read your post multiple times, and i will now explain why your statements seem contradictory
Indeed there isn’t. Which is why replied with the phrase “implies quite heavily” and not “I said”. Admit it - you didn’t read my reply properly either, did you?
again i replied based on your first post which you did not state it was single carriage or otherwise so i read it multiple times and as the first paragraph did not correspond with the next, i had to ask the question. you say it implies heavily but again the point is even on a dual or more carriageway opportunities to overtake can be low , numerous time in the right cars are so slow you have to overtake on the left
It means that at quite a few points in the last ten or fifteen kilometres there were clear opportunities to pass me, none of which were taken.
understandable but not explained now it has been explained i understand, the vagueness of the initial post i had to ask
Two things.
Firstly, I don’t have a clue why they aren’t overtaking me. How would I know that? I can speculate, and I do, but as to exactly why? Your guess is as good as mine. Your implication that they just wouldn’t do that is equally unfathomable. Why would you say that? Again, I could speculate.
again if they had opportunity why would they not the opportunity to me implied dual carriage , if single well then either they idiots, dooses or no opportunity
Secondly, I don’t do a speed up slow down act. I drive at my speed, usually with cruise control, until there’s a nice long straight bit with no oncoming traffic and I back off. Once they’re past, I re-engage the cruise control. You really didn’t read very much of what I posted, did you?
in your words -
When this happens, and I get to a spot they can overtake I take my foot off the pedal. They’ll usually slow down behind me, till eventually they manage to get their brain around the fact the fact that they can actually go past. Frustratingly when I re-engage my cruise control, I’ll discover that they’re now travelling slower than me.
so the above indicates a change of speed, if your speed is constant why would they need to slow down, and that is where i get your speed up slow down act - ill give it to you it should be slow down speed up act.
just FYI cruise control once its engaged you do not put your foot on the accelerator so releasing your foot
off the pedal or backing off as you claim will not do anything but speed will remain constant, you will need to either press the accelerator or brake to disengage cruise control (or hit the cancel cruise control button or stick etc) so claim i didn't read but i did read a bit too well
Yes, I got defensive, or offensive, you can choose, and yes it was almost certainly an overreaction. Would you like an official apology or is that good enough? But I’m curious - why would you keep going in a discussion without actually reading what I posted?
i have read your posts the problem is a few thing that didn't make sense hence the questions (which i have mentioned) , i am neither taking your part or accusing you , you went into full defensive mode.
i don't need or want an apology , just a simple answer and that would have been me agreeing with you.
Are you serious? If they did that, then why would it bug me, and why would I have posted about it in the bad driving thread?
like i said it didn't make sense , since you didn't mentioned the type of carriage way and as mentioned on highways i've seen similar situations now confirmed its a single , makes a little more sense.
The entire point was that their behaviour doesn’t make sense in that they have opportunity to overtake but don’t, so that pretty much went woosh past you, the exact opposite of what happens on the road.
And for the record, I’m usually not slow - I tend to set the cruise control at the speed limit + 10.
you realise your behavior doesn't make sense ? like i said i asked what lane and boom full on attack .
if you said it was a single lane i would have been ya cool they dumb
