Seven people overtook me in the space of 20 minutes

[Tankersome]

AIBU to be so bloody annoyed by how easily some people find it to speed?

I live rurally with lots of windy, pot-holed single track roads. I commute into the town every day. The rural roads are all NSL but I drive them around 35mph max - and always pull over on the rare times a car is behind me to let them pass if they like.

When i finally get onto the main road that takes me into town, i get myself up to 60mph and switch on cruise control. It's a lovely straight single-carriageway with no pot-holes so I feel comfortable doing this.

But despite going the speed limit, I'm always overtaken. This morning it was a new record with seven people overtaking me in the space of the 20 minutes I'm on that particular road (it was five last night on the drive home).

They don't just speed to overtake either - they continue along at 70-80mph until they're out of my sight. It's not a busy or congested road whatsoever, and there aren't any pavements. So they probably feel safe going at that speed but it's illegal. I've never once seen a speed camera van parked at the roadside either so there is no incentive for these people to drive within the speed limit.

It just really annoys me. Yes, we all have places to be. But why do some people feel so at ease with speeding like that? And the annoying thing is, it makes me feel like I'm the one in the wrong because it's as though I'm holding people up despite going the fastest speed allowed on the road.

@akkakk Your attitude really worries me and sadly your excuses against tackling bad driving (including speeding) are probably the same used by our parliamentarians.

You use the example of a clear road, regardless of the speed limit it would be safe to drive along there at 80mph. This is patently nonsense. What's to stop the pedestrian on the pavement crossing in front of the car? What about the oil slick that causes the car to skid, the hidden junction etc? Clear, straight roads with no hazards do not exist.

Brake use the phrase "contributory factor" rather than "cause" sure but as you say incidents on the road are generally caused by several issues rather than one alone. So speed may be the sole cause of 5% of deaths but it's clearly, according to police stats, a contributory factor in 23%.

However, we do agree that drivers should use their intelligence, not blindly drive to their beliefs regardless of other road users.

Incidentally, what's Brake's hidden agenda? Making roads safer seems quite worthy to me!

She is complaining about people overtaking her on the single CARRIAGEWAY road, when she is already going at NSL of 60mph (as it is now safe to do so).

Which is why and others are suggesting that her speedometer is inaccurate and she is going slower than she thinks.

Rural back roads often have a nsl but are not safe for the nsl. If the road is narrower the 2 lanes and you cannot see ahead it is not safe to do 60mph. There are hidden driveways and field entrances that you can't possibly know what will come out of them. Going around any bend you need to be safe to break and stop if need be. When we lived out on the farm it was almost a daily question of who hit who. It was and still is a 60mph lmt. But only an idiot would do that beyond 1 short stretch. Over confidence of drivers caused so many accidents. Winter was bliss as most idiots wouldn't attempt the road in the snow.

This thread just shows how few people read a post properly before wading in

OP - I am astonished at how much flack you are getting. Your post CLEARLY states that you were driving at 35mph on a small windy, potholed country road which is a in theory a national speed limit road but (l agree ) only a lunatic would drive on them at that speed.

You even posted a picture of this when it became clear that the ajority of people were too lazy to read yout post properly) and yet people still misunderstood

You them MOVED ON TO clearly explain that you then go onto A DIFFERENT ROAD, which had a 60mph speed limit which you observe by using cruise control. Regardless of the posts saying whether cruise control is appropriate, anyone overtaking you on that road (if you are driving at the speed limit) is BREAKING THE LAW so obviously they are in the wrong and you are not, regardless of how safe they feel it is to break the speed limit or how "advanced or good" a driver they are .

I say this as someone who has had 2 speeding tickets for doing 34-35 in 30mph zones, in the last 7 years so I am no paragon of sticking to the speed limt. One of the reasons for this is I often feel hassled to drive faster than I should by "I need to keep up with the flow of traffic" syndrome. Not ideal and I am working on it but I think YA (definitely)NBU on this occasion

We don't know what the NSL rural roads are like threat the OP is driving along so posters can't possibly say whether it's too slow.

I'm about to drive through the 'lanes' to another town and apart from a short stretch won't be going much faster than 35. It's all twisty roads with potholes and horses. I practically come to a standstill before going around some corners even though they are technically NSL. I know every turn and can tell when other drivers don't!

The other reason I don't speed like crazy is that there are a lot of deer about. They sometimes bolt straight out the hedgerows. Hitting them at 35 mph wouldn't be great let alone faster.

Oh yes the deer. A friends husband hit one, it wasn't pretty. The deer died and his new car was a right mess.

akkakk - she was clear - she specified that it was winding, it had potholes, and it was single track.

Agreed - however, that doesn't mean that 35mph is a logical speed - we have plenty of such roads around here, where you can easily do 40-50mph because they are open with clear and long visibility, and while they are single track, there is room to avoid the potholes - I can think of such roads where I could safely do 80+

The photo then clarified that the real issue is actually visibility, not width etc. - with poor visibility, you can not read the road ahead, and may meet all sorts of things coming around the corner...

the roads near me that are winding and single-track and have potholes are also flat, with no hedges / trees and verges each side the same width as the road - no issue doing way over 35mph down those roads, you can see for 1/2 mile+ ahead...

so, it was not until she posted the photo that clarity was achieved...

With hindsight, she'd have been better not mentioning the single track roads and just confining herself to the main road.

agreed - however whenever someone comes on to a forum to moan about the driving of others, it is surprising how often their own driving is not up to scratch - and regardless of the legality of others overtaking, the OP drops herself in it by saying that she sticks cruise control on where not appropriate... if an accident occurred, exactly how would she demonstrate that she was in control of the car? Dangerous driving - yup...

we all have the need to constantly revisit our driving - I am very involved in advanced driving and take regular coaching sessions, the more I do, the more aware I am of how much I have to learn - I am also very very risk adverse - but that doesn't mean that I buy into the illogical rubbish that is all over the internet about speed killing - it doesn't otherwise we would die every time we got on an aeroplane! :) I have no issue with someone doing 70-80 down a safe piece of country road - I have far more issue with all the 'I am so legal because I obey the speed limit' drivers who still do 30mph in an urban area where it is totally unsafe...

All these people who can't read the first post accurately, then tell OP they are better drivers, despite their lack of attention.

Thanks to those who have read and taken the time to understand my initial (and more recent) posts. I'm even more frustrated now after posting due to constantly having to repeat myself.

Like another poster, I also have my SatNav plugged in at all times as I travel through the day for work to various unfamiliar places, and this rings at me when I go over 60. I know my car very well and what is the true speed. I know that the dial sits just above the number line. I know this based on experience with various traffic control systems (those which tell you what speed you're driving) within the area. So I put my cruise control on to what I'm fairly sure is 60. I ping it up until the sat nav rings and then notch it down a mile so I'm at a true 60.

I feel comfrotable using the cruise control on the main road as it is so straight and clear and not busy. I turn it off as soon as I see a potential hazard e.g. approaching a slower vehicle ahead.

It's really not anything to do with my own speed! People are flying by me at easily 70-80mph.

How do other cars overtake you on a road like the one on that picture?

Sorry I accidentally missed a load of messages and see that the OP has given an example of her rural one lane roads - if I were driving on that type of road I very much doubt I'd go faster than 35mph. If you can't see around the corner you have to drive as though you are expecting there to be something there.

I drive on similar lanes and often have met a car coming too fast in the opposite direction. They are lucky I'm not so stupid.

BTW OP how is your reversing? I don't want to boast but I'm brilliant at reversing. If I meet a lorry or tractor or another car I can reverse practically as fast as I go forwards. It's my special skill in life 😂. I particularly love it when the other drivers acknowledge my awesomeness with a thumbs up 👍🏻. 😁

I wouldn't bother, tankersone! People still can't read.

So speed may be the sole cause of 5% of deaths but it's clearly, according to police stats, a contributory factor in 23%

11% actually, and when you look at all recorded accidents it’s 1.8%. You’re 9 times more likely to be killed on the roads by something other than speeding.

This has to be one of the funniest thread I've read in along time.

OP "I drive at 35 mph on a NSL road because that's what the driving conditions warrant"
Posters "Oh, if it's an NSL road you're driving too slowly".
OP "but that's what the conditions warrant"
Posters"35mph is too slow on a NSL road"
OP "I DRIVE TO THE CONDITIONS WARRANTED"
Posters "Oh well you didn't make that clear".

And basically the same conversation for the main road

Like Bumbling , I too am no angel. I have been prosecuted for speeding on an empty M62 at 1.30am. I was very, very lucky not to lose my licence and I don't excuse what I was doing.

I also got a speeding ticket once for doing 40mph in a 30mph zone. It was a dual carriageway in an unfamiliar city, and I had been religiously complying with the 50mph signs. However, I didn't notice that for a short period after one of the many roundabouts, it dropped to 30mph. Mea culpa - I couldn't complain.

I also managed to crash a car badly once on black ice. Fortunately, I was already going really slowly as I'd realised that there was "snow" on the road but it hadn't snowed ; I didn't even touch the brakes as I went around a slight bend - but the black ice on half the road was enough to create the differential to cause the skid. I was going so slowly that even though the car did a full 180, hitting the wall on the other side of the road in the process, the air bag didn't go off . The drivers in the cars behind me could barely stay up right on the road while they came to see if I was OK. The road was closed shortly afterwards as it was so unsafe; while the police on their way, there was another skid and crash about 500m down the road.

I am now very wary of road surfaces when the temperature is low.

I now make a conscious effort always to go at the speed limit and to ignore what the traffic flow is doing, which is often faster. This includes 20mph on my own street which is a non statutory "20s plenty" zone. It is amazing how many people do overtake when you are going at the speed limit (whether or not your speedometer is accurate). I'm sure the police would just love the excuse that "I though my speedometer over-stated the speed by 10% so I was allowing myself 66mph". Do you want to take the risk that your speedometer is, after all, accurate, if you drive a long stretch of average speed cameras and assume that you can go 10% more?

I remember when dh was in Australia and he and his friend asked the car hire company about whether there was leeway for speed limits, and told, very firmly, "NONE" They said that 80kph on very long, very straight, very quiet roads was very boring - but they abided by it!

If I ruled the world I'd ban cruise control - it makes people not pay enough attention to what they're doing.

Though for the country lanes, I do think there are a number of people who assumed you meant single carriageway when you actually did mean single track - for single track, of course you can't dash along at 60, or you risk a head on.

I’m joining all the others banging their heads against brick walls!

OP could not have been any clearer, yet many posters are still not understanding what she has said.

OP, you’re driving absolutely as you should be speed wise ( I have no idea about cruise control as I don’t have it).

I say to dh very regularly that I cannot understand at all why so many people think it’s ok to speed. I drive at the limit all the time (road conditions/traffic/weather permitting etc). I’m driving 70 on a dual carriageway, 60 in a single carriageway, 30 in a 30 ... yet vehicles still overtake and continue down the roads speeding. It saddens me that so many drivers now think it’s acceptable to just drive how they want with complete disregard for the law.

Just because a road is NSL doesn't at all mean its safe to drive at the NSL.

OP YANBU. I drove a long-ish stretch on a major dual carriage way recently at a very happy 70 (satnav 70, not car 70) and everything was overtaking me (except lorries and caravans).

Its arrogant, it IS dangerous, and its against the law.

But come on MN and say this and all they will do is tell you you're not driving fast enough.

Driving is a luxury and you should STICK to the rules.

If I ruled the world I'd ban cruise control - it makes people not pay enough attention to what they're doing.

Me too. Along with auto lights, reversing cameras.......

Many drivers do speed, and many do not.

Looking at both photos of the roads, I think OP is being sensible with her speed and caution, wish there were more like you who considered the dangers of a NSL with dog walkers, horses, pot holes, twists and turns. YANBU

How do other cars overtake you on a road like the one on that picture?
Igneococcus are you freaking serious? RTFT ffs!
Off to join the others banging their heads against the brick wall. (at least NM has a 'banging your head against a brick' wall smiley, HQ please can we have one on here too?!)

@Zampa

@akkakk Your attitude really worries me and sadly your excuses against tackling bad driving (including speeding) are probably the same used by our parliamentarians.

I think that you are misreading me :) I have no problem with tackling bad driving - I would love it if we did...

However there is a serious flaw in the assumption that speed above an arbitrary limit is by default = bad driving...
It can be bad driving to be doing 20 past a school in a 30mph
It can be bad driving to be doing 40 in fog in a 60mph
It can be bad driving to be doing 50 on a clear day in a 60mph around a blind corner, or where there are signs warning of horses etc.

It can equally be illegal, but not bad driving to do 70-80 down a clear road with no hazards...
the reality is that it is based on risk - there is always risk in a car at any speed on any road, so we have to manage that risk - and we do so in a number of ways - the speed limit is one - but not the only one and drivers should manage risk beyond that, and decide when it is better to drive slower than the speed limit... There are also times when breaking the speed limit, while illegal (different issue) may not increase risk significantly - on those occasions, I have no issue with someone driving faster than the speed limit...

my example above of a 60mph road reduced to 50mph to change how the council have to maintain it - it is no higher a risk now to drive at 55mph than it was 6 months earlier, but it is no illegal -> therefore legality and risk are not the same thing, equally, speed and dangerous driving need not be the same thing - they will be in some instances, not in others...

You use the example of a clear road, regardless of the speed limit it would be safe to drive along there at 80mph. This is patently nonsense. What's to stop the pedestrian on the pavement crossing in front of the car? What about the oil slick that causes the car to skid, the hidden junction etc? Clear, straight roads with no hazards do not exist.

Sorry - I think your comment is nonsense! :) what pavement? what pedestrian? If I have visibility 1/2 mile ahead and I can see a pedestrian - then it is not a clear road without hazards - that is a considerable hazard - on the other hand, if the road has no hazards then there can not be a pedestrian, so your comment is irrelevant... also oil slicks (far less common than you think with modern cars) / hidden junctions - if they exist then the road has hazards... Not sure exactly where you drive, but I drive all over the UK and can think of hundreds of stretches of road without hazards - I wouldn't overtake on a road with relevant hazards (i.e. in the space I need), yet happily overtake all the time! All your comment does is show that you have little idea of how to read a road...

Brake use the phrase "contributory factor" rather than "cause" sure but as you say incidents on the road are generally caused by several issues rather than one alone. So speed may be the sole cause of 5% of deaths but it's clearly, according to police stats, a contributory factor in 23%.

No - in the example I mentioned, the driver on drugs could have been doing below the speed limit and still have crashed and died - the police record the speed, but the government are very clear that it would not be a cause of, or contributory factor in the accident, i.e. if you can take the speed out of the equation and still die then it is no a contributory cause, equally if you can drive at that speed or faster (and not on drugs / alcohol) and not die then it is not a cause... so the fact that it is noted in the 23% of cases is no more relevant than noting and stating that in xx% of deaths the car was grey / silver - that wouldn't mean that you are more likely to die in a grey / silver car

you have to be very careful about how you use statistics and Brake are known for using them to suit their agenda...

However, we do agree that drivers should use their intelligence, not blindly drive to their beliefs regardless of other road users.

absolutely :)

Incidentally, what's Brake's hidden agenda? Making roads safer seems quite worthy to me!
If that were their agenda, then:

• I would agree
• they would focus on road design
• they would be promoting good road surfaces / filling in potholes
• they would be focused on removing distractions in cars
• they would be focused on stopping drug driving
• they would focus on actual training - teaching people how to corner / teaching people how to overtake, so that what they do is done safely, rather than just banning it
• etc.

They have branched out more recently and included a lot of these - but that has not been their historical approach
equally, most of their campaigns are based on good ideas, with totally unworkable concepts at the heart of the campaign, e.g.

• L for later - raising the age of learners / providing better public transport so that teenagers don't need to drive / putting in curfews / etc. - all fine if you live in London - absolutely useless for the huge amounts of population who live rurally with no public transport and teenagers reliant on driving for jobs etc.
• Driving for zero - wanting zero tolerance for alcohol in blood - ridiculous, we do not live in a police state, what about that Trifle you eat / the steak in wine sauce / etc. there has to be common sense and our issue is not with people below the current alcohol limit killing people, it is with people ignoring the current alcohol limit
• Pace for People - they want to reduce speed limits from 30 - 20, yet in the recent exercise in Bristol, the reduction to 20 has increased accidents and is considered a failure, only the council can't afford the 180k+ needed to reverse it

their policies have good elements, but also a load of rubbish in them...

If I ruled the world I'd ban cruise control - it makes people not pay enough attention to what they're doing.

Only if you are an arse in the first place. The rest of us are quite capable of concentrating on the road and other users while cc on, just like I can concerntrate with automatic gear box too. You dont lose your ability to drive sensibly with cc unless you had a trenuous grip on it in the first place

I used to use Cruise Control quite a lot but then decided I preferred to have the extra control over the car that not switching it on afforded (ability to lift the foot off the accelerator going down a hill on a motorway, to fine tune spacing so as to avoid the need to break by anticipating what cars were doing ahead etc). I also think it is better for fuel consumption although there are conflicting messages on that

I do still use it on occasions: eg in long stretches of contraflow road works on motorways/dual carriageways with reduced speed limits. It's actually to keep me concentrating, as it is otherwise too easy just to follow the flow of traffic, which may or may not be at the "correct" speed.