That’s what my speedometer does, as measured against those roadside speed checker readouts as I approach them.
I don’t understand what you mean.
I suspect that in many cases, it’s just a matter of habit or conditioning.
I actually saw that once. I was toward the rear of a long line of vehicles stacked up behind a driver going maybe 20 MPH on a route posted for 50. A police cruiser came upon the line, swung out around the procession, and pulled over the driver. Dunno whether it was a ticket that ensued or just a wellness check.
A lot of GPS have marked on the map the sites of fixed cameras and give you a warning then you are approaching one, maybe they haven’t updated their maps.
Some speed differentials can not be helped. I am sure I am not the only person who gets annoyed getting stuck behind a tractor doing 20mph where I would be expected to do around 60.
A lot of speed differentials in the UK are actually written into law. In Scotland the default speed limit on an single carriageway raod is 60mph for cars but only 40mph for HGVs over 7.5 tonnes. I believe this creates accidents as cars try to overtake where it is not safe to do so.
Minimum speed limits areaccually a thing though the only ones I have actually seen are for the Mersey tunnels.
Some of the interstates (big fast multilane highways) near me have a minimum speed limit of 45mph posted. I wouldn’t expect a minimum on a smaller road.
There’s no problem driving the speed limit where I live, in the Washington DC area. I never see anything like what you’re talking about.
I mean that the concept of priority or right of way makes perfect sense as a set of procedural rules - under given conditions, person X has priority over person Y, to move through a (usually constricted) space.
In practice, people often interpret their ‘right of way’ as empowerment to push through or forge ahead into a situation where it is unsafe; they had the theoretical right of way, but the safe action in the circumstances, would have been to yield.
Lane merges are replete with dashcam evidence of this; two lanes merge into one, with lane 1 having priority- lane 2 phases out - drivers in lane 2 should merge into lane 1, yielding to vehicles already in lane 1 - they should try to find gaps to merge in naturally. Sometimes prevailing conditions make that difficult or impossible and the sensible thing is for drivers in lane 1, even though they have priority, to make a bit of space for merging vehicles from lane 2.
But what we often see is drivers in lane 1 aggressively defending their priority, and acting explicitly to prevent merging. Often this results in a collision that would have been entirely avoidable.
Here’s a really clear discussion of the problem, from a professional driving instructor.
My point in bringing this up was to show an example of when individuals try to enforce some point of driving law by acting aggressively - and I think the same thing may happen if minimum speeds are made enforceable. People will ‘enforce’ these minimums by aggressive tailgating (I mean, more so than they currently do).
I’d be happy for people to drive faster than posted limits if they otherwise drove safely i.e. observed a following distance of 3 secs, double that in poor conditions. Nobody else does, so I’m a speed limit absolutist.
Yeah, the intersection between the two sets of people ‘frustrated by speed limits and want to go faster’ and ‘drives safely enough to be trusted at self-governed speeds’ is very small.
People are just awful at appraising their own competence (in many, maybe all areas of human activity, but perhaps driving most of all). It’s like the whole “Well, actually, I drive better when I’m drunk/on the phone/wearing sandals/etc” thing.
I’m not @Thudlow_Boink, but I too wondered a bit what you had meant. With your full explanation I now completely understand your point.
But I wonder how much the cited example of lane merge is an example of right of way? I realize you’re UK and I’m US, but IME / IMO there are no specific traffic laws dictating any sort of priority for a lane merge.
I’ve been driving for 50 years while living in several states and I’ve always faced lane merges as a lawless Wild West event driven only by the competing forces of courtesy and greed. I claim no infallibility here; I certainly may have been doing it absolutely positively wrong the whole time. But at least as to US drivers, I suspect most view a merge the same way I do: It’s considered courteous to make room for someone merging in, but it isn’t socially necessary, and it certainly isn’t legally required. In a nation where maybe 75% of drivers view driving as a competitive race to be won, not a cooperative venture to arrive alive, merges are therefore an often fraught experience.
Your larger point certainly does stand though: Enforcing your right of way in a particular situation may be the wrong and unsafe thing to do.
You’ve reminded me of a series of PSAs on TV on that exact theme. This was back in the 1970s when I was learning to drive. The tagline was something close to “You can be right; dead right” while showing the carnage from a crash. Then something about not insisting on right of way and yielding when it’s safer to do so. The canonical example being a 4-way stop sign and blithely entering the intersection when it’s “your turn”, oblivious to the cross traffic that’s evidently not stopping. Crunch!!
The 21st Century incarnation of this in some cities, including mine, is that green does not mean “go”. It means "Wait for the several red light runners, then go. Lest ye be smitten in the manner of a T-bone and most grievously injured.
Good to know this isn’t just a South African minibus taxi phenomenon. For varying values of “good”.
You’re quite right - the general rule for any lane-reduction merge here is, where possible, use both lanes up to the merge point, then merge in turn. Drivers in the receiving lane are supposed to do their part in making sure there is space and opportunity for drivers in the other lane to merge.
Merge rules at sliproads (onramps) are an example where the lane you’re merging into does have priority - as indicated by a dashed ‘give way’ line - you’re giving way/yielding to the traffic already in the lane you are merging into, but even in that case, drivers already in that lane should be making efforts to accommodate safe merging (and certainly shouldn’t be aggressively defending their ‘right of way’ - but this definitely happens.
The UK highway code classes most of its rules into two categories that are broadly called ‘must’ and ‘should’; rules stated in the form ‘you must/must not do X’ are mandatory in the sense that failure to observe the rule can result in prosecution, just for breaking the rule.
Rules stated in the form ‘you should/should not do Y’ are still things that every driver is expected to follow, whenever possible (so they’re still not exactly optional) but only typically result in prosecution when failure to observe them results in an incident.
Here lies the body
Of William Jay,
Who died maintaining
His right of way.
He was in the right
As he sped along,
But he’s just as dead
As if he’d been wrong.
- Edgar A. Guest, 1916
Me too. I drive the same roads a lot. I know the spots to pull over
That’s one of the benefits of living in the land of roundabouts. One additional full circuit of the roundabout and the tailgater is gone.
Yes, this is true. If not yielding when you have right of way leads to a collision, you may not be at fault (or you may), but it’s still far better to avoid the collision.
But there are also situations where it’s less dangerous to take the right of way that you’re entitled to, because you’re doing what you’re expected and supposed to do. I can’t find a good example right now, but I know this has come up in past threads, where a driver who had right of way created unsafe conditions by trying to wave somebody else through.
I checked the Illinois Rules of the Road (because that’s where I live).
That last sentence is the closest thing I see to an assigning of priority.
Agreed - yielding when you’re not expected to can definitely lead to accidents - like if there is more than one other road user who might be interpreting your courtesy as directed to them. The pedestrian thinks you were letting them cross - the driver turning also thinks that, and they collide
And speaking of “You must increase … speed to avoid a crash,” this is an example, if one is needed, of why an absolute zero-tolerance policy against ever going above the speed limit (perhaps by making vehicles physically unable to do so) is a bad idea. It’s not too far-fetched to suppose that situations could arise where a driver who is already going the speed limit might have to speed up temporarily to avoid a crash. They might technically be breaking the (speed limit) law by doing so, but they’d be breaking the law more egregiously by not avoiding the crash.
@Mangetout makes the good point of where multiple people think the misguided courtesy is directed at them and then a conflict ensues.
The other common scenario is when someone attempts be courteous contrary to the rules but forgets they don’t control everyone else around them. The classic case being driving on a multiple lane road with at least some other cars, then slowing unexpectedly to let someone in from a cross street or driveway. Which someone then swings into the next lane only to be hit by the driver passing the courteous person in the adjacent lane who had no way to predict this non-standard situation was developing in front of them. Oops.