Jump to content

  •  

Photo

Driving too slow???


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
75 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   mjeone

mjeone

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 09:42 AM

Is it indeed correct that people can be stoped for driving to slow? I live in ludlow south shrops and have a daily commute up the a49 to shrewsbury, this road is very twisty and for the most part impossible to overtake on due to it being quite busy in both directions. Virtually everyday though I'm held up for miles on end by some dithering idiot doing 35-40 mph with a clear road ahead of him/her. It's very comon to see bunches of flowers at the side of the road I'm wondering how many people have died tring to over take poeple like this. I got into a conversation over the weekend with a friend who knows I'm in the process of joining up he'd just been given a ticket for doing 65 (on a different road) in clear road conditions after not long over taking one of the dordeling masses. Well fair enough bang to rights but who in all honestly is causing more of a danger.......i'm betting the slow boat went past the speed trap un botherd.

By the way I am NOT "my friend"

#2 OFFLINE   Dragonfly

Dragonfly

    UKPO Admin

  • Admin
  • 616 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 10:13 AM

You don't say what the speed limits are on the roads you mention (presumably National Speed Limits apply ?)

I've never known anyone be pulled up for driving too slow as a general rule other than by a Fed who maybe wants to see if the driver has been drinking etc.

The rule of thumb is you should always be able to stop on your side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear...

If you are unable to overtake then so be it :rolleyes:

#3 OFFLINE   mjeone

mjeone

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 10:16 AM

:oops: sorry yes national speed limits.

#4 OFFLINE   mjeone

mjeone

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 10:30 AM

If you are unable to overtake then so be it :rolleyes:



For 15+ miles sometimes there is just no way due to the twists/ on coming traffic surely this cant be right. I didn't ask if people do pull people for it,more if it's possible too. I really think I'd take pleasure in it, the frustration it causes other drivers has to be a contributing factor in some accidents. It's like a form of anti social behavour. I remember tackling my Dad on it once, he's definatley one of the club, flat cap volvo estate, never more than 40 anywhere. He complained one day while I was a passenger about a guy overtaking him on a very short bit of straight tooting his horny giving him the wa%ker sighn, said he was a dangerous chav. I agreed but told him he was also driving very dangerously there was nothing in front and about 20 cars behind all probably getting increasingly frustrated. His view is it's a limit not a target!

By the way in my first post I did say with nothing in front.....................so if you cant stop from 60 with only a horizon to crash into surely you should not be on the road period!!!!!

Edited by mjeone, 05 June 2007 - 10:41 AM.


#5 OFFLINE   DirtyMoney

DirtyMoney

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 05:31 PM

They can be stopped as s. 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 empowers a constable to stop a vehicle for any purpose. No reason needs to exist.

I believe there's case law about slow vehicles driving unreasonably long distances and inconveniencing other drivers being convicted of inconsiderate driving. I don't think 40 in a 60 warrants that though.

#6 OFFLINE   Soren

Soren

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Newbie Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,376 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 06:02 PM

We have a lot of slow moving agricultural vehicles driving on our major roads, some of which are single lane each direction. They can do about 20mph and often don't want to move in to allow the queue they have created to pass. I've spoken to many and reported a few for inconsiderate driving, although they never get more than a letter of caution.

I once reported a coach driver for driving 6 miles along a lakeside road at 15mph while his passengers were admiring the views - there was a display on the lake involving the red arrows at the time, so they though it would be nice to dawdle along and take in the action. I was about 15 cars behind trying to get to work. :angry:

Once again CPS declined to run it :blink:

Edited by SøS, 05 June 2007 - 06:03 PM.


#7 OFFLINE   k1ngy

k1ngy

    UKPOLICEONLINE Full Member

  • Newbie Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 267 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 06:49 PM

They can be stopped as s. 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 empowers a constable to stop a vehicle for any purpose. No reason needs to exist.

I believe there's case law about slow vehicles driving unreasonably long distances and inconveniencing other drivers being convicted of inconsiderate driving. I don't think 40 in a 60 warrants that though.

They surely should have a 'reason' you cant just say hi just thought i would pull you over?
I do agree with the causing a nuisance although living in milton keynes we do not really have this problem, dual carriageways everywhere and roundabouts every 100 metres but we do have people driving in right hand land for 4 roundabouts because they are turning right at 1 eventually this means you have to drive behind them for the stretch!!

#8 OFFLINE   Devons finest

Devons finest

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Resident Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 07:11 PM

Inconsiderate driving is the possible offence.
However in days on traffic i did used to pull slow moving vehicles but mainly for the purpose of finding out if they were fit to drive, and one of the main things i got out of this was driving without corrected eyesight and did many many eyesight tests.

from my deep dark past i also seem to remember some obscure thing about a slow moving agricultural vehicle having to pull in occasionally to let traffic past but that may be just the voices in my head!
:rolleyes:

#9 OFFLINE   mjeone

mjeone

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 07:12 PM

They can

I don't think 40 in a 60 warrants that though.



:iagree:

Over short distances,however on rural single carriage roads over many miles I think it's down rite inconsiderate and dangerous.

#10 OFFLINE   Matty Hall

Matty Hall

    UKPOLICEONLINE Veteran

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,504 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 07:14 PM

Isn't there a few roads with a min speed limit of 30mph? I'm sure I've seen the signs in the highway code.

:)

I hate tractors esp if they have a trailer of cabbage on the back! (I used to get stuck behind loads on the A52 on the way to skeg!)

#11 OFFLINE   mjeone

mjeone

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 07:22 PM

Isn't there a few roads with a min speed limit of 30mph? I'm sure I've seen the signs in the highway code.

:)

I hate tractors esp if they have a trailer of cabbage on the back! (I used to get stuck behind loads on the A52 on the way to skeg!)


Tractors and other large type machinery goes slow because it physically cant go quicker. I'm talking about normal cars.

#12 OFFLINE   Devons finest

Devons finest

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Resident Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 07:25 PM

The answer is above my child :innocent:

#13 OFFLINE   DirtyMoney

DirtyMoney

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 07:48 PM

They surely should have a 'reason' you cant just say hi just thought i would pull you over?


You should have a reason but legally none is required. Randomly stopping people isn't an effective use of your time!

I believe there are minimum speed limits in some of the tunnels (Mersey Tunnels?).

#14 OFFLINE   Traffic Bob

Traffic Bob

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,435 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 09:23 PM

on rural single carriage roads over many miles I think it's down rite inconsiderate and dangerous.


I can't recall any driver during my service being convicted of causing death by dangerous driving because he/she drove "too slowly" on a rural road, thereby "forcing" some impatient fool to overtake.

Impatient fools, on the other hand............. :rolleyes:

#15 OFFLINE   mjeone

mjeone

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 09:35 PM

I can't recall any driver during my service being convicted of causing death by dangerous driving because he/she drove "too slowly" on a rural road, thereby "forcing" some impatient fool to overtake.

Impatient fools, on the other hand............. :rolleyes:


So just how many miles would you sit behind someone bimbling along at 35-40 mph with nothing in front of them? Have your years of service robbed you of such basic desires....... you know like just wanting to get the daily 26 mile commute over with in under an 70 mins. Or are you really telling us in such situations you gladly sit behind the offending idiot smiling without any frustration? Such patients :smiley_notworthy:

#16 OFFLINE   Traffic Bob

Traffic Bob

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,435 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 09:41 PM

Spare me the lecture - I'm not saying anything of the sort. What I am saying is that these people are not the dangerous drivers - the dangers are the ones who let their frustration get the better of them and take risks.

Sounds like someone needs to chill out behind the wheel - ever heard of road rage?

;)

#17 OFFLINE   mjeone

mjeone

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 09:53 PM

Spare me the lecture - I'm not saying anything of the sort. What I am saying is that these people are not the dangerous drivers - the dangers are the ones who let their frustration get the better of them and take risks.

Sounds like someone needs to chill out behind the wheel - ever heard of road rage?

;)


Tell that to the inocent party coming the otherway who gets taken out by the frustrated driver????? Might he still be living if the inconsiderate dawdler hadn't picked that day to be on the same road as him. I totaly agree that at the end of the day the responsibility lies with the guy who chooses to overtake............ but if it wasn't proven that this kind of situation contributed to accidents then why do they spend £000's on 15 foot tall electric signs on rural roads like for instance the a9 between perth and inverness wich regularly say "Please allow faster traffic to overtake frustration causes accidents"

#18 OFFLINE   DirtyMoney

DirtyMoney

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 09:57 PM

Spare me the lecture - I'm not saying anything of the sort. What I am saying is that these people are not the dangerous drivers - the dangers are the ones who let their frustration get the better of them and take risks.

Sounds like someone needs to chill out behind the wheel - ever heard of road rage?

;)


Wholeheartedly agree. Nobody ever forces you to overtake.

#19 OFFLINE   mjeone

mjeone

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 05 June 2007 - 10:12 PM

Well it seems my opinion is not shared, I must be wrong, it's not the first time sure it wont be the last. I did think however that I would try and look at it from both sides of the coin. Just on this occassion I just cant see another. Like I've said I agree that the ultimate responsibility is with the driver who chooses to overtake, I just thought that maybe the contributing factor was worth discussing.

It seems a little to black and white to me to surgest that the dawdler is completely inocent in the scenareo, even if the law says so.

#20 OFFLINE   k1ngy

k1ngy

    UKPOLICEONLINE Full Member

  • Newbie Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 267 posts

Posted 06 June 2007 - 06:25 AM

Also something else to consider, when i was being taught to drive i was told not to go to slow - You must consider other road users and if its 30, 60 etc to keep to around that figure being aware of any potential dangers of course.
Also i find the slow movers are usually of an older generation whose reactions etc are a little slower.

#21 OFFLINE   Traffic Bob

Traffic Bob

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,435 posts

Posted 06 June 2007 - 06:57 AM

Tell that to the inocent party coming the otherway who gets taken out by the frustrated driver. Might he still be living if the inconsiderate dawdler hadn't picked that day to be on the same road as him.


What nonsense! I rather think the anger of the "taken out" party might just be reserved for the idiot who hit him, not the "dawdler" he overtook.

Your post is a massive contradiction anyway, since you go on to add that the responsibility lies with the person choosing to overtake!

Which side of the fence are you actually on?

#22 OFFLINE   mjeone

mjeone

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 06 June 2007 - 07:26 AM

What nonsense! I rather think the anger of the "taken out" party might just be reserved for the idiot who hit him, not the "dawdler" he overtook.

Your post is a massive contradiction anyway, since you go on to add that the responsibility lies with the person choosing to overtake!

Which side of the fence are you actually on?


I'm on the side of trying to reduce accidents, it seems tho you are blinkerd to let alone able to admit that the slow 35-40 mph group could possibly be a contributing factor in accidents wether or not they are breaking the law.

"What nonsense" you say. Funny that I ask again: If it wasn't proven that this kind of situation contributed to accidents then why do authorities spend £000's on 15 foot electric signs on rural roads like for instance the a9 between perth and inverness which regularly say:

"Please allow faster traffic to overtake frustration causes accidents"


I'm not here for a row, but I'm entitled to a point of view, which I feel I've backed up with evidence. To dismiss my opinion as "nonsense" I feel is just a little arrogant. :mellow:

#23 OFFLINE   cjb

cjb

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 111 posts

Posted 06 June 2007 - 08:42 AM

Also something else to consider, when i was being taught to drive i was told not to go to slow - You must consider other road users and if its 30, 60 etc to keep to around that figure being aware of any potential dangers of course.

I believe you can be failed on a driving test for "Failure to make progress" - i.e. driving too slowly for the conditions.

#24 OFFLINE   pizzaboy

pizzaboy

    I'm New !

  • Newbie Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 06 June 2007 - 11:28 AM

I believe you can be failed on a driving test for "Failure to make progress" - i.e. driving too slowly for the conditions.


As a driving instructor, i know you will be failed on your driving test for going to slow. If the road conditions deem it to be safe to do the speed limit then you should. Any more than aprox 10mph under the speed limit for no reason would result in a fail.

#25 OFFLINE   Traffic Bob

Traffic Bob

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,435 posts

Posted 06 June 2007 - 01:23 PM

I'm on the side of trying to reduce accidents, it seems tho you are blinkerd to let alone able to admit that the slow 35-40 mph group could possibly be a contributing factor in accidents wether or not they are breaking the law.


Slow drivers are a hazard, but they are not in themselves a danger, and there is a massive, massive difference. Hazards on the roads take all sorts of different forms, some obvious, many less so. It is how drivers negotiate those hazards that decides whether or not the situation itself becomes dangerous.

A driver doing 40mph on a rural road with a national speed limit is a hazard, but then so is every other vehicle on the road in some form or other. It is the drivers who react inappropriately to the hazard who create the danger.

As for the signs you speak of, I have never seen them anywhere else in the UK, and I must say they sound a little peculiar. I could make an equally valid, if not stronger case, for signs that said "Do not overtake unless it is safe to do so - frustration causes accidents." Where I come from, we have such warnings - they are called solid white lines.

If your assertion that slow drivers are contributory factors in RTA's had substance, then I would think there would be a section on the stats forms we fill in that allowed us to tick a box which said as much. To my knowledge there isn't. There is, on the other hand, a box to tick if an overtaking error or misjudgement is a factor - and it is a box I have ticked more times than I care to count.

Oh, and by the way - the extract of your post that I labelled as nonsense is nonsense. With a capital "N". I have never in all my life heard such rubbish. To suggest that a victim of an RTC is likely to be angry with a slow driver who was overtaken, resulting in a collision, is utter tosh. Any anger should rightly be reserved for the overtaking driver.

Edited by Traffic Bob, 06 June 2007 - 06:10 PM.