehicle until it's safe to
overtake. Over 20mph, it depends.

Motorway rules exclude vehicles that cannot exceed 30mph. There are
all sorts of reasons why vehicles might not be able to exceed 40 or
50, and the law says they have as much right as faster vehicles to use
motorways. The argument is exactly the same as with pulling over on a
bike to let people pass, or using useless cyclepaths: why should my
journey be delayed so that yours can be quicker?

Riding back along the A40 (40 limit section) on Saturday, I caused
mild inconvenience to a couple of dozen motorists, and yes, I could
have gone another way, at the cost of at least 50% longer journey time.

But I caused no more inconvenience than the veteran car that turned up
doing about 25 just as I turned off.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

I know it's opening up a can of worms, but the route of my reasoning on
this is not a selfish 'I want my journey to be quicker', but 'I want
everyone's journey to be safer'. Yes, it would help if everyone could
keep an eye out for the unexpectedly slow driver, but we all know that
there is so much to look out for already, including those steaming up
behind you at 90+. I expect the speeders more than I do the crawlers.

If people are driving slowly on the motorway because they feel safer,
this feeling is an illusion because the closing speed to those
approaching you is actually increased.

Sirius631 said:

If people are driving slowly on the motorway because they feel safer,
this feeling is an illusion because the closing speed to those
approaching you is actually increased.

It's like the joke about the old guy who never drives at more than 30mph
"Never had an accident in 50 year of motoring," says he, "but I've seen
hundreds!

pk

in message <[email hidden]>, Paul Boyd

('usenet.dont.work@plusnet') said:

David Lloyd said the following on 04/11/2006 09:33:

Quoted message said:

Those who drive at 55mph on an otherwise clear motorway are more than
just a bit of a nuisance, they are inconsiderate and dangerous. I'm not
talking of speed-restricted lorries either.

If the motorway is otherwise clear, how can someone driving at 55mph on
the motorway be inconsiderate and dangerous? OK, you might catch them
up a bit quicker than you were expecting, but you just overtake.

A question for the older generation (sliding OT) - I've heard it said
that the three lanes are for those doing 50mph, 60mph and 70mph
respectively. Some oldies appear to treat lanes like that. Was that
ever actually advised in the early days of motorways?

No. They were originally stated to be the 'slow lane', the 'fast lane' and
the 'overtaking lane' respectively. No-one was expected to travel
permanently in the outside lane.

Remember that originally there was no speed limit on motorways, so people
driving at a steady 70mph in the outside lane would have unfairly
restricted those who wanted (perfectly legally) to drive at 140mph.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Due to financial constraints, the light at the end of the tunnel
has been switched off.

in message <[email hidden]>,

Sirius631 (') said:

Paul Boyd said:

David Lloyd said the following on 04/11/2006 09:33:

Quoted message said:

Those who drive at 55mph on an otherwise clear motorway are more than
just a bit of a nuisance, they are inconsiderate and dangerous. I'm
not talking of speed-restricted lorries either.

If the motorway is otherwise clear, how can someone driving at 55mph on
the motorway be inconsiderate and dangerous? OK, you might catch them
up a bit quicker than you were expecting, but you just overtake.

I meant unrestriced in front of them, not void of all other traffic. If
you're going along at something that looks like the speed limit, and
you come across such a person, manouvering around them causes greater
impact on traffic flow than if they were also going at something like
the speed limit. They thus cause conjestion and increase the likelyhood
of an accident at that point. IMHO.

David, just go down to your local police station and hand in your driving
licence. Explain that you don't really understand how to drive safely and
can't be trusted to share the road with other road users. They'll
understand.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If Python is executable pseudocode,
;; then Perl is executable line noise
-- seen on Slashdot.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

Sirius631 (') said:

Paul Boyd said:

David Lloyd said the following on 04/11/2006 09:33:

> Those who drive at 55mph on an otherwise clear motorway are more than
> just a bit of a nuisance, they are inconsiderate and dangerous. I'm
> not talking of speed-restricted lorries either.

If the motorway is otherwise clear, how can someone driving at 55mph on
the motorway be inconsiderate and dangerous? OK, you might catch them
up a bit quicker than you were expecting, but you just overtake.

I meant unrestriced in front of them, not void of all other traffic. If
you're going along at something that looks like the speed limit, and
you come across such a person, manouvering around them causes greater
impact on traffic flow than if they were also going at something like
the speed limit. They thus cause conjestion and increase the likelyhood
of an accident at that point. IMHO.

David, just go down to your local police station and hand in your driving
licence. Explain that you don't really understand how to drive safely and
can't be trusted to share the road with other road users. They'll
understand.

If we all travelled at the same speed along the motorways, we would
never have to overtake. Are you telling me that there are no
circumstances that you may be taken by surprise by the other vehicles
around you? You can't tell me that congestion does not occur around
slow moving vehicles. Maybe you're not sufficiently experienced on the
variations of motorway traffic. You must have some very quiet motorways
where you live, or you have your eyes closed.

I don't personally go above 70, but getting trapped behind a slow mover
by a line of speeders is not unknown, even though I keep everything
around me in mind, especially when lorry in front has left it to last
minute to jump the slow mover. I've not had an accident in these
circumstances, or any other, but I can see that there is potential.

Simon Brooke wrote on 06/11/2006 12:02 +0100:

Quoted message said:

No. They were originally stated to be the 'slow lane', the 'fast lane' and
the 'overtaking lane' respectively.

This is my idea of a Fast Lane:
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/jlv/lowres/jlvn218l.jpg

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Sirius631 said the following on 06/11/2006 10:17:

Quoted message said:

I meant unrestriced in front of them, not void of all other traffic.

OK - that can put it into a different perspective. BUT... if you're
driving along in the inside lane in a knot of traffic and catch up with
someone doing 55mph meaning you have to overtake, why is that
inconsiderate? Yes - lane changing can be potentially dangerous, but
that person has an absolute right to drive at 55mph if they so wish. It
doesn't mean that I wouldn't be put out by the slow speed either, but
they aren't doing anything wrong.

The argument could be extended. If you're driving along and there is a
cyclist in front of you doing 15mph, would you consider them to be
inconsiderate and dangerous? I'm not talking motorways now, obviously!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Tony Raven said:

Sirius631 wrote on 06/11/2006 10:17 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I meant unrestriced in front of them, not void of all other traffic. If
you're going along at something that looks like the speed limit, and
you come across such a person, manouvering around them causes greater
impact on traffic flow than if they were also going at something like
the speed limit. They thus cause conjestion and increase the likelyhood
of an accident at that point. IMHO.

David

There is no minimum speed limit on the motorways (unlike some US
Freeways) so people are entitled to drive at a speed they feel to be
safe. Arguing they should go faster than they feel able - be it ability
or concern for fuel economy - or leave the motorway is playing the same
game as motorists who want cyclists off the road so they don't slow the
motorist's progress.

I know it sounds like I have contradictory points of view, but look at
it this way - a cyclist at 18mph is easier to overtake than a car going
at the same speed. If a car driver does go around at 18mph because that
is the only way they feel safe, they would be stopped by the police and
given a good talking to for driving without due consideration. They
would not have passed their driving test like that, as they would have
failed for failing to make due progress.

To illustrate my point about the motorway, imagine a two lane motorway
with a block of cars travelling at 70mph in both lane with sufficient
gap between them for stopping. First car in inside lane spots car
ahead. It takes some time to recognise that the car ahead is travelling
at substantially below the speed limit. Individuals being such will
react in different ways, leading to a mini-chaos as they jump into
'gaps' and slow down. This is just the way it happens, despite us
knowing what should be done.

If the car ahead was travelling at somewhere nearer to the speed limit,
the approaching cars would have longer to react, so there would be less
selfish jumping around and a smoother slow-down, thus it would be safer
all-round.

David

Sirius631 wrote on 06/11/2006 13:50 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I know it sounds like I have contradictory points of view, but look at
it this way - a cyclist at 18mph is easier to overtake than a car going
at the same speed.

No its not. You should give as much room to a cyclist when you overtake
as a car. And in the multilane carriageway you should change lanes to
overtake a cyclist, not try to squeeze past in the same lane.

Quoted message said:

If a car driver does go around at 18mph because that
is the only way they feel safe, they would be stopped by the police and
given a good talking to for driving without due consideration. They
would not have passed their driving test like that, as they would have
failed for failing to make due progress.

And if they were a milk float or tractor or JCB legally going about
using the roads?

Quoted message said:

To illustrate my point about the motorway, imagine a two lane motorway
with a block of cars travelling at 70mph in both lane with sufficient
gap between them for stopping. First car in inside lane spots car
ahead. It takes some time to recognise that the car ahead is travelling
at substantially below the speed limit. Individuals being such will
react in different ways, leading to a mini-chaos as they jump into
'gaps' and slow down. This is just the way it happens, despite us
knowing what should be done.

Well start paying attention. There is no excuse for not knowing your
closing speed and that vehicle could quite easily be an HGV with a
motorway speed limit of 60mph doing 54mph because of allowed speedo
calibration variability. Get used to it. If its not safe to pass then
don't until it is. You are sounding exactly like the sort of driver
that thinks a bicycle should get off the road because it is impeding his
progress and he will have to take risks to get past.

The speed limit is a limit, not an obligation, target or right.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci