tulips that drive at 35-40mph!!!!

laoisfan

hi
i know this has probably been discussed before but just have to get this off my chest!!

was heading home last night, on bus eireann to laois, and between monasterevin and portlaoise some tulip (do not want to use colourful language here) was doing about 35-40mph. there was about 5 cars behind this tulip and then our bus.

what made it even worse was 1) the tulip would not even go the speed limit or pull in slightly (which is illegal) to let people past them OR 2) the tulips behind the main tulip would not even attempt to overtake them and believe me they had2 very good opportunities to do so and safely i might add!!!

the police and government complain about people who constantly exceed the speed limit!! fair enough - but what about those who do not do the speed limits??

ah well - got that off my chest.

--laoisfan

ArphaRima

Its been mentioned in the media plenty of times. Even judges have mentioned it in court and been slated for it.

The problem is that the government has spent so much time telling us that speed is "bad" that they cant rightly say that being slower is "bad" too. Perhaps you should have rang the garda confidential hotline and reported drunk driving. After all who else would drive as slowly on a national road?

magpie

What's really killing people on Irish roads is Irish roads.

The Government are ever-eager to attribute the blame to individuals, but to be frank if there were decent dual carriageways on most of the main routes in the country (rather than the ridiculous winding single-lane each way jobs we have) there would be a lot less accidents. Why? Because it would be safe to overtake those who take it upon themselves to do 40mph on a national road, and those who feel like driving too fast at least have a fast lane in which to do it.

dmeehan

fluffer wrote:

Perhaps you should have rang the garda confidential hotline and reported drunk driving. After all who else would drive as slowly on a national road?

geriatric twits who cannot see over the steering wheel, and we all know that there's plenty of those about on the roads

ArphaRima

No. I figure they are drunk. Or at least if i was in a line of traffic in a bus, I would report it as such.

Capt'n Midnight

You'll probably find that the same muppets drive at 35 through a 30mph zone - it's because they are totally inconsiderate. They should be done for both Speeding and Obstruction, and then dangerous driving.

this morning a car did a U-Turn on a roundabout in Park West then through the next three roundabouts and finally turned left on a side road. He indicated left ONCE. Traffic was VERY heavy and there was one horn blowing incident where two other cars had a jostle at one of the roundabouts in front of him. I was at the stage where if he had hit anyone I was ready to be testify in court that his indicators worked but that he didn't use them.

If you don't follow the rules of the road you have no business using it, and you should be charged with possesion of a dangerous weapon.

In the EU in general you DO NOT drive in the centre of the road, that means here and in the UK you keep in the LEFT of your lane. Also here (unlike the UK) the rules of the road sugest you pull in to the hard shoulder to let traffic past.

narommy

What's worse is those who drive 45-50 on national roads and when the road straightens up they speed up to 60 so that you can't keep to the speed limit and overtake. THen when a bend approaches they're back down to 45 :rolleyes:

There should be a law that if you are not within 5 mph of speed limit and there is a line of 5 cars behind you then you must pull into the left and stop to let others pass. Would reduce the number of head on collisions by half at least. It would also reduce pile ups as drivers wouldn't be tail gating for as long.

Personally i prefer to only do long distance after 8pm. Most people are going someplace at that time of the night and even though i am tireder i feel it is safer.

Bee

dmeehan wrote:

No. I figure they are drunk. Or at least if i was in a line of traffic in a bus, I would report it as such

Be aware that there is a large portion of the population driving? perfectly legally whilst consuming a range of medically prescribed prescription drugs.

Scary...damned Scary

Bee

P.S. Speed never kills but inappropriate speed kills

Victor

narommy wrote:

What's worse is those who drive 45-50 on national roads and when the road straightens up they speed up to 60 so that you can't keep to the speed limit and overtake. THen when a bend approaches they're back down to 45 :rolleyes:

You mean they actually slow down for the bends and corners? :rolleyes:

robbie1876

I think he means a 'meander'. A bend that a rally co-driver would describe as 'Easy Left 1', one you don't have to slow down for. Like the people who slow down for the bends on the M50 south of Firhouse. That's annoying.

Victor

robbie1876 wrote:

I think he means a 'meander'. A bend that a rally co-driver would describe as 'Easy Left 1', one you don't have to slow down for. Like the people who slow down for the bends on the M50 south of Firhouse. That's annoying.

Would you mean where the limit changes from 70mph to 60mph?

robbie1876

No, the people I'm talking about are people who brake when coming up to a 'bend' on a motorway, or a similar bend on a national road.

embraer170

People are obviously driving at that speed because that's the speed they are comfortable at. Would you prefer them driving beyond their confidence levels and then causing accidents?

Zaph0d

embraer170 wrote:

People are obviously driving at that speed because that's the speed they are comfortable at. Would you prefer them driving beyond their confidence levels and then causing accidents?

Good point but you often see a driver doing a constant 40 on 60mph national route and not slow down when they enter a village with a 30 limit. Just 40 all the way regardless of conditions. Also they shouldn't hang out in the fast lane of the M50.

robbie1876

embraer170 wrote:

People are obviously driving at that speed because that's the speed they are comfortable at. Would you prefer them driving beyond their confidence levels and then causing accidents?

I don't accept that. If they are not confident enough to drive at or close to the national speed limit, then either a) they should not be driving at all for lack of confidence or b) they should cop on that others may want to drive faster than them and curteously make way for them.

dmeehan

one of my pet hates is when the driver in front brakes when a car is approaching from the opposite direction.

They wont hit you, they have their own side of the road! :rolleyes:

Sleipnir

robbie1876 wrote:

I don't accept that. If they are not confident enough to drive at or close to the national speed limit, then either a) they should not be driving at all for lack of confidence or b) they should cop on that others may want to drive faster than them and curteously make way for them.

The speed limit is the maximum speed you can travel given perfect road conditions, light conditions etc.
It is not the speed you should maintain regardless of the weather etc.
i.e, if it is raining, foggy or night-time, you should reduce your speed.

dmeehan wrote:

one of my pet hates is when the driver in front brakes when a car is approaching from the opposite direction.
They wont hit you, they have their own side of the road!

While I do agree with you (it is very, very annoying) the most common cause of crash causing death or injury is where one car has crossed the white line into the other lane.

narommy

Victor wrote:

You mean they actually slow down for the bends and corners? :rolleyes:

I've no f***ing problem with people who slow dorn if they are not confident with bends. My f***ing problem is that they speed up and don't let others who are confident pass on a straight stretch whilst keeping to the speed limit.

There are very few parts of national roads that can't take 60mph

I've no problem with the consistent 40mphers.

narommy

Sleipnir wrote:

The speed limit is the maximum speed you can travel given perfect road conditions, light conditions etc.
It is not the speed you should maintain regardless of the weather etc.
i.e, if it is raining, foggy or night-time, you should reduce your speed.

While I do agree with you (it is very, very annoying) the most common cause of crash causing death or injury is where one car has crossed the white line into the other lane.

Except for the pissheads on the roads at night I would consider night time to be the safest time to drive on national roads at 60mph

Crossing the white line is usually as a result of people getting frustrated by some of the aforementioned road users and over take recklessly.

Hagar

I've seen the signs "Warning - Heavy Plant Ahead".
Are they very big tulips?

narommy

I really can't wait for the Heath to Mayfield M7 road. It is exceptionally bad for 45mphers from Monasterevin to Portlaois By Pass

Sleipnir

narommy wrote:

Except for the pissheads on the roads at night I would consider night time to be the safest time to drive on national roads at 60mph

Well, seeing as most RTA's occur at night, statistics disagree with you.

narommy wrote:

Crossing the white line is usually as a result of people getting frustrated by some of the aforementioned road users and over take recklessly.

Ah well, that's okay then.

dmeehan

narommy wrote:

I really can't wait for the Heath to Mayfield M7 road. It is exceptionally bad for 45mphers from Monasterevin to Portlaois By Pass

that stretch is a favourite haunt of portlaoise gardai with speed cameras, be warned!

narommy

Sleipnir wrote:

Well, seeing as most RTA's occur at night, statistics disagree with you.



Ah well, that's okay then.

I did say except for the pissheads. And I did say national roads. If adjusted for those two factors the statistics might agree.

How could they disagree when the numbers of cars on the roads are a fraction of daytime figures and motorists get an advanced warning when they see lights comming in distance.

I'm also sure that if you check those statistics again they will say after midnight. When people get out of the pubs. Whose going to drive long distance at between 12 & 4 am

I meant to say night time as in 8pm to 12pm and early morning as in 4am to 8am


As for the second comment. Of course it's not ok but it does back up the point that driving at an in appropriate speed does kill even if you are not doing the killing. Rules of the road do say hat you should keep to the left and let others pass you.

narommy

dmeehan wrote:

that stretch is a favourite haunt of portlaoise gardai with speed cameras, be warned!

Yes I know. But it doesn't bother me cos I'm no speed merchant and I keep to the speed limits most of the time. Sometimes you have to go above that limit to overtake safely, especially when the 45mphers speed up to 55 on a good stretch.

Also other stretch I refer to is a 60 zone so there is no excuse for going 40mph and definitely no need to fear gardai.

Sleipnir

narommy wrote:

If adjusted for those two factors the statistics might agree.

So, we should adjust the statistic until they show a conclusion more in line with what wewant to think are the most likely causes?


While I agree there are more drunk drivers on our roads at night during the day, speed is the number one killer on out roads, not drink.

Anyway, I've argued about roads far too often in past couple of weeks so I think I'd better give it a rest.

leeroybrown

narommy wrote:

What's worse is those who drive 45-50 on national roads and when the road straightens up they speed up to 60 so that you can't keep to the speed limit and overtake.

Generally speaking, if I were to over take a car on a decent road without infringing the speed limit slightly they would either be crawling or I would be driving poorly. I believe that once I'm in a position where it is safe to overtake I should do so safely but quickly then slow back down into normal traffic. Having been in cars with drivers who see fit to meander past a car at 5mph extra I feel a lot safer if I know that I am executing the manouver swiftly.

As for the 45mph drivers, you should try the N17 from Tuam to Galway on a Sunday afternoon. I have absolutely no issue with drivers who want to drive at 45mph so long as they show the necessary courtesy to other drivers who don't. If a faster moving car approaches me from behind I will generally make space for them to pass (both to my right and in front) but very few of these slow drivers seem to have either the courtesy or observation to realise this.

On the N17 I refer to them as rolling roadblocks. All you need is one 45mph driver who won't pull in and a second driver who slows down, doesn't pass and more importanly won't drop back a reasonable distance so as to allow another driver to overtake. I've seen tailbacks of over 100 cars at 40mph with miles of clear road ahead because of two or three inconsiderate/incompetent drivers.

narommy

Agreed

Could agrue about it for ever. Fact is people are goin to die on roads. It's just a fact of life and a combination of so many different factors.
It is my opinion that I am safer driving on the M/N7,N21,N86 after eight in the evening.

narommy

leeroybrown wrote:

Generally speaking, if I were to over take a car on a decent road without infringing the speed limit slightly they would either be crawling or I would be driving poorly. I believe that once I'm in a position where it is safe to overtake I should do so safely but quickly then slow back down into normal traffic. Having been in cars with drivers who see fit to meander past a car at 5mph extra I feel a lot safer if I know that I am executing the manouver swiftly.

As for the 45mph drivers, you should try the N17 from Tuam to Galway on a Sunday afternoon. I have absolutely no issue with drivers who want to drive at 45mph so long as they show the necessary courtesy to other drivers who don't. If a faster moving car approaches me from behind I will generally make space for them to pass (both to my right and in front) but very few of these slow drivers seem to have either the courtesy or observation to realise this.

On the N17 I refer to them as rolling roadblocks. All you need is one 45mph driver who won't pull in and a second driver who slows down, doesn't pass and more importanly won't drop back a reasonable distance so as to allow another driver to overtake. I've seen tailbacks of over 100 cars at 40mph with miles of clear road ahead because of two or three inconsiderate/incompetent drivers.

I agree with this 100%. Spot on.

GreeBo

laoisfan wrote:

hi
- but what about those who do not do the speed limits??

--laoisfan

lim·it Audio pronunciation of "limit" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lmt)
n.

1. The point, edge, or line beyond which something cannot or may not proceed.
2. limits The boundary surrounding a specific area; bounds: within the city limits.
3. A confining or restricting object, agent, or influence.

Perhaps you need a definition of "minimum"?

ArphaRima

To the people talking about the speed limit. You should realise that though it is called a limit, it is also the speed the state expects you to drive at; conditions permitting.

Anybody who has done their driving test will know that driving constantly 5 mph below the limit will fail them the test. Only when negotiating a bend, approaching a hazard, or in poor road conditions etc should people be driving slower.
If 3 cars are causing 200 cars to drive 15-20 mph below this speed, there should be a law to correct it. It is a universal grievance.

leeroybrown

fluffer wrote:

To the people talking about the speed limit. You should realise that though it is called a limit, it is also the speed the state expects you to drive at; conditions permitting.

To my knowedge on American freeways traffic cop's will can (and do) give tickets to motorists for not travelling sufficiently fast for the road conditions.

sliabh

fluffer wrote:

Anybody who has done their driving test will know that driving constantly 5 mph below the limit will fail them the test.

That is because the tests are usually carried out in urban areas and the tester is failing you as you are doing 20-25 mph and so are an obstacle to other road users.

There is nothing illegal (and I doubt you would fail the test) for doing 45 in a 60mph zone.

fluffer wrote:

If 3 cars are causing 200 cars to drive 15-20 mph below this speed, there should be a law to correct it. It is a universal grievance.

I'd love to hear your suggestions for how you think this could be enforced.

Off the top of my head I can think of a range of excuses that I could give in a court that would get me off this one ("I was pulling into traffic", "I was using a spare tyre after getting a flat and didn't want to travel too fast with it", "the weather conditions at the time did not warrant a faster speed", "a cat, dog, badger, cow, etc ran on the road and I was going slow after being startled", the list goes on)

magpie

It's what's refered to in the rules of the road as 'making due progress'. This means you must not impede the progress of vehicles behind you by driving too slowly.

Due Progress also overrides the speed limit. In other words if you are doing 60mph on a 60mph limit road, but everyone else is doing 70mph, you are not making due progress, and can in theory be done for it

As I said in my earlier post the majority of fatalities are caused by people being forced to overtake on crappy single lane roads. Do any statistics exist for the number of people killed in Ireland on motorways/dual carriageways compared with on 'N' roads?

Sleipnir

That is just so wrong you couldn't be more wrong.
Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong, wrong. Oh, just so wrong.

Overrided the speed limit?????? WHAT!!!!????
That Theory is not only ill-thought it is 100% incorrect.

You're doing 60.
Everyone else is doing 70, i.e. breaking the speed limit and law whereas you are not.
You'll be done for it????

"Forced" to over take?
"Forced" to overtake dangerously endangering lives?
Who the hell is forcing you to kill people?

Get the hell out......
I feel like I'm taking crazy-pills here.

Hagar

I remember seeing a Garda spokesman on RTE discussing speed limits and he described them "as limits not targets".The point being made was that a speed limit of 60mph did not imply that you must do 60mph it simply stated you must not exceed it.
Driving within your limitations, taking into account your vehicle, road and weather conditions etc is much more to be admired than someone who has mastered the art of driving at 59.999mph and does it come day, night, sharp bends, hail, rain or shine.
If I choose to drive at 50mph in a 60mph zone I am behaving perfectly reasonably. It would be wrong of me to impede someone who wished to drive at 55mph so I should briefly pull in to the hardshoulder, as per page 18 of the current Rules of the Road, to allow faster traffic to pass. No grief for anyone there.
What really causes the problem is the driver who tailgates me at the same speed and refuses to pull in. He is not allowing sufficient space between his car and mine to allow faster drivers to "leap frog" past him and then me as the conditions allow. It naturally gets worse if inexperienced drivers, possibly L drivers, or drivers in less powerful cars come along from behind and can't pass both cars at once.

embraer170

one of my pet hates is when the driver in front brakes when a car is approaching from the opposite direction.

They wont hit you, they have their own side of the road!

I could accept your statement in France/Germany but on many Irish roads I think slowing down is a pure necessity.

Given road conditions here, narrow/blind bends, trees/hedges pretty much all roads, very poor surface incl. potholes, generally poor weather and so on, I just don't get the speed culture that is all too prevalent.

fletch

Sleipnir wrote:

That is just so wrong you couldn't be more wrong.
Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong, wrong. Oh, just so wrong.

Overrided the speed limit?????? WHAT!!!!????
That Theory is not only ill-thought it is 100% incorrect.

You're doing 60.
Everyone else is doing 70, i.e. breaking the speed limit and law whereas you are not.
You'll be done for it????

"Forced" to over take?
"Forced" to overtake dangerously endangering lives?
Who the hell is forcing you to kill people?

Get the hell out......
I feel like I'm taking crazy-pills here.

Agreed what a loada bu1lsh1t....I can hear the judge...Em sir are you aware that you were not breaking the speed limit....thats a 1yr endorsement on your licence and 3months in prison :rolleyes:

narommy

Hagar wrote:

If I choose to drive at 50mph in a 60mph zone I am behaving perfectly reasonably. It would be wrong of me to impede someone who wished to drive at 55mph so I should briefly pull in to the hardshoulder, as per page 18 of the current Rules of the Road, to allow faster traffic to pass. No grief for anyone there.

If everybody did that then there wouldn't be a problem and nobody would be contribution to this thread. But they don't.

And then there are those that drive in the hard shoulder and into the side of traffic coming from side roads

Agree that it is the second car that causes the problem.

As for magpie's contribution. I vaguely remember hearing that from several instructors but i don't think it would stand up in court and i think it is still expected that you will remain within the limits.

Actually it typifies the whole situation. There should be a complete re-write of the rules of the road with appropriate sanctions included. Then anybody who went over the speed limit (apart from overtaking and immediately before and after) it should be screwed.

magpie

Below is an excerpt from an Oireachtas debate on the Road Traffic Bill 1993. Read the full thing here http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/S/0138/S.0138.199312140004.html, that is if you can actually be bothered taking a reasoned approach to the debate rather than flying into a "won't somebody think of the children" tizzy at the suggestion that slow driving is as dangerous as fast driving. Sleipnir, thanks for the negative karma point just because you do not agree with my position, which is clearly what the sytem is for. :rolleyes: . I'll resist the temptation to give you one back on principle.

"The Bill makes two omissions. There are two causes of danger on the roads, one is pedestrians and the other is slow driving. Too many people feel that if they chug along at 30 miles per hour in the middle of a main highway they will be safe. That is dangerous behaviour and it should not be allowed. Making due progress is part of the driving test and should be reflected in legislation.

The problem created by people driving on the right hand side of what is effectively the width of a two lane highway at 30 or 35 miles per hour is not acceptable. When those people hold up a queue of cars on a busy weekend the frustration levels of the 200 drivers behind are increased. That is culpability and should be seen as such. We are too soft about such behaviour. There is a view that driving slowly makes it impossible to damage anybody; however, it is possible to damage the health of 200 or 300 people driving behind. That should be looked at."

On the subject of whether dual carriageways would be safer than single lane roads, please have a look at this http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/2655.pdf where you will find the statistic that "accidents occur on all roads but predominantly (76.6% on 2 way single carriageway roads. Motorways and dual carriageways are relatively safer than single carriageway roads".

Sleipnir

What is the reputation thing for?
Is it not for when you dissapprove of someone's post and their reputation, in your own eyes, declined?
What is it for then?

Also, I see you're are not going to argue your point;
"Due Progress also overrides the speed limit." ?

Taking your last point first, There was no argument from me (or anyone else) about whether or not dual-carraigeways or motorways are safer than single lane roads so you're telling me what everyone already knows.
What do you suggest, that we turn ALL two lane roads into motorways?

Pedestrians are not "a cause of danger", they are other road users who must deal with motorists and it works the other way too.
If pedestrians are a danger to motorists, than motorists are also a danger to pedestrians. A far greater one in fact.

Slow driving is far less dangerous than fast driving.
Slow driving, in itself, does not cause the accidents. As you said previously,
people getting frustrated at the slow drivers and overtaking dangerously is what causes the accidents.

If you child was killed by someone overtaking a 'slow' driver recklessly
you'd punch the slow driver?

There is no view that driving slowly makes it impossible to hurt anyone. Show me one person who says
"If I drive at 30 mph then I will NEVER cause or be a part of an RTA"
That's stupid and it's not a point anyone here has made.

Making due progress means that you do not hold up other traffic uneccessarily.
it does not mean that you should fly along at a speed you are not comfortable doing just so drivers can do the same. That would cause crashes.
If you can make the speed limit given that the current conditions allow you to do so, then you should. That is 'making progress'

By the way, I've taken part in quite a few debates about our roads in the past on boards and I haven't flown into a "won't somebody think of the children"
I also got two reputation points from other readers of this thread one of whom had this to say about your above point;

"agreed never heard so much crap in all my life"

magpie

I'll put it this way: If you are in a stream of traffic that is doing 70mph in a 40mph zone (for instance heading out on the Naas road past the red cow) you are not going to get stoppped by a Guard for speeding. Why? Because the majority of the traffic is flowing at that speed. Making Due Progress. If Due Progress does not override the speed limit why don't the Guards hand out several thousand tickets a day to everyone who drives at 40mph in built-up areas? I'm not saying it's enshrined in law, but it is certainly what happens in practice.

On another issue, you seem to keep appending the words 'reckless' and 'dangerous' every time overtaking is mentioned. Granted, overtaking is an intrinsically dangerous process, but you seem to assume anyone who does so is in some way unhinged.

I would make the assertion that if due progress were maintained on all roads (i.e. driving at the speed limit, 60 on an N road, in clear weather with good visibility) there would be many less fatalities, as there would be less overtaking. Most overtaking is caused by frustration with people driving needlessly slowly. Emphasis on needlessly. I've never said drive faster than you are comfortable with, or do 70 on an N road when it covered with ice. I can't see what's so controversial about that.

What do you suggest, that we turn ALL two lane roads into motorways?

Certainly the ones leading from the main urban centres to each other, yes. Dublin to Galway, Cork and Belfast should absolutely be motorway, all the way. Again, I fail to see why you are so incredulous about this idea.

I also have to say I find it hilarious that in one post you state

By the way, I've taken part in quite a few debates about our roads in the past on boards and I haven't flown into a "won't somebody think of the children"

and then follow it up with

If you child was killed by someone overtaking a 'slow' driver recklessly

Capt'n Midnight

Re drivers doing 30mph..

If the Motorway signs are anything to go by, you are allowed to do 30mph on it.

Maybe they should change it to No slow vehicles, under 45mph

narommy

magpie wrote:

I would make the assertion that if due progress were maintained on all roads (i.e. driving at the speed limit, 60 on an N road, in clear weather with good visibility) there would be many less fatalities, as there would be less overtaking. Most overtaking is caused by frustration with people driving needlessly slowly. Emphasis on needlessly. I've never said drive faster than you are comfortable with, or do 70 on an N road when it covered with ice. I can't see what's so controversial about that.



Certainly the ones leading from the main urban centres to each other, yes. Dublin to Galway, Cork and Belfast should absolutely be motorway, all the way. Again, I fail to see why you are so incredulous about this idea.

(A) I agree with your assertion.

(B) I agree that there should be intercity motor ways (I think that Limerick to Dublin should have been the main focus and all efforts should have been diverted towards that aim. then two spurs to cork & galway. It would have been cheaper, faster and reasonably effective at reducing journey times)

Sleipnir

magpie wrote:

I'll put it this way: If you are in a stream of traffic that is doing 70mph in a 40mph zone (for instance heading out on the Naas road past the red cow) you are not going to get stoppped by a Guard for speeding. Why? Because the majority of the traffic is flowing at that speed. Making Due Progress. If Due Progress does not override the speed limit why don't the Guards hand out several thousand tickets a day to everyone who drives at 40mph in built-up areas? I'm not saying it's enshrined in law, but it is certainly what happens in practice.

Because they don't have the resources to do so.
That is not "making progress" that is breaking the law by speeding which is the No. 1 cause of fatalities on our roads.
"Not making progress" is not the no. 1 cause of fatalities on our roads.
Now, should we try to fix the No. 1 problem or one of the other ones?

If you are doing 70 in a 40 zone which has a Gatso will you not get a ticket as long as the surrounding traffic is doing the same speed?

magpie wrote:

On another issue, you seem to keep appending the words 'reckless' and 'dangerous' every time overtaking is mentioned. Granted, overtaking is an intrinsically dangerous process, but you seem to assume anyone who does so is in some way unhinged.

I do simply because you said

magpie wrote:

the majority of fatalities are caused by people being forced to overtake on crappy single lane roads

magpie wrote:

Certainly the ones leading from the main urban centres to each other, yes. Dublin to Galway, Cork and Belfast should absolutely be motorway, all the way. Again, I fail to see why you are so incredulous about this idea.

Where have I stated that there shouldn't be motorways between all major cities?
Show me where I was "incredulous" about the idea that there should be motorways between major cities?
Come one, QUOTE ME!

It's a lovely idea, brilliant in fact. I'm surprised no one else has come up with it. :rolleyes:
Now, back to the REALITY, motorways DO NOT exist between all the major cities so we're back to what can we do right now, in this reality and not the superhighway dream you're thinking of?

ArphaRima

I suggest that the number one killer on Irish roads is not speed. Its Irish roads. The reason we have a high death rate compared to other european countries is that other countries do not have to commute long distances on sub-par roads. Driving to work, the shops, or across the country in most european countries will have you on a motorway or a decently paved and straight road for the most part.

As for slow drivers. They are the bane of any person caught behind them. I ask you Sleipnir if you are one of these drivers. Do you drive in the overtaking lane of the M50 at 64mph? Do you drive on the N4 in Leitrim at 48mph?
I am trying to figure out what it is you are defending? Solve this problem. Should they be allowed, or how do we fix it. That is what this argument is about. Stop throwing National Safety Council blurb at everyone and come up with a viable solution.
Personally I think an ad campaign is needed on a whole load of topics. Like: how to use a roundabout, how to facilitate overtaking, how to use a junction and so on. This kind of advertising will save more lives than the "dont speed" mantra.

Besides, speed is a contributing factor to most crashes. That does not mean that everyone crashed while speeding (over the speed limit). They crashed because they were driving at an inappropriate speed for whatever happened next to cause them to crash. Their speed just made a recovery unlikely.

seamus

magpie wrote:

I would make the assertion that if due progress were maintained on all roads (i.e. driving at the speed limit, 60 on an N road, in clear weather with good visibility) there would be many less fatalities, as there would be less overtaking. Most overtaking is caused by frustration with people driving needlessly slowly. Emphasis on needlessly.

I disagree (on what most dangerous overtaking is caused by).
Right, a speed limit is the maximum speed that the State deems it safe to drive an, in ideal conditions. Ergo, exceeding that limit means that one is driving unsafely.
So if I'm driving at 60mph on a national road, and vehicles behind me wish to do 70mph, I may be hindering due progress, but I'm not necessarily doing the wrong thing. If a driver wishes to exceed the speed limit, that's his concern, not mine. There is no provision in Traffic Law that allows one to drive at unsafe speeds (i.e. over the limit - don't start the safe -v- unsafe debate, in court, "over the limit" means "unsafe") so as to allow others to drive at unsafe speeds.

What the actual thinking on it is this (and I don't know how many times we've gone through this):
When you are driving down the road, you have an obligation to other road users. If you are driving, and you can see a driver behind, who by signalling, or by action, wishes to drive faster than you, you have an obligation to give extra room (where safe), to allow the other driver to overtake you. This can involve moving onto the hard shoulder, moving towards the left edge of the road, or even pulling in and stopping at a rest point. Again, where safe. If it is not safe to do any of these things, you have no obligation. A driver is free to drive on a national road at 20mph (say a tractor), but is required by law to avoid or minimise the obstruction he causes to other road users.
If you are doing 60 on a national road, and the driver wishes to do 70, the same still applies. His speed is irrelevant. Just because you're doing the speed limit, that doesn't mean that you are allowed to prevent other drivers from overtaking you.

That is what's meant by "due progress". Due progress means using Irish roads in a manner such that you do not seriously obstruct or hamper other road users' progress. A line of cars doing 70mph in a 30 zone is not "due progress". By that same logic, one car can do 70 in a 30 zone in the middle of the night, and claim they can't be done, because they were only making "due progress".
The reason people fail for doing under 30 in a 30 zone is because 30 zones tend to be either narrow roads or busy roads. By driving very slowly in an already slow-moving environment, you will not be making due progress, and obstructing other traffic is unavoidable.

Now, back to the overtaking. Slow-moving drivers don't cause other drivers to make bad manouvers. Other drivers make bad manouvers. In my experience, all of the worst overtaking manouvers I have seen have occured through impatience, or at high speed. Most times I've been driving at or above 60mph, some guy comes up behind, spends 3 minutes swerving left and right 5 feet behind me, and then overtakes straight out of a corner, over a white line, before another blind corner.
Being a motorbike, the worst kind of morons think it's OK to take more space for overtaking, and I've been overtaken within 18 inches at 70mph on a busy M50 (and yes, in the left hand lane).
If you see a line of slow-moving traffic, most of the drivers will wait their turn to overtake, then overtake where it's safe. All of the most dangerous overtakes here occur through impatience, when one guy in his Merc or his Civic gets pissed off, overtakes 4 cars, an articulated truck and a minibus, then swerves back into the queue 20m from the corner when a car appears.

The "poor roads" excuse is a lame duck, and one that the stats disagree with you on. Road conditions (and of that it's usually environmental factors) account for only a couple of percent of road fatilities, with the big chunks being taken by driver error, inappropriate speed and drink-driving.
Exactly as above, bad roads don't cause good drivers to make bad decisions. Bad drivers make their own bad decisions. If the road is to blame for an accident, then why doesn't every vehicle that uses that same piece of road, have an accident? Because almost everyone else was driving correctly for whatever hazard has presented itself.

Sleipnir

your "suggestion" is just plain wrong.
People speeding where it is dangerous to do so, i.e. our country roads is
what is killing people.

Of course, speeding the on the crappy roads we have increases the danger.
Do you think I don't know that?
Again, quote me where I said "it's not safe to travel at speed on motorways"
Or that
"we don't need more motorways"


You're right, we need straight, flat roads everywhere. Tell me how we're going to convert country roads to decent roads given;
a.) Cost (of doing them all?)
b.) Environmentalists doing their nut at the loss of the countryside.
c.) Loss of tourism given b.)
d.) See a.)

Should they be allowed drive in the overtaking lane at 64mph? No they shouldn't. Do I? No, I overtake in the overtaking lane oddly enough.
Fix it? There is a law against it.
Police it? That's a matter of Garda resources.

What is your solution?
Tell me what viable solution anyone has come up with on this thread.
One that will actually work given the points above.
Not some airy-fairy "let's just make big flat motorways everywhere"

Given that we can't afford motorways to replace every secondary road in the country (which is where most of the accidents occur) is the solution

"Well, we can't have motorways so we'll just drive faster than the condition of the road allows"

my solution is not to drive fast where the road and conditions do not allow it i.e. speeding would seriously increase the risk of causing serious injury or death.

Solution to 'slow drivers'? There is none.
You'll always have drivers who aren't going as fast as YOU want to. That's the nature of motoring.
You're responsibility as a motorist is to deal with those situations (and all others) without endangering lives.
If they don't pull in to allow you to pass, deal with it.
Overtaking while honking your horn, shaking your fists where it isn't safe to do so means YOU are endangering lives.

magpie

Why Sleipnir do you keep reverting to this facile assumption that there are only two kinds of road users?

a) Considerate, sensible drivers who obey the speed limits to the letter.
b) Horn-blowing, fist-shaking, child killing reprobates.

Yes there are good drivers and bad drivers on the roads, but the question is how to best reduce the likelihood of accidents. The statistics show conclusively (76.6%) that the majority or accidents are on the poor single lane national roads.

What crazy utopian solution do I have? How about spending some tax revenue on improving the roads? How about spending some EU Infrastructure funding on improving the roads?

And Seamus, I'm not suggesting the roads literally cause accidents. What I am saying is if there was an overtaking lane on all the major national roads then all of the dangerous driving scenarios you listed would cease to be relevant as Honda Civic/Merc drivers could bomb along in the fast lane and not endanger oncoming traffic at blind corners. The better the roads are, the safer. The more lanes, the safer. This is statistical fact.

If there was an overtaking lane on all national roads this thread wouldn't exist as those who choose to meander along at 35 mph in a 60 zone listening to Peter, Paul and Mary in their car with the little silver fish on the back of it whilst tut-tutting at the child-killing drug-addled monsters who dare to drive at the speed limit would have their own lane in which to do so. The rest of us competent, adult, responsible drivers would simply look in our mirror, indicate right, overtake, then pull back into the slow lane leaving the fast lane free for anyone who wants to overtake us.

seamus

magpie wrote:

If there was an overtaking lane on all national roads this thread wouldn't exist as those who choose to meander along at 35 mph in a 60 zone listening to Peter, Paul and Mary in their car with the little silver fish on the back of it whilst tut-tutting at the child-killing drug-addled monsters who dare to drive at the speed limit would have their own lane in which to do so. The rest of us competent, adult, responsible drivers would simply look in our mirror, indicate right, overtake, then pull back into the slow lane leaving the fast lane free for anyone who wants to overtake us.

Or you'll just get two cars, or more than likely, trucks, meandering along, side-by-side, pootling along at 35mph.

The roads argument is neither here nor there. You're right, absolutely, but unrealistic. Accidents occur because Irish drivers are inconsiderate, impatient and both un and mis educated. When people are using guns improperly, you don't try to make bullets less lethal, you try to get them to cop the **** on.

magpie

Or you'll just get two cars, or more than likely, trucks, meandering along, side-by-side, pootling along at 35mph.

Very true, sadly.