They never learn...

DonJose

After what happened yesterday you'd think the idiots out there would cop on, but no.

"It is understood one car clipped several vehicles coming in the opposite direction when it tried to overtake."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0328/rta.html

Stark

Saw that. Retard. I hope he's screwed insurance wise for a few years.

galah

but you know what's bound to happen now, right? Every idiot will now use the fog lights all the time...

seriously, when will the government introduce compulsory driving lessons, where this stuff is covered????

PoleStar

Never mind the insurance, I hope when he bends over in prison to pick up his soap that he gets whats coming!

I think there should be some legal mechanism that if someone drives dangerously and injures you in a crash that you can press criminal charges against that individual, eg reckless endangerment or criminal negligence, and that the legal system should facilitate not hinder this. Usually its just fought out between insurance companies.

I know, if anyone ever rear-ends me, which is never excusable, I am gonna have them and take them to the cleaners. Its so irritating that you can be driving safely and some guy (or girl) can be driving so close behind you that they can see what way you combed your hair in the morning.

Perhaps and name and shame campaign too would help?

rockbeer

PoleStar wrote:

I think there should be some legal mechanism that if someone drives dangerously and injures you in a crash that you can press criminal charges against that individual, eg reckless endangerment or criminal negligence, and that the legal system should facilitate not hinder this. Usually its just fought out between insurance companies.

Couldn't agree more PoleStar.

My g/f was quietly minding her own business one Saturday morning, stationary at a red light at Kill on the Naas Rd - this was before they got rid of all the junctions. Anyway, some prat drives into the back of her at 60mph, and freely admitted afterwards that she was fiddling with her radio at the time and "didn't notice the lights were red".

I stupidly expected the guards to pull her in for dangerous driving, but they didn't give a sh*t - as far as they were concerned it was an insurance matter, end of story.

What sort of incentive is there for people to drive safely when their insurance totally protects them from having to take responsiblity for their actions?

galwaytt

you don't need a change in the law to start a civil suit, afaik...........

Stark

rockbeer wrote:

My g/f was quietly minding her own business one Saturday morning, stationary at a red light at Kill on the Naas Rd - this was before they got rid of all the junctions. Anyway, some prat drives into the back of her at 60mph, and freely admitted afterwards that she was fiddling with her radio at the time and "didn't notice the lights were red".

I stupidly expected the guards to pull her in for dangerous driving, but they didn't give a sh*t - as far as they were concerned it was an insurance matter, end of story.

I remember one day I was out driving with my dad when this elderly woman pulled out in front of us without looking and did the usual thing of continuing at snail's pace on a 100kph road. As we approached a little town, my dad said "Be very careful following behind her, she's liable to do anything". And he was right. Passing through the busy town centre, she not only continued to do the same speed as she was doing on the main road, but I noticed her driving had become extremely erratic. I peered into her car to find the reason: The silly cow was hunting for something under the passenger seat! This in a busy town centre with pedestrians walking around everywhere.

OldmanMondeo

PoleStar wrote:

I know, if anyone ever rear-ends me, which is never excusable, I am gonna have them and take them to the cleaners. Its so irritating that you can be driving safely and some guy (or girl) can be driving so close behind you that they can see what way you combed your hair in the morning.

What a load of crap. I have rear-ended someone and it was a total accident. I wasn't changing radio station or looking for something under a seat. I was slowing down, as was the car in front and as I let the clutch out when dropping the gears, my foot slipped off the brake and onto the accelator, this happened because my runner was wet. It also didn't help that the person in front decided to slam on her brakes for no reason.

Back on topic though, Dangerous overtaking happens ever where, not just in poor conditions.

Jnealon

OldmanMondeo wrote:

What a load of crap. I have rear-ended someone and it was a total accident. I wasn't changing radio station or looking for something under a seat. I was slowing down, as was the car in front and as I let the clutch out when dropping the gears, my foot slipped off the brake and onto the accelator, this happened because my runner was wet. It also didn't help that the person in front decided to slam on her brakes for no reason.

Back on topic though, Dangerous overtaking happens ever where, not just in poor conditions.

I will be going on an advanced driving course soon but from talking to people that did it before me they were told that you should not be using your gears for stopping. I will have to double check this but you are meant to brake and then at the last minute clutch in and stop

OldmanMondeo

Jnealon wrote:

I will be going on an advanced driving course soon but from talking to people that did it before me they were told that you should not be using your gears for stopping. I will have to double check this but you are meant to brake and then at the last minute clutch in and stop

Then you will be told to use your gears to SLOW the car, this reduces the chances of the car skidding, This is what I was doing. This is also how you should slow a car in snow/icey conditions. It saves wear on the braking system and is the quickest and safest way to slow a car down. What you describes is the normal proceedure for stopping a car.

jayok

When you go on the advanced driving course you will be told to always use your brakes to slow the car. Never the drive train. This makes sense, why would you want to wear out the drivetrain instead of the brakes? Far cheaper to replace the brakes.

As for better stability when using the gears to slow the car instead of the brakes this is not the case. Unless you are blipping the accelerator, dropping the gears will mean a different drive and possible "jerk" or imbalance on the car. The brakes will always deliver a consistent force (when applied correctly).

I have mentioned this before, the key to controlling a car is to maintain balance at all times. It is far easier to do this using the brakes than the drive train.

Slowing on the gears, etc, are no longer applicable with todays cars as the braking system is more than capable of stopping the car without the drive train.

..use your gears to SLOW the car...quickest and safest way to slow a car down.

Eh, no. Your brakes will stop the car quicker than anything else. Systems such as ABS, EBD, EBA are there to ensure this process is as safe as possible.

Mitch Connor

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Then you will be told to use your gears to SLOW the car, this reduces the chances of the car skidding, This is what I was doing. This is also how you should slow a car in snow/icey conditions. It saves wear on the braking system and is the quickest and safest way to slow a car down. What you describes is the normal proceedure for stopping a car.

unless you are sitting a driving test, where you will get done for not going down through the gears like two of my friends did!

jayok

unless you are sitting a driving test, where you will get done for not going down through the gears like two of my friends did!

You do not need to go "through" the gears. More than likely they were in the wrong gear for the speed of the car. Why would you go from 4,3,2 stop when you are approach a stop sign? Leave it in 4th and just brake. This is the correct way to drive.

Mitch Connor

jayok wrote:

You do not need to go "through" the gears. More than likely they were in the wrong gear for the speed of the car. Why would you go from 4,3,2 stop when you are approach a stop sign? Leave it in 4th and just brake. This is the correct way to drive.

with one of them, they were driving along the road, a pedistrian stepped out infront of them from between two parked trucks (she says there is no way she could have seen them coming) so she hit the brakes and then the clutch, so she would not cut out, and got done for not coming down through the gears.

Similar situation for the other, but she was a mate of my gf's, so i don't know the story too well.

jayok

with one of them, they were driving along the road, a pedistrian stepped out infront of them from between two parked trucks (she says there is no way she could have seen them coming) so she hit the brakes and then the clutch, so she would not cut out, and got done for not coming down through the gears.

Sorry but you are not been given the complete picture here. What he performed is an emergency stop. By its very nature the vehicle must be stopped as quickly as possible going through the gears will do nothing here.

If it wasn't an emergency stop but hard-braking then you don't clutch until the car is about to stop OR until you move into a lower gear. (e.g. 4th to 2nd)

Mitch Connor

jayok wrote:

Sorry but you are not been given the complete picture here. What he performed is an emergency stop. By its very nature the vehicle must be stopped as quickly as possible going through the gears will do nothing here.

If it wasn't an emergency stop but hard-braking then you don't clutch until the car is about to stop OR until you move into a lower gear. (e.g. 4th to 2nd)

i asked my driving instructor about it, and my mate (a differnt mate) asked a different one and they both said that as long as you press teh clutch after you press the brake it is still an acceptable way of doing it, and that the girl in question should not have been done for it.

Anyway, your first sentence still indicates my friend did nothing wrong.

jayok

Anyway, your first sentence still indicates my friend did nothing wrong.

Correct, IF she was performing an emergency stop. Since she "got done" for this it wasn't an emergency stop. It was hard-braking.

What I find about people and their driving test is that they believe that the instructor is out to get them. Not at all ,they failed simply because they done something wrong. Few people will accept this. Your friend failed because she didn't clutch at the correct time and didn't (if necessary) declutch in the correct gear. This is my point. Its not because she didn't go though the gears.

OldmanMondeo

Ok, Let me explain my braking technique, I apply the brakes, via the foot brake peddal, while also using going down the gears. I have always used this method to stop/slow my car, even during my driving test. This is the same theroy as ABS, to have hte engine control the slowing of the car.
I wouldn't just drop the gear and not apply the brakes, that would be silly. I don't just apply the brakes and wait to stop, infact I find doing this or being in a car where someone does this to be unnerving as I keep expecting the car to skid.

anyway, lets start a thread of "Braking technique and the differences between emergency braking and slowing a car" before we get in trouble for going off topic..

Mitch Connor

jayok wrote:

Correct, IF she was performing an emergency stop. Since she "got done" for this it wasn't an emergency stop. It was hard-braking.

What I find about people and their driving test is that they believe that the instructor is out to get them. Not at all ,they failed simply because they done something wrong. Few people will accept this. Your friend failed because she didn't clutch at the correct time and didn't (if necessary) declutch in the correct gear. This is my point. Its not because she didn't go though the gears.

surely someone stepping out in front of you, and thus forcing you to come to a quick stop to avoid hitting them, is an emergency stop.

jayok

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Ok, Let me explain my braking technique, I apply the brakes, via the foot brake peddal, while also using going down the gears.

That is an incorrect braking technique. Going down the gears adds nothing to the stopping motion. You are introducing wear to the drivetrain for no reason.

The correct braking motion is (say in 4th gear) car at 60km/hr. Press the brakes, car slows down, finish braking at say 10km/hr, clutch, into 2nd and move off again.

Just because you do it though the gears doesn't make it right.

I have always used this method to stop/slow my car, even during my driving test. This is the same theroy as ABS, to have hte engine control the slowing of the car.

ABS is not the same as engine braking and thus you cannot compare. Engine braking will not adjust itself to maintain a consistent braking stability across the whole car. Why do you think so much emphasis is placed on the braking systems in cars?

jayok

Tauren wrote:

surely someone stepping out in front of you, and thus forcing you to come to a quick stop to avoid hitting them, is an emergency stop.

Yes is it. But there is no way your friend was penalized here for no going through the gears. My suggestion here is that she wasn't actually performing an emergency stop but braking hard. Without actually seeing the situation I can only speculate. However, if she was braking hard and clutched then she should have been penalized.

Stark

If I need to do a sudden stop, I find leaving the car in gear to be much more effective. Last time I tried moving down through the gears, the car felt like it was "sliding" (not correct terminology I know) when I had the clutch pushed to the floor.

For a slow gradual stop like when you see traffic lights ahead, I usually stop in third gear, or second if I have a very long run-up. This is when I start braking early and I have to downshift so the car isn't shuddering half way through the approach to the lights.

It is perfectly acceptable to stop in third gear for the purposes of your driving test. I personally found it better as it was smoother and there was less chance of me putting the car into second but having to stop before I had my foot fully off the clutch. I don't know what the definitive answer for stopping in 4th is, but I've done it during the driving test and wasn't penalised.

OldmanMondeo

jayok wrote:

ABS is not the same as engine braking and thus you cannot compare. Engine braking will not adjust itself to maintain a consistent braking stability across the whole car. Why do you think so much emphasis is placed on the braking systems in cars?

ABS will only work when you do not Clutch, this is to allow the engine to control the wheels and stop them locking up. As I have said I have always drop down gears to slow the car, I learnt to drive this way and passed my test driving this way. Ii have never done any advance driving courses, but I have read as much as I could about driving and how to improve, and 1 thing I always remember is that a car is more lightly to skid if you put the brakes on fully, as this locks the wheels. I am driving 15 years and have never had any problems with my cars because of my driving style. As for dropping down and missing 2 or 3 gears, this will cause a jerking action in the car and can also result in unnesscary pressure on you clutch.

Stark

OldmanMondeo wrote:

ABS will only work when you do not Clutch, this is to allow the engine to control the wheels and stop them locking up.

But if you're changing down through the gears then you're clutching.

OldmanMondeo wrote:

and 1 thing I always remember is that a car is more lightly to skid if you put the brakes on fully, as this locks the wheels

Which shouldn't be a problem if you've ABS.

OldmanMondeo wrote:

As for dropping down and missing 2 or 3 gears, this will cause a jerking action in the car and can also result in unnesscary pressure on you clutch.

Only if you're not doing it properly.

ambro25

In the UK and here, driving instructors apparently tell you to brake and clutch in at the last moment, and not to retrograde (that's what 4>3>2 is called, by the way).

On the Continent (FR, DE, BNL, IT), driving instructors tell you to retrograde to 2nd (optional light braking permissible), then to brake firmly for complete stop and clutch in. Moreover, they teach you to drive on a multi-lane carriageway/motorway, and one of the golden rules is you always adjust your speed without braking (inasmuch as circumstances permit, of course - i.e. in case of emergency braking required).

Exact reverse! So, what do you make of that?

For what it's worth, I haven't ever had to change a brake pad in less than 30,000 miles, and not had to change/repair a gearbox/tranny/anything to do with powertrain ever. We're actually in the process of changing our car right this moment - with the previous one bought at 60,000 miles on clock, no new pads, no new tyres, no nothing: only ever petrol, and regular oil and filters changes in 3 years / 30,000 miles. It's a 2.0 Impreza btw, and I don't exactly drive it like a granny either.

I think you'll find that teaching people to retrograde (as opposed to just press the middle pedal) actually forces people to concentrate on what they're doing (i.e.anticipate).

As for advanced driving techniques (erm... I'm on about offensive/defensive bodyguard-type affairs, not so much AA/RAC-type affairs), one of the first things that gets drummed into you is that you use the brakes as little as possible, and accomodate all road conditions with revs only (to keep instant-on power ready at hand...well, foot ).

EDIT - as for people who 'slide' or 'wobble' or whatnot with retrograding, it sounds as if either their speed is not appropriate at the time slowing is required, or their car is not roadworthy, or both. Oh, and ABS works regardless of whether you press the clutch or not (for most cars I'm aware of. it's usually tranny-independent).

Stark

ambro25 wrote:

Moreover, they teach you to drive on a multi-lane carriageway/motorway, and one of the golden rules is you always adjust your speed without braking (inasmuch as circumstances permit, of course - i.e. in case of emergency braking required).

This advice holds true everywhere. If you're having to brake to adjust your speed during the normal course of motorway driving, then you're driving too close to the car in front. Also even a little tap of the brakes is going to trigger a cascade reaction behind you as cars behind you see your brake lights and press harder on their brakes. This results in a lot of "phantom traffic jams" on motorways.

ambro25 wrote:

Exact reverse! So, what do you make of that?

Hardly surprising really. The most frustrating thing I found about learning to drive in Ireland was that one instructor would often tell me to do the exact opposite of what another instructor told me to do.

jayok

OldmanMondeo wrote:

ABS will only work when you do not Clutch

You need to learn how ABS actually works. Google it, it has nothing to do with the clutch at all.

Just because you passed still doesn't make it right. That's the problem with the Irish test, it allow people with incorrect or insufficient knowledge can pass. Do your Advanced driving test and see if your technique gets you through that assessment.

jayok

ambro25 wrote:

Moreover, they teach you to drive on a multi-lane carriageway/motorway, and one of the golden rules is you always adjust your speed without braking (inasmuch as circumstances permit, of course - i.e. in case of emergency braking required).

Exact reverse! So, what do you make of that?

Funny that I thought the point of braking was not only to stop the car but also to turn on your brake lights to show other drivers that you speed is changing. I find it strange that on high-speed carriageways it's elected not to pass this information along. Maybe that why so many pile-ups occur.

As for advanced driving techniques (erm... I'm on about offensive/defensive bodyguard-type affairs, not so much AA/RAC-type affairs), one of the first things that gets drummed into you is that you use the brakes as little as possible, and accomodate all road conditions with revs only (to keep instant-on power ready at hand...well, foot ).

The first thing they teach you is to maintain control of the car at all times. Then the three step rule. Take information, process information, pass the information along.

i.e. 1. Corner ahead, 2. Slow car by braking 3. Brake lights pass information to other users.

Yes, they teach you to minimise braking and have the car at the correct speed, but never to compromise safety.

Keith C

PoleStar wrote:

Never mind the insurance, I hope when he bends over in prison to pick up his soap that he gets whats coming!

I think there should be some legal mechanism that if someone drives dangerously and injures you in a crash that you can press criminal charges against that individual, eg reckless endangerment or criminal negligence, and that the legal system should facilitate not hinder this. Usually its just fought out between insurance companies.

I know, if anyone ever rear-ends me, which is never excusable, I am gonna have them and take them to the cleaners. Its so irritating that you can be driving safely and some guy (or girl) can be driving so close behind you that they can see what way you combed your hair in the morning.

Perhaps and name and shame campaign too would help?

As you just pointed out the insurance covers all this, thats why you pay for it. If you imagine it now, lets take a guess 5 write offs €10k each & €100k damage done to all cars, 20 Personal injuries whiplash etc €20k each. Thats a rough figure of approx €550,000 that insurance companies will pay out, it'll prob be closer to €1m with fire brigade charges on top of that.
Its us that will have to pay higher insurance now to cover the losses :mad:

OldmanMondeo

With regard to the braking, we're probably all right and wrong. I am driving 15 years and have only been in 1 accident, that I am responsible for and have never had any problems with a car due to my driving style. I will continue to drive as I have been because it works.

ambro25

jayok wrote:

Funny that I thought the point of braking was not only to stop the car but also to turn on your brake lights to show other drivers that you speed is changing. I find it strange that on high-speed carriageways it's elected not to pass this information along. Maybe that why so many pile-ups occur.

:rolleyes:

Maybe also it's because so many people don't bother learning what a safe travelling distance and interval is.

Maybe also it's because so many people don't bother paying attention as to whether the car/bike/lorry in front is slowing down unless they see any brake lights.

etc.

When you drive your car, you have a duty of care to the people you are following, because your actions (not breaking) will adversely affect them. You do not have a duty of care to the people who follow you: they have the same duty of care to you, as you have to the car in front of you.

The only exception to this principle is if you are being overtaken.

jayok wrote:

The first thing they teach you is to maintain control of the car at all times.

Never said different. I said : one of the first things (...).

jayok wrote:

Then the three step rule. Take information, process information, pass the information along.

I take it that you have 'sat' Advanced Motoring as dispensed by a certain Insurance group?

That last (emboldened) one must be the Insurers' own addendum. I can fully understand why they'd slot it in, mind

Oh - I'd have thought the 3rd step should read: ACT (before bothering to pass information )

(just to clarify - my advanced driving training was not civilian)

jayok

ambro25 wrote:

:rolleyes:

Maybe also it's because so many people don't bother learning what a safe travelling distance and interval is.

Maybe also it's because so many people don't bother paying attention as to whether the car/bike/lorry in front is slowing down unless they see any brake lights.

etc.

When you drive your car, you have a duty of care to the people you are following, because your actions (not breaking) will adversely affect them. You do not have a duty of care to the people who follow you: they have the same duty of care to you, as you have to the car in front of you.

The only exception to this principle is if you are being overtaken.



Never said different. I said : one of the first things (...).



I take it that you have 'sat' Advanced Motoring as dispensed by a certain Insurance group?

That last (emboldened) one must be the Insurers' own addendum. I can fully understand why they'd slot it in, mind

Oh - I'd have thought the 3rd step should read: ACT (before bothering to pass information )

(just to clarify - my advanced driving training was not civilian)

I am not interested in turning this into a p1ssing contest.

From a legal view point you are correct you don't have a responsibility to the person behind you. However, the point of Advanced Driving (as you know) is to avoid collisions. That means you must be aware of all objects around you, including those behind you. As car ploughing into you at 100 km/hr become your problem, even though it's not your fault. Always pass the information along to prevent other accidents also.

Just because it was Military (I assume since it wasnt Civilian) doesn't make it any better. I 'sat' the UK Police coursev and test, and yes I got a dispensation from my Insurance Co.

peasant

I'm with ambro here.

When I drove my camper back from Germany ...motorway all the way ...I used the brakes twice ...when driving into the ferry terminals
(and then through Dublin traffic, of course and in front of my house)

Also, just because someone in front of me brakes doesn't necessarily mean that I will use the brakes myself. Often a lifting of the accelerator is enough.

It's a different story of course if someone is riding right on my back bumper, in that case I will at least blip the brakes to light up.

Mitch Connor

well, i can steer the car with my knees', how advanced is that! OH YEAH!

*i don't actually do it, mind

craichoe

Eh ... ok .. two things here

1. The highers the revs on the engine, the more control of the car you have, this is why the gardai are taught to drive in third gear and have the rev limiters removed from the cars.

2. If you were driving in mountains in norway and didn't use your engine for braking it would not be long before your brakes overheat and fail.

Essentially, if you hit the brakes in 4th gear your not only trying to stop the car but the momentum of the engine too !

Especially in a Diesel ! 4th gear at 20mph slamming on the brakes, the engine will drag you into the ass of another car.

Bottom line, you have most control when braking with both and not pushing with one and pulling with the other.

peasant

1. The highers the revs on the engine, the more control of the car you have,

Who did learn that one from?

All the old grannies that drive around in first gear only with the engine screaming to the heavens?

craichoe

peasant wrote:

Who did learn that one from?

All the old grannies that drive around in first gear only with the engine screaming to the heavens?

Yup, Afraid so ... Hence why the cars on average only last 2 years ..

But screaming and high revs are different, I'd classify screaming as hitting the red line, high rev's would be 60-75% of the Engine rev range.

I've driven a Bike where high revs was 19,500 RPM

Anyways,
Take a sharp turn at 30mpg in 5th gear using just your brakes to control your speed and tell me how you get on.

rockbeer

jayok you really scare me.
You speak with great authority on this subject, yet almost everything you say contradicts not only what most of us have been taught but also common sense.

You simply can't be properly in control of a vehicle unless the engine speed and vehicle speed are reasonably well matched, hence the need for gearing down when slowing. And of course whenever you have the clutch pedal pressed you are also out of control of the vehicle, so if - as it sounds - you're recommending slowing from fourth-gear speed to stationary with the clutch pedal pressed for most of the time then you contradict your own advice to be in control at all times.

I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.

Are you sure you didn't turn up at an aggressive driving course by mistake when you were meant to be doing the advanced one?

Stark

craichoe wrote:

Anyways,
Take a sharp turn at 30mpg in 5th gear using just your brakes to control your speed and tell me how you get on.

I don't think anyone is advocating that. You need to be in the correct gear when you pull out of the curve and changing gears while on the bend isn't exactly advisable.

There's nothing wrong with stopping the car though in 4th gear from what I can see. The one disadvantage is that if the "obstruction" (such as a red traffic light) clears, then you need to shift into second gear or whatever to pull away again.

rockbeer wrote:

And of course whenever you have the clutch pedal pressed you are also out of control of the vehicle, so if - as it sounds - you're recommending slowing from fourth-gear speed to stationary with the clutch pedal pressed for most of the time then you contradict your own advice to be in control at all times.

You don't have to coast in order to stop in 4th gear. I've used to do it quite a bit before getting out of the habit before my driving test and I've only ever had to put the clutch in at the last minute. Of course if you're making a long approach to what you have to stop for, then you need to gear down so the car isn't shuddering half way through the approach. Even so, I rarely have to stop in second gear.

craichoe

Stark wrote:

I don't think anyone is advocating that. You need to be in the correct gear when you pull out of the curve and changing gears while on the bend isn't exactly advisable.

There's nothing wrong with stopping the car though in 4th gear from what I can see. The one disadvantage is that if the "obstruction" (such as a red traffic light) clears, then you need to shift into second gear or whatever to pull away again.



You don't have to coast in order to stop in 4th gear. I've used to do it quite a bit before getting out of the habit before my driving test and I've only ever had to put the clutch in at the last minute. Of course if you're making a long approach to what you have to stop for, then you need to gear down so the car isn't shuddering half way through the approach. Even so, I rarely have to stop in second gear.

What speed does your car travel at in 4th gear with no throttle and the clutch out ?

astraboy

@Jayok, where were you told that you should always just use the brakes when stopping? My driving instructor(back when I was learning years ago) was an ex-guard and expalined that when slowing for a junction for instance, a combination of moving down through the gears and braking should be used. I always use this, for instance slowing down for a corner use the brake then drop from 4th to 3rd gear.

Placing "stress" on the drive train sounds like a lod of crap to be honest, if you apply the brakes correctly then move through the gears you save excess brake pad wear, while the engine revs my climb slightly if a gear box cannot take a rise from 3000 to 4000 rpm then there are bigger problems with your car.

If you are doing an emergence stop, obviously its a case of hit the brakes hard. If you are in traffic and stopping from 30mph in 4th gear, by the time you are slowed to 10mph the car will either be jerking from being in too high a gear or you will be depressing the clutch and moving, thus coasting, placing excess wear on your clutch wearing it out faster(my granny is unreal for this and wearing out clutches!). Coasting is also a driving test fail(it was in my day anyway.)

Jayok, just because you drive one way and have been told a certain thing does not make it right. I have completed a form of advanced driving course for insurance and never heard of what you mention.

Marcus.Aurelius

Alright everyone, stop bickering. Jayok is clearly describing the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM)'s Defensive Driving course. All official drivers and members of the Garda Siochana who drive patrol cars are required to do this. Irish people do not understand some basic mechanics and physics of driving. This is simply to be out on the white line so that you can see further and are able to avoid pedestrian accidents more easily. Cornering is performed by leaving off the accelerator into the bend and accelerating (or braking) as you come through to stabilise the car in a new trajectory after the bend. Despite how easy this is, the driving test still teaches you to be afraid and to minimise your chances of being in safe road position.

Pathetic, isn't it?

maoleary, Garda Traffic Corps

peasant

maoleary wrote:

be out on the white line so that you can see further and are able to avoid pedestrian accidents more easily.
maoleary, Garda Traffic Corps

And what is this now?

The one eyed, leading the blind ?

What kind of advice is that, to throw out a generalised statement like that?

People, stay out at (or over?) the white line, to avoid hitting pedestrians. this is defensive driving as advised by me, maoleary, Traffic Corps.

What about (for example) the small matter of the 30 ton truck full of gravel on a narrow road, hurtling along said white line in the opposite direction, just around the next bend?

Good, safe and defensive driving can't be done strictly following set rules.
The driving has to be adapted to the conditions, with safety in mind and not generalised statements.

And if you throw out a howler like that:

Cornering is performed by leaving off the accelerator into the bend and accelerating (or braking) as you come through to stabilise the car in a new trajectory after the bend

You'd be well advised to explain in detail what exactly you mean by "accelerating (or breaking)" before accusing others of not understanding the mechanics and/or physics of driving.
Because with the above advise you're certainly not furthering that understanding.

If you really are a member of the Traffic Corps, as you suggest, and not just some snot nosed kid who's read a book and thinks he/she may have understood something ...then I really fear for the safety of us all.

ambro25

maoleary wrote:

Cornering is performed by leaving off the accelerator into the bend and accelerating (or braking) as you come through to stabilise the car in a new trajectory after the bend.

Driving 101.

Cornering is best performed by leaving off the accelerator and/or braking well before the bend and retrograding (4>3, 3>2 etc.) if required, entering the bend under power, and accelerating (if appropriate) as you come out (you get better traction that way).

It's not a p1ss1ng contest, or a matter of bickering. It's a matter of education (most people do struggle with the concept past a certain age/status-position).

Braking well into the turn is a sure way to under- or oversteer the car, especially if surface is loose/wet/slippy in any way. And beware the RWD car which you accelerate in the middle of the bend - I've spun my MX-5 a fair few times at 25/30 mph at the exit of the turn on a wet day, that way (good tyres etc. - just adverse traction from accelerating moderately too early on).

Engine braking is just as efficient as brakes at sustained speed (50/60 in 4th or 5th), that's why *as pointed out by peasant* there's no need to use brakes on motorways (wherein you are driving at sustained speeds). The higher revs you hit on retrograding, the faster your car slows - within limit and common sense of course (what idiot would retrograde from 4th to 2nd at 50mph?). It doesn't wear your engine, clutch or gearbox anymore than under comparable acceleration (probably very comparable physics, the powertrain is slowing the weight of the car instead of pulling it).

A time-served mechanic once told me the best way to break an engine in (0 miles on clock) is actually to use the entire range of each gear both under acceleration and deceleration. Can't say I've ever tried it (never had a car with 0 miles - that's for idiots ), but the guy has some 20 and 30+ year old cars (and more recent ones of course) which purr just like the day they left the factory, and which I know have never had any new gearbox/engine etc. Make of that what you will.

Stark

astraboy wrote:

Coasting is also a driving test fail(it was in my day anyway.)

It still is.

astraboy wrote:

I always use this, for instance slowing down for a corner use the brake then drop from 4th to 3rd gear.

Well duh. Who said it was okay to take a corner in 4th gear? The topic was stopping in 4th gear.

craichoe wrote:

What speed does your car travel at in 4th gear with no throttle and the clutch out ?

About 15mph I think.

astraboy wrote:

Jayok, just because you drive one way and have been told a certain thing does not make it right. I have completed a form of advanced driving course for insurance and never heard of what you mention.

I haven't done an advanced driving course myself yet but I had an instructor before who also specialised in advanced lessons and he told me to stop the car in the gear I was in. I've also talked to people who've done Hibernian's Ignition and they were told the same thing.

yayamark

i love reading these comments. as i've said before in an earlier thread this is why they are so many silly traffic accidents and insurance companies are making an absoloute mint from us driving without any common sense!

the gardai are thought to drive vehicles to the limit. that is getting to the scene of an emergency be it another accident or person been attacked. these vehicles are driven under control at speed betweem traffic. obivously a low gear with high revs would be appropriate here.

Hibernian do an ignition test which really and truly can be no comparsion to the gardais test

i think people are arguing the same point here with diferent scenarios

Elfish

peasant wrote:

And what is this now?

The one eyed, leading the blind ?

What kind of advice is that, to throw out a generalised statement like that?

People, stay out at (or over?) the white line, to avoid hitting pedestrians. this is defensive driving as advised by me, maoleary, Traffic Corps.

Agree fully with what maoleary said on this. IMO he knows what he is talking about, but might not have explained himself properly. Think he meant stay out on the central dividing line for Left Hand bends, opposite for Right hand bends.

As for your comments about cement trucks colliding with you, think about it and you will realise that you will give yourself a lot more time to see the truck coming towards you in the first place if you are out at the white central line on a Left hand bend, while also making it less likely that you hit pedestrians on your left hand side.

As a biker, this stuff is second nature, get away from your caravan and get on a bike peasant

peasant

Elfish wrote:

Agree fully with what maoleary said on this. IMO he knows what he is talking about, but might not have explained himself properly. Think he meant stay out on the central dividing line for Left Hand bends, opposite for Right hand bends.

So YOU think he meant that ...somebody else might THINK he meant something completely different.

If someone appears here, dishing out "advise" with an air of authority and under the heading of "Garda Traffic Corps" ...well ...they'd better do it right and in a way that is clear and leaves nothing open to interpretation ...or keep stumm.

And just for your info ...I do have a motorbike (including licence) and a truck and trailer licence as well ...

Elfish

peasant wrote:

So YOU think he meant that ...somebody else might THINK he meant something completely different.

I said "think" rather than "know" so that I would not sound as arrogant and heckling as you have come across to me in this thread.

peasant wrote:

And what is this now?

The one eyed, leading the blind ?

What kind of advice is that, to throw out a generalised statement like that?

People, stay out at (or over?) the white line, to avoid hitting pedestrians. this is defensive driving as advised by me, maoleary, Traffic Corps.

What about (for example) the small matter of the 30 ton truck full of gravel on a narrow road, hurtling along said white line in the opposite direction, just around the next bend?

heckle heckle heckle

peasant wrote:

You'd be well advised to explain in detail what exactly you mean by "accelerating (or breaking)" before accusing others of not understanding the mechanics and/or physics of driving.
Because with the above advise you're certainly not furthering that understanding.

Must everything be spelt out in detail in every post so that a poster is spared being heckled? I am sure maoleary could tell you that acceleration is a measure of the rate of change of velocity of a body with respect to time. Therefore, braking is negative acceleration. Wheres the problem with physics?

peasant wrote:

And just for your info ...I do have a motorbike (including licence) and a truck and trailer licence as well ...

I don't believe having a licence makes a person a good driver, nor does ownership of a vehicle/bike. Plenty of people on the road today bought their licences in the 70s with full licences for all categories so ownership of licence is irrelevant.

I am off now, before I'm heckled again. Bye bye now!

peasant

You're missing the point completely ...

The likes of you and me sounding out our relevant "theories" about how to drive properly (or not) is one thing ...

Coming on here, with the air of ultimate authority on how to drive (I mean if the Garda Traffic Corps doesn't know ...who does?) and then letting off a totally unquantified and unexplained generalised statement that's more confusing than enlightening ...that's something else altogether.

That's dangerous and irresponsible.

I don't believe having a licence makes a person a good driver, nor does ownership of a vehicle/bike. Plenty of people on the road today bought their licences in the 70s with full licences for all categories so ownership of licence is irrelevant

I would agree with you on that one, in particular in relation to some Irish licence holders.
I had to work (and pay through the nose) for my licences ...the truck and trailer one even cost me 12 months of my civilian life

blastman

What maoleary said, as elaborated on by Elfish is correct, I've seen this advice given on motoring sites and articles. The idea is that you can see as far as possible around the bend to see any potential hazards as soon as possible and act accordingly. Most bikers do this as a matter of course.

The principle of slow in, accelerate out also applies to bends and has been cited as the best way to take corners in nearly every piece I've ever read about the subject.

So, I'm left with one burning question. How the fcuk did peasant ever get any sort of driving licence?