FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > What's up with some drivers?
What's up with some drivers?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? " Overtake him, game on  | |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? " Perhaps he was trying to show you what you were doing to him.... | |||
| |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? Perhaps he was trying to show you what you were doing to him...." How? | |||
| |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? " I had similar a few mornings ago on my way to work, the driver was up my boot all the way to the dual carriageway, he then pulled into the lane next to mine, sped off first then cut into my lane and slowed down to 50, I was like “seriously dude”  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Overtake him if he's holding you up. No point letting it wind you up" not wound up about it just an observation of a completely pointless piece of driving | |||
| |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? Perhaps he was trying to show you what you were doing to him.... How?" Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.  | |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? Perhaps he was trying to show you what you were doing to him.... How? Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now. "causing an obstruction, really? on a dual carriageway with an empty lane 2 get real. | |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? Perhaps he was trying to show you what you were doing to him.... How? Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
causing an obstruction, really? on a dual carriageway with an empty lane 2 get real. "Yes. You're causing an obstruction. What else do you think you're doing? It's a 70mph limit and you're doing 65. You're in the way. | |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? Perhaps he was trying to show you what you were doing to him.... How? Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
causing an obstruction, really? on a dual carriageway with an empty lane 2 get real.
Yes. You're causing an obstruction.
What else do you think you're doing?
It's a 70mph limit and you're doing 65. You're in the way."Did you read the OP, they guy who overtook him slowed to 60mph, why are you arguing semantics with the OP  | |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? " speed cameras, average speed cameras, saw a copper on flyover above, noticed it was you and wanted to piss you off, could have been any of those reasons | |||
| |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? Perhaps he was trying to show you what you were doing to him.... How? Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
causing an obstruction, really? on a dual carriageway with an empty lane 2 get real.
Yes. You're causing an obstruction.
What else do you think you're doing?
It's a 70mph limit and you're doing 65. You're in the way.
Did you read the OP, they guy who overtook him slowed to 60mph, why are you arguing semantics with the OP "I answered his question. The OP queried my reply. I elaborated. It's really quite simple. | |||
"Try riding a bike then you'll know bad drivers. This is kids stuff" I'd never get in a bike again Bladey, I don't know how you do it... *ballsofsteel | |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? Perhaps he was trying to show you what you were doing to him.... How? Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
causing an obstruction, really? on a dual carriageway with an empty lane 2 get real.
Yes. You're causing an obstruction.
What else do you think you're doing?
It's a 70mph limit and you're doing 65. You're in the way.
Did you read the OP, they guy who overtook him slowed to 60mph, why are you arguing semantics with the OP
I answered his question. The OP queried my reply.
I elaborated.
It's really quite simple. "You do realise the stupidity you show in your comments. 70mph is the maximum speed you are allowed to do, it's a limit, not a target, there is no law that says' you have to sit at the speed limit, also, lots of vehicles are restricted to less than 70, some as low as 56 and some vehicles are only allowed to do a maximum of 60mph on motorways and dual carriageways, I'd hardly call 65 holding anyone up, it's called driving sensibly and within the law. | |||
"I'd tried changing the clock on my car, not realising I'd faffed with the mph display and put it into kph. The speedo got into the 100's in no time on the motorway - I just thought I was travelling at lightspeed so reduced it back to 60. Every single bit of traffic started passing me.. trucks, old people, estates with kids pointing at me. I was dumbfounded for 10 miles. I only realised when I got off and onto normal roads speeds."  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? Perhaps he was trying to show you what you were doing to him.... How? Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
causing an obstruction, really? on a dual carriageway with an empty lane 2 get real.
Yes. You're causing an obstruction.
What else do you think you're doing?
It's a 70mph limit and you're doing 65. You're in the way.
Did you read the OP, they guy who overtook him slowed to 60mph, why are you arguing semantics with the OP
I answered his question. The OP queried my reply.
I elaborated.
It's really quite simple.
You do realise the stupidity you show in your comments. 70mph is the maximum speed you are allowed to do, it's a limit, not a target, there is no law that says' you have to sit at the speed limit, also, lots of vehicles are restricted to less than 70, some as low as 56 and some vehicles are only allowed to do a maximum of 60mph on motorways and dual carriageways, I'd hardly call 65 holding anyone up, it's called driving sensibly and within the law. "I believe I've already said it's a limit not a target. And you're right, there's no part of the highway code that says you have to drive up to the limit. I'm willing to bet there's a bit that says about not being an obstruction or a hazard to other drivers though. Regardless, I believe I answered your question, so I'll bid you a good day. Happy driving OP.  | |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? " Sometimes it's because they're on the phone. The amount of times I've seen texting or taking a call and suddenly they slow. Annoying as hell | |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? I had similar a few mornings ago on my way to work, the driver was up my boot all the way to the dual carriageway, he then pulled into the lane next to mine, sped off first then cut into my lane and slowed down to 50, I was like “seriously dude” "BMW driver ? | |||
| |||
"It’s a speed limit not a speed target (according to a naughty drivers course which I’ve never been on) "you have havnt you | |||
| |||
"It’s a speed limit not a speed target (according to a naughty drivers course which I’ve never been on) you have havnt you "Do I strike you as the sort of person that would need that?  | |||
| |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? Perhaps he was trying to show you what you were doing to him.... How? Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
causing an obstruction, really? on a dual carriageway with an empty lane 2 get real.
Yes. You're causing an obstruction.
What else do you think you're doing?
It's a 70mph limit and you're doing 65. You're in the way.
Did you read the OP, they guy who overtook him slowed to 60mph, why are you arguing semantics with the OP
I answered his question. The OP queried my reply.
I elaborated.
It's really quite simple.
You do realise the stupidity you show in your comments. 70mph is the maximum speed you are allowed to do, it's a limit, not a target, there is no law that says' you have to sit at the speed limit, also, lots of vehicles are restricted to less than 70, some as low as 56 and some vehicles are only allowed to do a maximum of 60mph on motorways and dual carriageways, I'd hardly call 65 holding anyone up, it's called driving sensibly and within the law.
I believe I've already said it's a limit not a target.
And you're right, there's no part of the highway code that says you have to drive up to the limit.
I'm willing to bet there's a bit that says about not being an obstruction or a hazard to other drivers though.
Regardless, I believe I answered your question, so I'll bid you a good day.
Happy driving OP.
"Your beliefs are quite staggeringly poorly judged. The OP was doing 65 as was his legal right; he didn't have to do 70 but as he says, the road was quiet. The overtaking car obviously did so at 65-70 to get past but then slowed right down once he pulled into the left hand lane causing the existing vehicle to have to slow too!! The overtaking driver was at fault by creating a risk! Some vehicles are governed by law to 50 or 60 due to their size, such as HGV's & Buses / Coaches. But if any car overtook them then slowed down, would result in the same problems and risks. I could understand your argument if the OP was driving at say 30-40 on a 70 limit road; slower drivers like that create bunching & frustration in other drivers. But he wasn't. He was driving at a legally acceptable speed. | |||
| |||
"you need to get a level 3/4 autonomous car, it will lock onto the car infront and follow. Then you can climb out the window onto the bonnet, jump onto the roof of their car, kick in their window, climb inside and pull the hand brake, causing your car to stop behind. Then just kick the snot out of them and drive off. That's what I would do." Imagine. | |||
"Try riding a bike then you'll know bad drivers. This is kids stuff" Left hook ? | |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? " First world problems' eh? Would you like me to open up a Just Giving page? | |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? First world problems' eh? Would you like me to open up a Just Giving page?" Tee hee  | |||
| |||
 | |||
I know it's only 2/3mph but at the end of a day that adds up to 20-30 miles, the difference between getting home to the Mrs or having her meet me in a lay by, if the cabs-a-rockin I'm-a-cockin | |||
| |||
| |||
"2 wheels good 4 wheels bad" Dukes of Hazzard 1979 | |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? Perhaps he was trying to show you what you were doing to him.... How? Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
causing an obstruction, really? on a dual carriageway with an empty lane 2 get real.
Yes. You're causing an obstruction.
What else do you think you're doing?
It's a 70mph limit and you're doing 65. You're in the way.
Did you read the OP, they guy who overtook him slowed to 60mph, why are you arguing semantics with the OP
I answered his question. The OP queried my reply.
I elaborated.
It's really quite simple.
You do realise the stupidity you show in your comments. 70mph is the maximum speed you are allowed to do, it's a limit, not a target, there is no law that says' you have to sit at the speed limit, also, lots of vehicles are restricted to less than 70, some as low as 56 and some vehicles are only allowed to do a maximum of 60mph on motorways and dual carriageways, I'd hardly call 65 holding anyone up, it's called driving sensibly and within the law.
I believe I've already said it's a limit not a target.
And you're right, there's no part of the highway code that says you have to drive up to the limit.
I'm willing to bet there's a bit that says about not being an obstruction or a hazard to other drivers though.
Regardless, I believe I answered your question, so I'll bid you a good day.
Happy driving OP.
Your beliefs are quite staggeringly poorly judged.
The OP was doing 65 as was his legal right; he didn't have to do 70 but as he says, the road was quiet. The overtaking car obviously did so at 65-70 to get past but then slowed right down once he pulled into the left hand lane causing the existing vehicle to have to slow too!! The overtaking driver was at fault by creating a risk!
Some vehicles are governed by law to 50 or 60 due to their size, such as HGV's & Buses / Coaches. But if any car overtook them then slowed down, would result in the same problems and risks.
I could understand your argument if the OP was driving at say 30-40 on a 70 limit road; slower drivers like that create bunching & frustration in other drivers. But he wasn't. He was driving at a legally acceptable speed.
"I can't see anywhere that I said the op wasn't doing a legally acceptable speed. I've simply pointed out that on a 70mph road where everyone is doing 70, doing 65 can make you an obstruction. Maybe get the thoughts of someone who knows a "bit" about this kind of thing. Thanks for your considered opinion. | |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? " Does your exhaust produce excessive amount of gas? I don't like stinking cars or bikes in front of me 
Mrs | |||
"I had a guy this morning I was on the bypass, he came down the slip road on my left right up next to me, indicated and started to move - right into the side of my car. I hooted and he swerved back. Unbelievable. " Was it clear for you to move over and let him join the carriageway? | |||
"I had a guy this morning I was on the bypass, he came down the slip road on my left right up next to me, indicated and started to move - right into the side of my car. I hooted and he swerved back. Unbelievable. Was it clear for you to move over and let him join the carriageway? " You can do that if it's safe to do so but,it is always the responsibility of the person joining the carriageway to give way to traffic already on the carriageway. | |||
| |||
"It’s a speed limit not a speed target (according to a naughty drivers course which I’ve never been on) you have havnt you
Do I strike you as the sort of person that would need that? "you drive me wild | |||
" Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now. "Do you know, on a dual carriage way, the legal speed limit for a standard van and any larger vehicles is 60mph. The suggestion that driving at 65 is "causing an obstruction" shows very little understanding. For improved fuel economy and reduced emissions it is recommended that drivers reduce their speed to around 60mph. Cal | |||
" Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
Do you know, on a dual carriage way, the legal speed limit for a standard van and any larger vehicles is 60mph. The suggestion that driving at 65 is "causing an obstruction" shows very little understanding.
For improved fuel economy and reduced emissions it is recommended that drivers reduce their speed to around 60mph.
Cal"I wondered who would point out 60mph is the speed limit on a dual carriageway. And you are right about the fuel economy thats why wagons are limited to 58mph as its the pivot point for speed and economic travel. | |||
| |||
" Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
Do you know, on a dual carriage way, the legal speed limit for a standard van and any larger vehicles is 60mph. The suggestion that driving at 65 is "causing an obstruction" shows very little understanding.
For improved fuel economy and reduced emissions it is recommended that drivers reduce their speed to around 60mph.
Cal
I wondered who would point out 60mph is the speed limit on a dual carriageway. And you are right about the fuel economy thats why wagons are limited to 58mph as its the pivot point for speed and economic travel. "It is 70mph on a dual carriageways for cars and motorcycles. It's only 60mph for larger vehicles | |||
"I got done for speeding. Did a speed awareness course. Loads of us thought it was 60 on a dual carriageway. They told us we could do 70!! Fuck yeah foot downnnnn " | |||
"2 wheels good 4 wheels bad Dukes of Hazzard 1979" Animal Farm George Orwell 1945 :0) | |||
" Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
Do you know, on a dual carriage way, the legal speed limit for a standard van and any larger vehicles is 60mph. The suggestion that driving at 65 is "causing an obstruction" shows very little understanding.
For improved fuel economy and reduced emissions it is recommended that drivers reduce their speed to around 60mph.
Cal
I wondered who would point out 60mph is the speed limit on a dual carriageway. And you are right about the fuel economy thats why wagons are limited to 58mph as its the pivot point for speed and economic travel. "Speed limit on a dual carriageway is 70 unless signed otherwise, other than restricted vehicles of course. As another poster above noted, this was pointed out to her on a speed awareness course. Quote" The national speed limit is depicted by a white circular sign with a black stripe diagonally across it from right to left. If you are on a dual carriageway and driving a car or motorcycle the national limit is 70 mph. If you are on a single carriageway and driving a car or motorcycle the national speed limit is 60mph. Q594: What is the national speed limit? - Ask the Police | |||
" Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
Do you know, on a dual carriage way, the legal speed limit for a standard van and any larger vehicles is 60mph. The suggestion that driving at 65 is "causing an obstruction" shows very little understanding.
For improved fuel economy and reduced emissions it is recommended that drivers reduce their speed to around 60mph.
Cal
I wondered who would point out 60mph is the speed limit on a dual carriageway. And you are right about the fuel economy thats why wagons are limited to 58mph as its the pivot point for speed and economic travel.
Speed limit on a dual carriageway is 70 unless signed otherwise, other than restricted vehicles of course.
As another poster above noted, this was pointed out to her on a speed awareness course.
Quote"
The national speed limit is depicted by a white circular sign with a black stripe diagonally across it from right to left. If you are on a dual carriageway and driving a car or motorcycle the national limit is 70 mph. If you are on a single carriageway and driving a car or motorcycle the national speed limit is 60mph.
Q594: What is the national speed limit? - Ask the Police"A lot of people don't realise this and a lot of people don't actually know what a dual carriageway is! Only if it has a central reservation splitting the oncoming traffic lanes is it a dual carriageway, without a central reservation it's a single carriageway no matter how many lanes it has. | |||
" Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
Do you know, on a dual carriage way, the legal speed limit for a standard van and any larger vehicles is 60mph. The suggestion that driving at 65 is "causing an obstruction" shows very little understanding.
For improved fuel economy and reduced emissions it is recommended that drivers reduce their speed to around 60mph.
Cal
I wondered who would point out 60mph is the speed limit on a dual carriageway. And you are right about the fuel economy thats why wagons are limited to 58mph as its the pivot point for speed and economic travel.
Speed limit on a dual carriageway is 70 unless signed otherwise, other than restricted vehicles of course.
As another poster above noted, this was pointed out to her on a speed awareness course.
Quote"
The national speed limit is depicted by a white circular sign with a black stripe diagonally across it from right to left. If you are on a dual carriageway and driving a car or motorcycle the national limit is 70 mph. If you are on a single carriageway and driving a car or motorcycle the national speed limit is 60mph.
Q594: What is the national speed limit? - Ask the Police
A lot of people don't realise this and a lot of people don't actually know what a dual carriageway is!
Only if it has a central reservation splitting the oncoming traffic lanes is it a dual carriageway, without a central reservation it's a single carriageway no matter how many lanes it has."Yup. Often defined as; if you can roll a ball from on side to the other without it hitting anything it's a single carriageway. If there's a barrier in the way it's a dual carriageway. | |||
| |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? Perhaps he was trying to show you what you were doing to him.... How? Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now. "Ona multi lane road that's nonsense. 65 is a reasonable speed, even if not one I understand, now somebody doing 32 in a 60 yes I get it completely, or somebody sat in anything but lane one doing that, I would do the same if I had time but not somebody at 65 in Lane one. | |||
" Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
Do you know, on a dual carriage way, the legal speed limit for a standard van and any larger vehicles is 60mph. The suggestion that driving at 65 is "causing an obstruction" shows very little understanding.
For improved fuel economy and reduced emissions it is recommended that drivers reduce their speed to around 60mph.
Cal
I wondered who would point out 60mph is the speed limit on a dual carriageway. And you are right about the fuel economy thats why wagons are limited to 58mph as its the pivot point for speed and economic travel. "Oh dear, and I bet you've been driving for years. | |||
| |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? " A34? | |||
" Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
Do you know, on a dual carriage way, the legal speed limit for a standard van and any larger vehicles is 60mph. The suggestion that driving at 65 is "causing an obstruction" shows very little understanding.
For improved fuel economy and reduced emissions it is recommended that drivers reduce their speed to around 60mph.
Cal
I wondered who would point out 60mph is the speed limit on a dual carriageway. And you are right about the fuel economy thats why wagons are limited to 58mph as its the pivot point for speed and economic travel.
Oh dear, and I bet you've been driving for years. ". Oh dear,i bet you’ve been driving for 5 minutes | |||
| |||
" Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
Do you know, on a dual carriage way, the legal speed limit for a standard van and any larger vehicles is 60mph. The suggestion that driving at 65 is "causing an obstruction" shows very little understanding.
For improved fuel economy and reduced emissions it is recommended that drivers reduce their speed to around 60mph.
Cal
I wondered who would point out 60mph is the speed limit on a dual carriageway. And you are right about the fuel economy thats why wagons are limited to 58mph as its the pivot point for speed and economic travel.
Oh dear, and I bet you've been driving for years. .
Oh dear,i bet you’ve been driving for 5 minutes "He's right, they're wrong. | |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? A34? "The devil's highway..... | |||
" Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
Do you know, on a dual carriage way, the legal speed limit for a standard van and any larger vehicles is 60mph. The suggestion that driving at 65 is "causing an obstruction" shows very little understanding.
For improved fuel economy and reduced emissions it is recommended that drivers reduce their speed to around 60mph.
Cal
I wondered who would point out 60mph is the speed limit on a dual carriageway. And you are right about the fuel economy thats why wagons are limited to 58mph as its the pivot point for speed and economic travel.
Oh dear, and I bet you've been driving for years. . Oh dear,i bet you’ve been driving for 5 minutes "Lol, you're the one thst doesn't know the highway code. So that's 5 minutes better driving than you've managed
| |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? Perhaps he was trying to show you what you were doing to him.... How? Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
causing an obstruction, really? on a dual carriageway with an empty lane 2 get real.
Yes. You're causing an obstruction.
What else do you think you're doing?
It's a 70mph limit and you're doing 65. You're in the way.
Did you read the OP, they guy who overtook him slowed to 60mph, why are you arguing semantics with the OP
I answered his question. The OP queried my reply.
I elaborated.
It's really quite simple.
You do realise the stupidity you show in your comments. 70mph is the maximum speed you are allowed to do, it's a limit, not a target, there is no law that says' you have to sit at the speed limit, also, lots of vehicles are restricted to less than 70, some as low as 56 and some vehicles are only allowed to do a maximum of 60mph on motorways and dual carriageways, I'd hardly call 65 holding anyone up, it's called driving sensibly and within the law.
I believe I've already said it's a limit not a target.
And you're right, there's no part of the highway code that says you have to drive up to the limit.
I'm willing to bet there's a bit that says about not being an obstruction or a hazard to other drivers though.
Regardless, I believe I answered your question, so I'll bid you a good day.
Happy driving OP.
Your beliefs are quite staggeringly poorly judged.
The OP was doing 65 as was his legal right; he didn't have to do 70 but as he says, the road was quiet. The overtaking car obviously did so at 65-70 to get past but then slowed right down once he pulled into the left hand lane causing the existing vehicle to have to slow too!! The overtaking driver was at fault by creating a risk!
Some vehicles are governed by law to 50 or 60 due to their size, such as HGV's & Buses / Coaches. But if any car overtook them then slowed down, would result in the same problems and risks.
I could understand your argument if the OP was driving at say 30-40 on a 70 limit road; slower drivers like that create bunching & frustration in other drivers. But he wasn't. He was driving at a legally acceptable speed.
I can't see anywhere that I said the op wasn't doing a legally acceptable speed.
I've simply pointed out that on a 70mph road where everyone is doing 70, doing 65 can make you an obstruction.
Maybe get the thoughts of someone who knows a "bit" about this kind of thing.
Thanks for your considered opinion. "I do know a bit too thanks, having driven in excess of 1.5million miles minimum And yes actually you do have a point. It does, although as you do clearly have experience consider this. 2 lanes doing 70ish, everybody stays in Lane for much longer, so if you're wanting to travel faster there is extreme bunching. Take the two lorry scenario. So personally I would prefer mostly lanes doing different speeds allowing quick overtakes and moving back in. Actually what I most prefer is when all the muppets pull into the outside lanes often leaving me 1 or even 2 lanes of empty motorway, when the hard shoulder is open, for miles on end to drive down unimpeded. Strictly not even illegal as I'm keeping up with the flow of traffic in my lane. Although people get seriously butt hurt by it in their range rovers and bms | |||
| |||
| |||
"What gets my goat, is lorry drivers who try to overtake each other at 56 mph and not being able to do so for the next couple of minutes. Car drivers who sit a green lights and pull off in 5th gear. " 2 minutes of your life lost oh well I drive a truck 53mph limit and sometimes hold up the flow of traffic but we all get where we're going in the end . Living life in the fast lane is a lot of people trouble now days what's the rush ? We're dead a long time | |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? Perhaps he was trying to show you what you were doing to him.... How? Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now. "To a biker, every one causes an obstruction. Good job they are turned into mobile chicane quite easily | |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? Perhaps he was trying to show you what you were doing to him.... How? Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
causing an obstruction, really? on a dual carriageway with an empty lane 2 get real.
Yes. You're causing an obstruction.
What else do you think you're doing?
It's a 70mph limit and you're doing 65. You're in the way.
Did you read the OP, they guy who overtook him slowed to 60mph, why are you arguing semantics with the OP
I answered his question. The OP queried my reply.
I elaborated.
It's really quite simple.
You do realise the stupidity you show in your comments. 70mph is the maximum speed you are allowed to do, it's a limit, not a target, there is no law that says' you have to sit at the speed limit, also, lots of vehicles are restricted to less than 70, some as low as 56 and some vehicles are only allowed to do a maximum of 60mph on motorways and dual carriageways, I'd hardly call 65 holding anyone up, it's called driving sensibly and within the law.
I believe I've already said it's a limit not a target.
And you're right, there's no part of the highway code that says you have to drive up to the limit.
I'm willing to bet there's a bit that says about not being an obstruction or a hazard to other drivers though.
Regardless, I believe I answered your question, so I'll bid you a good day.
Happy driving OP.
Your beliefs are quite staggeringly poorly judged.
The OP was doing 65 as was his legal right; he didn't have to do 70 but as he says, the road was quiet. The overtaking car obviously did so at 65-70 to get past but then slowed right down once he pulled into the left hand lane causing the existing vehicle to have to slow too!! The overtaking driver was at fault by creating a risk!
Some vehicles are governed by law to 50 or 60 due to their size, such as HGV's & Buses / Coaches. But if any car overtook them then slowed down, would result in the same problems and risks.
I could understand your argument if the OP was driving at say 30-40 on a 70 limit road; slower drivers like that create bunching & frustration in other drivers. But he wasn't. He was driving at a legally acceptable speed.
I can't see anywhere that I said the op wasn't doing a legally acceptable speed.
I've simply pointed out that on a 70mph road where everyone is doing 70, doing 65 can make you an obstruction.
Maybe get the thoughts of someone who knows a "bit" about this kind of thing.
Thanks for your considered opinion.
I do know a bit too thanks, having driven in excess of 1.5million miles minimum
And yes actually you do have a point. It does, although as you do clearly have experience consider this.
2 lanes doing 70ish, everybody stays in Lane for much longer, so if you're wanting to travel faster there is extreme bunching. Take the two lorry scenario. So personally I would prefer mostly lanes doing different speeds allowing quick overtakes and moving back in.
Actually what I most prefer is when all the muppets pull into the outside lanes often leaving me 1 or even 2 lanes of empty motorway, when the hard shoulder is open, for miles on end to drive down unimpeded. Strictly not even illegal as I'm keeping up with the flow of traffic in my lane. Although people get seriously butt hurt by it in their range rovers and bms"I do around 100k a year on a variety of roads. IAM Assessor & 16 RoSPA Safe Driving awards. I teach Advanced Motoring, Defensive and Offensive driving and E & E. My driving standards are re-assessed every 6 months. (I wonder how many people have passed their test and never had any form of re-assessment later on) So yup, I do know a bit.
How no one can see that when everyone is doing 70, the car doing 65 is slowing everyone down and in the way is beyond me.
I have a friend who moans like fuck about drivers doing 30 in a 40 limit.
When he's on the motorway he sticks rigidly to 60. He can't see the irony. At least he keeps good lane discipline, but he scares me to death sometimes.
Yes blah blah blah lower speed = better fuel economy. I'm willing to bet no one's ever cross checked their MPG results between 70 and 60/65. I'm willing to bet the difference is negligible.
Decreased MPG is depends more on how quickly you accelerate and if you use the clutch to slow down, particularly on short journeys. It has less impact on a longer motorway drive where the speed is more consistent though, kind of averages it out.
Hard acceleration burns fuel like no tomorrow.
Using the clutch to slow down literally sucks fuel through the carbs and burns it up.
To say nothing of wearing out the clutch sooner.
| |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? Perhaps he was trying to show you what you were doing to him.... How? Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
causing an obstruction, really? on a dual carriageway with an empty lane 2 get real.
Yes. You're causing an obstruction.
What else do you think you're doing?
It's a 70mph limit and you're doing 65. You're in the way.
Did you read the OP, they guy who overtook him slowed to 60mph, why are you arguing semantics with the OP
I answered his question. The OP queried my reply.
I elaborated.
It's really quite simple.
You do realise the stupidity you show in your comments. 70mph is the maximum speed you are allowed to do, it's a limit, not a target, there is no law that says' you have to sit at the speed limit, also, lots of vehicles are restricted to less than 70, some as low as 56 and some vehicles are only allowed to do a maximum of 60mph on motorways and dual carriageways, I'd hardly call 65 holding anyone up, it's called driving sensibly and within the law.
I believe I've already said it's a limit not a target.
And you're right, there's no part of the highway code that says you have to drive up to the limit.
I'm willing to bet there's a bit that says about not being an obstruction or a hazard to other drivers though.
Regardless, I believe I answered your question, so I'll bid you a good day.
Happy driving OP.
Your beliefs are quite staggeringly poorly judged.
The OP was doing 65 as was his legal right; he didn't have to do 70 but as he says, the road was quiet. The overtaking car obviously did so at 65-70 to get past but then slowed right down once he pulled into the left hand lane causing the existing vehicle to have to slow too!! The overtaking driver was at fault by creating a risk!
Some vehicles are governed by law to 50 or 60 due to their size, such as HGV's & Buses / Coaches. But if any car overtook them then slowed down, would result in the same problems and risks.
I could understand your argument if the OP was driving at say 30-40 on a 70 limit road; slower drivers like that create bunching & frustration in other drivers. But he wasn't. He was driving at a legally acceptable speed.
I can't see anywhere that I said the op wasn't doing a legally acceptable speed.
I've simply pointed out that on a 70mph road where everyone is doing 70, doing 65 can make you an obstruction.
Maybe get the thoughts of someone who knows a "bit" about this kind of thing.
Thanks for your considered opinion.
I do know a bit too thanks, having driven in excess of 1.5million miles minimum
And yes actually you do have a point. It does, although as you do clearly have experience consider this.
2 lanes doing 70ish, everybody stays in Lane for much longer, so if you're wanting to travel faster there is extreme bunching. Take the two lorry scenario. So personally I would prefer mostly lanes doing different speeds allowing quick overtakes and moving back in.
Actually what I most prefer is when all the muppets pull into the outside lanes often leaving me 1 or even 2 lanes of empty motorway, when the hard shoulder is open, for miles on end to drive down unimpeded. Strictly not even illegal as I'm keeping up with the flow of traffic in my lane. Although people get seriously butt hurt by it in their range rovers and bms
I do around 100k a year on a variety of roads.
IAM Assessor & 16 RoSPA Safe Driving awards.
I teach Advanced Motoring, Defensive and Offensive driving and E & E.
My driving standards are re-assessed every 6 months.
(I wonder how many people have passed their test and never had any form of re-assessment later on)
So yup, I do know a bit.
How no one can see that when everyone is doing 70, the car doing 65 is slowing everyone down and in the way is beyond me.
I have a friend who moans like fuck about drivers doing 30 in a 40 limit.
When he's on the motorway he sticks rigidly to 60. He can't see the irony. At least he keeps good lane discipline, but he scares me to death sometimes.
Yes blah blah blah lower speed = better fuel economy. I'm willing to bet no one's ever cross checked their MPG results between 70 and 60/65. I'm willing to bet the difference is negligible.
Decreased MPG is depends more on how quickly you accelerate and if you use the clutch to slow down, particularly on short journeys. It has less impact on a longer motorway drive where the speed is more consistent though, kind of averages it out.
Hard acceleration burns fuel like no tomorrow.
Using the clutch to slow down literally sucks fuel through the carbs and burns it up.
To say nothing of wearing out the clutch sooner.
"Agree with most of that but how does using the clutch to slow down work? Surely its the breaks or the engine retardation while in gear or am I missing a third way? (excluding crashing into the car in front) | |||
"This morning I'm in lane one of a reasonably quiet dual carriageway, Cruise control set to 65mph, some muppet overtakes me, pulls in a little too soon and slows to 60mph and sits there at 60mph FFS, this seems to be a fairly common thing, I've even had it happen at 70mph, surely the reason for overtaking is because you are going faster than the vehicle you want to overtake? Perhaps he was trying to show you what you were doing to him.... How? Because if it's a 70mph road and it's safe to do 70mph, driving at 65mph means you're causing an obstruction. I'm waiting for someone to say it's a limit not a target now.
causing an obstruction, really? on a dual carriageway with an empty lane 2 get real.
Yes. You're causing an obstruction.
What else do you think you're doing?
It's a 70mph limit and you're doing 65. You're in the way.
Did you read the OP, they guy who overtook him slowed to 60mph, why are you arguing semantics with the OP
I answered his question. The OP queried my reply.
I elaborated.
It's really quite simple.
You do realise the stupidity you show in your comments. 70mph is the maximum speed you are allowed to do, it's a limit, not a target, there is no law that says' you have to sit at the speed limit, also, lots of vehicles are restricted to less than 70, some as low as 56 and some vehicles are only allowed to do a maximum of 60mph on motorways and dual carriageways, I'd hardly call 65 holding anyone up, it's called driving sensibly and within the law.
I believe I've already said it's a limit not a target.
And you're right, there's no part of the highway code that says you have to drive up to the limit.
I'm willing to bet there's a bit that says about not being an obstruction or a hazard to other drivers though.
Regardless, I believe I answered your question, so I'll bid you a good day.
Happy driving OP.
Your beliefs are quite staggeringly poorly judged.
The OP was doing 65 as was his legal right; he didn't have to do 70 but as he says, the road was quiet. The overtaking car obviously did so at 65-70 to get past but then slowed right down once he pulled into the left hand lane causing the existing vehicle to have to slow too!! The overtaking driver was at fault by creating a risk!
Some vehicles are governed by law to 50 or 60 due to their size, such as HGV's & Buses / Coaches. But if any car overtook them then slowed down, would result in the same problems and risks.
I could understand your argument if the OP was driving at say 30-40 on a 70 limit road; slower drivers like that create bunching & frustration in other drivers. But he wasn't. He was driving at a legally acceptable speed.
I can't see anywhere that I said the op wasn't doing a legally acceptable speed.
I've simply pointed out that on a 70mph road where everyone is doing 70, doing 65 can make you an obstruction.
Maybe get the thoughts of someone who knows a "bit" about this kind of thing.
Thanks for your considered opinion.
I do know a bit too thanks, having driven in excess of 1.5million miles minimum
And yes actually you do have a point. It does, although as you do clearly have experience consider this.
2 lanes doing 70ish, everybody stays in Lane for much longer, so if you're wanting to travel faster there is extreme bunching. Take the two lorry scenario. So personally I would prefer mostly lanes doing different speeds allowing quick overtakes and moving back in.
Actually what I most prefer is when all the muppets pull into the outside lanes often leaving me 1 or even 2 lanes of empty motorway, when the hard shoulder is open, for miles on end to drive down unimpeded. Strictly not even illegal as I'm keeping up with the flow of traffic in my lane. Although people get seriously butt hurt by it in their range rovers and bms
I do around 100k a year on a variety of roads.
IAM Assessor & 16 RoSPA Safe Driving awards.
I teach Advanced Motoring, Defensive and Offensive driving and E & E.
My driving standards are re-assessed every 6 months.
(I wonder how many people have passed their test and never had any form of re-assessment later on)
So yup, I do know a bit.
How no one can see that when everyone is doing 70, the car doing 65 is slowing everyone down and in the way is beyond me.
I have a friend who moans like fuck about drivers doing 30 in a 40 limit.
When he's on the motorway he sticks rigidly to 60. He can't see the irony. At least he keeps good lane discipline, but he scares me to death sometimes.
Yes blah blah blah lower speed = better fuel economy. I'm willing to bet no one's ever cross checked their MPG results between 70 and 60/65. I'm willing to bet the difference is negligible.
Decreased MPG is depends more on how quickly you accelerate and if you use the clutch to slow down, particularly on short journeys. It has less impact on a longer motorway drive where the speed is more consistent though, kind of averages it out.
Hard acceleration burns fuel like no tomorrow.
Using the clutch to slow down literally sucks fuel through the carbs and burns it up.
To say nothing of wearing out the clutch sooner.
Agree with most of that but how does using the clutch to slow down work? Surely its the breaks or the engine retardation while in gear or am I missing a third way? (excluding crashing into the car in front) "Most people downshift through the box, gear by gear, using the clutch/gearing to slow them down. Every time you use the clutch like that it sucks fuel through the carb and increases wear and tear on the clutch. Best way is to use the brakes, then when you can go, block change down into the gear that matches the revs and drive through. Brakes are for slow, gears are for go. Block change up through the box as well. Saves wear and tear on the clutch, better fuel economy too. A new clutch is expensive, compared to new brakes. Good forward planning and observation, coupled with acceleration sense means you should never be braking hard anyway. Crashing into the car in front is last resort. | |||
