Most of the motorways here in Scotland only have two lanes. All too frequently I find myself in a queue of 60-65mph traffic overtaking a lorry or two in the inside lane. Once past the lorry, the lead car in the queue pulls in to the left-hand lane - and then accelerates. This afternoon the slow overtaker speeded up to over 90mph after pulling over! What can possibly be the reason for behaviour like this? In my book it's a close run thing between this, and playing "Grandmother's Footsteps" with red traffic lights (ie creeping up to them very slowly from a good 100 yards away, presumably in the hope that you won't actually have to come to a complete stop) for Britain's Most Annoyingly Pointless Driver Behaviour*.

* Coming soon to ITV! Hosted by Ant and Dec, as if you couldn't have guessed.

I hate it on motorways when people can't maintain a steady speed. My friend used to do it all the time and it drove me insane, so now whenever we go on a motorway I just drive. Even he admits the car feels smoother when I drive it...

As for your idiot driver who knows, he was probably on the phone and didn't realise he was doing 90mph or something.

You might like this -

LOOK HERE.

You might like this -

LOOK HERE.

Yup

Now as far as granny's footsteps! (odd name. Don't get it but hey)

What's the problem?

If the light is red you have a choice.

You can charge up to it, then sit and wait, getting stressed as you are now wasting time sitting there! Why don't the lights change? having worn a bit more from your brake pads, a bit more from your tyres and wasted the fuel to get to the stop line quicker, then waste a bit more fuel as the engine sits idle.

OR

You can plan ahead and anticipate what is happening around you, arriving at the red light just as it is changing amber then green, so you can continue to make progress without having to stop.

This approach saves the wear on your brakes, tyres and saves fuel.

Ultimately you will end up further ahead for less effort and cost, as you will still have some momentum from not coming to a complete stop and will not need to accelerate as hard to build your speed up to that which is appropriate.

Personally I prefer option 2

Yup

Now as far as granny's footsteps! (odd name. Don't get it but hey)

What's the problem?

If the light is red you have a choice.

You can charge up to it, then sit and wait, getting stressed as you are now wasting time sitting there! Why don't the lights change? having worn a bit more from your brake pads, a bit more from your tyres and wasted the fuel to get to the stop line quicker, then waste a bit more fuel as the engine sits idle.

OR

You can plan ahead and anticipate what is happening around you, arriving at the red light just as it is changing amber then green, so you can continue to make progress without having to stop.

This approach saves the wear on your brakes, tyres and saves fuel.

Ultimately you will end up further ahead for less effort and cost, as you will still have some momentum from not coming to a complete stop and will not need to accelerate as hard to build your speed up to that which is appropriate.

Personally I prefer option 2

Option 2 for me!!!

Unfortunately those that choose to adopt option 2 get in the way of those who prefer option 1.

Conflict of interest = road rage

Most of the motorways here in Scotland only have two lanes. All too frequently I find myself in a queue of 60-65mph traffic overtaking a lorry or two in the inside lane. Once past the lorry, the lead car in the queue pulls in to the left-hand lane - and then accelerates. This afternoon the slow overtaker speeded up to over 90mph after pulling over! What can possibly be the reason for behaviour like this? In my book it's a close run thing between this, and playing "Grandmother's Footsteps" with red traffic lights (ie creeping up to them very slowly from a good 100 yards away, presumably in the hope that you won't actually have to come to a complete stop) for Britain's Most Annoyingly Pointless Driver Behaviour*.

* Coming soon to ITV! Hosted by Ant and Dec, as if you couldn't have guessed.

I think this ranks with the idiotic behaviour I experienced from 2 'white vans' in the early morning (06:30hrs) commute on the A1(M) this morning.

Following a 6 - 7 mile two lane section with steady but congested 50-65mph traffic flow the M-way opens up to 3 lanes. Traffic then disperses over 3 lanes and faster traffic has the chance to move on; but not when two vans (about 1/2 mile apart) stay in lane 3 @ 65mph with no traffic at all in lanes 1 and 2 for at least 1/4 ahead of them.

It would be so easy for them to move to Lane 2 or 1 but no! Clear lanes ahead, lane 3 and 65mph. Press on drivers queue behind, get frustrated and eventually 'undertake' the vans. Argh!

Yup

Now as far as granny's footsteps! (odd name. Don't get it but hey)

What's the problem?

If the light is red you have a choice.

You can charge up to it, then sit and wait, getting stressed as you are now wasting time sitting there! Why don't the lights change? having worn a bit more from your brake pads, a bit more from your tyres and wasted the fuel to get to the stop line quicker, then waste a bit more fuel as the engine sits idle.

OR

You can plan ahead and anticipate what is happening around you, arriving at the red light just as it is changing amber then green, so you can continue to make progress without having to stop.

This approach saves the wear on your brakes, tyres and saves fuel.

Ultimately you will end up further ahead for less effort and cost, as you will still have some momentum from not coming to a complete stop and will not need to accelerate as hard to build your speed up to that which is appropriate.

Personally I prefer option 2

One of the problems with option 2 is if the lights are on induction loop sensors in the road - they sometimes won't pick you up if you are too far away or too slow so the lights, if vehiclea activated, don't change...

What really annoys me are drivers who brake at the sight of any (even slight) bend in the road or at night, whenever a vehicle is coming the other way, even if the lights are perfectly dipped and aligned. If people are scared of bends, or can't see properly at night, they shouldn't be driving! I was taught to adopt a driving style that means I brake as little as possible, believing that this is not only a good style of driving in itself (and more comfortable for any passengers) but that it saves all sorts of wear and tear on components as well.

I have yet to hear a sensible explanation as to why heavy goods vehicles decide to overtake one another on a hill - one doing 55 mph the other 56 mph! A run out along the North Wales coast (A55) seems a prime spot for such tom foolery...

Unfortunately those that choose to adopt option 2 get in the way of those who prefer option 1.

Conflict of interest = road rage

No they don't

The end result is the same, only those that use option 2 are less stressed :p

Stress causes road rage. :S

One of the problems with option 2 is if the lights are on induction loop sensors in the road - they sometimes won't pick you up if you are too far away or too slow so the lights, if vehiclea activated, don't change

All traffic lights work on a timed phased sequence. They change in this timed sequence even if no vehicles are present.

The induction loops take account of traffic flow and adapt this timing accordingly to the traffic volume at the time.

Whether you adopt option 1 or 2 the loop will still sense the vehicle presence and trigger a change but will always stay in the sequence set.

Give the loops more time to sense the vehicle by driving over them slower and you're likely to get on your way quicker.

Yeah - I'm for Option 2 too (the cruise up to red traffic lights), although its more a slow deceleration process for me not a 5mph potter...

Here's another story - a few weeks back travelling N on the M1. Road signs say there is a near 1 hr delay near Leicester. OK but its late evening - I bet the signs are wrong. I bet wrong and hit stop-start traffic. 4 miles on the countdown to the roadwork's start, and then everyone queues to get into the 1 open lane (per the signs)... only of course there are no closed lanes, all lanes are in fact open! In other words, a jam for no reason other than (a) the workcrews couldn't retrieve their signs (possibly a safety issue, more likely bad planning) and ( British temerity to not use all available lanes up to the filter point! :no:

Yeah - I'm for Option 2 too (the cruise up to red traffic lights), although its more a slow deceleration process for me not a 5mph potter...

Here's another story - a few weeks back travelling N on the M1. Road signs say there is a near 1 hr delay near Leicester. OK but its late evening - I bet the signs are wrong. I bet wrong and hit stop-start traffic. 4 miles on the countdown to the roadwork's start, and then everyone queues to get into the 1 open lane (per the signs)... only of course there are no closed lanes, all lanes are in fact open! In other words, a jam for no reason other than (a) the workcrews couldn't retrieve their signs (possibly a safety issue, more likely bad planning) and ( British temerity to not use all available lanes up to the filter point! :no:

You're quite right. I'm amazed at how often the overhead gantry signs are wrong, or imprecise. This leads to (otherwise sensible people, among whom I include myself, of course!) tending to assume they can be ignored and this could lead to delays, frustration or indeed accidents.

Regulars to this forum will probably already have me down as a hopeless, unreconstructed Francophile, but I have to say that when driving in France - which I do quite a lot - I have yet to see a wrong or misleading matrix display on the autoroutes, and they are often very precise as to the location (and length, and timings by date) of roadworks. Vive la France!

No they don't

The end result is the same, only those that use option 2 are less stressed :p

Stress causes road rage. :S

Yes but those that use option two are in the minority (in my experience) so "Option Twoers" are therefore more likely to be on the receiving end of a stressed "Option Oner".

The very fact that someone is thinking far enough ahead to plan their approach to a traffic light would suggest to me that they are by their very nature less stressed - or don't pay for their own fuel / brakes / tyres.

You also assume that any stress that induces road rage is directly related to how the car is approaching the lights, the stress will already be present from work, personal life etc. and it may be the actions of another driver (possibly an Option Twoer) that prompts the change from stress to road rage.

Strangely, when driving to work I adopt option one. When driving on a weekend with my wife and daughter in the car I swing all the way to option two.

Yes but those that use option two are in the minority (in my experience) so "Option Twoers" are therefore more likely to be on the receiving end of a stressed "Option Oner".

I disagree.

Ootion 2 drivers are much less likely to react aggressively in response to option 1 drivers actions, thereby calming the situation

The very fact that someone is thinking far enough ahead to plan their approach to a traffic light would suggest to me that they are by their very nature less stressed - or don't pay for their own fuel / brakes / tyres.

How does planning well ahead equate to not paying for your own fuel, tyres and brakes?

Surely the option 1 drivers are the ones who don't care so long as they get where they are going quickly

You also assume that any stress that induces road rage is directly related to how the car is approaching the lights, the stress will already be present from work, personal life etc. and it may be the actions of another driver (possibly an Option Twoer) that prompts the change from stress to road rage.

I have not made that assumption at all. I merely stated that you would be more likely to get stressed if you you drove in the manner of the option 1 driver. You are far more likely to react aggressively to another driver if you are stressed, thereby inflaming the situation.

Strangely, when driving to work I adopt option one. When driving on a weekend with my wife and daughter in the car I swing all the way to option two.

And I bet you feel better when you get to your destination?

Uless the kids are winding you up, that is

No they don't

The end result is the same, only those that use option 2 are less stressed :p

Stress causes road rage. :S

All traffic lights work on a timed phased sequence. They change in this timed sequence even if no vehicles are present.

The induction loops take account of traffic flow and adapt this timing accordingly to the traffic volume at the time.

Whether you adopt option 1 or 2 the loop will still sense the vehicle presence and trigger a change but will always stay in the sequence set.

Give the loops more time to sense the vehicle by driving over them slower and you're likely to get on your way quicker.

Not quite right but a pretty good knowledge all the same - both individual stage times, overall cycle times and the phasing of stages can be changed according to what the loops (or microwave detectors) pick up and how the controller is set. So green times can be extended, or come round more quickly, or even be missed out completely depending on flows.

Hence, whilst I'm not saying hare up to the lights and slam on the anchors, I am saying make sure you approach in such a way that the sensors detect you and the controller to responds accordingly, as it is more than likely (when lightly trafficed for example) that this will cause it to give you a green light more quickly.

Too many people I see slow down so much or stop so far from the lights that this doesn't happen and then wonder why everyone else gets two greens for thier one or why the cycle time is so long.

Mind you I also see too many people going across the white line, or edging forward, or encroaching into the cycle boxes which really annoys me!

Quote "I have yet to see a wrong or misleading matrix display on the autoroutes"

+1

I disagree.

Ootion 2 drivers are much less likely to react aggressively in response to option 1 drivers actions, thereby calming the situation

Not much use when the guy behind you has already lost it and is currently ripping your door handle off with the same force as he plans to use on you. It doesn't matter how much you smile and wave he is going to tell you what he thinks of your considerate / economic driving - regardless.

How does planning well ahead equate to not paying for your own fuel, tyres and brakes?

Surely the option 1 drivers are the ones who don't care so long as they get where they are going quickly

Exactly, hence 'option one' drivers can't understand why you'd want to coast up to the lights which in turn, I'm guessing, annoys them.

I have not made that assumption at all. I merely stated that you would be more likely to get stressed if you you drove in the manner of the option 1 driver. You are far more likely to react aggressively to another driver if you are stressed, thereby inflaming the situation.

You mentioned option two drivers are less likely to be stressed and that stress cause road rage. YOU may be calm but your actions may be stressing out the driver/s behind. It is their actions that are likely to get you into a road rage situation. You being calm might help you to get out of that situation but as above it may be too late if he has seen red and is hell bent on letting you know how unhappy / stressed he is.

I'm also betting that there are plenty of stress free "option one" drivers out there.

And I bet you feel better when you get to your destination?

Uless the kids are winding you up, that is

Very true, but that is usually because I'm not at work and am spending time with my family. Unfortunately it doesn't always stop me from occasionally adopting option one first thing on Monday morning.

As someone who adopts both "options" I am able to see it from both sides. Whilst "option two" is clearly the best for most (including me) as long as there are both "option oners" and "option twoers" occupying the same piece of tarmac there will always be conflict.

Edited 9 September, 201114 yr by silver1011

All traffic lights work on a timed phased sequence. They change in this timed sequence even if no vehicles are present.

The induction loops take account of traffic flow and adapt this timing accordingly to the traffic volume at the time.

Whether you adopt option 1 or 2 the loop will still sense the vehicle presence and trigger a change but will always stay in the sequence set.

Give the loops more time to sense the vehicle by driving over them slower and you're likely to get on your way quicker.

All? Oh no they don't!

There are sets of lights that sit at red for all directions during quiet times and only turn green when a vehicle is detected. They are specifically designed to reduce the speed of vehicles when the roads are empty. The theory is that if you see a green light ahead you will accelerate to catch it before it turns red, if it is on red you will slow to hit it as it changes green. They are usually designed so if you approach at or near the speed limit they will turn green as you arrive.

Regarding the red light crawlers - ok if your speed drops to 10-15mph on the roll up to the red light, I have no problem with that. Its when the speed drops to 1-2 mph that I get p'ed off. In this case I just stop, wait till they reach the car in front then pull up behind! Though I have in extreme cases overtaken the bu66ers. Isn't there something in the highway code or is it just the driving test about making reasonable progress?

The one missed from the rants is the speed camera wimp. I live in Guiseley, the A65 through Rawdon, Horsforth, Kirkstall, Burley into Leeds has around 20 speed cameras over 4-5 miles in 30 and 40 limits. I HATE the drivers who go at 27mph for the whole distance and slow down (just to be safe) at every camera! Do they not realise that they can safely travel at 3-4mph (indicated) above the limit because 1) their speedo will be reading high and 2) the trigger point is set to 10% over the speed limit anyway!!

Edit: To clarify that I am not advocating driving over the speed limit!

This gives an adequate margin to ensure that driving at a speedo reading on the speed limit will not trigger the camera

Edited 9 September, 201114 yr by eccleshill

The one missed from the rants is the speed camera wimp. I live in Guiseley, the A65 through Rawdon, Horsforth, Kirkstall, Burley into Leeds has around 20 speed cameras over 4-5 miles in 30 and 40 limits. I HATE the drivers who go at 27mph for the whole distance and slow down (just to be safe) at every camera! Do they not realise that they can safely travel at 3-4mph (indicated) above the limit because 1) their speedo will be reading high and 2) the trigger point is set to 10% over the speed limit anyway!!

I can't say that I agree with driving over the limit, in particular in the 30mph zones, as that can be a good way to lose your licence. Why gamble? Where I do agree with you is where you have drivers who are already under the limit but then slam their breaks on to go 10-15mph under the limit when they see a speed camera so causing a concertina effect behind them. If you are under the limit already why do they break again?

I can't say that I agree with driving over the limit, in particular in the 30mph zones, as that can be a good way to lose your licence. Why gamble? Where I do agree with you is where you have drivers who are already under the limit but then slam their breaks on to go 10-15mph under the limit when they see a speed camera so causing a concertina effect behind them. If you are under the limit already why do they break again?

Badly worded by me - I meant to point out the adequate safety margin that means you are safe with the speedo indicating the speed limit.

Though if my over-reading speedo indicates 32mph but my true speed is 30mph I am not speeding.

Do they not realise that they can safely travel at 3-4mph (indicated) above the limit because 1) their speedo will be reading high and 2) the trigger point is set to 10% over the speed limit anyway!!

A very dangerous assumption, both as a road user and to your licence.

Cameras are placed for a reason; generally that there have been a prescribed number of injury/fatal accidents over a period of time.

The trigger point is set at whatever is deemed 'correct'. I was reliably informed a few months ago, when attending a 'speed awareness course', that there is a camera on the 30mph limit at the entrance to a village in Wales, with a hump-backed bridge where the 'trigger' is set at exactly 30 mph.

Ignore this information at you peril.

Silver1011,

I suggest you go on a "Defensive Driving" course, and see how Option 2 can actually make journeys both quicker, easier and cheaper.

A very dangerous assumption, both as a road user and to your licence.

Cameras are placed for a reason; generally that there have been a prescribed number of injury/fatal accidents over a period of time.

The trigger point is set at whatever is deemed 'correct'. I was reliably informed a few months ago, when attending a 'speed awareness course', that there is a camera on the 30mph limit at the entrance to a village in Wales, with a hump-backed bridge where the 'trigger' is set at exactly 30 mph.

Ignore this information at you peril.

Agreed - badly worded post by me as per 2nd post 10mins after! Maybe I should edit it!

edit - I just did!!

Edited 9 September, 201114 yr by eccleshill

Silver1011,

I suggest you go on a "Defensive Driving" course, and see how Option 2 can actually make journeys both quicker, easier and cheaper.

Llanigraham,

I suggest you take more care when reading other posts.

I already mentioned I adopt both options and can see why people adopt either one.

I'll repeat it again as you missed it the first time...

As someone who adopts both "options" I am able to see it from both sides. Whilst "option two" is clearly the best for most (including me) as long as there are both "option oners" and "option twoers" occupying the same piece of tarmac there will always be conflict.

Edited 9 September, 201114 yr by silver1011