So called professional's!

[welshboyinspain]

Trev_H:
Maybe my approach is wrong but I always reason that if both are on limiters at some time the guy overtaking has been faster than me at some point as he has caught me up. By the same reasoning If I ease off whilst he’s passing at some point he’s going to pull away from me anyway so why prolong the inevitable and hold every road user up in the process.
If the guy passing you has caused the traffic behind him to bunch up you have just snookered yourself if for any reason you come up on something slower. At the end of the day it just needs consideration and common sense something sadly lacking today which in itself makes the job more stressful.

here speaks a voice of reason, obviously the truck trying to overtake is slightly quicker otherwise he would never have caught up in the first place so he should be able to pass albeit slowly but the vehicle on the inside could just ease off for 30 seconds to assist and all the car drivers wouldn’t tar us all with the same brush

Steve-o:
at the end of the day I don’t give a [zb] about what the rule book says when it comes to this example. The driver doing the overtake knew fine well he was being a ■■■■. He should of known it was going to be impossible to get past, so why [zb] try? Sorry, MRS Driver done exactly what I and many others would have done.

how is the overtaker being a ■■■■? this attitude is why we all get a bad name for “elephant racing” from car drivers and truck drivers no longer have respect from Joe Public. what is the cost of 30 seconds of backing off to let him pass, maybe hurts your pride too much

[coffeeholic]

ROG:

Coffeeholic:

ROG:

slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass.

Where is it stated as to what all the circumstances are that the above refers to ?

Well unless there is a lane closure or some other kind of obstruction facing the overtaking vehicle, which could put them in danger, then slowing down is unnecessary and it’s all obviously down to the overtaker.

It could also be argued that the overtaker was struggling to pass so that the slowing down of the vehicle being overtaken was necessary to assist - which is what the HC says

I don’t think that is the intention of the Highway code at all. If the overtaking vehicle is struggling, and the other vehicle has maintained its speed then I would say it is more necessary for it to slow down. The driver of the vehicle is busy driving his vehicle, he shouldn’t have to also drive the other vehicle, whose driver has probably passed the same tests as him.

[rog]

Coffeeholic:

ROG:

Coffeeholic:

ROG:

slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass.

Where is it stated as to what all the circumstances are that the above refers to ?

Well unless there is a lane closure or some other kind of obstruction facing the overtaking vehicle, which could put them in danger, then slowing down is unnecessary and it’s all obviously down to the overtaker.

It could also be argued that the overtaker was struggling to pass so that the slowing down of the vehicle being overtaken was necessary to assist - which is what the HC says

I don’t think that is the intention of the Highway code at all. If the overtaking vehicle is struggling, and the other vehicle has maintained its speed then I would say it is more necessary for it to slow down. The driver of the vehicle is busy driving his vehicle, he shouldn’t have to also drive the other vehicle, whose driver has probably passed the same tests as him.

This clearly shows what I said in the quote below…

As with most things in the HC - they are only advisory and not rules which leaves most things up to an individual driver and the personal perceptions of that driver

It only takes 2 drivers to have different perceptions and we end up with them stuck side by side

[deepinvet]

Can’t see a problem here, if he wont relent just shoot his tyres out, simples…

[paul_b]

it’s like groundhog day on this forum, these arguments/debates were going on five years ago but the question still remains, if the wagon in lane 1 hasn’t at some point slowed climbing a hill due to more weight/less power how the ■■■■ has the wagon in lane 2 got aside of him■■? fact some drivers for whatever reason just don’t like being overtaken.

[limeyphil]

i don’t get why you sat in lane 2 behind the waitrose trailer, when you knew you couldn’t overtake.
why didn’t you stay in lane 1?

[joedwyer1]

in this situation all i do is press 2 buttons and really and truely the mrs driver could have done it. but the waitrose guy is still a nobhead

one button on my steering wheel turns the c/c off the exhaust break then comes on with my foot off the gas then press the button again c/c back on by the time my lorry is back up to speed the over taking lorry has moved back over to lane one and i have a safe gap in front of me. simples! but tbh most times i am the fastest lorry on the road apart from a few foreigners

[scottishcruiser]

Surely the WAITROSE driver had a reason for doing the overtake manouevre? Maybe there was a hill and MRS was slowing back so WAITROSE went to overtake etc etc etc… You just dont know. Id personally say its the MRS whose at fault, because if hes gave the slightest incling that hes slowing down therefore allowing other vehicles to pass but then managing to pick up speed again, IE:_ Back on level ground and/or going down hill etc then surely out of respect for teh WAITROSE driver and the tail back he/she should have slowed down, even more so if he/she wasn’t going to gain anything. If it has been me I can assure you the indicator would have went on and the MRS driver would have had 3 options, 1- Slow down and let me in, 2- Lose a mirror or 3- move onto the hard shoulder. Its been done before and I can no doubt assure you itll be done again. I for one now dont move when I see vehicles coming off slip roads onto motorways as the amont of times I have been nitten on the arse and left stuck in the middle lane is unreal. The slip road, in my eyes, is a lane for acceleration, so if you havent got it, then slow down and fall in behind.

So in this instance id say the MRS was the ■■■■■■ - Unless someone can prove the Waitrose pulled out for no apparent reason and just stayed there to be a c8ck…

[silver_surfer]

I think as you get older you just don’t give as much of a toss about who’s “first”. When I was younger, probably be a bit more up for being in front, now at the ripe old age of 33, I couldn’t care less, check my signature.

If there’s a truck overtaking me, i’ll usually always knock a few clicks off to minimise disruption to lane 2/3 unless he’s been/being a prick but I like to help other people out, too many drivers nowadays, it’s all F*** you, I’m first. That’s not to say that my car doesn’t regularly see top whack but when you’re in a truck, you aren’t going to save that much time anyway so what’s the point?

As has been said, it is up to the overtaker really to get it done in a timely fashion but I think it’s the truck that is marginally faster on the flat that should be allowed in front.

If I get my sums wrong and end up paralleling, i’ll drop off and slot in behind if i’d be holding lane 2 for more than a couple of mins.

You can get away with longer on three lane carriageways, cracks me up the bell ends that do it on dual carriageways though, with a long line of cars behind them, my ears would be burning…

Very true statement by Paul b, the fact that some people just don’t like being overtaken.

Interesting thing I heard about when people in cars sometimes speed up when being overtaken, it you see something in your peripheral vision, you try to get away as it’s a primal instinct, you think you’re being hunted! Then they slow down again when they realise they aren’t going to be eaten and it’s just a truck trying to overtake them. Sure that’s true or did I dream it?

[marcustandy]

Governor!:
:evil: Thanks to the two idiots who wouldnt give in on the M25 last night @ around 9.30pm, i sat behind a Waitrose artic in lane 2 trying to overtake a MRS artic from the A10 slip through till the A1 turn, not one would admit defeat and either slow down to let the other one in or slow down and pull back in!!! Up hill, down hill on that section neck and neck at 52mph,

Governor!:
getting ■■■■■■ off by these idiots showing totally unprofessional driving, by ignoring the massive pile up of trucks behind them, just embroiled in there own little battle to overtake,

A couple of months ago, at one of the monthly meetings/training sessions of the local IAM (Advanced motorbikes) Group [where I was living up North until last week] there was a presentation by the areas Senior Examiner. His day job is a Traffic Cop, mainly on motorbikes, which I guess kind of makes him not the most popular kind of person on here! Either way, having been in the Police for nearly 30 years, the majority of which has been on traffic, there’s no denying that he has got a lot of qualifications/skills and experience.

Once the training session had finished, we got into conversation which eventually got around to bad driving examples he witnessed the most often, which group of road users were (most of the time) the worst offenders or most dangerous, etc. Well folks, in his ‘experience’ truck drivers were/are the group of road users with the most examples of inconsiderate/bad/dangerous driving.

I tried the argument of not stereotyping any one group of road users but I’ve got to say, for every argument I had for HGV drivers, he had five times more against them, topped-up with several actual examples. To be honest, he had far too much ammo for me to win the argument.

Now he didn’t get this ammo from thin air. His experiences are/were based on actual examples, some of the accidents/incidents I knew about and some I had studied as case examples when I did my Road Safety Officers Course and again when I did the Accident Investigators Course.

One of his main examples of bad [HGV] driving was the original subject of this thread i.e. prolonged ‘overtaking’. He had personally attended a number of accidents/incidents that had been caused by the concertina effect of the long queues caused by the very kind of overtaking described by Governor in the above quote. Of course, most [if not all] of the time the HGV drivers were not aware of what had happened way back in the lines of traffic behind them. True, they didn’t directly cause the aforementioned incidents but they were certainly a contributing factor to what had happened.

I expressed concern that he might now be tempted to single-out HGV drivers for closer attention, however his response put paid to that; “I don’t do it and I don’t need to. There’s HGV drivers out there who are their own worst enemy and get the rest of them a very bad name.”

I guess he’s referring to the likes of the above [overtaking] example and as he said, and I agree, why is so difficult for one of the stubborn idiots to ease off?

[carryfast]

marcustandy:

Governor!:
:evil: Thanks to the two idiots who wouldnt give in on the M25 last night @ around 9.30pm, i sat behind a Waitrose artic in lane 2 trying to overtake a MRS artic from the A10 slip through till the A1 turn, not one would admit defeat and either slow down to let the other one in or slow down and pull back in!!! Up hill, down hill on that section neck and neck at 52mph,

Governor!:
getting ■■■■■■ off by these idiots showing totally unprofessional driving, by ignoring the massive pile up of trucks behind them, just embroiled in there own little battle to overtake,

A couple of months ago, at one of the monthly meetings/training sessions of the local IAM (Advanced motorbikes) Group [where I was living up North until last week] there was a presentation by the areas Senior Examiner. His day job is a Traffic Cop, mainly on motorbikes, which I guess kind of makes him not the most popular kind of person on here! Either way, having been in the Police for nearly 30 years, the majority of which has been on traffic, there’s no denying that he has got a lot of qualifications/skills and experience.

Once the training session had finished, we got into conversation which eventually got around to bad driving examples he witnessed the most often, which group of road users were (most of the time) the worst offenders or most dangerous, etc. Well folks, in his ‘experience’ truck drivers were/are the group of road users with the most examples of inconsiderate/bad/dangerous driving.

I tried the argument of not stereotyping any one group of road users but I’ve got to say, for every argument I had for HGV drivers, he had five times more against them, topped-up with several actual examples. To be honest, he had far too much ammo for me to win the argument.

Now he didn’t get this ammo from thin air. His experiences are/were based on actual examples, some of the accidents/incidents I knew about and some I had studied as case examples when I did my Road Safety Officers Course and again when I did the Accident Investigators Course.

One of his main examples of bad [HGV] driving was the original subject of this thread i.e. prolonged ‘overtaking’. He had personally attended a number of accidents/incidents that had been caused by the concertina effect of the long queues caused by the very kind of overtaking described by Governor in the above quote. Of course, most [if not all] of the time the HGV drivers were not aware of what had happened way back in the lines of traffic behind them. True, they didn’t directly cause the aforementioned incidents but they were certainly a contributing factor to what had happened.

I expressed concern that he might now be tempted to single-out HGV drivers for closer attention, however his response put paid to that; “I don’t do it and I don’t need to. There’s HGV drivers out there who are their own worst enemy and get the rest of them a very bad name.”

I guess he’s referring to the likes of the above [overtaking] example and as he said, and I agree, why is so difficult for one of the stubborn idiots to ease off?

No surprises there in that he did’nt seem to have a bad word to say about those who use motorbikes or bad police drivers :lol But he’d probably be a supporter of speed limiters which are more of a contributory factor in those ripple wave type shunts which we’re seeing more of now than we ever did running without limiters.So the ‘expert’ copper wants one of them to back off which of course results in the loss of seperation distances and/or a ripple wave all down the following line of traffic in either lane.

[marcustandy]

Carryfast:
No surprises there in that he did’nt seem to have a bad word to say about those who use motorbikes or bad police drivers :lol

He did mention the other groups but it was me that took the conversation down the route of HGV drivers.

Carryfast:
But he’d probably be a supporter of speed limiters which are more of a contributory factor in those ripple wave type shunts which we’re seeing more of now than we ever did running without limiters.

But limiters are only a problem when there is a stubborn driver pressing the gas pedal hard up against it [the limiter]. They still achieve the original aim of ensuring that when a large vehicle is involved in an incident, 99.99% of the time it will not be above a certain speed and therefore the [potential] catastrophic results can be somewhat reduced.

Carryfast:
So the ‘expert’ copper wants one of them to back off which of course results in the loss of seperation distances and/or a ripple wave all down the following line of traffic in either lane.

Err, not if the vehicle being overtaken, and therefore has an empty lane behind him/her, is the one that eases off.

We can argue all day long about reading the road ahead, planning and then executing a safe (in this overtaking) manoeuvre but if all HGV drivers were as ‘professional’ in their actions as they claim to be, then the likes of the original post (two vehicles sat alongside each other for around 10 miles because both were to pig-headed to back off) wouldn’t happen. One of them would do the right thing instead of causing countless other road users problems and potentially, accidents/incidents/fatalities.

As a consequence of those kind of actions, HGV drivers have no grounds to complain about the rapidly increasing number of ‘no overtaking’ zones that are being introduced into many of our roads. Once again a prime example of the minority ruining it and/or getting a bad name for the majority.

• A regularly seen example being the professional HGV drivers lane-changing prowess! Come up behind the vehicle in front too fast (what reading the road ahead/advanced planning?), last minute action - jam on the indicator, the briefest of glimpses in the mirror and then so long as the approaching vehicle in the ‘overtaking lane’ can stop in time (irrespective of how hard he/she has to brake), swerve across to the next lane.*

Intimidating other road users with the size of ones vehicle does not endear HGV drivers to Joe Public. It is to appease exactly those people that the overtaking bans have been introduced.

[buck_rogers]

for my tuppence worth,im with rog on this one.if the vehicle on the inside is slightly slower,it should let the overtaking vehicle pass,quickly and not keep it out.my vehicle goes okay on the flat,but i usually carry a lot of weight.if i brow a hill and im being overtaking by a less laden/more powerful truck i will back off let him pass,even if i know im going to have the speed advantage,and if it means i have to pull out to overtake him again,and spend the next 5 mins trying to inch past.i dont really care what the rule book says,or how its interpreted,all this frustrating example of bad driving amongst supposed “proffesional drivers” needs is one driver to act with an ounce of common sense.it costs seconds to back off at the end of the day.and after reading the highway code text,i took it the way that the vehicle being overtaken should back off?.

[koop]

Ahem!! 3rd lane?

[carryfast]

marcustandy:

Carryfast:
No surprises there in that he did’nt seem to have a bad word to say about those who use motorbikes or bad police drivers :lol

He did mention the other groups but it was me that took the conversation down the route of HGV drivers.

Carryfast:
But he’d probably be a supporter of speed limiters which are more of a contributory factor in those ripple wave type shunts which we’re seeing more of now than we ever did running without limiters.

But limiters are only a problem when there is a stubborn driver pressing the gas pedal hard up against it [the limiter]. They still achieve the original aim of ensuring that when a large vehicle is involved in an incident, 99.99% of the time it will not be above a certain speed and therefore the [potential] catastrophic results can be somewhat reduced.

Carryfast:
So the ‘expert’ copper wants one of them to back off which of course results in the loss of seperation distances and/or a ripple wave all down the following line of traffic in either lane.

Err, not if the vehicle being overtaken, and therefore has an empty lane behind him/her, is the one that eases off.

We can argue all day long about reading the road ahead, planning and then executing a safe (in this overtaking) manoeuvre but if all HGV drivers were as ‘professional’ in their actions as they claim to be, then the likes of the original post (two vehicles sat alongside each other for around 10 miles because both were to pig-headed to back off) wouldn’t happen. One of them would do the right thing instead of causing countless other road users problems and potentially, accidents/incidents/fatalities.

As a consequence of those kind of actions, HGV drivers have no grounds to complain about the rapidly increasing number of ‘no overtaking’ zones that are being introduced into many of our roads. Once again a prime example of the minority ruining it and/or getting a bad name for the majority.

• A regularly seen example being the professional HGV drivers lane-changing prowess! Come up behind the vehicle in front too fast (what reading the road ahead/advanced planning?), last minute action - jam on the indicator, the briefest of glimpses in the mirror and then so long as the approaching vehicle in the ‘overtaking lane’ can stop in time (irrespective of how hard he/she has to brake), swerve across to the next lane.*

Intimidating other road users with the size of ones vehicle does not endear HGV drivers to Joe Public. It is to appease exactly those people that the overtaking bans have been introduced.

How is crashing a 40 tonner into something at 85 kmh any less catastrophic than 100 kmh?.Why is driving a truck on the limiter ‘stubborn’ ?.If both drivers are driving on the limiter there would’nt (should’nt) be any need for one to overtake the other it’s variations in limiter calibration which is mostly the cause of the problem not ‘stubborn’ drivers.Who says that there’s going to be an ‘empty’ lane behind whichever truck backs off and it’s just as likely that the inside lane has following traffic as the overtaking lanes and a ripple in lane 1 is just as likely as any other lane.The modern day lane changing issues are more than likely the result of dumbing down the speeds of traffic to the point where many drivers of all types have’nt got a clue.If we’d driven like that in the days before limiters we would’nt have lasted long because closing speeds and speed differentials were much higher which required good lane changing skills and forward planning in just the same way that driving a car on an unlimited Autobahn does.However in the days before limiters that problem of trucks getting stranded in the overtaking lane only happened on hills between trucks which could climb faster than others which were faster on the flat.In which case it was always left to the overtaking vehicle to either get by or fall back and get back in behind the wagon being overtaken until he got back on the flat again.However that gradual falling back on the overtaking lanes of hills was far safer than continuously sharply varying speeds in lane 1 to make up for the deficiencies of speed limiters and was minimised by the eventual specs of big power unlimited trucks which could climb at almost the same speed as they could run on the flat.But it’s nothing new for coppers to blame drivers for the shortcomings of road transport laws made to suit British politicians not drivers.It’s just a shame that we are’nt able to have yank rules on truck motorway speeds as they learnt years ago that there’s not much point in having (very) slightly less catastrophic accidents at 55 mph but much more of them.

[enit]

Coffeeholic:
They should bring in overtaking bans to stop that sort of thing.

Inducing 20 mile convoys.
Better to ease off and let him past. Your obviously bulking him or he wouldn’t be trying to get by in the first place.

[coffeeholic]

enit?:

Coffeeholic:
They should bring in overtaking bans to stop that sort of thing.

Inducing 20 mile convoys.
Better to ease off and let him past.

Which is indeed what I do.

You obviously haven’t read the other thread by the OP and are unfamiliar with the use of sarcasm.

[marcustandy]

Carryfast:
How is crashing a 40 tonner into something at 85 kmh any less catastrophic than 100 kmh?.

Scenario; a 40 tonner on a motorway approaching standing traffic. For whatever reason (not paying attention, asleep at the wheel, heart attack, etc) the driver does not see the stationary traffic ahead and ploughs into the back of the first vehicle. Simple physics, coupled with historical data (I don’t have it here at home but have plenty to access at work!) leave no doubt as to the outcome using your example.

Put simply, at 85kmh the 40 tonner (for this example we’ll assume it’s a queue of cars) will ‘go through’ the first couple of cars and momentum will push the cars into each other for say, the first 5 vehicles. At 100 kmh it would involve say, the first 7 vehicles, that is 2 more vehicles and their occupants are now embroiled in this incident. Even if the 15 kmh momentum caused only one more vehicle to be involved [than at 85 kmh] that could be the car in the queue that has the family, kids and all, inside. Potential for increasing the number of injuries/fatalities by 5, all because of 15 kmh difference.

Carryfast:
Why is driving a truck on the limiter ‘stubborn’ ?.

Because there is a time and a place. Sat alongside another ‘stubborn’ driver who refuses to give-up a couple of kmh is not professional driving; it’s bad enough getting into that position but it is in no-ones interests to compound the problem by prolonging the situation.

Carryfast:
If both drivers are driving on the limiter there would’nt (should’nt) be any need for one to overtake the other it’s variations in limiter calibration which is mostly the cause of the problem not ‘stubborn’ drivers.

Just because you think that limiters are wrong, it doesn’t take away the fact that as professional drivers, who have by the very fact that they hold a HGV entitlement have had more training that your average car driver, shouldn’t use the road and their (speed limited) vehicle to take out their frustrations on other road users. If you have a problem with speed limiters and their calibration, get onto the DfT or even your local MP and go through the correct channels! Hanging it out, side by side with another limited vehicle whilst holding up other road users will do nothing to get the issue of speed limiters looked into, but, guaranteed, it will get all of us even more overtaking bans introduced.

Carryfast:
Who says that there’s going to be an ‘empty’ lane behind whichever truck backs off and it’s just as likely that the inside lane has following traffic as the overtaking lanes and a ripple in lane 1 is just as likely as any other lane.

So what’s the alternative? Stay alongside each other while the queues behind get even longer and the chances of an accident/incident in those queues increasing?

Carryfast:
The modern day lane changing issues are more than likely the result of dumbing down the speeds of traffic to the point where many drivers of all types have’nt got a clue.

Again, blaming the speed limiters for poor driving skills isn’t an answer. Dumbing down the speeds isn’t the reason that ‘drivers of all type haven’t got a clue’, I’d even suggest that they have got a clue but make the selfish, rather than sensible choice when such a situation presents itself.

Thankfully the stubborn/ignorant/foolish/selfish/unprofessional drivers are still in the minority - it’s just that they seem to shout the loudest, without reason or hardened facts to back-up what they say, and consequently have a negative effect on the rest of us.

Good to see the sensible option being recognised.

enit?:
Better to ease off and let him past.

[carryfast]

marcustandy:

Carryfast:
How is crashing a 40 tonner into something at 85 kmh any less catastrophic than 100 kmh?.

Scenario; a 40 tonner on a motorway approaching standing traffic. For whatever reason (not paying attention, asleep at the wheel, heart attack, etc) the driver does not see the stationary traffic ahead and ploughs into the back of the first vehicle. Simple physics, coupled with historical data (I don’t have it here at home but have plenty to access at work!) leave no doubt as to the outcome using your example.

Put simply, at 85kmh the 40 tonner (for this example we’ll assume it’s a queue of cars) will ‘go through’ the first couple of cars and momentum will push the cars into each other for say, the first 5 vehicles. At 100 kmh it would involve say, the first 7 vehicles, that is 2 more vehicles and their occupants are now embroiled in this incident. Even if the 15 kmh momentum caused only one more vehicle to be involved [than at 85 kmh] that could be the car in the queue that has the family, kids and all, inside. Potential for increasing the number of injuries/fatalities by 5, all because of 15 kmh difference.

Carryfast:
Why is driving a truck on the limiter ‘stubborn’ ?.

Because there is a time and a place. Sat alongside another ‘stubborn’ driver who refuses to give-up a couple of kmh is not professional driving; it’s bad enough getting into that position but it is in no-ones interests to compound the problem by prolonging the situation.

Carryfast:
If both drivers are driving on the limiter there would’nt (should’nt) be any need for one to overtake the other it’s variations in limiter calibration which is mostly the cause of the problem not ‘stubborn’ drivers.

Just because you think that limiters are wrong, it doesn’t take away the fact that as professional drivers, who have by the very fact that they hold a HGV entitlement have had more training that your average car driver, shouldn’t use the road and their (speed limited) vehicle to take out their frustrations on other road users. If you have a problem with speed limiters and their calibration, get onto the DfT or even your local MP and go through the correct channels! Hanging it out, side by side with another limited vehicle whilst holding up other road users will do nothing to get the issue of speed limiters looked into, but, guaranteed, it will get all of us even more overtaking bans introduced.

Carryfast:
Who says that there’s going to be an ‘empty’ lane behind whichever truck backs off and it’s just as likely that the inside lane has following traffic as the overtaking lanes and a ripple in lane 1 is just as likely as any other lane.

So what’s the alternative? Stay alongside each other while the queues behind get even longer and the chances of an accident/incident in those queues increasing?

Carryfast:
The modern day lane changing issues are more than likely the result of dumbing down the speeds of traffic to the point where many drivers of all types have’nt got a clue.

Again, blaming the speed limiters for poor driving skills isn’t an answer. Dumbing down the speeds isn’t the reason that ‘drivers of all type haven’t got a clue’, I’d even suggest that they have got a clue but make the selfish, rather than sensible choice when such a situation presents itself.

Thankfully the stubborn/ignorant/foolish/selfish/unprofessional drivers are still in the minority - it’s just that they seem to shout the loudest, without reason or hardened facts to back-up what they say, and consequently have a negative effect on the rest of us.

Good to see the sensible option being recognised.

enit?:
Better to ease off and let him past.

The thinking and ‘historical data’ which says that a 40 tonner with a brain dead driver behind the wheel running into the back of a queue of standing traffic at 85 kmh would only involve crushing the first two cars (you must be having a laugh) should put the rest of all that argument into perspective.I’d say that there’s enough ‘hardened facts’ out there in the real world to show that serious truck crashes in the states,with trucks travelling at 65 mph or more,are no more catastrophic than those in Europe with limiters set at 85 kmh.However the higher speeds and no limiters actually reduces the amount of situations whereby trucks are in the position of being a serious accident waiting to happen and I’d say that there’s been more of those bad accidents ,which have involved fatalities,including those families,caused by bunched up traffic on British motorways,caused by limiters,than by that hypothetical incapacitated driver scenario.Sometimes you have to trade off one type of lesser risk in order to decrease the possibility of a more likely one.But your idea of every truck in lane 1 backing off each and every time a truck,which is stuck out in lane 2 on the limiter without enough speed differential to get by quickly,shows a great understanding of theory but it falls down when it’s time to put it into practice as it would make the average motorway unusable in lane 1 because of the continuous ripple effects and you’re just trying to make the vehicle being overtaken do what the overtaking vehicle should be doing in making a decent speed differential to get by quickly and safely.But of course it can’t because some ‘expert’ copper and some idiot politicians have fitted the zb thing with a zb speed limiter.

[merc0447]

I cannae be doing with this sort of thing i always knock off the limiter takes less than 60 seconds. If someone trys an overtake on a hill and they die then i keep on the limiter cos im no dying behind them

Although saying it ive noticed especially the last few years with overtaking bans being introduced it doesn’t happen as much as it used too. Maybe drivers are thinking with their heads instead of their right foot.