And we wonder why people don’t like us [Merged]

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
121

robroy:
My answer to your first line would be…
You are correct, but it’s the car at 50 that initially causes the problem. :bulb: .

No, I don’t think you are 100% right here. The car or any vehicle at 50 - or slower is a hazard, but not in itself dangerous (and I do appreciate that you did not say it was). Danger comes from drivers not paying attention by being physically present but mentally absent so simply not seeing, or rather anticipating a potential hazard.

The initial hazard in this case is that there is an intersection looming, which should trigger extra care and anticipation for what all alert drivers know could be likely events. After all there was a 1 mile marker and a 1/2 mile marker, they were BIG enough! The car in lane 2 at 50mph is a another hazard which we should know could occur, as could someone forcing themselves into lane one or launching themsleves straight into lane 3, and the surrounding traffic’s avoiding actions.

Certainly the Micra at 45/50 in lane 2 for miles on end, well away from junctions is a big hazard , but we should be able to see it.

122

cav551:

robroy:
My answer to your first line would be…
You are correct, but it’s the car at 50 that initially causes the problem. :bulb: .

No, I don’t think you are 100% right here. The car or any vehicle at 50 - or slower is a hazard, but not in itself dangerous (and I do appreciate that you did not say it was). Danger comes from drivers not paying attention by being physically present but mentally absent so simply not seeing, or rather anticipating a potential hazard.

The initial hazard in this case is that there is an intersection looming, which should trigger extra care and anticipation for what all alert drivers know could be likely events. After all there was a 1 mile marker and a 1/2 mile marker, they were BIG enough! The car in lane 2 at 50mph is a another hazard which we should know could occur, as could someone forcing themselves into lane one or launching themsleves straight into lane 3, and the surrounding traffic’s avoiding actions.

Certainly the Micra at 45/50 in lane 2 for miles on end, well away from junctions is a big hazard , but we should be able to see it.

I get that, but I was coming from a lateral thinking point of view if you like.
If every other car is doing speeds ranging from 70 to 90 , matey sat tootling along at 50 (again in his rights/legal/entitled and all the rest of it) hs IS initially causing the problem.
The assorted ways others deal with it are in fact reactions and adaptations (along with the odd ■■■■ up) all down to the initial instigative actions of him doing 50 on an otherwise high speed road, thus causing the outcome (or problem as I said) in the first place…whether he was ‘‘in the right’’ or not.

123

robroy:

cav551:

robroy:
My answer to your first line would be…
You are correct, but it’s the car at 50 that initially causes the problem. :bulb: .

No, I don’t think you are 100% right here. The car or any vehicle at 50 - or slower is a hazard, but not in itself dangerous (and I do appreciate that you did not say it was). Danger comes from drivers not paying attention by being physically present but mentally absent so simply not seeing, or rather anticipating a potential hazard.

The initial hazard in this case is that there is an intersection looming, which should trigger extra care and anticipation for what all alert drivers know could be likely events. After all there was a 1 mile marker and a 1/2 mile marker, they were BIG enough! The car in lane 2 at 50mph is a another hazard which we should know could occur, as could someone forcing themselves into lane one or launching themsleves straight into lane 3, and the surrounding traffic’s avoiding actions.

Certainly the Micra at 45/50 in lane 2 for miles on end, well away from junctions is a big hazard , but we should be able to see it.

I get that, but I was coming from a lateral thinking point of view if you like.
If every other car is doing speeds ranging from 70 to 90 , matey sat tootling along at 50 (again in his rights/legal/entitled and all the rest of it) hs IS initially causing the problem.
The assorted ways others deal with it are in fact reactions and adaptations (along with the odd [zb] up) all down to the initial instigative actions of him doing 50 on an otherwise high speed road, thus causing the outcome (or problem as I said) in the first place…whether he was ‘‘in the right’’ or not.

Exactly as cav said the car doing 50 is the hazard and my answer to your previous post would have been that you are basically admitting to what I have always said. The problem is the way other drivers drive round a bout the said vehicle.

Also to answer R420’s query …my thoughts are as most car drivers probably travel at between 70 and 90 then a car doing 50 would be a hazard mostly because they are breaking the speed limit causing more of a speed differential.
And as most vehicles doing higher speeds are in the overtaking lanes and mostly any vehicle travelling at 50 is in the inside lane then it causes impatient and bad driving by some truck drivers.

Why do you say about some on here including yourself that a car doing 50 is putting themselves at risk yet it seems ok for a truck to do that. Why is it dangerous for a car and not a truck?
The only answer is poor driving standards cause the danger.

As you say in the real world these drivers are putting themselves in danger but not by the way they are driving. Its the ones round a bout that pose the danger by poor driving as I have said in previous threads.

Did I repeat myself. :laughing:

124

jakethesnake:
Did I repeat myself. :laughing:

Did I not explain myself?

You know what Jake?
I give in. :neutral_face:

125

robroy:

jakethesnake:
Did I repeat myself. :laughing:

Did I not explain myself?

You know what Jake?
I give in. :neutral_face:

Yes you explained yourself and I understand completely the danger of doing 50 mph on a motorway…OTHER drivers.

Personally I would rather see the bad drivers change their ways by prosecutions.

126

jakethesnake:

robroy:

jakethesnake:
Did I repeat myself. :laughing:

Did I not explain myself?

You know what Jake?
I give in. :neutral_face:

Yes you explained yourself and I understand completely the danger of doing 50 mph on a motorway…OTHER drivers.

Personally I would rather see the bad drivers change their ways by prosecutions.

Looks as if I didn’t explain myself though does it, as you keep coming back with the same old same old…surprise surprise. :unamused:

Ironic thing is I agree with you…, but how you can not see that the bloke (feeling strong deja vu here :unamused: ) pootling along at 50 is the cause, no matter how in the right he undoubtedly is.

It’s like pulling teeth…you are allowed to compromise on a discussion you know, mate. :bulb: we do all get it that Jakey is always right/needs the last word.

(Humility is a virtue, ok I ain’t got a lot of it myself, but you make me look like Mr Humble of Humble St, Humbletown as Blackadder might say. :neutral_face: )

127

pootling along at 50 is the cause, no matter how in the right he undoubtedly is.

Yeah I agree pootling along is the cause of idiotic poor low standard drivers putting them in danger.

It’s quite alright for a lorry to pootle along at 50 though. I suppose because they can’t be wiped out so easily. :unamused:

My point is if drivers drove correctly and safely there would be no problem and no danger…Yes I know but they don’t so … :wink:

128

jakethesnake:
pootling along at 50 is the cause, no matter how in the right he undoubtedly is.

Yeah I agree pootling along is the cause of idiotic poor low standard drivers putting them in danger.

It’s quite alright for a lorry to pootle along at 50 though. I suppose because they can’t be wiped out so easily. :unamused:

My point is if drivers drove correctly and safely there would be no problem and no danger…Yes I know but they don’t so … :wink:

I’ve just sussed you Jake, you’re posting, clicking ‘submit’ then giving a loud manic laugh knowing that it’s your sole purpose just to wind me up with ridiculous ■■■■ content. :smiley:

A ■■■■ big truck that is forcibly limited to a speed ranging from 50 to 56 is completely and utterly a whole different ball game, to Doris and Stanley trundling along in their Rover at 50 amongst the rest of us in cars doing 70 (if any) to up to 90 ish mph.
You see trucks sat at 50 and on hills below 50 on m.ways every minute of every day.
The hazardous prospect of the self righteous idiot in his 50mph car is thankfully a rarer sight.
Unless you admit to if not agreeing, at least seeing my point (as I’m sure every other member reading this does…except you) I simply can not be arsed to continue this pointless discussion with you.
Keep up the self assurance of always thinking you are always right. :wink:

129

robroy:

jakethesnake:
pootling along at 50 is the cause, no matter how in the right he undoubtedly is.

Yeah I agree pootling along is the cause of idiotic poor low standard drivers putting them in danger.

It’s quite alright for a lorry to pootle along at 50 though. I suppose because they can’t be wiped out so easily. :unamused:

My point is if drivers drove correctly and safely there would be no problem and no danger…Yes I know but they don’t so … :wink:

I’ve just sussed you Jake, you’re posting, clicking ‘submit’ then giving a loud manic laugh knowing that it’s your sole purpose just to wind me up with ridiculous [zb] content. :smiley:

A [zb] big truck that is forcibly limited to a speed ranging from 50 to 56 is completely and utterly a whole different ball game, to Doris and Stanley trundling along in their Rover at 50 amongst the rest of us in cars doing 70 (if any) to up to 90 ish mph.
You see trucks sat at 50 and on hills below 50 on m.ways every minute of every day.
The hazardous prospect of the self righteous idiot in his 50mph car is thankfully a rarer sight.
Unless you admit to if not agreeing, at least seeing my point (as I’m sure every other member reading this does…except you) I simply can not be arsed to continue this pointless discussion with you.
Keep up the self assurance of always thinking you are always right. :wink:

It’s not about being right, it’s about the facts. I totally understand what you are saying however every driver that does 50 in the inside lane is NOT self righteous. In your mind maybe but an awful lot are far from that. As you know most drivers are not taught to drive on motorways so feel really intimidated and nervous when using them. There are others who may drive at 50 because that’s as fast as they want to drive and don’t have the confidence to go any faster. I could go on and give you plenty examples but the fact of the matter is it’s the other drivers not driving correctly that put these drivers at risk.

Every driver does not have a mind like an experienced lorry driver and why should others be discriminated against because of the dangerous morons on our roads. I thought you agreed the standard is poor but in this case you seem to have “self righteous” embedded in your head which makes it ok.

130

It takes two to tango in every situation.

Cause and effect.

If people didn’t dawdle and used motorways correctly there wouldn’t be an issue.

If drivers regardless of vehicle they drive drove properly the issue would not exist.

Moat people are bell ends at driving no matter what they drive. Simple as that.

There is no excuse for dawdling along on a motorway or any road if the weather and traffic. Conditions allow as safe and sensible speed.

If you are not competent to drive on a motorway then don’t until you habe had sufficient training to build up the confidence to do so.

Over to you Jake to tell me how wrong I am.

131

simcor:
Moat people are bell ends at driving no matter what they drive. Simple as that.

That seems to be the case.

Sadly what I observe on a routine basis is most of these vehicles in the outside lane being bunched up and not leaving sufficient distance. Seems there are many many candidates for staying off the motorways. The chances of them agreeing to this voluntarily doesn’t seem realistic though, which means the job of the professional driver is to deal with it.

132

simcor:
It takes two to tango in every situation.

Cause and effect.

If people didn’t dawdle and used motorways correctly there wouldn’t be an issue.

If drivers regardless of vehicle they drive drove properly the issue would not exist.

Moat people are bell ends at driving no matter what they drive. Simple as that.

There is no excuse for dawdling along on a motorway or any road if the weather and traffic. Conditions allow as safe and sensible speed.

If you are not competent to drive on a motorway then don’t until you habe had sufficient training to build up the confidence to do so.

Over to you Jake to tell me how wrong I am.

You are not wrong, it is not ideal for people to dawdle along a motorway however you like some other lorry drivers seem to have a biased view to suit only lorry drivers.

Tell me why a car can’t sit in the inside lane at 50 mph (dawdling in your eyes) but it’s ok for a truck to sit at 50 or just over?

Tell me why you don’t mention the fact that some lorry drivers intimidate any vehicle driving at 50 by driving dangerously close. These lorry drivers are causing a lot more danger than the car doing 50. Maybe they need further training before they wipe a completely innocent family out?

I take you never drove pre limiter days when this problem did not exist or you might realise the main problem is not a vehicle doing 50

Everyone wants to blame everyone else but as has been said far too many with dreadful driving standards. Probably the ones when you speak to them tell you they are the best driver in the world. :wink:

133

I’ll tell you the difference between a car doing 50mph in lane one and a lorry doing 50mph in lane one Jake. Assuming good road conditions of course; the difference is that when you pull out to overtake the lorry you know absolutely and completely how the overtake is going to pan out, no drama whatsoever. However, pull out to overtake the 50mph car and you die a little inside because you know that (with a few notable exceptions) that once alongside the car the driver is going to subconsciously accelerate slightly because his/her brain is telling them that they don’t want to be stuck behind a smelly lorry.

One of two or three things then happen; you either spend mile upon mile engaged in an elephant race, you can’t go faster, you can’t back off because A N other lorry has filled the gap behind the car, the car accelerates away, you drop back into lane one, it immediately eases off the gas and the whole sorry thing starts again, or lastly you’ll eventually pass the car who will then immediately overtake you, come back in front and then slow down.

So that Jake is one of the reasons that lorry drivers aren’t the biggest fans of cars “dawdling” on multi lane roads. Hth.

134

Its also forgetting the point that the car in question in the OP wasn’t in the inside lane, but was going into the middle lane at the same speed just in case someone happened to joint the motorway at the upcoming slip road, we also don’t know haw far from the junction itself this pointless exercise in sodding everyone else about took place, 100 yards or 1000 yards before even the off ramp.

I don’t worry about the speed anyone else travels, so long as they drive at a reasonably constant speed for the conditions and keep to the left whenever possible, as Maoster describes perfectly above that happy state of affairs rarely applies where cars (even tiny hatchbacks still too big for their drivers to cope with, have you seen them attempting to park, Jesus wept) and white vans are concerned.

135

jakethesnake:

simcor:
It takes two to tango in every situation.

Cause and effect.

If people didn’t dawdle and used motorways correctly there wouldn’t be an issue.

If drivers regardless of vehicle they drive drove properly the issue would not exist.

Moat people are bell ends at driving no matter what they drive. Simple as that.

Tell me why a car can’t sit in the inside lane at 50 mph (dawdling in your eyes) but it’s ok for a truck to sit at 50 or just over?

Tell me why you don’t mention the fact that some lorry drivers intimidate any vehicle driving at 50 by driving dangerously close. These lorry drivers are causing a lot more danger than the car doing 50. Maybe they need further training before they wipe a completely innocent family out?

I take you never drove pre limiter days when this problem did not exist or you might realise the main problem is not a vehicle doing 50
. :wink:

I’m pretty sure I stated
“Most people are bell ends at driving no matter what they drive. Simple as that”

I think the encompasses drivers of all vehicles.

And
“If drivers regardless of vehicle they drive drove properly the issue would not exist.”

Again encompassing drivers of all vehicles.

As you well know a truck has no choice to sit at a restricted speed of whatever the truck is restricted to. Any trucks drivers who deliberately dawdle along at lower speeds are just as bad.

As for pre speed limiter not in trucks no but I did drive 7.5 tonners pre limiter and often sat at 70mph on the motorway no faster honest guv. But quite what speed limiters have got to do with the argument I don’t see as that is something we have no choice about as you know.

My biggest point is it always takes two to tango, one cause creates an effect. So both are as much to blame as each other. But that does not fit with your blinkered view and hatred of truck drivers in general and how we are always the ones at fault in your eyes and yet the car driver bumbling along can do no wrong.

I with a vengence hate the way our new trucks are set up, going into I-roll to save fuel at the most inconvenient times like joining a motorway up a slip road and the truck thinks 'oh now is a good time to go into I-roll because it will gain some speed on the dowhill". So you end up trying to join a motorway at less than 50mph usually around 46moh with no acceleration which you then have to override the system to accelerate to join properly.

Until cars are limited like trucks there is no excuse to bumble along on a motorway. Motorways were designed to get from A to B quickly not to go for a Sunday drive on them.

As for the whole 50mph argument I see plenty of cars drivers that are doing way less than 50mph that I overtake and leave standing in a truck that is limited to 85kph.

136

simcor:

jakethesnake:

simcor:
It takes two to tango in every situation.

Cause and effect.

If people didn’t dawdle and used motorways correctly there wouldn’t be an issue.

If drivers regardless of vehicle they drive drove properly the issue would not exist.

Moat people are bell ends at driving no matter what they drive. Simple as that.

Tell me why a car can’t sit in the inside lane at 50 mph (dawdling in your eyes) but it’s ok for a truck to sit at 50 or just over?

Tell me why you don’t mention the fact that some lorry drivers intimidate any vehicle driving at 50 by driving dangerously close. These lorry drivers are causing a lot more danger than the car doing 50. Maybe they need further training before they wipe a completely innocent family out?

I take you never drove pre limiter days when this problem did not exist or you might realise the main problem is not a vehicle doing 50
. :wink:

I’m pretty sure I stated
“Most people are bell ends at driving no matter what they drive. Simple as that”

I think the encompasses drivers of all vehicles.

And
“If drivers regardless of vehicle they drive drove properly the issue would not exist.”

Again encompassing drivers of all vehicles.

As you well know a truck has no choice to sit at a restricted speed of whatever the truck is restricted to. Any trucks drivers who deliberately dawdle along at lower speeds are just as bad.

As for pre speed limiter not in trucks no but I did drive 7.5 tonners pre limiter and often sat at 70mph on the motorway no faster honest guv. But quite what speed limiters have got to do with the argument I don’t see as that is something we have no choice about as you know.

My biggest point is it always takes two to tango, one cause creates an effect. So both are as much to blame as each other. But that does not fit with your blinkered view and hatred of truck drivers in general and how we are always the ones at fault in your eyes and yet the car driver bumbling along can do no wrong.

I with a vengence hate the way our new trucks are set up, going into I-roll to save fuel at the most inconvenient times like joining a motorway up a slip road and the truck thinks 'oh now is a good time to go into I-roll because it will gain some speed on the dowhill". So you end up trying to join a motorway at less than 50mph usually around 46moh with no acceleration which you then have to override the system to accelerate to join properly.

Until cars are limited like trucks there is no excuse to bumble along on a motorway. Motorways were designed to get from A to B quickly not to go for a Sunday drive on them.

As for the whole 50mph argument I see plenty of cars drivers that are doing way less than 50mph that I overtake and leave standing in a truck that is limited to 85kph.

OMG Where do I start. First of all I don’t hate truck drivers but I do hate bad truck drivers and any other bad drivers especially when they put others at risk.

Now let me get this correct…a car doing 50 in the inside lane is putting the occupants at risk because they can actually go faster but a truck doing 50 in the inside lane is not putting anyone at risk because that’s almost as fast as it can go? How does that work then?

Little scenario for you…car doing 50 in the inside lane (dawdling as you like to put it) and an impatient truck driver tailgating that vehicle dangerously close.

Who do you think would be prosecuted by traffic police with video evidence? The car is the wrong answer.

Oh yeah in all my years driving UK motorways I would struggle to think of seeing a car doing under 50 mph but I see plenty doing 80 - 90 plus . You must drive somewhere else I reckon.

137

yoohoo :unamused: the car in question wasn’t pottering along in the inside lane, it was deliberately going into the overtaking lane at the same speed with er nothing to overtake, due care and attention number 1.

had said car kept to the inside lane, seeing as there was no one to overtake seems a reasonable course of action, then this thread would not exist because said half wit in wagon would have sailed on by.

quite why and inept driver doesn’t stick P plates or a ‘new driver’ sign in the back window is a mystery, even said half wit in wagon might have rolled his eyes instead and just waited the chance to go by.

138

Juddian:
yoohoo :unamused: the car in question wasn’t pottering along in the inside lane, it was deliberately going into the overtaking lane at the same speed with er nothing to overtake, due care and attention number 1.

had said car kept to the inside lane, seeing as there was no one to overtake seems a reasonable course of action, then this thread would not exist because said half wit in wagon would have sailed on by.

quite why and inept driver doesn’t stick P plates or a ‘new driver’ sign in the back window is a mystery, even said half wit in wagon might have rolled his eyes instead and just waited the chance to go by.

Don’t spoil the fun Juddian! Of course the car in question was not driving correctly although I doubt if it was deliberate. Either way any driver coming across said vehicle should act responsibly and professionally.

My gripe in this case is when some lorry drivers say a car doing 50 is putting themselves at risk yet a truck doing 50 is not because it cannot go any faster.
It’s others poor driving that put a vehicle doing 50 at risk by their poor standard of driving.

139

jakethesnake:
My gripe in this case is when some lorry drivers say a car doing 50 is putting themselves at risk yet a truck doing 50 is not because it cannot go any faster.

Yeh?..My gripe is that you except anybody else in this world (lorry driver or not) can not see how/why a car driver travelling at 50mph on a designated high speed road is initially putting himself at risk (aka dangerous) irrespective what some lorry drivers may or may not say. :unamused:

I’ve got this vision of you and your Mrs sat at 50mph on the busy M25, trucks running up to your back bumper, cars whizzing round you in every direction.horns blasting, obscene gestures,…and your Mrs saying ‘‘Jakey do you not think you’re going a bit slow’’ and you saying ‘‘Maybe so dear, but I’m legally doing nothing wrong, and all those lorry drivers are not fit to hold a licence’’ …while you continue to dawdle…while your poor Mrs sits there terrified hanging on to her seat with white knuckles .:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

140

I’ve removed several posts from this topic for breach of forum rule #3.

Forum Rule #3:
… Rule 3 also covers Personal Attacks. Attack the post but not the poster.

Same old petty name-calling etc, so it seems that some people are still not understanding this rule. :unamused:

Explained in a different way…

You can attack anything that a poster writes, because that’s fair game. (OK so far? :unamused: )

You cannot attack the person by (including, but not limited to) calling them names, doubting their parentage, policing their spelling/grammar, speculating on their ■■■■■■■■■ or how they live etc, so this means… comments of a personal nature aren’t allowed.

For anybody who still doesn’t get it, we offer a free service called pre-moderation whereby a person’s posts will be held in a queue (which is very inconvenient because it causes a delay :wink: ) so that they can be first scrutinised by a Moderator before they will appear and can then be seen publicly.

If a pre-mod post gets approved, it will appear where and when it was posted.
If a pre-mod post gets disapproved, it simply won’t appear at all.

Friendly tip: Sometimes the Moderators are quite busy/unavailable and so may not be able to provide this service quickly, and maybe not even the same day. :wink: