Traffic Lights for different lanes...

Dizzyblabla

ok, so this woman just went straight into me a few hours ago, she's destroyed my beautiful little Nissan Micra and it is all her fault... But I actually wanna kind of stick up for her (a tiny bit) because the traffic lights can be soo misleading.

Basically I was going straight, my lights were green to go straight, or to turn left. The right hand lane's arrow to turn right were not on, so traffic in the lane to my right was stopped. (this was good, because the taxi driver who was stopped at the lights saw everything!)

Now the woman who went into me was at the other side of the junction, anyone who knows Cork will know the junction at Woodies DIY. The cars to the left of her had a green light to turn left and to go straight, so, although there was no arrow for her to turn right, there was no red light either, so she kept driving and went straight into me. I tried to break, but it was all too late.

The thing is, she didn't see any red light, so kept going, although there was no arrow for her. Is it wrong of me to think that there should be a red light for the arrows too? Although she should have at least slowed down when she was turning at a junction like this anyway, but, as I've seen alot, people just go when they see cars to the left or the right of them pulling off.

So do people think that there should be different lights for the different lanes to give a better indication as to when people should stop? I know most of us have the cop on to stop, but obviously there are still people out there who see a green light and assume it's for them too....

samo

sorry to hear what happened and at least its only the car thats sustained damage ....and not you!!

On the lights issue, I can see your point alright as I witnessed a really nasty crash where a driver doing exactly what the woman who crashed into you did ended up taking a biker out of it who was going through the junction at approx 30-35 MPH and the biker came off very badly, couple of broken legs, broken ribs, absolutely mangled bike etc afetr being catapulted in the air at least 20 feet.

While we were waiting for the ambulance for him if you looked at the sequence of lights, it would have been similar to what you described as in there was no filter to go right but obviously the person looking at the lights got confused and went when their way was not clear - they hit the biker at a fairly low speed but was a nasty sight to see.

Hope you get your car sorted anyhow.

fletch

Do I take it that the lights in her direction have a green and then a filter light....? People these days don't seem to understand filter lights, really annoys me.....but anyway sounds to me like she saw a green and she thought that gave her right of way (as if the filter light was on)....sounds to me like you were in the right here

Dizzyblabla

oh, I was definately right, the filter light wasn't on, but she saw the green arrow to go straight and saw the cars to the left of her go, so she kept going...

I'm getting a dirty rotten bruise on my shoulder from the seatbelt, but so far my neck feels ok, she was even going to fast to be turning a corner to be honest, but like samo said at least noone was hurt. It's just going to be annoying to be without my car for a while.

I'm going to commend the taxi driver here too, he waited until the guards got to the scene and told them exactly what happened, gave us all his card and said if we needed anything to contact him. I've called him to say thanks and he just brushed it off like it was nothing. There was alot of people on the road and noone else stopped, but he waited. What a gentleman!

colm_mcm

surely it's common sense not to cross a road with oncoming traffic unless you're 100% sure that you're in a position to do it?

Dizzyblabla

colm_mcm wrote:

surely it's common sense not to cross a road with oncoming traffic unless you're 100% sure that you're in a position to do it?

well, yes, it is, but it's quite obvious that common sense is not used very often on Irish roads...

John R

You shouldn't feel ANY sympathy for her. The junction had an arrow for straight ahead not a standard light, that in itself should be reason enough not to turn without a turn arrow.

Besides a green traffic light is not an unconditional right of way, it only means proceed if it is safe to do so. Turning right in front of oncoming traffic is not safe.


Far too many people treat driving as a casual activity, they sort-of know some of the rules and pay attention when the phone isn't ringing. They get away with most of the dangerous mistakes most of the time and that just reinforces their belief that they are good drivers.

It was just dumb luck that you weren't badly injured or that it was a car rather than a motorcycle, bike or pedestrian that she hit.

TempestSabre

The lights are confusing. Theres loads of lights like this now. Theres

1)
green for left
green for straight
no light for right

for me that means turn right if nothing comming.

2)
green for left
green for straight
green for right

Also means turn right if nothing comming. I know you've right of way, but you still check regardless. In real terms theres no difference. However the light should also have...

3)
green for left
green for straight
red light for right

Which mean no right turn. Problem is for some reason they aren't putting red lights on these filter lights. So people dunno what to do. If theres no red on the filter, why have the filter? No red light, people go. Its lethal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another insane thing they do is the one they do with the sequence.

green for left
green for straight
green for right

So everyone goes through the junction but just as your turning on right a wide junction it suddenly switches to...

green for left
green for straight
no light for right (but no red on it either)

...and of course the guys at the lights take off like its a drag race. In fairness it because the intervals are so short, you can't hesitate or you might miss the light. However you're still turning right, and now you've cars comming right at you. Its insane. I'm sure its the cause of some really bad accidents.

FuzzyWuzzyWazza

TempestSabre wrote:

Which mean no right turn. Problem is for some reason they aren't putting red lights on these filter lights. So people dunno what to do. If theres no red on the filter, why have the filter? No red light, people go. Its lethal.

The reason there is no red light is to allow traffic to turn right when it is safe to do so, and not only when right of way is given by the green filter light.

Some sets of light do have a red with the filter but it also sometimes does not come on (and the green filter is also off) to allow traffic to move.

If you have a green filter light you still have to ensure that the way is clear, you could be hit by an ambulance, Garda car or a dangerious vehicle such as a robbed car.

Balfa

ah jaysus, do none of yis know how traffic lights work??

Traffic lights are usually green for opposite directions at a crossroads, then they go red, and the other two directions (which are opposite to each other) go green.

In the general case, you get one round light per direction. When your light is green, you go straight or left. The opposite direction's light is usually green as well, so they go straight or left. Anyone wanting to turn right, waits until the way is clear for them to do so. This is exactly how an uncontrolled junction works as well. If there were no traffic lights and she was trying to turn right into a petrol station but instead hit you, it'd be the exact same situation. Would you stick up for her then?

Filters can be used in various situations to improve traffic flow. Any situation I've seen filters used has been safe and intuitive* to use. Here are some situations:

1. Normal traffic lights with added right-arrow filter. When green light is on but filter is off, it's the same as above. When filter is on, it indicates that oncoming traffic now have a red light, so you have right of way to turn right.
eg centre of Bray, coming from the dargle.

2. Left arrow so you can turn when there's no chance of another car being at odds with you.
eg centre of Bray, coming from Herbert road in situation 2 above where the traffic coming out of the left has full right of way to do whatever they want (except U-turn, which is why you're allowed to turn left).

3. Full set of traffic lights with a right arrow filter in addition to full set of lights with a straight arrow filter. There will be NO green circles in this case. Only arrows. Straight ahead arrow lights to allow cars to go straight (or turn left, heh) and usually it's the same case for the opposite direction. Right arrow filter will remain RED indicating there is absolutely no permission to turn right, even if the way is completely clear. The right arrow comes on independent of the straight arrow to indicate that the oncoming traffic now has a red light and you have right of way to turn right across their path. This is the ONLY time you may turn right in this situation.
eg I think one of the lights heading into town on the N11, probably the one at cornellscourt. It's been a long time.

4. There are variations on these. Sometimes in situation 1, the right arrow filter will have an amber filter above it (without a red light, other than the one on the main set of lights). This allows you to turn right independently of the cars attempting to go straight or left, this usually lights after the main light has gone from green through amber back to red. It's mostly used to allow cars coming from opposite directions to turn right across each others path at busy junctions when they often don't get a chance under the normal green.

This is all bog standard stuff. Now for godsake, go and learn the rules.


* - actually, that left turn from Herbert road in the centre of Bray is bloody dangerous. There's no amber filter, and sometimes at night the filter comes on for someone to turn left as normal, but if no cars are waiting on the pressure pads to go straight, the main lights from the herbert road won't be triggered, and the filter will go straight from green to red! So if you're hurtling down the herbert road wanting to turn left, the lights suddenly go red without any amber warning, and you're totally screwed.

IDMUD

Getting confused by traffic lights is simply inexcusable. Wonder why the insurance premiums are in the state they are WHEN PEOPLE CANT EVEN READ TRAFFIC LIGHTS.

Dizzyblabla

IDMUD wrote:

Getting confused by traffic lights is simply inexcusable. Wonder why the insurance premiums are in the state they are WHEN PEOPLE CANT EVEN READ TRAFFIC LIGHTS.

well, with the damage that was done to my car, her insurance premium is going up anyway... my poor car *sigh*.....

murphaph

Some dumbass fcukers are so ignorant of filters that I have been beeped at for not turing left when presented with illuminated straight ahead and left green arrows and an extinguished amber and something beneath (I wonder is that the right arrow assholes?!) Fcukin Muppets.

Capt'n Midnight

Green does NOT mean go. It's Proceed with caution. - even in third world countries.http://www.lto.gov.ph/traffic1.html

# GREEN SIGNAL
A green signal means you proceed, provided you yield to pedestrian and other traffic lawfully using the intersection. When making a turn on a green signal, remember that the pedestrian crossing on the green signal have the right-of-way. Be sure that you do not block the traffic.

It can be confusing when there is no separate right turn I agree. The turn in from ?Pamerston Park to ?Ranelagh I always get caught because it takes me a few seconds to realise that I can Turn right on green as I wait to see that the oncoming traffic is not moving.

In Chapelizod there is right turn onto the very bottom of Kylemore Road. Most of the oncoming traffic turns left to go up the hill ( one lane into three lanes) , much but by no means all use indicators. Few of them go straight so the temptation is to just turn right into the third lane. Instead you wait until you see them stopped or there is no oncoming traffic.

stag39

Dissy, if she, in your opinion was going too fast anyway for turning right, are you sure theres no drugs involved, with the other driver of course!

Lights can be confusing, but on the safer side of confusion..

hope you get back on the road in a new car in another micra.. soon

TempestSabre

I'm not defending her, why would you do that? She was obviously wrong. I'm justing pointing out why stupid people get confused. As you say having a filter light with no light on is the same as having no filter lights in the first place. People know what to do when theres no filter. But when theres a filter with no red light they don't. So then why have the filter in the first place.

You might argue that its to allow more traffic through the junction. But the reality is that the standard of driving is dire, and the accident/death rate is way too high. With that in mind, you need to make junctions as simple and as clear as possible so theres no ambiguity. No point designing lights and junctions to improve throughput then reduce the road capacity with empty cycle lanes and parking. Especially if it causes accidents.

Ok you could argue peoples driving skills need to improve. But thats to completely miss the reality that a lot of people just aren't that bright. They need to be herded about like sheep.

murphaph

TempestSabre wrote:

But the reality is that the standard of driving is dire, and the accident/death rate is way too high. With that in mind, you need to make junctions as simple and as clear as possible so theres no ambiguity.

No No No! We can't keep dumbing things down for people who are too stupid to be behind the wheel.

TempestSabre wrote:

Ok you could argue peoples driving skills need to improve. But thats to completely miss the reality that a lot of people just aren't that bright. They need to be herded about like sheep.

No, they need to be kept off the roads by applying the law and preventing provisionally licenced drivers from driving unaccompanied and training and testing drivers properly. People who need to be 'herded like sheep' should not be on the roads. They are a danger to everyone.

TempestSabre

Well you either want to prevent accidents and saving lives now, by simplfying junctions or spend the next 10yrs or more trying to get the guards to do their job, and improving the driving skills of the population.

Good luck with that.

Its probably the right way to do it, but it will never happen.

murphaph

TempestSabre wrote:

Well you either want to prevent accidents and saving lives now, by simplfying junctions or spend the next 10yrs or more trying to get the guards to do their job, and improving the driving skills of the population.

Good luck with that.

Its probably the right way to do it, but it will never happen.

You seem to think that complex junctions all over the country can be simplified in a short time frame. I put it to you that it would be better, easier, faster and cheaper to do things properly.

Dizzyblabla

murphaph wrote:

No, they need to be kept off the roads by applying the law and preventing provisionally licenced drivers from driving unaccompanied and training and testing drivers properly. People who need to be 'herded like sheep' should not be on the roads. They are a danger to everyone.

I'm a provisionally licenced driver, I wasn't a danger to anyone, I applied for my test 7 months ago and I'm still waiting for a response. It was the woman with two kids in the back seat that was driving dangerously, not me. Just because someone is driving with a provisional licence does not mean that they are dangerous drivers, I've seen alot more dumbass fully licenced drivers to be honest.

Dizzyblabla

stag39 wrote:

Dissy, if she, in your opinion was going too fast anyway for turning right, are you sure theres no drugs involved, with the other driver of course!

no, there were no drugs involved. Like I said, she had two kids in the car with her, about 8 and 12 maybe? She was coming up to the junction, saw the two lanes of traffic next to her moving, and just kept going, probably thinking that she had to make it through the lights before they went red, although hers hadn't even turned green yet. That's why she was going too fast (I guess).

tinkerbell

murphaph wrote:

No, they need to be kept off the roads by applying the law and preventing provisionally licenced drivers from driving unaccompanied and training and testing drivers properly.

The girl is a learner, but the woman who ploughed into her was a full licensed driver! It is not learner drivers who cause the most accidents on these roads, it's usually morons with full licenses.

Learner drivers are usually scared as hell when they first start driving, and are more cautious than people with full licenses. They are not reckless because their insurance premiums are so high as it is, that they will not want them to go higher. Usually, a learner will drive a lot more safely than a full licensed driver. Granted there may be a few who go a bit crazy on the roads, but in general, I have found that learners tend to be a lot more safe on the road.

I have my full license. Since I've been driving around, it's mostly these obnoxious trollops driving around breaking the speed limit, over-taking dangerously, chopping and changing lanes on the motorways like there's no tomorrow, no signaling, no idea of what the hell a roundabout is, breaking the red lights, not obeying the traffic lights, not understanding what a traffic light is!!! Speeding up when a car in front of you is changing lanes (are you trying to mow into the back of me?!), forgetting that they have to take the next slip off the motorway when they are in the second lane, and do a two lane jump across, nearly causing a major accident on the damn M50.

AAARGH!! I have never seen such twats on the road since I've started driving. And it is mostly muppets that I see are those driving on the motorways. Do these have L plates up? Nooo.

I hate the attitude of people who think that learners are what cause all the accidents in this country. No it is not. People with full licenses are so much more reckless, they speed on the roads, they frighten other road users, etc.

Of course, everyone with a full license is not like this obviously. There are a lot of decent drivers around. And there are a hell of a lot of good learner drivers around. They drive a lot more cautiously than most people on these roads, and yet people go insane if they are so much as held up because the learner up ahead is doing OMG! 50 in a 50 zone!!

*rant over*

Dizzybla - that woman was a total muppet, and it's the typical attitude of a lot of people over here - doing mad things at a junction. It makes you wonder how people like her got their license when there are plenty of learners who haven't gotten theirs yet.

Serve her right if her insurance premium is €10K when it's time for renewal.

murphaph

Dizzyblabla wrote:

I'm a provisionally licenced driver, I wasn't a danger to anyone, I applied for my test 7 months ago and I'm still waiting for a response. It was the woman with two kids in the back seat that was driving dangerously, not me. Just because someone is driving with a provisional licence does not mean that they are dangerous drivers, I've seen alot more dumbass fully licenced drivers to be honest.

Ask yourself this.....does any other civilised country allow unqualified drivers on the public highway on their own? And why do you think that is? (I know the system is fcuked-I'm waiting for my motorbike test ages now!). The system should be fixed and provisionally licenced drivers should not be allowed drive unaccompanied and should get a test in a reasonable time frame.

murphaph

We're not great at all at all with these new fangled thingamabobs!

TempestSabre

murphaph wrote:

You seem to think that complex junctions all over the country can be simplified in a short time frame. I put it to you that it would be better, easier, faster and cheaper to do things properly.

These filters with no red lights above them are a recent addition to the roads here, (last 5yrs or so) as is the change of sequence to a filtered then non filtered sequence. Whereas the lack of enforcement, poor driving skills, L platers on their own has been a problem for decades.

murphaph

TempestSabre wrote:

These filters with no red lights above them are a recent addition to the roads here, (last 5yrs or so)

No they aren't, I know of quite a few locations where these have been used for many years. They're the same as they use in the UK without incident.

TempestSabre wrote:

as is the change of sequence to a filtered then non filtered sequence

Huh? All traffic light installations are different and can be programmed anyway you like, some give the general green, then filter right, some do it the opposite way. The SCATS ones can behave in a completely unpredictable manner depending on the vehicles approaching/at the junction, as detected by the under road induction loops.

TempestSabre wrote:

Whereas the lack of enforcement, poor driving skills, L platers on their own has been a problem for decades.

And your 'solution' is to leave this stuff as it is but dumb down the serious business of driving by removing 'complex' junctions so as not to challnenge the brain power of the morons who can't negotiate them safely. I just don't get you-maybe you are underestimating just how difficult driving is/should be.

Dizzyblabla

Hang on a second... I'm an L driver.... I know the sequence of the lights, a fully licenced driver went straight into me, not only not looking at the lights, but not looking at the road straight in front of her?? If I hadn't started to break as I saw her coming towards me, she would have gone straight through my driver door and caused alot more damage. How is it that you're still blaming learner drivers? So it was my fault that she wasn't looking where she was going and went straight into me, because I'm on a provisional licence? don't be daft.

TempestSabre

We can agree to disagree. I can only coment on my own experience. For me that is when I started driving a few decades ago there were non of these half assed filter lights. Having lived in the UK myself for a few years (but many moons ago) I was used to seeing filter lights with a red light above each green light. I've pretty much driven the same route through town for over a decade, and on that route, and in those areas the sequence has changed.

Normal behaviour is that the general light comes on first, with a red on the filter. The green filter comes on, and then the red light comes on to stop all traffic. Thats not what I'm seeing lately.

Your in D.15. So I'll give a classic example. At coolmine cross. Only in the past couple of years changed so that coming from clonsilla you have a green filter turning towards the trainstation, then the filter goes off, no red appears and the normal green stays on. So this means that traffic facing you coming from blanch is suddenly free go, so traffic that was turning right now has to give way, when a second before it had a green filter.

In other places you have another combination of this. Take the road out of Laurel Lodge. It goes to a general green, everyone moves, then it goes to a red for all traffic so all traffic stops. Then goes green again for all traffic but this time with the filter on aswell. Why theres a red in the middle of the sequence is bizarre. It has no purpose at all. Because the other traffic in the other direction doesn't move off red at all.

Maybe on your route these kinda sequences make some sort of sense. But where I see them they don't.

My rational about simplying the junctions is because you can visibly see people being confused at these junctions. Its a bit like the blind 3 into 2 lane merges you see around town. Down the quays is a classic example. 3 lanes of traffic heading out of town, and as they go over the junctions a lane magically disappear, or are 4ft misaligned. Fine if you know to expect this, but if you don't its a hell of a surprise. Its quite common to see buses, taxis and trucks, and cars all side swiping each other as they jostle for a lane.

Of course you'd be mad to do this on a roundabout but the N3/M50 roundabout has exactly this.

TempestSabre

Dizzyblabla wrote:

Hang on a second... I'm an L driver.... I know the sequence of the lights, a fully licenced driver went straight into me, not only not looking at the lights, but not looking at the road straight in front of her?? If I hadn't started to break as I saw her coming towards me, she would have gone straight through my driver door and caused alot more damage. How is it that you're still blaming learner drivers? So it was my fault that she wasn't looking where she was going and went straight into me, because I'm on a provisional licence? don't be daft.

Its a systematic problem. Lack of enforcement of all rules. Not just the ones that don't suit you at the time. Why exclude L drivers breaking the law by driving on their own? Any other laws you don't like?

If some drives into me while I'm parked. And I've no tax and insurance. Should they ignore that?

TempestSabre

murphaph wrote:

...
And your 'solution' is to leave this stuff as it is but dumb down the serious business of driving by removing 'complex' junctions so as not to challnenge the brain power of the morons who can't negotiate them safely. I just don't get you-maybe you are underestimating just how difficult driving is/should be.

Maybe. My experience is that a lot of people will do the wrong thing regardless. You either accept that or believe that you can teach everyone to drive properly.

Dizzyblabla

TempestSabre wrote:

Its a systematic problem. Lack of enforcement of all rules. Not just the ones that don't suit you at the time. Why exclude L drivers breaking the law by driving on their own? Any other laws you don't like?

If some drives into me while I'm parked. And I've no tax and insurance. Should they ignore that?

like I said, I applied for my test 7 months ago... there's not alot I can do now but wait to be told when it is. Fair enough, maybe I shouldn't be in the car on my own, but the accident would still have happened if there was someone in the car with me, and it still would not have been my fault. Having a fully licenced driver in the car with me would not have stopped the woman from crashing into me and totalling my car. It's got nothing to do with me driving on my own at all.

murphaph

TempestSabre wrote:

We can agree to disagree. I can only coment on my own experience. For me that is when I started driving a few decades ago there were non of these half assed filter lights. Having lived in the UK myself for a few years (but many moons ago) I was used to seeing filter lights with a red light above each green light. I've pretty much driven the same route through town for over a decade, and on that route, and in those areas the sequence has changed.

Normal behaviour is that the general light comes on first, with a red on the filter. The green filter comes on, and then the red light comes on to stop all traffic. Thats not what I'm seeing lately.

Your in D.15. So I'll give a classic example. At coolmine cross. Only in the past couple of years changed so that coming from clonsilla you have a green filter turning towards the trainstation, then the filter goes off, no red appears and the normal green stays on. So this means that traffic facing you coming from blanch is suddenly free go, so traffic that was turning right now has to give way, when a second before it had a green filter.

In other places you have another combination of this. Take the road out of Laurel Lodge. It goes to a general green, everyone moves, then it goes to a red for all traffic so all traffic stops. Then goes green again for all traffic but this time with the filter on aswell. Why theres a red in the middle of the sequence is bizarre. It has no purpose at all. Because the other traffic in the other direction doesn't move off red at all.

Maybe on your route these kinda sequences make some sort of sense. But where I see them they don't.

My rational about simplying the junctions is because you can visibly see people being confused at these junctions. Its a bit like the blind 3 into 2 lane merges you see around town. Down the quays is a classic example. 3 lanes of traffic heading out of town, and as they go over the junctions a lane magically disappear, or are 4ft misaligned. Fine if you know to expect this, but if you don't its a hell of a surprise. Its quite common to see buses, taxis and trucks, and cars all side swiping each other as they jostle for a lane.

Of course you'd be mad to do this on a roundabout but the N3/M50 roundabout has exactly this.

I never stated, nor would I, that every junction is perfect. There are junctions with poor sequences, but you're position here was one of 'general simplification of junctions' because people haven't the wits to negotiate 'complex' junctions safely. I disagree and I also think that poor traffic light installations should be rectified (not simplified for the simple). The lights Coolmine are actually clever though because under the old system, you had a general green for traffic needing to turn right towards the station and there is a delay between the oncoming traffic getting a red light and right turning traffic getting a green filter. putting the green filter at the 'start' of the sequence eliminates the delay. I don't see your problem with increasing flow through a junction in this way? It's also like this on the Ongar distributor/Shelerin Road junction (depending on traffic conditions as the lights do not have a simple sequence but rely heavily on induction loop detectors to detect traffic conditions approaching the junction). A good reason for not having a red above a filter right is because to turn right you must approach with a lot more caution than simply driving straight on, and consequently you will be looking for oncoming traffic. If you were to put up a red light (which are designed to be much brighter than the green one for obvious reasons) then motorists going straight on tend to slow down for th bright red light that doesn;'t apply to them as it is much more prominent than the duller green light they are supposed to be looking at. In short-people see red and they stop, people see nothing and they (should) proceed with a great deal more caution.

murphaph

Dizzyblabla wrote:

Hang on a second... I'm an L driver.... I know the sequence of the lights, a fully licenced driver went straight into me, not only not looking at the lights, but not looking at the road straight in front of her?? If I hadn't started to break as I saw her coming towards me, she would have gone straight through my driver door and caused alot more damage. How is it that you're still blaming learner drivers? So it was my fault that she wasn't looking where she was going and went straight into me, because I'm on a provisional licence? don't be daft.

Where exactly did I even mention you or your accident in this thread? Calm down, relax and realise that my comments are general ones, ie, in general we should not allow unqualified drivers out on the road alone. Is there something wrong with that notion or do you think the driving test and driver training are pointless?

Dizzyblabla

murphaph wrote:

Where exactly did I even mention you or your accident in this thread? Calm down, relax and realise that my comments are general ones, ie, in general we should not allow unqualified drivers out on the road alone. Is there something wrong with that notion or do you think the driving test and driver training are pointless?

no, I don't think they are pointless at all, but there are alot of qualified drivers out there that seem to cause alot more accidents than those of us who are 'not allowed' to drive on our own. If the testing system was more organised I would (hopefully!) have had my full licence months ago, as would alot of other learner drivers that are deemed unworthy of driving on their own.

murphaph

Dizzyblabla wrote:

no, I don't think they are pointless at all, but there are alot of qualified drivers out there that seem to cause alot more accidents than those of us who are 'not allowed' to drive on our own. If the testing system was more organised I would (hopefully!) have had my full licence months ago, as would alot of other learner drivers that are deemed unworthy of driving on their own.

So basically you totally agree with me! I stated that L drivers should not drive in their own until deemed competent and that driver training should be improved and road traffic legislation enforced. Your entire point about generally letting l drivers drive alone is based upon you personally feeling competent to drive and the fact that it currently takes too long to get a test. I agree that it takes too long to get a test and that driving standards are poor, ergo we should improve them and that will include religiously enforcing road traffic legislation, including the disqualification of unqualified drivers caught driving alone.

TempestSabre

Where did I call for a general simplication of junctions? I just said theres a lot of bad ones that are confusing for the lowest common denominator of driver skill. Also I would consider these junctions with half assed filters, bad junctions. I don't have a problem with increasing throughput, but whats the point of creating complex junctions that require a level of competency (for all drivers) that doesn't exist in this country. Its not like you are going to raise the skill level of the drivers overnight, or the driving test or the enforcement levels. I dunno about you but I've had a lot of near misses at junctions over the year where some fool ignores, or doesn't understand the road markings/junction.

My other point is that these changes are by design. By and large there was an older set of lights, or sequence which was safer. It seems to suggest that for the sake of a few bad crashes even deaths, its worth having more efficient junctions. By making these changes without consider the dysmal standard of drivings, and the reality that its not going to change any times soon, your accepting the increased risk of accidents, even deaths.

TempestSabre

Dizzyblabla wrote:

no, I don't think they are pointless at all, but there are alot of qualified drivers out there that seem to cause alot more accidents than those of us who are 'not allowed' to drive on our own. If the testing system was more organised I would (hopefully!) have had my full licence months ago, as would alot of other learner drivers that are deemed unworthy of driving on their own.

That completely ignores that theres are many many times more fully licenced (lets not say qualified) drivers than those on provisional. Thats why they have more accidents statistically. A more interesting statistic would be the % of accidents with provisionals as a % of the total of provisional vs the same of fully licenced drivers. You'd also have to break that down by age too. Do it for the 18-23yrs - 60-70yrs etc.

You seem to be making this about provisional drivers when it isn't. No one would have known you were a provisional until you mentioned it.

Dizzyblabla

TempestSabre wrote:

You seem to be making this about provisional drivers when it isn't. No one would have known you were a provisional until you mentioned it.

It was brought up that Learner Drivers shouldn't be on the road, I just pointed out that I was a learner driver but did not cause the accident.

Seth Brundle

murphaph wrote:

Some dumbass fcukers are so ignorant of filters that I have been beeped at for not turing left when presented with illuminated straight ahead and left green arrows and an extinguished amber and something beneath (I wonder is that the right arrow assholes?!) Fcukin Muppets.

erm, is there a typo in there [should left be right]?

Dizzyblabla wrote:

Hang on a second... I'm an L driver....
<snip>

Dizzyblabla wrote:

It was brought up that Learner Drivers shouldn't be on the road, I just pointed out that I was a learner driver but did not cause the accident.

Just out of curiosity are you on a 1st or 3rd provisional? If so did you have a qualified driver with you? Im not saying you are to blame but if you didn't have the qualified driver with you then you shouldn't have been there and the incident wouldn't have occured.

colm_mcm

kbannon wrote:

if you didn't have the qualified driver with you then you shouldn't have been there and the incident wouldn't have occured.

if the woman who caused the crash can't understand traffic lights, then an accident was imminent. if it wasn't him it would've been someone else,

tinkerbell

kbannon wrote:

Just out of curiosity are you on a 1st or 3rd provisional? If so did you have a qualified driver with you? Im not saying you are to blame but if you didn't have the qualified driver with you then you shouldn't have been there and the incident wouldn't have occured.

Ehh ... what is wrong with people here?!!

Dizzyblabla was in the right, SHE was the one who got crashed into. She was following the rules of a junction and traffic lights. It was the other stupid woman who ploughed into her, the FULL licensed driver.

What part of this don't people get?! And even if Dizzyblabla had not been on the road, then that stupid idiot of a woman would have driven into the next car anyway!

Rudolph Claus

Just out of curiosity are you on a 1st or 3rd provisional? If so did you have a qualified driver with you? Im not saying you are to blame but if you didn't have the qualified driver with you then you shouldn't have been there and the incident wouldn't have occured.

That is such a retarded thing to say. Sure, if the filter lights wernt there the accident probably wouldnt have happened either. Sure, lets get rid of all the filter lights for simple full licenced drivers that cant use them. :rolleyes:

I believe alot of the people that get confused or that dont understand the lights st these junctions are of the middle-aged full licenced drivers that did their test when there wernt that many filtered light junctions around, and so never really learned them properly. Whereas provisional drivers are usually young drivers (unless they`re them geeks on their 3rd/9th provisional) who had to know how filter lights worked and learned them as they would be coming accross them on their tests.

I`d strongly say the ratio of provisional and full licence drivers involved in accidents at these type of filter junctions are way higher in the to the full licenced drivers.

colm_mcm

Nuttzy wrote:

That is such a retarded thing to say. Sure, if the filter lights wernt there the accident probably wouldnt have happened either. Sure, lets get rid of all the filter lights for simple full licenced drivers that cant use them.

I believe alot of the people that get confused or that dont understand the lights st these junctions are of the middle-aged full licenced drivers that did their test when there wernt that many filtered light junctions around, and so never really learned them properly. Whereas provisional drivers are usually young drivers (unless they`re them geeks on their 3rd/9th provisional) who had to know how filter lights worked and learned them as they would be coming accross them on their tests.

I`d strongly say the ratio of provisional and full licence drivers involved in accidents at these type of filter junctions are way higher in the to the full licenced drivers.

Filter lights aren't quantum physics. you don't cross a junction if you have a green light, unless they're is a filter specifically telling you to do so. That's just common sense. Any driver who has any doubts about how traffic lights or roundabouts should swallow their pride and ask someone to explain them.

murphaph

kbannon wrote:

erm, is there a typo in there [should left be right]?

Yep, typo-my bad

TempestSabre

The OP was...Traffic Lights for different lanes.

Personally watching people over the years, it obvious that a lot of people ARE confused about this. Sure the rules are clear, but a lot of people don't get it. I must see a near miss nearly every morning or evening.

Obviously it would be great if you could raise the skill level of all drivers, and improve enforcement. But that would take time. Even if they were doing something about it. Which they're not. A quick fix in the meanwhile would be to improve the safety of the junctions where people get confused and accidents happen. That also is just common sense.

Dizzyblabla

and accidents are bad... the stiffness is hitting in now, I've a dirty rottten bruise from the seatbelt, my ribs hurt and it feels like I was headbanging the night away my neck feels so bad....
Tomorrow I find out if my car has been written off or if it can be fixed... although to look at it, it didn't seem too bad, the bonnet of her octavia crumpled, and my little nissan micra looks like it was just the driver side bumper and front wing was damaged, but the suspension is gone, the radiator was leaking and when we tried to move it out of the way, the steering was gone too... my poor car, only had the new one 6 months too *sigh*....

Capt'n Midnight

TempestSabre wrote:

Obviously it would be great if you could raise the skill level of all drivers, and improve enforcement. But that would take time. Even if they were doing something about it. Which they're not. A quick fix in the meanwhile would be to improve the safety of the junctions where people get confused and accidents happen. That also is just common sense.

A quicker fix would be an eductation campaign - reruning the old ads - could be done tomorrow (no I don't know how long ads have to be booked in advance). Or perhaps issuing a new copy of the rules of the road and posting it to every licensed vehicle's address.

Enforcement of existing laws could also be done tomorrow - simple message, if you take chances you will get done by the Gardaì. You will always have morons and chancers on the road. But if the laws were enforced then even they would start to think.

There are some people in our society who are incapable of driving civilly for psychological reasons, like not giving a rats ass for anyone's safety. Until the Gov't reduce the driving test waiting times to EU levels ( one month max - not one month average) then IMHO they are negligant too.

TempestSabre

Everything could be done tommorrow. Yes thats realistic alright. You remind me of an old boss where everything could be done in 2mins. He used to wonder why none of his projects came in on time.

Theres fat chance in being done by the guards, thats why people ignore the rules in the first place.

Dizzyblabla

well they are in talks about bringing out the new penalty points, for careless driving, lets see if that gives any improvements... (I just hope my drivers test comes through soon!!)

jd

I don't know if anybody is familar with the turn into Santry Park (Crown Plaza) coming from Ballymun, but there is a right-hand filter there. I have got a beeped a few times when waiting for the right filter to come on (there is no full green, just a straight filter, and a right filter). Annoying as hell.
jd

Seth Brundle

tinkerbell wrote:

Ehh ... what is wrong with people here?!!

Dizzyblabla was in the right, SHE was the one who got crashed into. She was following the rules of a junction and traffic lights. It was the other stupid woman who ploughed into her, the FULL licensed driver.

What part of this don't people get?! And even if Dizzyblabla had not been on the road, then that stupid idiot of a woman would have driven into the next car anyway!

Nuttzy wrote:

That is such a retarded thing to say. Sure, if the filter lights wernt there the accident probably wouldnt have happened either. Sure, lets get rid of all the filter lights for simple full licenced drivers that cant use them. :rolleyes:
<snip>

I don't believe that it is retarded. I never said that it was the OPs fault - in fact I stated tht it wasn't!
However, going under the assumption that the OP needed to be accompanied and wasn't then they should have not been there - end of story - and therefore the incident would not have occured. A judge would also view it this way.