Speed LImit while overtaking

colm_mcm

GG66 wrote:

Where did you get these figures from?

I'd say he got them off his website :rolleyes:

DrivingInfo

Ok you’re missing the point.

Its not about the figures, its about speeding when overtaking.
So what you are saying! In your mind its safer to speed than stay behind a car.

maidhc

Why must all these threads descend to this level. Its pathetic.

I.S.T.

GG66 wrote:

I was with someone today who got a speeding ticket for being clocked at 130kph (80mph) while overtaking a motorcycle and a car.

It was long stretch of road with no visible oncoming traffic. Both vehicles which were overtaken were travelling under the speed limit.

Made me think, seems a bit harsh, surely you have to speed to overtake and then is it not in your interest to overtake quickly. Garda says they usually all 10% over speed limit for overtaking..........

Common sense will tell you to overtake as quickly as you can. Being on the wrong site of the road is more dangerous than speeding. Unfortunatly they can and will do you for breaking the speed limit while overtaking. Technically it is against the law. Please fill in the location of the speed trap if you get a chance... http://www.irishspeedtraps.com/mapinput.aspx

Longrangedriver

DrivingInfo wrote:

Ok you’re missing the point.

Its not about the figures, its about speeding when overtaking.
So what you are saying! In your mind its safer to speed than stay behind a car.

If a car is doing example; 70-80 in 100, or 50-70 in 80 with fluctuating speeds its probably better to be way ahead of these drivers.

(a) they generally don't help keep a good flow of traffic
(b) are bound to do something silly, eg jam on and then indicate or pull out on to main road and drive slow with cars approaching their rear at the speed limit

So I'd have to agree with colm_mcm, as I do 60k+ km p/annum I see this all the time and it seems to affect most drivers around. Its better to continue on a journey with a clear head than be concentrating on trying to get past these drivers. Those do-gooders sitting in offices wouldn't see this or the affects to most drivers.

BostonB

You can argue semantics all day. But in the present climate of zero tolerance you'll get done for speeding if your caught over the limit. Its up to you if you think its worth all the hassle to overtake by speeding and fighting it if caught.

lassykk

I get annoyed by drivers who are going slower than I'd like. In a 100kmph zone (conditions allowing) I usually travel at an indicated speed of 110kmph. I know that my speedo overstates mileage, and that a Garda wouldn't stop me for being 1 or 2 kmph over the limit.
If a driver is doing an indicated 95 kmph and is slowing down and speeding up all the time, I don't wanna be behind him.

couldn't agree with you more. There's nothing more annoying than people who drive at 80kmph when its safe to do 100kmph but not safe to pass them and then as soon as the straight road where it is safe to pass they accelerate to 100kmph meaning that its not legal to overtake them.

I'm all for safer driving, it just bugs me that the Gardai always seem to be present on the best parts of our road network....while the minor roads provide more serious dangers

This annoys me so much about Irish roads. I live on a narrow country road where the legal limit is a ridiculous 80kmph. It should be lower as there as people regularly walk it, its not wide enough for 2 vehicles and its used to cut between 2 main roads to avoid traffic.

Now I'm not trying to start an arguement about the speed limits in this country as everyone could vent for ages about that but what I do have a problem with is guards laying in wait on 100kmph straight stretches of major roads. I'm not condoning breaking the speed limit but the focus should be on where roads are of poorer condition and breaking the speed limit is far more dangerous than on a straight stretch of a primary route. Can someone explain this? Is just a money making scheme that guards sit on the new ross - wexford road on the straighest, widest & therefore safest part and ignore more dangerous areas of minor roads.

Im genuinely asking this question i'm not just trying to provoke a reaction from everyone. It baffles me and has done for the 5 years I've been driving.

BostonB

You don't need an answer to that. But to humour you.

1) People who drive dangerously, also do it on good roads. It habitual.
2) Presence and frequent convictions are intended to change peoples habits.
3) Catching more people re: non dangerous speeding, helps with point (2)
4) Peoples abilities range widely. The limits are a reflection of that.
5) Yes the limits are often inappropriate making point (4) is null and void. But see point (2)

Stark

Is there any evidence to support No. 2?

I've been in the UK and NI. They've a comprehensive speed camera network that seems to keep speeds somewhat under control where they're deployed (although I've noticed a load of NI drivers seem to happily ignore them for some reason, maybe they know a lot of them are duds or something). Anytime I've driven up North, I've constantly had drivers zooming past me on roads that make much of our network look like superhighway, and that's with me doing at least the speed limit. Exact same situation in the UK, where it seems almost obligatory to do 20mph over the speed limit. Obviously, the high prescence does nothing to change driver attitudes there, it just seems to make them more eager to drive like maniacs when they're on roads without cameras.

BostonB

Often popular perception is more influential than the truth. So it seems to be with speed cameras.

Wait till you see the sudden braking that goes on in the UK where they go mad with cameras and enforcement.

lassykk

@ BostonB

tank u so much for humouring me by the way. i feel privileged:rolleyes:

1) People who drive dangerously, also do it on good roads. It habitual.
2) Presence and frequent convictions are intended to change peoples habits.
3) Catching more people re: non dangerous speeding, helps with point (2)
4) Peoples abilities range widely. The limits are a reflection of that.
5) Yes the limits are often inappropriate making point (4) is null and void. But see point (2)

Presence and frequent convictions are intended to change people's habits yeah & people who drive dangerous also do it on good roads. That's BS for a start.

Recently a stretch of national primary route was reclassified from a 100 kmph zone to 50 kmph zone to allow for slow moving vehicles whilst a new ring road/bridge is being built in the waterford area. As a result the volume of vehicles on my road has at least doubled as you can avoid the 50 zone and enter an 80 zone by cutting by my house as i alluded to in my earlier post. These people are intentionally avoiding the 50 kmph zone (which is a ridiculous limit but off point) by passing by my house. In my lifetime I have never seen a police car, marked or unmarked on my road enforcing the speed limit (excessive as it is) but I have seen a speed check on the new 50 kmph zone on the primary route 4 times since its introduction. All the convictions in the world on that stretch of road are just going to send more and more people onto my road and roads similar to mine where people know they can speed without fear of reprisal from the guards.

The people who are cutting onto my road are regular commuters from all walks of life not just boy racers and the vast majority are driving dangerously on my road. These people would not necessarily be driving dangerously if left on the primary route at the old 100 kmph limit

Catching more people helps with point 2. Yes, if point 2 were valid. I its clear point 2 has little or no effect with regard minor roads as they aren't patrolled.

And yes I am aware I am referring to "my road" throughout this post. I'm just using it as an example. I'm aware that slieverue isn't the centre of the universe (yet) but I am just illustrating a point before I get shot down for focusing on one tiny stretch of road.

BostonB

Nice rant.

I never said point (2) was true or false. Just that it exists, and is a reason for speed trap locations which were baffling you. A better question might be who sets the limits, their locations, and by what rational. How can you get the limits changed. You could ask the same of the speed trap locations, especially if you feel it would help in your area.

MrPudding

GG66 wrote:

Garda said he was driving dangerously overtaking a car and a bike at once,

:rolleyes: Christ, another one that thinks you can only safely overtake one vehicle at a time.

MrP

Marcus.Aurelius

Gah, another hop hop advocate! I don't even think its worth explaining again MrP.

embraer170

DrivingInfo wrote:

If your car would only do the speed limit it gets more dangerous the faster the car in front is going.
Speed of other Car, Your max speed, Time overtaking we say bla bla,
60 100 veryshort
70 100 not so short
80 100 long
90 100 very long (dangerous)
It is hard to explain this in text, I hope this is clear.

I think there are more important things to be doing while overtaking than staring at your speedometer.

MrPudding

BostonB wrote:

You don't need an answer to that. But to humour you.

1) People who drive dangerously, also do it on good roads. It habitual.
2) Presence and frequent convictions are intended to change peoples habits.
3) Catching more people re: non dangerous speeding, helps with point (2)
4) Peoples abilities range widely. The limits are a reflection of that.
5) Yes the limits are often inappropriate making point (4) is null and void. But see point (2)

OK, I will try this question again, I think I have asked it about 4 times now of people with similar views to yourself. Perhaps you could be the first to answer it.

How does fining people for speeding on good roads, around Dublin for example, stop young drivers in Donegal speeding on country lanes or taking corners and hazards withing the legal limit but at a speed which is inappropriate for the hazard or conditions? Will someone please answer this question?

MrP

HelterSkelter

MrPudding wrote:

OK, I will try this question again, I think I have asked it about 4 times now of people with similar views to yourself. Perhaps you could be the first to answer it.

How does fining people for speeding on good roads, around Dublin for example, stop young drivers in Donegal speeding on country lanes or taking corners and hazards withing the legal limit but at a speed which is inappropriate for the hazard or conditions? Will someone please answer this question?

MrP

Simple answer, it doesn't. The main motive for speed traps is to make money. If this was not the case then there would be no fine for speeding, you would just get the points. The majority of people are concerned with getting points on their licence, the fine is not such a big deal.

Marcus.Aurelius

I would agree with some previous posters that overtaking must be done with maximum acceleration to avoid staying over the central line for too long. Once its over, you can drop back to your cruising speed. If you overtake in a silly speed rush it diminishes your safety. Overtaking a string of cars at 100+ kph where the limit is 80 and they are doing 50 is probably adequate speeed. But over 150 and you could be caught for dangerous driving. Often people say they were caught at lower speeds, but Gardaí are not just looking at your speed, they're watching how you perform the overtake, how much room you have and the like.

zen63

The new overtaking/tailgating road safety advert clearly says - when you start to overtake, complete the movement without delay.

I have always wondered about this, I used to drive a 3l z4, now a 3.6 7 series, and when I overtake unless I tap the break or take the foot off the accelerator my car will easily reach 80-90mph over taking two other vehicles.

Its seems dangerous to brake/ease off in the middle of overtaking - but i guess its not about safety - more about pandering to the PC brigade and special interests.

The OP has my sympathy - if i ever get points im sure it will be for this!

OldmanMondeo

I have always had the view that if you have to exceed the speed limit to over take, then you should not be overtaking. i.e. That cars you wish to pass are already driving within, but near the speed limit, in a safe mannor.

While I also know that there are tits out there who speed up and slow down for no reason and agree that passing them is 9 times out of 10 the best option, you can usually get these tits to consintrate more on the road and less on the kids, wife or cows in the field...

layke

Actually I would like clarification on this. Who can I write to asking to clear it up? I assume Gaybo and the NRA?

MrPudding

layke wrote:

Actually I would like clarification on this. Who can I write to asking to clear it up? I assume Gaybo and the NRA?

Clarification on what? The law is pretty clear, you cannot speed when overtaking.

Certain organisations will say the law is the law as they cannot be seen to condone speeding or law breaking. These same organisation will tell you unofficially that you should get past as quickly as possible as safely as possible, and if this means speeding just dont take the p1ss.

MrP

stovelid

MrPudding wrote:

How does fining people for speeding on good roads, around Dublin for example, stop young drivers in Donegal speeding on country lanes or taking corners and hazards withing the legal limit but at a speed which is inappropriate for the hazard or conditions? Will someone please answer this question?

MrP

It doesn't. More resources are needed to combat speeding on smaller, dangerous roads. However, that doesn't mean that there should not be speed detection on major roads.

TBH, (not saying you in particular) a lot of the moaning about speed detection on major raods has a "ah sure, we're good drivers , the road is good; what's the danger" subtext to it. That is, an implicit tolerance of speeding.

Enforce the speed limit on all roads FTW.

hollywoodhoppy

GG66 wrote:

They were travelling 200 metres behind in an unmarked black 4x4

There were no tractors, children, oncoming cars, adjoining roads, or cute little puppies

i've come across those crafty guys in the black 4x4 subaru up near carrick on shannon, met them on the road one day and a guy overtook me when i was doin a solid 100km/h when they were oncoming, he sped off and and i saw them turning on the road behind and pullin me over instead!! :mad: told him that it wasnt me (who was driving a silver van) but maybe the RED car that he was lookin for, he then proceeded up the road and met them both havin a 'comfy chat' about 5 miles later!

HelterSkelter

stovelid wrote:

It doesn't. More resources are needed to combat speeding on smaller, dangerous roads. However, that doesn't mean that there should not be speed detection on major roads.

TBH, (not saying you in particular) a lot of the moaning about speed detection on major raods has a "ah sure, we're good drivers , the road is good; what's the danger" subtext to it. That is, an implicit tolerance of speeding.

Enforce the speed limit on all roads FTW.

That's like saying we're bringing in breast cancer screening, but we don't have the resources to offer it to all women so we've decided to screen women aged 25 and under, even though older women are more at risk. Put the speed traps on the roads with the highest accident rates FIRST for God's sake, then go after the speeders on the safe dual carriageways!!!

stovelid

HelterSkelter wrote:

That's like saying we're bringing in breast cancer screening, but we don't have the resources to offer it to all women so we've decided to screen women aged 25 and under, even though older women are more at risk. Put the speed traps on the roads with the highest accident rates FIRST for God's sake, then go after the speeders on the safe dual carriageways!!!

I'm baffled that you would read my post and somehow infer that I'm against speed detection on minor roads.

The *point* was that we have to move away from thinking there are places where speed detection isn't needed.

Sure, It's currently needed much more on the smaller, dangerous roads but I didn't dispute that.

If we're getting into a relative debate about having to deploy x amount of resource to where it's most needed, deploy it on minor roads for sure.

The point - again - was that we need to move toward enforcing speed limits on all roads and people need to stop feeling that they are above obligation to speed limits because other roads are more dangerous than the 'safe' roads they are on.

BostonB

BostonB wrote:

You don't need an answer to that. But to humour you.

1) People who drive dangerously, also do it on good roads. It habitual.
2) Presence and frequent convictions are intended to change peoples habits.
3) Catching more people re: non dangerous speeding, helps with point (2)
4) Peoples abilities range widely. The limits are a reflection of that.
5) Yes the limits are often inappropriate making point (4) is null and void. But see point (2)

MrPudding wrote:

OK, I will try this question again, I think I have asked it about 4 times now of people with similar views to yourself. Perhaps you could be the first to answer it.

How does fining people for speeding on good roads, around Dublin for example, stop young drivers in Donegal speeding on country lanes or taking corners and hazards withing the legal limit but at a speed which is inappropriate for the hazard or conditions? Will someone please answer this question?

MrP

"people with similar views to yourself"

What does that mean? Perhaps you should read my other post aswell instead of the same rant, 4 times was it?

BostonB wrote:

Nice rant.

I never said point (2) was true or false. Just that it exists, and is a reason for speed trap locations which were baffling you. A better question might be who sets the limits, their locations, and by what rational. How can you get the limits changed. You could ask the same of the speed trap locations, especially if you feel it would help in your area.

I'm wasn't expressing my view just pointing out how the powers that be rationalise the current situation. PR and politics are more influential on the speed traps than safety. Is revenue generated of any real significance?