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

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.

Sleipnir

magpie wrote:

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.

You continually state "you keep saying...." without providing quotes?
I asked you above to quote me where I was

"incredulous about the idea that there should be motorways between major cities"
and you still haven't.

now, you're saying I stated that there are two types of drivers.
Again, please quote me.

Or is misrepresetation of what I say the only way you can further your own arguments?

The statistics show that most accidents occur on those roads because those are the most common roads we have.
Statistics also show that speeding on those roads is the no. 1 killer.

If we had 100% motorways, statistics would show that 100% of accidents occur on motorways. That's statistics for you!

Are we not spending money on roads?
Do you have an estimate for the cost of improving/straightening all our roads at once?
How many times the GNP of Ireland would you think it would cost to do that?
That is utopian.

Sleipnir

To close,

My point is it is not the crap roads (or slow drivers) that are killing people. It's the behaviour of drivers on these crap roads which is, that is, speeding.
Yes, more motorways between cities would be great (and I've never said otherwise despite Magpie's claims) and would save lives and they are being built, but until then speeding on roads where the conditions don't allow it will continue to kill people.

Saying "if we had motorways everywhere this wouldn't happen" is all well and good but we don't have motorways everywhere.

jlang

Sleipnir wrote:

Saying "if we had motorways everywhere this wouldn't happen" is all well and good but we don't have motorways everywhere.

All the above discussion reconfirms my opinions that there isn't enough instruction on use of dual carriageways and motorways when learning to drive/taking the test, that there are too many bad drivers out there (nervous slow ones and reckless fast ones), and that everyone is the best driver in the world, in their own opinion.

The complaints about lane positioning become more true and the frustrations will be more vocal as the new roads keep opening. ... Anybody expecting to see empty 'slow' lanes on the 3 lane M50 and the upgraded sections of Naas Road and Lucan Road? With all the cars running along happily pushed as far to the right as they can fit, queueing behind a couple of 'just-below-my-limit'-ers? And then a new generation of undertakers (the hearse-booking kind rather than the hearse-driving kind) starting to rush down the left lane, and eventually the general order of lanes swapping so that the overtaking lane is on the left.

With all the millions going into the roads some should be put aside for a public awareness programme on motorway etiquette.

narommy

Maybe am wrong but i think the main problem (which could be solved) is lack of awareness and consideration on the part of drivers, and lack of clear, sensible rules of the road legislation and education.

There should be a clear and short "appropriate driving behaviour" guide issued to all households or licence holders, followed by an advertising campaign followed by an enforcement blitz by the gardai.

A condensed version of the problems and appropriate behaviours as outlined in this thread would be a good basis for the guide. It's common sense and consideration. But so many have either one or none of these characteristics.

sliabh

narommy wrote:

Maybe am wrong but i think the main problem (which could be solved) is lack of awareness and consideration on the part of drivers, and lack of clear, sensible rules of the road legislation and education.

There should be a clear and short "appropriate driving behaviour" guide issued to all households or licence holders

Would this be like the "Rule of the Road Booklet" that is widely available and is what you are assessed on when you do your test?

There are pretty straightforward and common sense guidelines in place. The problem is muppets not following them and the shortfall of enforcement.

An idea that has just occurred to me is that maybe people with 5+ penalty points should be made re-sit their test. It's less drastic than taking their licence off them and the publicity behind the idea alone would probably shake up driving standards.

The idea does assume that the current daft waiting period for testing is eliminated (by magic possibly as the government can't seem to manage it) and we need more offences to be covered by the penalty points system.

magpie

I didn't say "you keep saying" anywhere on that post.

I do say that you keep reverting to a number of facile assumptions, and you can quote me on that.

narommy

sliabh wrote:

Would this be like the "Rule of the Road Booklet" that is widely available and is what you are assessed on when you do your test?

And when is the last time you have looked at that wonderful piece of literature??????????:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And what about the many over 50's who never sat a teat in their lives but had licences to drive HGV's until very recently

I was thinking something in the line of A5 leaflet with basic guidelines

for appropriate speeds, to pull in when causing obstruction, not to undertake, to indicate, to use the left lane unless passing, not to speed up when opportunity for person behind you to overtake presents to heed whitelines, to leave adequate space infront so as not to go into the back of other driver, and to let overtakers leapfrog, not to drive across junctions in the hard shoulder.

Can you think of other things that are included in the rules of the road that people haven't seen for 20 or so years?

I can't imagine many people going out to buy a copy of the rules of the road by the way, much lesss reading it. No matter how good the ads are

Sleipnir

magpie wrote:

I didn't say "you keep saying" anywhere on that post.

I do say that you keep reverting to a number of facile assumptions, and you can quote me on that.

Again, you didn't quote where I was;
"incredulous about the idea that there should be motorways between major cities""

I guess that's because you now realise I didn't say anything like that.

Didn't you help GWB with his presidential debates ?

ArphaRima

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.

My quote above is exactly the direction I would like to see the government take. Spending on roads, tunnels bridges, motorways, overtaking lanes etc should continue.
Driver education is where the battle will be won. First step there is to massively increase the number of driving test centres and examiners. Next should be a mandatory 5 or 10 year driving test to keep your driving licence current. Every 5 years a written test, and every 10 years a practical driving exam. NCT was brought in to ensure cars were safe for driving, perhaps a similar structure could be used to ensure our drivers are safe for driving.

Capt'n Midnight

Sleipnir wrote:

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.

I would extend that to include cyclists and motorcyclists, most collisions are caused the motorists not cyclists. Any one looking up casulties in cycling will notice very few, despite the number of crashes during the various tours, and those guys do up to 70mph on the downhills...

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.

Actually you would need to be travelling at 20mph AND be ready to jam on the brakes for that to be true, the idea being you would be able to slow down in time.