Driving etiquette………..

Posted by: Don Atkinson on 27 May 2015

Driving etiquette………..

 

I drive about 60 miles a day to/from work. I tend to use the dual carriageway trunk roads in the morning and the quiet country roads in the evening.

 

For some while now, I’ve observed the driving “tactics” of others and myself and wondered what is considered acceptable etiquette in various situations. The scenarios are numerous, so I’ll start with an over-simplified situation……….

 

For example, four-lane dual carriageway (two lanes each direction) with a National speed limit at 70mph. Long line of relatively slow moving traffic at 57mph in the nearside lane. Lone motorist following at 65mph and obviously catching up the long, slow line. Lone motorist notices that a long line of vehicles in the outside lane, travelling at 70mph are catching up with him. Decision time !

 

Does etiquette suggest the lone motorist should :-

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by Steve2:

You are clearly over it then Tony.........

 

Yesterday I was stuck behind an inconsiderate motorist who insisted on driving at 25mph on a 40mph road with very few opportunities to overtake.  People like this cause accidents. 

 

Lovely town Bury St Edmunds.

Far too common these days. I seem to recall that in the driving test you are required to drive at a sensible speed. Driving too slowly or inconsiderately, would lead to a fail.

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by Tony Lockhart:
One thing to remember while driving and observing others being 'naughty' is: it's your job to obey the law, not to enforce it.

Again, spot-on Tony, at least IMHO.

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by lutyens:
Originally Posted by Steve2:

You are clearly over it then Tony.........

 

Yesterday I was stuck behind an inconsiderate motorist who insisted on driving at 25mph on a 40mph road with very few opportunities to overtake.  People like this cause accidents. 

 

Lovely town Bury St Edmunds.

While I sympathise, they don't cause the accidents. The person deciding to overtake inappropriately causes the accidents. Frustrating as it is, and on the A14 as on many others, it is, but no worse that the endless idiots that drive in the middle lane on motorways rather than always pulling over to the inside which is/when it is free etc!

 

now that got that off my chest!

People driving inappropriately slowly, would fail their driving test and rightly so. They are often the "root cause" leading to poor decision making by others. tantamount to provocation.

 

OTOH, I wouldn't condone consequential poor decision making by others, nor consequential recklessness by others.

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by tonym:

I've never understood why folk get so hot under the collar about people stuck in the middle lane, or driving slowly when overtaking. So you get held up for a few seconds, does it really matter? Too many people are discourteous and aggressive when driving, and have no interest in the skill of driving.

I thought a new law had been introduced, specifically prohibiting "hogging" the middle lane. Or was that simply a dream ?

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by Huge:

Like George I often travel at 68-69 mph on motorways and dual carriage ways (car speedo calibrated against a GPS), but I rarely drive much slower than that on these roads.  I also find that, apart from slower and speed restricted vehicles, I'm the often slowest driver on the road. 

 

I also have no qualms about moving into the outside lane and then keeping to that speed to overtake lorries or other vehicles travelling significantly slower then myself. If for any reason I'm travelling below that speed I'll bide my time before overtaking.

 

I also believe that if drivers choose to exceed the speed limit, then they are inherently taking upon themselves complete responsibility for the safety of law abiding motorists in respect of their own actions.

I guess this is the nub of this particular issue.

 

If there is only one, or possibly two vehicles behind in the outside lane, then I guess its "your" convenience versus "theirs" and there isn't much in it for an independent arbitrator to choose.

 

If, on the other hand, there is a longish stream of high-speed vehicles in the outside lane, then your action might be viewed by an independent arbitrator as inconsiderate or somewhat selfish.

 

If your steady speed was 65mph as mentioned in my initial scenario, then pulling out and maintaining that speed in front of a long stream of traffic doing 70mph, would IMHO be inconsiderate. Ditto if that long stream was doing more than 70mph.

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by Innocent Bystander:

Curious thread this!

 

I never carve up others, nor drive too close. However I enjoy speed where it is safe to do so. In my view people who hog the middle lane when there is space to return to the inside lane are inconsiderate, and on busier roads are dangerous, causing bunching of other drivers. It doesnt matter if the driver concerned is sitting at the speed limit, as it is nothing to do with him/her whether others choose to travel faster: yes, they're breaking the law, but actually so is the one hogging the middle lane! i believe that more accidents are caused by frustrated motorists, whatever the cause, than by speed itself. 

 

+1 Good comments IMHO

 

A few years ago when I used to commute for the weekend between Tyne & Wear and Berkshire late evening I found cruising between 90 and 100 quite respectable, only short bursts higher on occasion. if lucky I'd find like minded drivers to keep as front and back markers 1/4 mile away. I found at that speed I switched into hyper observation mode and no feeling of fatigue. One day I lost my back marker and foolishly thought it was back again , then it gradually started to gain. I slowed, but a tad late and recognised the police car when still in high 80s, and was pulled over. The very polite discussion that followed advised me to keep my speed down because they normally prosecuted over 85 - and I know they knew full well that I'd already dropped my speed. Then I was told mine was by far the best driving they'd seen all day...  (always allowing space around me, always moving back into the leftmost lane after overtaking, always slowing when visibility was reduced by anything, etc)

 

Not sure I agree with the 90 to 100 mph bit !! - and I frequently drive to/from Newbury/Chester-le-Street late at night

 

Now my 39th year of driving, probably about half a million miles, and no prosecutions (Yet) and I'm a member of the IAM - have been since I was 25

 

 

 

 

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by Innocent Bystander:

But I didn't answer the question: good driving dictates that you should try to avoid causing others to have to change speed or direction because of you! and certainly not sharply. So the answer is if the 70mph (+) is close, you should speed up to match (but not necessary to exceed speed limit), or slow down and wait for them to pass. If they are further back such that they can ease off to your speed without braking hard (better still without having to brake at all), then pull out maintaining your speed and they should be happy to match your speed, provided that when you have past what to you is a slower moving line of vehicles you move back in is soon as it is safe to do so, which is a gap of a yard per mph of the vehicle you've overtaken ( which is almost exactly a gap of 2!seconds).

+1

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by cat345:

A little off subject but it would be so much easier and relaxing on the roads if drivers would use their damned cruise control instead of constantly changing speed !

Agreed, but not all cars have a cruise control.

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by joerand:
Originally Posted by cat345:

it would be so much easier and relaxing on the roads if drivers would use their damned cruise control

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.

 

Originally Posted by Tony Lockhart:
I'll guess that most cars in the UK don't have cruise, but the roads in general are too crowded to use it

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.

Metro driving and inter-city driving are two different animals when it comes to cruise-control and etiquette. At least IMHO

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by Bruce Woodhouse:

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

Agreed ! - so long as its not my car that is taken off the road !!

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by Bruce Woodhouse:

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

Variable speed limits seem to work around Birmingham (M42), Bristol (M4), Nottingham (A1) and the M25.

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by tonym:
Originally Posted by Innocent Bystander:
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. 

I agree, I've trotted this out to some youngsters & they've never heard of it.Its a good rule of thumb and one that I instilled into my daughters.

 

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?Its a matter of balancing risk IMHO

 

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. Spot-on Tony !

 

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by fatcat:

 

 

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?

 

 

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.

Mixed feelings on that one Frank. You might have a point.

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by solwisesteve:
Originally Posted by Huge:
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.

Yep. They are the pseudo law-enforcers ! No etiquette at all !

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by Huge:
Originally Posted by solwisesteve:
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.

Yep. Again, they have no etiquette IMHO

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by winkyincanada:
Originally Posted by DrMark:
Originally Posted by winkyincanada:

The thing I find a little unbelievable about this scenario is that there would be a motorist travelling at or under the speed limit at all. In my experience pretty much all motorists break the speed limit pretty much all the time unless physically impeded by corners or other motorists. Speed limit signs are given less respect than corner-speed as advisory signs. Motorists do not, of course, see this practice as dangerous.

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

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. 

Ok winky, even you know most of this is exaggerated rubbish, but it is entertaining nevertheless.

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by BigH47

Doesn't seem as extreme as accusing every motorist of trying to kill cyclists every time they go out.

 

Just keep polishing your haloes.

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by Innocent Bystander:
Originally Posted by tonym:

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. 

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.

Reminds me of the trade union leader who a few years ago rallied his members with the demand that they would continue their disruptive action until the Government raised the wage of all working people to above the national average............

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by dayjay
Originally Posted by winkyincanada:
Originally Posted by DrMark:
Originally Posted by winkyincanada:

The thing I find a little unbelievable about this scenario is that there would be a motorist travelling at or under the speed limit at all. In my experience pretty much all motorists break the speed limit pretty much all the time unless physically impeded by corners or other motorists. Speed limit signs are given less respect than corner-speed as advisory signs. Motorists do not, of course, see this practice as dangerous.

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

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. 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there are some generalisations in this post.  As a life long rider of motorbikes it is my view that car drivers and cyclists are both dangerous and should be forced to ride a motorbike for at least two years before allowed on the road on any other form of transport, although I could be generalising

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by Tony Lockhart
Two of the worst car drivers I've ever been a passenger with were lifelong motorcyclists. Not a clue.
Posted on: 02 June 2015 by solwisesteve
Originally Posted by dayjay:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there are some generalisations in this post.  As a life long rider of motorbikes it is my view that car drivers and cyclists are both dangerous and should be forced to ride a motorbike for at least two years before allowed on the road on any other form of transport, although I could be generalising

Okay, I know I'm going to come in for some flack here, but not all motorcyclists are exactly angels either. I'm sure we've all been in the situation with motorbikes nearly taking our door mirror off when try to over take or forcing them selves into the gap in front of you. Don't get me wrong, I've no objections to motorbikes blasting down the A roads (though I wish they'd stop fitting such load exhausts) and I go out of my way to pull over as much as I can to let them get past. I understand that they have considerably more acceleration than me and I can see how it can be enjoyable weaving down the A roads at 80-100mph - I've got no issues at all with this; if they want to go through a hedge then that's up to them :-)  BUT they can sometimes get a little too exuberant when they can't really see that well around a corner or hopping past lines of cars.

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by ChrisSU
Originally Posted by dayjay:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there are some generalisations in this post.  As a life long rider of motorbikes it is my view that car drivers and cyclists are both dangerous and should be forced to ride a motorbike for at least two years before allowed on the road on any other form of transport, although I could be generalising

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there are some generalisations in this post.  As a life long rider of bicycles it is my view that car drivers and motorcyclists are both dangerous and should be forced to ride a bicycle for at least two years before allowed on the road on any other form of transport, although I could be generalising

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by solwisesteve
Originally Posted by ChrisSU:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there are some generalisations in this post.  As a life long rider of bicycles it is my view that car drivers and motorcyclists are both dangerous and should be forced to ride a bicycle for at least two years before allowed on the road on any other form of transport, although I could be generalising

I'm okay then... for the first 17 years of my life all I did was walk or ride a bike ;-) To get to school it was bus, if chucking it down, or push bike.

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by Innocent Bystander
Originally Posted by ChrisSU:
Originally Posted by dayjay:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there are some generalisations in this post.  As a life long rider of motorbikes it is my view that car drivers and cyclists are both dangerous and should be forced to ride a motorbike for at least two years before allowed on the road on any other form of transport, although I could be generalising

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there are some generalisations in this post.  As a life long rider of bicycles it is my view that car drivers and motorcyclists are both dangerous and should be forced to ride a bicycle for at least two years before allowed on the road on any other form of transport, although I could be generalising

I strongly believe that car drivers should be required to ride a motorbike and a bicycle from time to time at least, in various weathers and on varied roads. And the other ways round. Only by understanding the position of the others can a driver/rider respond and make allowances appropriately for the others - I know from experience. I wish it was realistic to add HGV to that, as I'm sure that would help, too. Now where did I park the Chieftan Tank...

Posted on: 02 June 2015 by ChrisSU

I was hoping a car driver would chip in next, then we could all just carry on blaming each other