So, is overtaking illegal now????

RobAMerc

Ok, I've read the new rules of the road and I can't see reference to it anywhere, but driving to and from Galway at the weekend and I am just left wondering, is it somehow illegal to overtake now ?

I was flashed at least three times because I wouldn't get in line and play convoy with the rest of them.

Please dont call me names if I broke the law - I stayed at under the 100kph I promise. :rolleyes:

Edit - Just in case, Please read with :rolleyes: after every line

fletch

Happened me coming home this evening....overtook about 4 cars at once all of whom were sitting lemmings style at about 75kph in a 100kph zone and the 3rd car didn't like it and stood on the horn. Gave me a fright to say the least and he could have caused an accident IMO

stratos

Yea this happens a lot, especially if you have a little more power than most, you can overtake a few cars ( I said more power not more speed).
Tends to happen if you overtake a car who can't overtake the tractor.
I find people who are not going to overtake won't leave a space in front of them. If I can't or don't want to overtake I will alway leave a gap in front, especially if the body language of the car behind you lets you think he wants to.

mike65

I blame the Speed Kills mantra, its worth noting most people are fairly unsure of what they are doing on an open road, and anyone who takes initiative is seen as a wreckless speedster cos thats what the media and the cops keep telling us all. Also peeps just hate it when you have the wit to get past a tractor/lorry when they can't cos they got to close to its back end.

Mike.

KeRbDoG

bla, if yea did nothing wrong (made sure yea could see ahead, no blind corners etc etc) then ignore the driver who beeps - simple

stratos

Mike you hit a point i see every day, guy sits in car 18 inches behind slow vehicle his impatience is evident he pulls out a few time to have a look but no go then he tries something silly, I see it everyday.

Don't they get it, stay a good distance back, you can see way more, you can start your accelleration while the oncoming traffic is still approaching.

Your manouevre is quick and clean with less time on the wrong side of the road. You have empty road in front of you and the vehicle in front.
If something goes wrong you can abort smoothly.

BrianD3

stratos wrote:

I find people who are not going to overtake won't leave a space in front of them.

Very true. I actually think that these people who follow a slow vehicle and don't overtake *would* like to overtake in many cases. But as already stated, they can't because they're indecisive dawdlers who are following too close to the target vehicle. Ironically if they held back a bit from the target they'd have a much better view and perhaps would be able to overtake.

So they can't overtake because of their own bad driving but when someone further back does manage to safely overtake both them and the target, they don't like. it. There are an awful lot of peasants out there who speed up, close gaps flash lights etc. when someone overtakes

The flip side of this is when you're doing the speed limit in a 50 or 60 km/h zone and some dumb eejit who can't read speed limit signs overtakes you at 80 then when the road changes to a 100 km/h limit you catch up with him as he's still doing 80 even though it's a clear wide road :mad: Then there's the idiots who can't maintain anyting like a steady speed on an M-way/dual carriageway and for no good reason are constantly varying their speed by 20 km/h or more. The result is that you pass them then get repassed, catch up with them again and so on :rolleyes: Sorry went off on a rant there.

mike65

I HATE the variable speed driver!

Mike.

timmywex

it is and always has been to overtake if you break the speedlimit when overtaking, if you stay under the limit, its perfectly ok

fletch

The guy who beeped me really annoyed me as his actions could have given me a fright and caused an accident. I drive quite a powerful car and know how to overtake safely...as one of the posters has said, there wasn't sufficient gaps to merge back into traffic comfortably but I knew given the distance I could see ahead and the power of my car that it was possible to pull back in a few cars ahead.
Oh another guy tonight wouldn't turn on his full beams so I couldn't see the road ahead of him....after sitting behind him for a few miles, I eventually positioned myself over the centre line and put my full beams on so I could see ahead (I know the road so knew it was a straight) and then I could see sufficiently ahead so was able to pass...
Another guy sat behind me for a few miles with no lights on (it was at dusk and just after dusk)...I kept flashing my rear fog light at him but he didn't take the hint. Say he got the fright of his life when some guy pulling out didn't see him and he had to swerve to avoid him as the guy pulling out saw him at the last second and slammed on. I wanted to stop him and say I told you so.
Some idiots on the road 2nite it has to be said!

stratos

My best yet is early morning on new n2.
In the distance 2 cars moving slowly in the outside lane.
I am doing the speed limit and rapidly approaching them in the same lane. just as I am about to indicate both cars indicate and move into the overtaking lane.
I lift off and hang back to access this situation. Then I undertake both of them slowly. After I passed they moved back into the driving lane !!!! bizzare irish plate cars.

stratos

there actually is another little road courtesy lost here. i still do it but noone else seems to. If your dawdling along a country road on dipped beams and a car comes up behind you at overtaking stance, you light the road up for him with main beams and dipped as he goes by.

maidhc

fletch wrote:

Oh another guy tonight wouldn't turn on his full beams so I couldn't see the road ahead of him...

Pet hate, drives me cracked, the full beams are there for a reason.

unkel

fletch wrote:

sitting lemmings style at about 75kph in a 100kph zone

Not great, but not illegal. I prefer drivers to behave like sitting lemmings to them attempting to overtake but not being equipped to do so safely

fletch wrote:

overtook about 4 cars at once

I sometimes overtake many cars at once. I always apply maximum acceleration when overtaking, no matter what my final speed on the wrong side of the road may be. Oh and yes, that speed is more than the maximum speed regularly

Why? Because if I overtake, I do so in the safest possible way

stratos

applause to unkel not pc but safe. jeez lets hope the greens don't get in in anyway shape or form.

smemon

unkel wrote:

I always apply maximum acceleration when overtaking, no matter what my final speed on the wrong side of the road may be. Oh and yes, that speed is more than the maximum speed regularly

Why? Because if I overtake, I do so in the safest possible way

yes, good point.

If someone is sitting at 80k/hr in a 100 zone, you mayb pull back, accelerate and go over 100.

Is it illegal? - yes.
Is it safer? - yes.

it might take 4 seconds to get overtake a car if you break the limit. By sticking to 100km/hr, it could take 6.

2 seconds could potentially help avoid an accident. Obviously, you will only overtake if the road is clear, therefore it makes sense to break the limit in that case.

Dr. Loon

fletch wrote:

all of whom were sitting lemmings style at about 75kph in a 100kph zone

You do realise the posted limit is an advisory as opposed to a compulsory? You don't HAVE to do 100 where it's posted 100! Overtaking 4 cars in a row is not safe, no matter what all ye eejits are saying. Even if you were in a super car, it's not safe.

Lemmings style?! My God! What were they doing? Driving UNDER the limit? Clearly they didn't know what they were doing. Or maybe they were just driving in a manner that they felt comfortable doing. Maybe.

jd

stratos wrote:

. If your dawdling along a country road on dipped beams and a car comes up behind you at overtaking stance, you light the road up for him with main beams and dipped as he goes by.

Out of interest, why not have the full beams on in the first place?
jd

Seth Brundle

Dr. Loon wrote:

Lemmings style?! My God! What were they doing? Driving UNDER the limit? Clearly they didn't know what they were doing. Or maybe they were just driving in a manner that they felt comfortable doing. Maybe.

I think their point was that usually these convoys travel in such a manner that there is not sufficient distance kept between the cars to allow individual overtaking manouvres resulting in one long overtaking manouvre being made. Just because they were driving under the limit does not mean that their driving was safe. Furthermore, our roads work by using both the laws *and* consideration. Many drivers (and seemingly those referred to in this thread) drive oblivious to their driving position relative to all other road users. they feel that because they cannot/will not perform a manouvre then nobody should.
I have seen all sorts including one where each time I tried to overtake (and I do choose my overtaking points carefully) the driver in front felt the need to move right and block me. My actions before you try and suggest otherwise were entirely lawful.

Owen

Dr. Loon wrote:

Overtaking 4 cars in a row is not safe, no matter what all ye eejits are saying.

:rolleyes:

embraer170

Some odd drivers out today.

Was the third car in a convoy doing an indicated 60km/h in a 100km/h zone. I was overaking the second car (and had no intention of overtaking the first)... A car coming in the opposite direction far up the road (I would say at least 200m) flashed and horned me, making the leading car in the convoy who I was just pulling in behind apply his brakes hard.... had I done a maximum power overtake, not sure how I'd have come out of that one.

stratos

just to take on 2 points here. Why drive on a country road without your main beams on. Well I am not driving fast enough to need them and why waste petrol on lighting i don't need. and I think the lemming comment earlier is not about the drivers doing the speed limit but the sheep like tailgating we see everyday. people don't watch whats going on around them or try to interpret what the other drivers are doing. it's all about where i am going !!

unkel

Dr. Loon wrote:

Overtaking 4 cars in a row is not safe

Why do you reckon it's not safe per se?

Dr. Loon wrote:

Even if you were in a super car, it's not safe

So it is a bit less unsafe in a supercar, but still not safe in your opinion. What benefit does a supercar have, apart from the obvious: being able to overtake more quickly, but at a higher end speed. Are you not contradicting yourself here?

stratos

this thread will identify the two types of drivers in this country the experienced with good machinery and a cautious approach and the 10 journeys a week with bad machinery and in a hurry !!

embraer170

The little bit of extra petrol you might need for high beamed headlights is minute compared to the potential cost of an accident.

Well I am not driving fast enough to need them and why waste petrol on lighting i don't need. and

Same excuse I here time and time again why people won't use daylight running lights.

stratos

emb daylight running lights cause 15 per cent of the poulation to lose distance gauging something your government didn't tell you ever been fooled by a blinding motorcycle ??? and by dawdling I mean 20 kph on unlit single lane laneways.

Owen

stratos wrote:

just to take on 2 points here. Why drive on a country road without your main beams on. Well I am not driving fast enough to need them and why waste petrol on lighting i don't need

Possibly the most uneducated comment on the Motors Forum yet. Do you honestly believe using headlamps will increase petrol consumption? Your alternator is spinning away regardless, it's not like turning the headlamps off will disengage the alternator, it still has to power the car's electrics anyway.

You always, ALWAYS, dirve on a country road with main beams on. So what if you're comfortable with driving at a pace where you deem them unnecessary ... using main beams in a low light situation will enhance you visibility to both other drivers/pedestrians, and fauna on the roads, thereby reducing the risk of accidents. In situations where catseyes are fitted to the tarmac, main beams will also illuminate a greater distance, letting the catseyes inform you of a sharp bend long before your dipped lights will.

stratos

ned I am an electrical engineer your main beams are powerfull they make the night day. do you honestly think this comes free. you light your house throught the winter does this come free. the alternator which charges the battery becomes harder to turn as the load becomes greater. sit in yor car at idle and turn the beams on the engine will slow momenterily and then pick up this is because the alternator becomes harder to turn at higher loads.

Owen

stratos wrote:

ned I am an electrical engineer

That's a coincidence. I studied Electronic Engineering at College, and work in the Motor Trade.

stratos wrote:

your main beams are powerfull they make the night day

A main bulb uses about the same power as a dipped bulb. 55 Watts. A typical car Alternator can generally produce more power than the entire electrical load of the car can drain, this leaves sufficient margin to recharge the battery, while operating at full capacity, with radios on, main beams on, heated seats on, etc.

There is a marginal increase in the magnetic field of the stator windings as loads increase, but it's laughable to think of people turning off headlamps everywhere to save fuel. You argued that on a country road, you wouldn't use main beams in place of dipped ... even though the power consumption is the same. Go fig.

DeBeere

I would think the fact that I could reduce the likeliness of an accident would be reason enough to use up that small amount of petrol.
Its not like you are wasting your money!

I think you are fighting a loosing battle stratos!

_Kaiser_

As I've said before, I ALWAYS have the dipped lights on - regardless of the time of day or weather conditions. They're there to allow you to be SEEN as well y'know (think how hard it is to see a silver car coming towards you with the sun in your eyes, or pick out a dark car in the distance under trees).

I reckon it should be compulsory myself, especially when driving at speed on R/N/M-roads, but even in built up areas I find pedestrians aren't as quick to just walk out in front of you.

Power consumption arguments are just ridiculous, as is the argument that you're "wasting" the bulbs. If you can't afford/are too lazy (as a lot of Irish drivers are) to buy new ones, you shouldn't be on the road anyway in my opinion.

stratos

people idle your car and turn the lights on listen to your engine, your call i don't care.

stratos

to someone who said i am losing this one !! its lost.

DeBeere

To me that says you 'don't care' about taking all safety precautions while driving, which means you shouldn't be in-charge of a car in the first place.

Owen

stratos wrote:

people idle your car and turn the lights on listen to your engine, your call i don't care.

If your car is 20 years old. You were arguing that you would leave your dipped lights on, on a country road, and not put your main on due to a perceived increase in Petrol Consumption. I've already shown you the neligible difference in wattage between dipped and main beams. So, now that this part of your hypothesis has been exposed, you're trying to argue that having lights on uses more fuel than not having them illuminated - which has nothing to do with your original theory in the first place.

Your argument is weak, and unstructured, and so is your punctuation ... for someone who claims to be a qualified Electrical Engineer, you're doing a very poor job of defending an even shoddier argument.

I agree with Kaiser2000 100% on this one. There are now cars for sale which are the same colour as Tarmac for god's sake! Without headlamps, these are practically invisible even during the day time.

Seth Brundle

Are you saying that the power and fuel economy drain that occurs during idling is the same as that when driving at 50km/hr?

Esel

stratos wrote:

... why waste petrol on lighting i don't need.

Saddest post on this forum in a while tbh. Don't care if you are an EE. 5 watts extra (55w v 60w) will not break the bank ffs. Maybe all the twattish taxi drivers using side lights only (often with one blown) got advice from you? I change from dipped to head and back again depending on the road, i.e. bends etc. - to see better. Your comment about headlights turning night into day is laughable.

Your point about daytime dipped headlights causing a distance-judging problem for 15% of drivers - at least they see you! You would prefer if bikers switched off their headlights during the day now? Their deaths on your hands, mate. I use full headlights when riding a bike in the daytime - for visibility. I never thought I was blinding other road users with the power of the sun, until you posted here. Night into day indeed. The basic rule is 'never drive above a speed at which you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear'. At night, this means the distance illuminated by your headlights.

Get a grip.

stratos

anything that makes your engine harder to turn cost you money. if you go up a hill your car uses more fuel if you speed up your car uses more fuel. everytime you brake you use fuel. maybe most people don't drive as efficiently as me when you brake you waste fuel ever thought of that ??

people don't think about fuel when they brake, when you brake you wasted the fuel it took you to reach that speed, sound silly ?? so does using your lights in the day it slows your engine, thus using more fuel and us studies show increased junction accidents.

Owen

stratos wrote:

anything that makes your engine harder to turn cost you money.

You still haven't grasped your own argument. There is bugger all difference in wattage between full and dipped headlamps.

stratos wrote:

maybe most people don't drive as efficiently as me when you brake you waste fuel ever thought of that ??

TBH, I hope no one drives similarly to you.

stratos

I will take on board some of the things said here maybe the old dog needs some new tricks, but i am driving forty years my skill saved a few of you guys, if you need electrons in a hurry i am your man, if you need ions buy a hand drier !!!!

The Sparrow

stratos wrote:

. everytime you brake you use fuel. maybe most people don't drive as efficiently as me when you brake you waste fuel ever thought of that ??

Sure while we are at it, lets ditch the brakes too... Think of all the petrol we can save!:D

_Kaiser_

stratos wrote:

everytime you brake you use fuel. maybe most people don't drive as efficiently as me when you brake you waste fuel ever thought of that ??

people don't think about fuel when they brake, when you brake you wasted the fuel it took you to reach that speed, sound silly ??

Yes it does sound silly. I'm not sure what your point is, but based on the rest of your argument it's almost as if you're saying we shouldn't brake either as we're "wasting" fuel then too??

I suppose we should just coast to a stop or barely touch the accelerator at all in that case? I'm genuinely not sure what you're trying to say?

Anyway, if you can't afford the miniscule amount of fuel used to run headlights, then you you shouldn't be in a car to be honest.

Owen

stratos wrote:

i am driving forty years my skill saved a few of you guys

Good grief ... :rolleyes:

_Kaiser_

i stand to be corrected, but this sounds increasingly like a troll?

Seth Brundle

ok - back to overtaking.

stratos

ned what do want me to say i am new to driving i wasn't a natural i am just doing it a long time. i drive on the open road everyday in fast cars i do over 300 miles a day i said this before iam experienced thats all not better not faster i just do it more do you want to argue with that ??

stratos

well gotta hit the sack been nice talkin' to all you guys lots to think about

DubTony

I drive the N3 daily, usually between 5:30 and 6:30 am and it's amazing to see the dawdling that goes on. It seems that people are just lazy about their driving. This morning (Bank holiday) at 8:30 a Peugeot 407 sat behind a truck, on it's arse, through several straight sections where overtaking was optimal and safe and never once made a move. I was 3 cars behind him and was amazed that neither he nor the two muppets behind him hadn't moved to overtake. Eventually I went for it and just as I approached the Peugeot, having passed the other two, the idiot decided to stick his nose out and have a look. I slowed in case he was going to go for it, but he pulled back. I accelerated again and, yup, you guessed it, out he came. F*cker was oblivious to what was going on around him.

He then proceeded to dawdle past the truck, so i pulled in behind it and listened to the other moron behind me blowing his horn and watched his flashing lights in the mirror. I had driven at between 60 and 70 k for 10 minutes behind these c*nts and when I make a safe overtaking move I get berated because some clown isn't checking his mirrors.

****

edit: Jesus, I just read the other 2 pages of this thread and thought I'd gotten lost. Is this still about overtaking?

Pherekydes

stratos wrote:

this thread will identify the two types of drivers in this country the experienced with good machinery and a cautious approach and the 10 journeys a week with bad machinery and in a hurry !!

You've typed some idiotic posts in this thread, but this one is actually the silliest.

I am neither. Where do I fit in?

Hobbes

fletch wrote:

The guy who beeped me really annoyed me as his actions could have given me a fright and caused an accident.

And your actions were incredibly stupid. Over taking that many cars is dangerous, If anything was to happen on the wrong side of the road you would have no where to easily pull in.

Not to mention that the ones in front may just of been waiting for a safe part of the road to overtake as well.

And a speed limit is that, a limit it isn't a maximum speed you have to drive at. Learn a bit of patience. TBH I would be less worried about you killing yourself then your actions causing someone else to die.

I am sure you can go on about how great a driver you are, but the fact is you should be driving slower in case a potential idiot does something else. Lets say your overtaking the four cars and car number 2 doesn't look behind and tries to overtake? Or car number 1 hits the brakes to stop hitting a frog in the road (I had some plonker do this, thankfully good braking distance away from them). If car 1 hits the brakes the others are going to panic/swerve.

It is more then "Has my car enough power to get by".

fletch

Hobbes wrote:

I am sure you can go on about how great a driver you are, but the fact is you should be driving slower in case a potential idiot does something else. Lets say your overtaking the four cars and car number 2 doesn't look behind and tries to overtake? Or car number 1 hits the brakes to stop hitting a frog in the road (I had some plonker do this, thankfully good braking distance away from them). If car 1 hits the brakes the others are going to panic/swerve.

You've kind of hit the nail on the head there in fairness. I would rather be past these idiots. It's driving like this that causes multiple car pile-ups. All it takes is one person to make a mistake and everyone needs to take evasive action which could result in a crash. I was keeping my distance from the cars in front for some time and could see that the road was clear ahead. After a few miles and nobody had made an attempt to overtake (and perhaps they were happy sitting there bumper to bumper, I suppose that's their prerogative...however I wasn't), I judged that I had the power available to me and a clear road the other side and made a conscious decision to overtake.