Temporary road signs

[mattylad]

It was moved before you got to it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Of course there's no obstruction in the 2nd photo - it's ended by then.

But the first photo shows dozens of them.

 

[fixitflav]

On the M6 just above Stoke now:

View attachment 155318

At least that's an advisory speed limit, so you don't have to be too particular about keeping to it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And good luck if you have an accident which you could have avoided had you been observing the advisory limit.

No, you cannot be prosecuted for ignoring such a limit per se.

Yes, you can be considered to be at fault if you choose to ignore it and as a result something goes wrong.

Bear in mind that a speed limit is the absolute maximum at which you may drive along the road. It does not mean that it is necessarily safe to drive at that speed at all times.

If you think that advisories can be ignored, do you also think that if you drive at 70mph along a motorway in thick fog you are doing nothing wrong?

 

[fixitflav]

And good luck if you have an accident which you could have avoided had you been observing the advisory limit.

No, you cannot be prosecuted for ignoring such a limit per se.

Yes, you can be considered to be at fault if you choose to ignore it and as a result something goes wrong.

Bear in mind that a speed limit is the absolute maximum at which you may drive along the road. It does not mean that it is necessarily safe to drive at that speed at all times.

If you think that advisories can be ignored, do you also think that if you drive at 70mph along a motorway in thick fog you are doing nothing wrong?

No need to take that sanctimonious tone with me ! You're reading a lot more into my post than is there, and making unjustified assumptions. I was just making an observation, and I'm aware of the law. Like most drivers, I might go above 40 in a situation like that, as I can see the conditions and can apply common sense. I'm far more scrupulous about (mandatory) speed limits than the vast majority of drivers. It's better for wear and tear, and economy, and I have no worries about "safety cameras" etc.
Incidentally, on a recent trip using some 4-lane stretches of M-way, a fair % of drivers would not get out of lane 3 (from the left). If there were 10 lanes I think they would hog lane 9. And hardly any drivers except HGVs would use the inside lane, and HGVs not always.

 

[Brigadier]

On the M6 just above Stoke now:

View attachment 155318

What's wrong with lanes one and two?
Apart from you driving a Beemer, that is

 

[Ian H]

What's wrong with lanes one and two?
Apart from you driving a Beemer, that is

I have no idea, inside lane all the way for me when it’s busy. I drove there, pal drove back, is a Renault!! They would have all moved over for the BM

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No need to take that sanctimonious tone with me ! You're reading a lot more into my post than is there, and making unjustified assumptions. I was just making an observation, and I'm aware of the law.

And I was making the observation that ignoring advisory speed limits is not necessarily consequence-free.

If you feel that someone saying that your advice should not be unthinkingly followed is making a show of being morally superior to you then that can only be because you feel that there might be something morally suspect about your advice.

Incidentally, on a recent trip using some 4-lane stretches of M-way, a fair % of drivers would not get out of lane 3 (from the left). If there were 10 lanes I think they would hog lane 9. And hardly any drivers except HGVs would use the inside lane, and HGVs not always.

Let's say that the driver who you would like to pull over is doing 65mph, you are doing 70mph, and the traffic to his left is doing 60mph.

Assuming a dry road, and that you were a safe distance behind him, and there's nobody imminently behind you, how large a gap in traffic in the lane to his left does there have to be for him to move over for you?

 

[fixitflav]

And I was making the observation that ignoring advisory speed limits is not necessarily consequence-free.

And I wasn't advocating that anybody should. I simply made a statement. As these signs are a fair distance apart so the warning is well in advance of the incident, perhaps the authorities are using common sense and allowing drivers to do the same.

f you feel that someone saying that your advice should not be unthinkingly followed is making a show of being morally superior to you then that can only be because you feel that there might be something morally suspect about your advice.

That's one of the most stupid conclusions I've read on this forum. I wasn't giving any advice.

Let's say that the driver who you would like to pull over is doing 65mph, you are doing 70mph, and the traffic to his left is doing 60mph.

Assuming a dry road, and that you were a safe distance behind him, and there's nobody imminently behind you, how large a gap in traffic in the lane to his left does there have to be for him to move over for you?

What on earth are you talking about? There could be any number of combinations of vehicle types, numbers, positions, speeds etc. Why select that scenario? All I'm saying is in the vast majority of cases of lane-hogging there is no reason for the driver not to be in the lane as far to the left as reasonable in the circumstances, which is one or two lanes to the left of where they are. Are you a lane-hogger trying to justify yourself?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I wasn't giving any advice.

Yes you were:

At least that's an advisory speed limit, so you don't have to be too particular about keeping to it.

What on earth are you talking about?

I'm talking about the reality of people being able to move out of your way.

There could be any number of combinations of vehicle types, numbers, positions, speeds etc. Why select that scenario?

I crafted it in order to remove as many variables of combinations of vehicle types, numbers, positions, speeds etc as I could.

It really is a very simple scenario.

• The road is dry, so that's one variable nailed down.
• The traffic in the lane to your left is doing 60mph, the guy in your lane in front of you is doing 65, and you are doing 70. So that's the speed variables nailed down.
• There is nobody imminently behind you, so that's one more variable dealt with.
• And you are driving a safe distance behind the guy in front, so there's another one gone.

I think that that's enough for you to be able to answer the question, but if there are factors I've not considered please let me know, and we will work together to remove all your "but what about"s so that you can answer it.

All I'm saying is in the vast majority of cases of lane-hogging there is no reason for the driver not to be in the lane as far to the left as reasonable in the circumstances

That's the crux of the matter. Do you know what reasonable is? If you cannot answer the question I posed then you are on very dodgy ground when it comes to passing judgement on what other drivers should do, as being unable to answer it means that you don't understand the dynamics of moving traffic.

which is one or two lanes to the left of where they are.

So you believe.

In the scenario I outlined above, what gap would there need to be in the lane to the left for the driver in front of you to be able to move over?

Are you a lane-hogger trying to justify yourself?

Absolutely not. No more than you are a road hog and bully who thinks he has priority over others.

 

[fixitflav]

Yes you were:




I'm talking about the reality of people being able to move out of your way.



I crafted it in order to remove as many variables of combinations of vehicle types, numbers, positions, speeds etc as I could.

It really is a very simple scenario.

• The road is dry, so that's one variable nailed down.
• The traffic in the lane to your left is doing 60mph, the guy in your lane in front of you is doing 65, and you are doing 70. So that's the speed variables nailed down.
• There is nobody imminently behind you, so that's one more variable dealt with.
• And you are driving a safe distance behind the guy in front, so there's another one gone.

I think that that's enough for you to be able to answer the question, but if there are factors I've not considered please let me know, and we will work together to remove all your "but what about"s so that you can answer it.



That's the crux of the matter. Do you know what reasonable is? If you cannot answer the question I posed then you are on very dodgy ground when it comes to passing judgement on what other drivers should do, as being unable to answer it means that you don't understand the dynamics of moving traffic.



So you believe.

In the scenario I outlined above, what gap would there need to be in the lane to the left for the driver in front of you to be able to move over?



Absolutely not. No more than you are a road hog and bully who thinks he has priority over others.

I'm out of this, I haven't read your post and I'm noy going to. I don't converse with idiots.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So I caution against your blanket "you don't have to be too particular about keeping to [temporary speed limits]" and according to you that was me making a show of being morally superior.

Then in response to you complaining that other drivers don't move to the left when you think they should I asked you if you knew how big a gap there needs to be on the left for a driver to move across and you blustered and didn't answer. (It's 237m, BTW).

And now you're branding me an idiot without even reading what I wrote.

Truly, it is not I who is behaving like an idiot here.

 

[Doppleganger]

I crafted it in order to remove as many variables of combinations of vehicle types, numbers, positions, speeds etc as I could.

It really is a very simple scenario.

• The road is dry, so that's one variable nailed down.
• The traffic in the lane to your left is doing 60mph, the guy in your lane in front of you is doing 65, and you are doing 70. So that's the speed variables nailed down.
• There is nobody imminently behind you, so that's one more variable dealt with.
• And you are driving a safe distance behind the guy in front, so there's another one gone.

I think that that's enough for you to be able to answer the question, but if there are factors I've not considered please let me know, and we will work together to remove all your "but what about"s so that you can answer it.

Interesting question. Whats the answer, 'cos I can't be bothered to work it out, (and obviously didn't read it properly )and it wouldn't apply to my style of overtaking anyway.
Which brings me to the reason for my comment, nothing to do with the topic, mind you. One of the irritating habits of other drivers.

When I pull over to allow a faster vehicle to pass, (assuming the normal scenario of me driving on or near the limit, in one of the outer lanes, and passing slower moving traffic) I expect the overtaking vehicle to accelerate past, if necessary, not to box me in.
If they show no intention of accelerating past, just maintaining their gradual overtaking speed, and obviously going to box me into that slower moving traffic, I may well accelerate myself, and pull back in front of them.
When I am the faster approaching vehicle and someone pulls over, I do accelerate past, if necessary, in order to not box them in to the slower moving traffic. And I usually acknowledge their courtesy.
It also annoys me when other drivers massively over estimate the distance required for me to overtake when I am in a seriously faster vehicle, and do not pull over despite whacking great opportunities to do so.

Another annoying habit, especially when driving a heavier, larger vehicle or combo, you judge the vehicles behind and their closing speed, you judge you can safely and conveniently pull out and overtake, so the vehicle behind accelerates trying to prevent you pulling out! And they then get annoyed at your overtaking maneuver!

So, in conclusion, given your scenario, if necessary, I wouldn't sail gently past at 70mph, if there was any danger of boxing in the other driver.

And even when there is no-one approaching from behind at a closing speed, I usually apply the ten second rule.

 

[Brigadier]

Two seconds rule?
I haven't heard of the ten seconds rule.

 

[fixitflav]

When I pull over to allow a faster vehicle to pass, (assuming the normal scenario of me driving on or near the limit, in one of the outer lanes, and passing slower moving traffic) I expect the overtaking vehicle to accelerate past, if necessary, not to box me in.

A similar sort of situation - when approaching a slower vehicle in say lane 2, and there there are several cars approaching from behind in lane 3, I'll delay pulling out until one more cars have passed. But that doesn't mean I'm prepared to slow down behind the vehicle in my lane till all have passed. So if it's not unreasonable, I pull out. Then I might get headlamp flashing etc. These guys aren't doing themselves any favours, because if drivers get much of that, in future they will pull out in front of the first of the stream, and they'll all have to wait.

BTW, do you think ban-all-sheds' rants in response to my posts are are justified? S/he has decided I was saying something completely different from what I actually wrote, and made various quite unwarranted assumptions. Just interested in others' opinions, I'm not asking anybody to take sides.