Speed Cameras - You are not above the law no matter where you are caught!

nastysimon

Head wrote:

So can you outline a situation to me exactly when and where in your opinion it is OK for me to drive at the speed limit WHEN there are cars behind me?

If they are a sufficient distance behind to not be a risk to you to other road users. It is also expected that where it would not be safe for you to pull over that they would be behind you. It is just that where a situation arises that you can safely get out of there way, or where the greater risk is presented by their presence, you should get out of their way. Having a line of cars behind you is more dangerous than having well spaced out cars and should rarely occur.

Are you (and others) saying that for the rest of my life if i am driving on a single lane road with a hard shoulder that on all occasions where there are cars behind me that i have a duty to pull in?

No, just that you must do the safe thing, which is more likely to be served by you making sure that there is no line of trafic behind you than when there is. It is safer for you too. Pulling into a hard shoulder when it is dangerous to do so is not appropriate either. Your choice as to whether you should pull over should have nothing to do with whether you are doing the speed limit or not, or whether they seem to want to speed or not.

Why do the rights of the people behind me, who may want to break the law, supercede my right to stay within the law?

Firstly, forget about rights, safe driving isn't about rights or rules and regulations, it's about driving safely and sometimes this means doing things you have no "right" to do, or which go against the rules of the road (which should really be called, guidelines, not rules). Even leaving this aside, how are you breaking the law? If you take the safest course of action, which will usually not prevent other from driving as they chose, be that within the law or not, you will have done the right thing.

I am aware from some of the recent posts, if you have read them correctly, that speed is not a major factor. See the posts between myself and HelterSkelter earlier today in relation to that.

Good, so you accept that you've been lied to about speed. Now you should start questioning all the other rubbish that they spout in the name of road safety.

That is a big statement to make, to say that road users have to go out of their way to facilitate other road users, whether they are going to speed or not... Once again i feel that is not logical.

You must facilitate all other road users. You have to make sure that their journey goes well and hence yours will too. When you drive and only look out for yourself, you will ultimately cause accidents, or at least be guilty of doing nothing to help prevent them. As a responsibile road user, you will do what is safe, which will rarely involve you trying to impose your will on them.

Again why do the "rights" (using the term loosely) of someone who wants to break the law overrule my rights not to break the law?

How are you breaking the law? Even still, if breaking the law saves lives, is this not the right course of action?

People are getting hung up on this idea of me stopping people speeding, its been a constant undertone in the whole thread. People have been talking about "other people" and "other drivers" constantly, again alluding to the suggestion that the law abiding people ike myself are the ones who need to mend their ways and pull over for those who wish to break the law. I dont want to sound like a stuck vinyl but FFS who is trying to make an effort here to do the right thing? Me or the people who dont have the patience to drive their cars within the speed limits? Logic?

Just because they are doing something which breaks the law does not mean that they are doing anything particularly dangerous. There are many daft laws. Even still, accepting that exceeding the speed limit is dangerous, it does not make it alright for you to compound the situation and do something equally dangerous, no matter how legal it is. It is not doing the right thing to hold up others when it is safe to allow them to pass (and especially when it is safer, which it usually is). Sticking to the law does not mean that one is doing the right thing.

Jaysus im getting sick of quoting your post all in little bits, im ending up saying the same thing over and over again, obviously to no avail. Im worn out with this thread to be honest, no matter what i say it seems that what other people on the roads want to do is more important, even if it means them breaking the law.

Actually you seem to be the one hung up on something and that is that obeying the law is all important. I'm not saying that others should be allowed to do whatever they want, but it's not your place to impose your will or the law upon them. A fanatical following of the law is dangerous, especially on the roads. Use of common sense, and continual education is far more important and very quickly one learns that the law is seriously inadequate, and never could be adequate. I'm not saying that those looneys who drive dangerously fast are better than you, just that I believe that if someone wants to drive above the speed limit, I should not try to hinder them as it will not make it safer for either of us. I'll let them get on with their driving and I'll get on with mine as safely as I can.

Ronan H

nastysimon wrote:

If they are a sufficient distance behind to not be a risk to you to other road users. It is also expected that where it would not be safe for you to pull over that they would be behind you. It is just that where a situation arises that you can safely get out of there way, or where the greater risk is presented by their presence, you should get out of their way. Having a line of cars behind you is more dangerous than having well spaced out cars and should rarely occur.

This is the only part im going to reply to, i can be bothered any more. In relation to others being a safe distance behind me, thats up to THEM to decide, how can i control how much someone else stays behind me? That again is a ridiculous statement. Also why do you feel that theres a risk just because there are cars behind me? They mighnt even be bothered about passing, its a natural progression of traffic flow that at some point you will be behind people or there will be be people behind you, just because that is the case it doesnt mean that someone automatically should pull in, thats rubbish.

Your always referring to me preventing others form doing what they want to do on the roads, but in the case of all the examples you are in favour of, are they not cases of other people preventing me from doing what i want to do on the road? Its just the same situation reversed, so why should one road user get their way as opposed to someone else? And i know that applies to me too, but from what you are saying it appears that i in particular have to yield to the expectations of others, yet nobody else should yield to me? Thats wrong and im sick of hearing that arduement from people.

This thread is about driving attitudes. In a perfect world, nobody would break the speed limits, obviously thats not the case, but this thread and all the "pull in" arguements clearly show that peoples attitudes are out of check and that they clearly havent enough patience to stay behind someone who is driving at the speed limit, they obviously have an issue with staying within the law etc... but NO NO NO its me thats wrong all the time, so i dont know why i bother. I think you would see that if you tried to be a bit more objective and not determined to prove me wrong.

ALso, you asked in your post, where am i breaking the law? Again i cant understand where you get that from. I never said that im breaking the law so go back and read the quotes that you based them questions on and get clarifcation for yourself. Im talking about others breaking the law...

Head

BostonB

Head wrote:

...but this thread and all the "pull in" arguments clearly show that peoples attitudes are out of check and that they clearly haven't enough patience to stay behind someone who is driving at the speed limit, they obviously have an issue with staying within the law etc.....

I agree with you on that. But it doesn't mean you can't let people by where its safe to do so. Nothing is gained by keeping them behind you. If people want to exceed the speed limit and you're not. Eventually they'll get by you. Personally I prefer to choose that moment if I can. You don't have to do it, but there's no harm in doing it. That said...

...And now my friend, the first rule of Italian driving. Whatsa behind me (breaks rear view mirror off and tosses it behind him), is not important!...

If people behind don't know how to drive and bunch up and don't keep safe driving distances that's their problem. (unless of course you are driving unreasonably slowly) but at the speed limit your not, on a single lane road at least. On a multi-lane road you have no reason to hold up traffic though.

GTC

It's certainly courteous driving if you can use the hard shoulder to let traffic past. Queues of cars following each other can be very problematic, sudden braking etc can lead to a lot accidents. I would recommend pulling into the hard shoulder, maybe not completely where the hard shoulder is not all that wide, to let a car pass you. It removes the danger to you of being rear-ended by tailgaters or road-rage drivers going off their heads behind you.

If you're on a nice straight stretch of road with adequate hard shoulder, but there is oncoming traffic that does not allow the drivers following you to overtake, it is admirable if you can let them by by using the hard shoulder.

As an interesting side-point, what do you do when a patrol car comes up behind you? (Lights and siren off).

And if it has both lights and siren on?

(Just to clarify, motorists are expected to use the hard shoulder (where available) to let the emergency vehicle pass. They do not have to stop in the hard shoulder, it is fully legal to use it for short periods of time)

GTC, Garda Traffic Corps


This post does not nor does it claim to reflect the position of An Garda Siochána

Ronan H

BostonB wrote:

If people behind don't know how to drive and bunch up and don't keep safe driving distances that's their problem. (unless of course you are driving unreasonably slowly) but at the speed limit your not, on a single lane road at least. On a multi-lane road you have no reason to hold up traffic though.

Playing devils advocate there with the first sentence, i said that earlier in the thread and someone called me ignorant and a vigilante :rolleyes:. As regards a multi lane road, that was never an issue, a perfect example being the M50 currently, i drive at the speed limit in the left lane and the overtaking lane is there for people to pass if they wish, never a bother with that, that would be particularly rude to hold up the overtaking lane.

The point im trying to get across to everyone is about attitudes to driving on the roads, and in my opinion someone behind me who has not got the patience to keep their distance and keep within the speed limits has a lot more work to do on their driving attitude than i have. Having said that, im not claiming to be perfect either, nobody is, but im bewildered by the amount of people who are on the "side" of the potential law breakers on the roads, thats primarily where my issue is. People keep bringing it back to me trying to enforce the law and stop people speeding by not puling in, which is not the case. I have consistently referred to driving attitudes throughout the thread but that seems to be overlooked by some people on occasion.

Distance Head

Marcus.Aurelius

Lights and siren off? I'd pull into the HS a bit to let it by, they're nearly always going to a call

Lights and siren off, way into the HS to let it by, they're usually zooming along.

Ronan H

GTC wrote:

Queues of cars following each other can be very problematic, sudden braking etc can lead to a lot accidents.

As an interesting side-point, what do you do when a patrol car comes up behind you? (Lights and siren off).

And if it has both lights and siren on?

If people drive properly and leave adequate spece between them and the car in front of them then sudden braking should not be a problem as the space you leave should allow for evasive action should someone in front come to a halt suddenly. I cant be responsible for the distance people behind me leave between themselves (as was suggested earlier), how on earth am i supposed to be responsible for that?:rolleyes: I can only be responsible for my own car.

As for the Gardaí, if the sirens are off i just stay where i am (that would be based on the assumption that they are just travelling between A & B without urgency) and if the sirens go on i will pull in then because theres obviously something urgent that they need to attend to. Thats not the case for the ordinary driver who has something urgent they need to attend to, thats up to them to sort out, it shouldnt be required for other road users to part like the Red Sea in order to let someone through who is in a hurry or cant be arsed driving at the speed limit. Its a very different situation from the Gardaí.

GTC

Head wrote:

If people drive properly and leave adequate spece between them and the car in front of them then sudden braking should not be a problem as the space you leave should allow for evasive action should someone in front come to a halt suddenly. I cant be responsible for the distance people behind me leave between themselves (as was suggested earlier), how on earth am i supposed to be responsible for that?:rolleyes: I can only be responsible for my own car.

As for the Gardaí, if the sirens are off i just stay where i am (that would be based on the assumption that they are just travelling between A & B without urgency) and if the sirens go on i will pull in then because theres obviously something urgent that they need to attend to. Thats not the case for the ordinary driver who has something urgent they need to attend to, thats up to them to sort out, it shouldnt be required for other road users to part like the Red Sea in order to let someone through who is in a hurry or cant be arsed driving at the speed limit. Its a very different situation from the Gardaí.

Nonsense, you have no respect for fellow motorists, and poor judgement skills if you think that your described style is safe. You have a duty of care to other drivers. You are (I'm grateful) part of the minority of drivers that fail to let patrol cars pass on ordinary business. We are always on call and always going somewhere important. Usually there is an idiot somewhere we have to blare off the road to let us pass. Sorry to mods if post is too strongly worded

gyppo

GTC wrote:

Nonsense, you have no respect for fellow motorists, and poor judgement skills if you think that your described style is safe. You have a duty of care to other drivers. You are (I'm grateful) part of the minority of drivers that fail to let patrol cars pass on ordinary business. We are always on call and always going somewhere important. Usually there is an idiot somewhere we have to blare off the road to let us pass. Sorry to mods if post is too strongly worded

Do us a favour, and take that steel rod out of your a**e. The OP answered you, and said he would pull in for a patrol car that had sirens/lights on, as its obviously on a mission. Do you expect him to pull in at all times because he see's a patrol car in his mirror??
Whats with this "we" business btw?? Because, frankly, I don't believe you.

nastysimon

Head wrote:

This is the only part im going to reply to, i can be bothered any more. In relation to others being a safe distance behind me, thats up to THEM to decide, how can i control how much someone else stays behind me?

Yes, it is up to them to decide. But if they are driving behind you they are posing a danger to you and themselves as if you have to brake suddenly they might hit you and kill you. If you do your best to space out the traffic, you will be in less danger and so will they. I'm not condoning the actions of anyone who sits too close to you to react in a relaxed and safe manner, but just pointing out that such people drive and other drivers have to deal with them and take the safest course of action, even when that results in such driver having to do an action that they would prefer not to do.

Also why do you feel that theres a risk just because there are cars behind me?

If they are such that there is a risk of them hitting you because you brake suddenly, or do something stupid (like try to avoid a dog and flip your car ) then they present a greater risk than if they were much further away (in front or behind).

They mighnt even be bothered about passing, its a natural progression of traffic flow that at some point you will be behind people or there will be be people behind you, just because that is the case it doesnt mean that someone automatically should pull in, thats rubbish.

Correct, just because someone catches up with you does not mean that you should automatically pull in. But, if you make it as easy as possible to pass, which may involve pulling in, you will make the situation safer.

Your always referring to me preventing others form doing what they want to do on the roads, but in the case of all the examples you are in favour of, are they not cases of other people preventing me from doing what i want to do on the road?

It's not about doing what you want to do or not, it's about doing what is safe or not. It is not safe to have a line of cars behind you, therefore it is better to let it pass, or even encourage it to do so. This is for you own safety and the safety of others. You should forget what you want to do and start thinking what will be safest and having a line of cars behind is not as safe as having no cars around you.

Its just the same situation reversed, so why should one road user get their way as opposed to someone else?

Why are you focusing on what you want and what they want? Why don't you focus on what is safe and what is not? If you consider speeding unsafe, fine, don't speed. But it is generally accepted that trying to impose your will on others is less safe than letting them drive as they chose and reporting dangerous driving.

And i know that applies to me too, but from what you are saying it appears that i in particular have to yield to the expectations of others, yet nobody else should yield to me? Thats wrong and im sick of hearing that arduement from people.

I agree that as much as you should yield to others, they should do the same to you. If you catch up with a car which is doing 20km/h because the driver thinks that that is the fastest safe speed, and you feel that 100km/h is safe, should they not make it easier for you to pass in a safe manner? Or should they try to impose thier little view of the world on you too?

This thread is about driving attitudes. In a perfect world, nobody would break the speed limits...

What would make this perfect? Surely the perfect world would be everyone driving as they chose and nobody being injured in the process. Since this perfect world can't exist, we have certain rules, many of which are deeply flawed, but the fact remains that doing the safest thing on the road is always best. Trying to get others to capitulate to your will is dangerous as it irritates them and makes them more likely to act in a dangerous manner. Do you feel that you have no duty of care to your other road users?

... this thread and all the "pull in" arguements clearly show that peoples attitudes are out of check and that they clearly havent enough patience to stay behind someone who is driving at the speed limit ...

Obviously people do not have the patience to stay behind someone driving at the limit, but we have to share the roads with these kind of people and therefore we must do our level best to make it safe for them and us. Doing something which will make them irrate does not make it any safer for anyone.

ALso, you asked in your post, where am i breaking the law? Again i cant understand where you get that from. I never said that im breaking the law so go back and read the quotes that you based them questions on and get clarifcation for yourself. Im talking about others breaking the law...

I never said that you were breaking the law, just that you wrote:

Why do the rights of the people behind me, who may want to break the law, supercede my right to stay within the law?

I took this as ou were suggesting that you would have to break the law to somehow facilite them.

Head, you are hung up on rules and laws and don't seem to give a damn about driving safety. Your responses suggest that you feel that if as a result of your actions, others drive more dangerously, that it is none of your business. To me this is one of the most common forms of bad driving. It's only when we all drive in a manner which looks out for all other road users that we will have safe roads.

I recommend that you read Road Craft and other driving safety books and see if they agree with you or not. I find that my attitude changed from a "I'll look after me and drive as I want. Damn the rest and let them look after themselves" to a "Ok, how do I keep the risk down and traffic flowing smoothly". I have never found driving with a line of cars behind to fit with the latter, both the risk and flow are reduced by such.

astraboy

Long post but I have lots to say so thanks for taking the time to read the whole thing!:)


Even though I though I would never say this about someone that started a pro speed camera thread, I think ye are giving Head a bit of a hard time. The guy wants to drive at the speed limit or under it. I don't see any evidence of him being up on his high horse on this thread like some of the anti-speeding nazi's and in fairness to the guy he has listened to and responded to peoples points(no pun intended!:D ) regarding speed/speeding/inappropiate speed on this thread. He's taken those points on boards, and He's not like others on recent threads refusing to weild his point of view to new evidence.

The issue regarding the hard shoulder is blown out of proportion and is taking over the thread. Most of the roads I drive are country roads and I drive at a safe speed, 98% of th time under the limit. If someone goes to pass me out, I may ease off the accelrator slightly if there is no traffic behind me to make the manouver quicker for the person passing out. often, as people have said, there is no hard shoulder so I maintain my road position and leave them get on with their driving.

SPEEDING:
Now as for speeding, I think I have posted up my points already but basically people are hung up on speeding due to its position in the letter of the law. An example(again from cork). The new motorway from Fermoy to watergrasshill area has recently been completed. This joins up with a long stretch of Dual carriage way that takes you as far as the lee tunnel. Up until now this dual carriage way's limit was 100KPH. I have often driven at 120KPH on this road when conditions allow. I have broken the law doing this, yes, but have I endangered anyone? No, I do not believe so, in fact I was often driving slower then most on this stretch of road. This road is going to be updated to motorway status soon, meaning the limit will jump from 100 to 120KPH! Now, does that mean that speed is safe on that road? In most conditions, yes but not all and people will still have to adjust their speed to the conditions etc, however it shows that arguments based on "your breaking the law and that is that" often lack the insight into how speed limits are applied and how the speed limit is just a number that will not adjust up or down according to each driver, car or various conditions.

Going a few K over the limit at times may be appropiate, in many cases going a few K under the limit is more appropiate. Like I said earlier, it is poor driving and lack of attention as well as inappropiate speed for conditions and the experience of the driver that are the causes of most accidents. Just because you keep the limit does not make you a safer driver

Using the fact that the speed limit is the law to say this is clearly a safe speed, and going 10KPH over this is not is mot objective and refuses to acknowledge the facts and reality of the roads. If the speed limit is raised, this means you can LEGALLY go faster, but does not mean you can travel at that speed and avoid accidents etc. At the end of the day my point is that common sense, judgement and experience are far more important on the roads then a politically assigined limit, please bear this in mind.

I am not denying that some(ok lots!) of Irish drivers lack judgement and common sense, however many do have it and it would do the motorist of this country good if those in power acknowledged this and also put into place proper training so drivers can hone their skills.

I would perfer if people could watch the road and adjust their speed accordingly instead of focusing on your speedometer the whole time!

Ronan H

nastysimon wrote:

Yes, it is up to them to decide. But if they are driving behind you they are posing a danger to you and themselves as if you have to brake suddenly they might hit you and kill you.

Again, and i have said this numerous times, if someone is driving dangerously and acting like a fool and putting me at risk then of course i would pull in, if its the case that there are people behind me and nobody is bothered about being behind me and not interested in passing me, then i wont pull in as theres obviously no need.

nastysimon wrote:

If you do your best to space out the traffic, you will be in less danger and so will they.

Agin im not sure exactly how you expect ME to space out the traffic behind me? Thats up to them surely?

nastysimon wrote:

If you catch up with a car which is doing 20km/h because the driver thinks that that is the fastest safe speed, and you feel that 100km/h is safe, should they not make it easier for you to pass in a safe manner? Or should they try to impose thier little view of the world on you too?

This is a different situation altogether where someone "thinks" that their 20KMPH is the right speed to drive at. I NEVER EVER would drive BELOW the speed limit and not let cars pass just because i think its a safe speed, thats ridiculous. I think that is extremely rude and is a pet hate of mine. It is not up to road users to decide what speed limit is safe and what isnt, granted some of the speed limits in Ireland dont seem to make a lot of sense, but until they are changed we must put up with them and assume that they are so for a reason.

So in the example above, you have left out one crucial detail, the speed limit...

In your example if the speed limit is 20KMPH then the driver in front is correct to drive at 20KMPH, the fact that the driver behind thinks that 100KMPH is safe is a VERY dangerous thought to have, you kinda have to give the benefit of the doubt to the councils (or whoever) and assume that the limit is there for a reason, therefore there is no way i would expect the 20KMPH driver to pull in just because the 100KMPH driver "thinks" they know what is safe (again before you jump on my back, this is assuming that the 20KMPH speed limit is there for a reason).

However, if in your example the speed limit is 100KMPH then the 20KMPH driver has some serious learning to do as driving at 20KMPH in a 100KMPH zone is extremely dangerous.

In all of the examples that i have given in relation to my own driving, i have NEVER alluded to the fact that i drive at a speed that i "think" is safe. In all my example i have been referring to driving at the speed limit, hence my reluctance to pull in for people behind me who wish to speed. Do you see what i mean? I hope we havent been arguing this for the last couple of days based on a misunderstanding of what i am saying? I would be 100% confident that i never suggested that i drive at speeds that i personally feel are safe, thats a whole different ballgame altogether, thats very arrogant for someone to assume that they themselves have a better view on what is safe than the people that are actually paid to do that job. That is not where i am coming from whatsoever.

Wouldnt it be funny if we had wasted all this time waffling on with our views if we were both talking about 2 differnt situations :eek:.

GTC wrote:

Nonsense, you have no respect for fellow motorists, and poor judgement skills if you think that your described style is safe. You have a duty of care to other drivers. You are (I'm grateful) part of the minority of drivers that fail to let patrol cars pass on ordinary business. We are always on call and always going somewhere important. Usually there is an idiot somewhere we have to blare off the road to let us pass. Sorry to mods if post is too strongly worded

I have plenty of respect for fellow motorists. There are plenty more aspects to driving than what has been discussed in this thread, so dont judge my entire driving style based on a very small amount of information that you disagree with.

I am not for one moment suggesting that just because you dont have lights and sirens on that you are not on call, and that you dont have plenty to be doing, as far as im concerned, when you are in uniform you are on call, but thats irrelevant. The lights and sirens are on your vehicle for a reason, to let people know you are there, to convey urgency, to pre-warm people that you need them to move out of your way etc... There are many varying degrees of urgency and a patrol car behind me with no lights and no sirens on does not signify a huge amount of urgency to me, hence i wouldnt be tripping over myself to pull in. I think it is fair to say that not all of your business is of a critical level of urgency, which is why i assume you would drive around with the lights off occasionally. Otherwise you would have your lights on constantly. If you are behind me with no lights on and you really want to pass then give me a flash and ill gladly move in. Also, if it says in the ROTR that you are supposed to pull in for Gardaí etc... regardless of lights on or off, then consider me told, i will be pulling in in future without any problems.

@ nastysimon: Again i would like to remind you that my point is about attitudes on the roads, not specific aspects of driving (despite the thread title, but i have explained that previously). I am not for one moment suggesting that my attitude is without tarnish, we all have something to learn, but as far as i am concerned, based on the fact that most people on this thread want me to pull over, when im driving at the speed limit, so that people behind me can overtake me, and go above the speed limit, that to me says that the people behind me have a lot of work to do on their attitudes. I do too, and i will mull over this thread for a long time and probably implement some stuff that i wasnt aware of before, but for goodness sake stop focusing on me being a vigilante and being obsessed with the law for one second and look at other peoples attitudes and not just mine!

Head

_Kaiser_

GTC wrote:

Nonsense, you have no respect for fellow motorists, and poor judgement skills if you think that your described style is safe. You have a duty of care to other drivers. You are (I'm grateful) part of the minority of drivers that fail to let patrol cars pass on ordinary business. We are always on call and always going somewhere important. Usually there is an idiot somewhere we have to blare off the road to let us pass. Sorry to mods if post is too strongly worded

Why should other drivers let a squad car pass just because it appears in the rearview mirror? That's just arrogance that again the Gardai are somehow above the rest of the driving/general public - by that logic your colleagues whom I regularly see in the local chipper around shift changes should be let by as clearly it's important they get there before their Dinner Boxes go cold! :rolleyes:

I'll remind you (as you should already be aware) that you are subject to the (majority) of road traffic regulations like the rest of us. But I regularly see squad cars breaking lights, crossing solid white lines, mounting footpaths etc to get to the station - again without lights/sirens and coincidentially also around shift changeovers.

HOWEVER.. if a squad car/ambulance/whatever appears behind someone with sirens/lights ON, then of course you should pull over to let it by.

nastysimon

Head wrote:

Again, and i have said this numerous times, if someone is driving dangerously and acting like a fool and putting me at risk then of course i would pull in, if its the case that there are people behind me and nobody is bothered about being behind me and not interested in passing me, then i wont pull in as theres obviously no need.

I'm just suggesting that if they are close enough behind you so that you braking hard will cause them to do the same, I feel that you should do your level best to space things out and the only way that I can see that you can do this is to encourage them to pass. If they are acting like a fool, that is even worse, but the same applies, you want the fool, or any other driver to be as far away from you as possible so that one's actions have far less severe impact on another.

Agin im not sure exactly how you expect ME to space out the traffic behind me? Thats up to them surely?

To a degree, but you can influence the situation. That's all I'm saying

I NEVER EVER would drive BELOW the speed limit and not let cars pass just because i think its a safe speed, thats ridiculous.

This suggests that you will drive at the speed limit and not let those who want to pass. Or at least that how you treat the drivers behind you depends on whether you are doing the speed limit or not. I don't see why you should. It makes no sense to me.

I think that is extremely rude and is a pet hate of mine. It is not up to road users to decide what speed limit is safe and what isnt, granted some of the speed limits in Ireland dont seem to make a lot of sense, but until they are changed we must put up with them and assume that they are so for a reason.

I think that you are assuming a lot. There is little science put into deciding the limit and those that do so often do so due to local pressure (I want cars to go slower by my house so they won't be too loud, kind of thing). I always decide what speed I feel is safe. The limit, and more importantly limit changes indicate a huge amount about the conditions, but there are places which I know have daft limits. In many of these cases, I will not go anywhere near the limit.

So in the example above, you have left out one crucial detail, the speed limit...

Because I don't see what difference it should make. Just because you are doing the limit doesn't mean that the guy behind you is going to be considerably less irrate by you holding him up, even though he should be more patient. Similarly, it doesn't mean that when you slam on the brakes that he won't be a little too slow and plough into the back of you, killing you and yours. On the otherhand, if there is nobody behind you, the chance of being hit from the rear is amazingly reduced.

In your example if the speed limit is 20KMPH then the driver in front is correct to drive at 20KMPH, the fact that the driver behind thinks that 100KMPH is safe is a VERY dangerous thought to have, you kinda have to give the benefit of the doubt to the councils (or whoever) and assume that the limit is there for a reason, therefore there is no way i would expect the 20KMPH driver to pull in just because the 100KMPH driver "thinks" they know what is safe (again before you jump on my back, this is assuming that the 20KMPH speed limit is there for a reason).

You really give far too much credit to the councils. The fact is that being aware of the road, the hazards and the conditions and making a well informed judgement is one of the foremost skills of driving and is something that every competent driver does. One of the judgement calls is what is a safe speed. Whether the driver decides to travel at that speed or below is entirely their choice, though often it breaks the law, so most good drivers will chose to stick to the limit (the points aren't worth it, nor the fine). That is not to say that they do not realise that there are places where it is too low (for all the places it is too high, they will stick to the lower safe speed). Some good drivers will decide that the limit is far too low and take a reasonable risk. Of course, you don't consider it a reasonable risk, you consider it to be breaking the law and therefore to be condemned from on high.

However, if in your example the speed limit is 100KMPH then the 20KMPH driver has some serious learning to do as driving at 20KMPH in a 100KMPH zone is extremely dangerous.

No it is not. Sometimes it is the fastest safe speed (on solid ice, very dense fog, where there are animals or people, etc.)

In all of the examples that i have given in relation to my own driving, i have NEVER alluded to the fact that i drive at a speed that i "think" is safe. In all my example i have been referring to driving at the speed limit, hence my reluctance to pull in for people behind me who wish to speed.

I hope that I'm reading this wrong, but this suggests that you drive at the limit, whether you think it is safe or not. Even if not, whether they chose to speed or not is immaterial, they are a risk and you are doing nothing to diffuse it. Through your inaction you are endangering yourself, and other road users. Of course, the driver behind you is even more at fault, but you still must shoulder some of the blame.

Do you see what i mean? I hope we havent been arguing this for the last couple of days based on a misunderstanding of what i am saying? I would be 100% confident that i never suggested that i drive at speeds that i personally feel are safe, thats a whole different ballgame altogether, thats very arrogant for someone to assume that they themselves have a better view on what is safe than the people that are actually paid to do that job.

No, initially I tried to see some other perspective in your posts, but I couldn't find it, they meant what I feared they did. If you think that it's arrogant for one to judge the road etc. and decide what is a safe speed, be it above or below the limit, then I wish all drivers on our roads were so arrogant, but hopefully only after they have learned the appropriate skills to be so. If you can't judge the conditions better than those who put the limits up, who were limited to a small set of speeds and who could not account for all different conditions (note, the limit is the same for day and night, even though in general the safe speed is lower at night than during the day), then perhaps you should reconsider your use of the road (I really doubt that you can't make such a judgement). Such a skill is fundamental to safe driving and I'm quite sure that if you were to contact advanced road safety groups, such as the IAM or ROSPA, they would say the same thing.

I have plenty of respect for fellow motorists. There are plenty more aspects to driving than what has been discussed in this thread, so dont judge my entire driving style based on a very small amount of information that you disagree with.

Driving is ultimately about attitudes and the single attitude I think should be placed above all else is responsibility. Other things are important too, such as constant improvement, re-evalutaion of ideals, etc. It just seems to me that one who would delegate such responsibility to the powers that be, would not drive in a responsible fashion, but instead drives on autopilot of sorts.

It must be said that you think about your driving and this is the single most important step. Without it one is doomed to never improving. Given enough thought, and self criticism any driver will improve and can ultimately become a good driver (I like to think that I am on that path, but I know I have a long way to go).

@ nastysimon: Again i would like to remind you that my point is about attitudes on the roads, not specific aspects of driving (despite the thread title, but i have explained that previously). I am not for one moment suggesting that my attitude is without tarnish, we all have something to learn, but as far as i am concerned, based on the fact that most people on this thread want me to pull over, when im driving at the speed limit, so that people behind me can overtake me, and go above the speed limit, that to me says that the people behind me have a lot of work to do on their attitudes. I do too, and i will mull over this thread for a long time and probably implement some stuff that i wasnt aware of before, but for goodness sake stop focusing on me being a vigilante and being obsessed with the law for one second and look at other peoples attitudes and not just mine!

I'm aware that it's about attitudes. If it was only a single aspect of driving, I wouldn't have bothered posting. We all have good and bad attitudes when it comes to driving and we all have to learn far more than we know. I strongly disagree with the attitude that your suggested actions suggest you have. I would agree that those that do not have the patience to wait for a safe passing opportunity, which should not require you to pull over, have far worse attitudes than you. Even still, if a well informed and competent driver has judged a road to be such that the posted limit is not the fastest safe speed, and they then chose to break the limit to travel above that speed, I will not condemn them at all. On the other hand, I will condemn someone who fails to make a judgement at all, but who decides that the posted limit is the safe speed. Many people who do chose to speed, often do so without true understanding of what can happen, they fail to fully appreciate the distance that it takes to stop, and how hazards can appear as if out of nowhere, and how much damage a high speed impact can have. They are uninformed and not competent.

BTW, in ideal conditions, most cars stop with a little less than 1G of deceleration. Some as low as 0.8, others as high as 1.3G (these are quite rare). The same speed limit applies to all. Why? Those that stop with 1.3G can stop from 120km/h in 44m, those that do 0.8G will take 71m. In fact, the car that does 1.3G will be able to stop from over 150km/h in the same distance that the 0.8G car can from 120km/h. Given this, and that the speed limit is usually set to allow for the lowest common denominator in terms of cars (actually, it's usually set assuming that we are driving cars from the 50's), should someone driving a car which can stop with 1.3G be subject to the same limit as the rest of us? Afterall, they are safer at 145km/h than many we allow to drive at 120km/h. I know this is an over simplification, but I think that living by a set of rules which can never hope to account for such differences of ability of different cars, let alone people, conditions, etc. is dangerous, particularly on chaotic roads (they are and always will be and speed limts, enforced or not, will never change this).

Ronan H

Jaysus i cant keep up with your long posts.

Look ive had pretty much this exact same arguement with the user "maoleary" earlier in the thread and i have just regurgitated it all again with you, it could go on indefinitely and we would probably never agree so theres no point in continuously going to and fro with it and both ending up with a pain in our faces and repetitive strain injury over it.

To be honest with you, i will probably re-evaluate my driving based on what you have said in the last few posts. Some of it i agree with it and some of it i disagree with, but thats to be expected, we are only human after all. So i suppose for you, a person with valid points and opinions, it was a successful mission (as such, dont take the "mission" part too literally, you have tended to take some of what i said to the absolute letter ) if it means that i will look at my driving as a result.

Thanks for tagging along in the debate, at least you made posts that were worthwhile to read as opposed to some of the "stuff" that was posted... Steel rods etc... :eek:

Ill be watching out for you in your quick car and ill make sure to pull over to let you by if you are gaining on me, just to show you that i have taken on board some of what you said .

Now, onwards to my next thread, cyclists who think they are above the law... ... ... .

Facetious Head

Marcus.Aurelius

Ah something we can all enjoy. Feckin cylists!!

ambro25

GTC wrote:

Queues of cars following each other can be very problematic, sudden braking etc can lead to a lot accidents. I would recommend pulling into the hard shoulder, maybe not completely where the hard shoulder is not all that wide, to let a car pass you. It removes the danger to you of being rear-ended by tailgaters or road-rage drivers going off their heads behind you.

And would it occur to someone purporting to speak as a Gardai to wonder why sudden braking etc can lead to a lot accidents in this country ? :mad:

FFS! I don't know, nor have I heard of anyone in Ireland who can correctly approximate a safety distance for driving - I bet even Guards ain't got a f*cking clue either!

On dry road: divide speed by ten, square it, take 10% off

50km/h = 5 x 5 = 25 - 10% = 23 meters.

On wet road: divide speed by ten, square it, add 30%

50km/h = 5 x 5 = 25 + 30% = 32 meters.

GTC wrote:

If you're on a nice straight stretch of road with adequate hard shoulder, but there is oncoming traffic that does not allow the drivers following you to overtake, it is admirable if you can let them by by using the hard shoulder.

:eek: - OMFG!

That's admirable advice from someone purporting to speak as a Gardai :mad:

Since this practice is apparently condoned and encouraged by the powers that be can you just tell me what happens when the oncoming cars do exactly the same? I.e. as car A pulls in to let car B pass even though there's oncoming traffic, oncoming car C pulls in to let oncoming car D pass? I'll tell you: a head on at 100km/h and two extra cars taken out, probably catapulted into the adjacent fields.

If it wasn't out of decency for other readers of the thread and down to the Charter, I'd have no end of carefully chosen epithets for you, Sir.

It's a good job that

GTC wrote:

This post does not nor does it claim to reflect the position of An Garda Siochána

Ronan H

ambro25 wrote:

FFS! I don't know, nor have I heard of anyone in Ireland who can correctly approximate a safety distance for driving - I bet even Guards ain't got a f*cking clue either!

On dry road: divide speed by ten, square it, take 10% off

50km/h = 5 x 5 = 25 - 10% = 23 meters.

On wet road: divide speed by ten, square it, add 30%

50km/h = 5 x 5 = 25 + 30% = 32 meters.

I did a driving course through work a couple of years ago and the instuctor was going on about this topic and mentioned "the two second rule" as a tool to assist in determining the correct distance you should leave between you and the car in front. I know most people have heard of it but just to explain for those who havent: When driving behind a car, pick a point on the road or the side of the road such as a lamp post and when they pass it start counting and if you pass the same lamp post before 2 seconds has passed then you are too close. I have often wondered if its an adequate distance at all, and it doesnt take into acount weather conditions either. I know its just an assistive tool but nonetheless i wonder if it equates roughly to the figures above.

Its one thing that i sometimes find myself slacking on (not purposely but as a result of not concentrating enough etc...) and i find myself drifting closer to the person in front occasionally. Something i need to be more aware of methinks...

I tell you what, if theres something that ive noticed from this thread its that theres a mountain of things you need to be aware of when driving and i can really see what things like mobile phones, mp3 players etc... can be so easily a disasterous distraction to people. Most people are used to driving and take you kinda get used to all the things that you need to look out for but when you see them mentioned all in one place like this it really highlights how much there is, and this thread has only scratched the surface...

Mobile Head

Marcus.Aurelius

ambro25 wrote:

Since this practice is apparently condoned and encouraged by the powers that be can you just tell me what happens when the oncoming cars do exactly the same? I.e. as car A pulls in to let car B pass even though there's oncoming traffic, oncoming car C pulls in to let oncoming car D pass? I'll tell you: a head on at 100km/h and two extra cars taken out, probably catapulted into the adjacent fields.

It's a good job that

Where did you learn to drive? If cars A & C pull over as you say there should be enough room for both cars B & D to overtake simultaneously. If this is not the case, then they will wait for a better opportunity. Driving is all about judgement, not fear, sir.

ambro25

maoleary wrote:

Where did you learn to drive? If cars A & C pull over as you say there should be enough room for both cars B & D to overtake simultaneously. If this is not the case, then they will wait for a better opportunity.

You are aware, are you not, that what you are describing (two pairs of cars travelling in opposite direction, i.e. 4 abreast) in fact constitutes a motorway or dual carriage-way'd N road? :rolleyes: The mind truly boggles!

maoleary wrote:

Driving is all about judgement, not fear, sir.

Judgement, in the above instance, appears sorely lacking. In my book, it would be called reckless driving and/or endangerment. But my book isn't law, so I guess with this kind of mindset, people will continue to die, and we'll continue to wonder how come the most frequent and tragic collisions in this country happen on nicely straight, clear roads.

EDIT

Where did you learn to drive?

I learned to drive in France, about 19 years ago.
Did advanced learner option age 16 (was brought in that year just in time for my birthday), meaning I could drive accompanied by a named driver until 18 - yeah, just like Irish provisionals, except you wouldn't dream of driving on your own, 'cause if caught it'd be bye-bye license until age 21 at the earliest.
Did full driving test age 18, passed first time.
Did advanced offensive/defensive (bodyguard/pro driver -type) course by age 24 for purpose of National Service assignment.
Did Irish theory test last year for provisional A license, passed first time, zero errors.
Enough for you?

MrPudding

maoleary wrote:

Where did you learn to drive? If cars A & C pull over as you say there should be enough room for both cars B & D to overtake simultaneously. If this is not the case, then they will wait for a better opportunity. Driving is all about judgement, not fear, sir.

Very true but, to be honest, even if a car pulls in you should not pass if it would mean you would be 3 abreast in the road, let alone 4.

Common courtesy is something that is severly lacking in Ireland and, in IMO, is second only to proper driver education as something that needs to be fixed.

I do not like to be held up behind another driver that is travelling below the speed limit. I also do not like to be behind a driver that is driving close to the limit. I prefer to be in front where I have an unrestricted view. Most I ride a bike now so it is much easier but when I drive I will always be looking for the overtake. Always. I do not fall into convoy mood, if you are always looking for the overtake, in a safe manner, your level of concentration is that much higher. I really hate tailgaters though…

MrP

Marcus.Aurelius

ambro25 wrote:

I learned to drive in France, about 19 years ago.
Did advanced learner option age 16 (was brought in that year just in time for my birthday), meaning I could drive accompanied by a named driver until 18 - yeah, just like Irish provisionals, except you wouldn't dream of driving on your own, 'cause if caught it'd be bye-bye license until age 21 at the earliest.
Did full driving test age 18, passed first time.
Did advanced offensive/defensive (bodyguard/pro driver -type) course by age 24 for purpose of National Service assignment.
Did Irish theory test last year for provisional A license, passed first time, zero errors.
Enough for you?

Excellent resume if I may be so bold. I have done IAM advanced courses and have driven extensively with Highway Patrols in the US as a naturalised citizen (Irish originally!).

Enough of that. I was indeed saying that 4 abreast was not suitable for most roads in ROI, however, some roads are big enough, but you must use your judgement to decide in any part. Some of our roads should be dual carriageways, they are that wide! Perhaps we should adopt the French system, where single lane roads are split into dual carriage on one side, and then dual carriage on the other, intermittently for a few KMs, like they have on the Piltown bypass from Waterford to Carrick-on-Suir?

Credentials are all well and good, but judgement is through experience. I do not doubt that you have good judgement, but consider that some drivers may have just as good or better judgement and they can overtake in the above scenario if we deem it safe. As I said some roads are OK for double overtakes, some are not. And you still have to watch your driver comin at ya.

ambro25

maoleary wrote:

Some of our roads should be dual carriageways, they are that wide! Perhaps we should adopt the French system, where single lane roads are split into dual carriage on one side, and then dual carriage on the other, intermittently for a few KMs, like they have on the Piltown bypass from Waterford to Carrick-on-Suir?

So long as the tarmac's there and wide enough, it's all down to the marking, so who decides on the type

There are (still) a few sections of "three lane" N-roads in France (three lanes delimited by dotted lines, not two-one side/one-other side), with the 'central' lane for overtaking from either direction. Always were, and remain to this day, the blackest of blackspots for head-ons, and I can't for the life of me understand why they're still there or what they were thinking about.

But to me, such are a symptomatic case in point for disputing the use made (and advocated by some in this thread) of the hard shoulder: if three full lanes are provided for such overtaking manoeuvers, and continue to prove so dangerous in actual use, what are the chances of two full lanes and a bit either side proving any safer?

maoleary wrote:

Credentials are all well and good, but judgement is through experience.

A few hundred thousand miles on several continents later, plenty of that here

maoleary wrote:

I do not doubt that you have good judgement, but consider that some drivers may have just as good or better judgement and they can overtake in the above scenario if we deem it safe.

And, conversely, I for one consider that a lot of drivers in Ireland have particularly bad judgement and they do overtake in the above scenario as they deem it safe, assuming as they apparently do that I (as I'm oncoming) will see them and pull over to avoid a head on :mad: That one's happened to me a sh1t of lot more times than I care to remember already.

I am very rarely the overtaken, much more often the overtaking, but that said I do not ever expect anyone to pull into the hard shoulder for me - I only ever overtake if I've got a clear run on the oncoming lane for the time and distance (both linked) which the manoeuver is going to take, and if I don't have to bother the overtaken driver at all.

And if there's a line of bunched up drivers, I'll either wait until I can take the lot on in one go (and always look out for the guy one or two cars behind the lead pulling out on me, as they never check their blind spot or mirrors), or I'll only overtake two or three and 'nudge in' - again depending entirely on time and distance of where I perceive is the absolute latest spot by which I should be back in my lane.

And in the meantime, I'll just wait and keep my distance from the lot in front

Ronan H

Ooh i must say its a pleasure to come home from work and NOT see a huge reply from maoleary or nastysimon waiting for me . It was hard going keeping up with all that debating! Im just gonna watch for a while now, phew...

Relieved Head