Driving etiquette………..

Responsible driving on metro highways really shouldn't be about relaxing at the wheel . Rather, folks seem to drive at the individual speed they feel is comfortable for their means and abilities. Driving in the appropriate lane seems the real issue with regard to etiquette.

Most cars in the US are equipped with cruise control, but there is virtually no chance of using it safely on metro highways. It's typically reserved for interstate highway travel outside of metro areas or otherwise during the wee hours.

Seems to me the problem is not about driving skills, etiquette or speed limits. It is because we have too many cars on the road.

Bruce

Simple then. We merely need to regulate the population, limit car ownership, or build higher capacity roads

maybe

...and perhaps we should ask ourselves if every journey is actually necessary before we hop in?

Maybe we should also have lower limits rigorously enforced on busy roads at busy times. As I think most people now accept this allows smooth flow at higher overall average speeds than unregulated flow that surges and stalls. It tends to be safer too.

Bruce

i regularly drive down the A2 from London to bandit country in Kent. They have introduced a stretch of the road with arrows which they recommend you drive 2 arrows apart. This very simple idea is ignored by 80% of the drivers i see on the road. 

I have to say that for some years now I have avoided driving into London on the M4 on a Sunday evening simply because everyone is driving too fast and too close together! i found that whatever lane i was in the braking space i gave in front of me was always, always jumped into by someone weaving down the lanes: and that was even when i was gently passing the cars on an inner lane along with most of the traffic in my lane. I am quite aware that this isn't the only time or place this regularly happens. 

As someone pointed out a few years ago the best device to ensure people drove responsibly was to have a large spike in the centre of your steering wheel pointing at you such that every jolt would cause it to jab you, the driver! 

That might well help the over population problem as well - two birds with one stone (spike)...

I've never understood those chevron gap markings, as the correct minimum distance is proportional to speed, so how can fixed markers be of use, as they clearly are nonsensical when speeds are low - and risk encouraging speeding motorists to be closer than is safe! (And even at whatever speed they may have been assigned to fit, that will be wrong in the wet.) Official guidance is a minimum of one yard per mile per hour in good driving conditions, which equates to a minimum of 2 seconds between vehicles. That is an easy thing for a driver to estimate. I recall a road safety advert a few years ago that said "only a fool breaks the two second rule" - simple, and memorable: I don't know why it isn't occasionally re-aired. Nowadays of course sophisticated electronic signs on motorways could easily sometimes display "minimum gap between vehicles 2 secs", which could be changed in adverse conditions to a more appropriate gap, and it would be equally valid whether someone is driving at 40 or 80. Anyone from TRRL a member here?

I was reading a driving book a few weeks ago and it was going on about stopping distances comparing different vehicles and different tyres. In all cases the stopping distance was lower than the Highway Code approved distance. It was also interesting to see the variation between different tyres - a BIG variation.

I agree, I've trotted this out to some youngsters & they've never heard of it.

A good friend who happens to be a police Traffic officer has this little question he likes to ask people he's stopped. It's "So what does the Highway Code say then sir/madam?" Needless to say very few people actually know the Highway Code these days.

Regarding middle lane hoggers; you'll find the majority are elderly and clearly nervous. Yes, it's bad driving but then many elderly rural drivers who rely totally on their cars to get about seldom stray onto motorways and are easily intimidated by the aggressive driving they encounter. Should they not then be allowed to own cars?

We all think we're brilliant drivers and bristle if anyone criticises us behind the wheel. Oh and of course we can all drive safely at high speed, the limits are for those less competent. 

Middle lane hogging at 60 is out of order, but hogging the middle at 70 should be encouraged. Smooths the traffic flow and it's a lot safer.

But if all motorists break the speed limit, how can they be held up by a motorist who does not?

But if all motorists break the speed limit, how can they be held up by a motorist who does not?

Simple:

Drivers doing 100 are held up by drivers doing 90, who then get held up by drivers doing 80!  So  they all end up in the right hand lane dong 80, while driving about 2 car lengths apart.

If they survive the accident, then all the others blame the driver who was doing 80.

Originally Posted by DrMark:

But if all motorists break the speed limit, how can they be held up by a motorist who does not?

Simple:

 

Drivers doing 100 are held up by drivers doing 90, who then get held up by drivers doing 80!  So  they all end up in the right hand lane dong 80, while driving about 2 car lengths apart.

 

If they survive the accident, then all the others blame the driver who was doing 80.

Sounds logical to me. ;-)

tbh I don't have issues with the people doing 100 or 90 on the motorway. If I'm in the outside lane going slower then, as quickly as I can, I move over to let them past. What annoys me a lot more are the people doing 2 mph below the speed limit that are in my way and doing nothing to move over :-( They really get on my watsits.

I will overtake at 68/69 mph, but I do move back to the lane to my left but only when I have a 2 second gap to the vehicle I've just overtaken.

The two that particularly irritate me are:

People travelling at 80+ who won't leave a gap to the vehicle in front even when it's being driven appropriately.

People who overtake at 75, then slow down to 65, and even more so, those who then speed up again when I pull out to overtake them.

What a bunch of puritanical angels on this forum.

"Please sir I've NEVER broken the law".

Pinocchio noses to ALL of you! 

It's called congestion. At some point, the traffic is held up by a light, curve, merging vehicle etc. That traffic then holds up other traffic.

But all drivers (to a first approximation), when provided with an open, straight-enough road in front of them will accelerate to an illegal speed.

Trusims:

• No-one ever stops at a stop sign unless forced to by the presence of another vehicle (or occasional pedestrian).
• Everyone breaks the speed limit all the time with few exceptions.
• It is dangerous for cyclists to share a lane with cars when those cars are stopped waiting in traffic, but it always safe for cars doing 100kmh+ to share a lane with cyclists (who MUST keep left/right to allow this).
• Cars running red lights are doing their bit to help keep traffic flowing, and don't create undue hazards when doing so, but cyclists doing the same are taking unacceptable risks.
• Red lights remain "un-run" only when there is no-one there to run them.
• Motorists running down cyclists is OK because spandex/lycra (and clippy cloppy shoes).
• A cyclist who is not wearing a helmet is a scofflaw risk taker with no concern for human life and had it coming.
• Motorists who look up from their cell phones long enough to look out the windscreen would realise that they are overwhelmingly being delayed by other motorists. Yet it is the tiny percentage of time they are delayed by a cyclist that is seemingly more significant to them. The cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.
• A cyclist riding on a busy road is unacceptably hazardous, but driving well in excess of the speed limit on that same road is not.
• Pedestrians killed by cars are depressingly common but not important. "No criminality suspected!" No laws need changing. Pedestrians killed by cyclists are extremely rare in comparison, but so important they require cyclists to be licenced and bikes to be registered.

I could go on, and usually do.

I am simply gobsmacked by the bragging about "extreme" speeding a few posts back. 

Originally Posted by DrMark:

But if all motorists break the speed limit, how can they be held up by a motorist who does not?

Simple:

 

Drivers doing 100 are held up by drivers doing 90, who then get held up by drivers doing 80!  So  they all end up in the right hand lane dong 80, while driving about 2 car lengths apart.

 

If they survive the accident, then all the others blame the driver who was doing 80.

This suggests the answer is to reduce all roads to single lane.

NW Scotland goes one better though, many roads single track with passing spaces. Unlike similar roads in other places the passing spaces are all clearly marked with white diamond shaped signs, visible, as are cars, from a good distance away I many places: it's amazing how high an average speed it is possible to maintain even with frequent traffic in opposite direction, providing both parties read the road, plan ahead, and are courteous. Roll on M1!

I recall a survey a few years ago in which something like 80 or 90% of drivers considered their driving to be above average. There seems to be some sort enigma involved with the mathematics of driving ...I think it's called ego.

It comes from riding a motorcycle and having car drivers deliberately try to knock me off the bike (one succeeded and was successfully prosecuted for it).  When you've had that experience a few times your view of car drivers changes, as does your driving style both on four wheels and on two.

And in answer to Tony, when there's other traffic around, no I can't drive safely at high speed as I'm limited by human reaction time and the laws of physics as they apply to my car; which is why I now don't do it.

Our insulated, quiet and robust modern cars make us feel safer, and they make us fairly immune to speed. Stand by a motorway as the cars fly past and counter that with how it feels when sat in the car.

My old car has no airbags, no crumple zones, no headrests and an old-fashioned glass windscreen. it is also a bit noisy. It is plenty fast enough to get into trouble too.

I definitely drive it with more care and thought to stopping distances and safety then my modern. I'm not saying we go back to old,  noisy unsafe cars but this is why speed limits need to be enforced. Safe car or not, you cannot beat physics. My Volvo even has a pedestrian airbag built in-but it is still going to kill somebody if I hit them hard.

Bruce

In the infamous words of 'Scotty' "Yer canny beat the laws of physics Cap'n"

Simples. Set cruise to warp factor 10. 

Hi Loki,

The rest of us aren't so lucky, warp factor 10 is believed to be limited to the Borg; however from your comment it would now appear the Aesir may also have that capability!

Spot-on Tony. At least IMHO.