Need to vent my anger - slow drivers

MrPudding

craichoe wrote:

Why is a Cyclist and Motorcyclist encouraged to ride more toward the center of the road and not the kerb ?

Because there is less debris and on a straight road or a left hand bend you have a better view of what is going on. For right handers they are advised to move to the nearside.

MrP

MrPudding

iblis wrote:

This was stupidity on the part of the overtaking driver. I, personally, always watch for any obstacles or hazards ahead. If a guy pulls in to a hard shoulder to let me by and there is a corner up ahead I will NOT pass him. No matter how much I want to get where I'm going. If he has to swerve out to avoid something, I'm in just as much danger as he is.



Well, then it wasn't safe to pull in. Was it? That should not mean never give way to faster traffic.

See, I agree with all this. I just seems sensible. Why do these guys not see and understand it?

MrP

craichoe

iblis wrote:

This was stupidity on the part of the overtaking driver. I, personally, always watch for any obstacles or hazards ahead. If a guy pulls in to a hard shoulder to let me by and there is a corner up ahead I will NOT pass him. No matter how much I want to get where I'm going. If he has to swerve out to avoid something, I'm in just as much danger as he is.



Well, then it wasn't safe to pull in. Was it? That should not mean never give way to faster traffic.

There was no bend, it was on the N8 After just after Urlingford, on a straight road, could see down the road for about 400metres maybe more, but you cannot see stuff on the ground, lights don't go that far ahead at night.

Well .. next time i'll be sure to tell the Tree to wear a hi-vis jacket.

Could you see a shard of metal on the road that could blow out a tyre on the hard shoulder up ahead ?

Have you ever found you have a flat tyre .. did you notice the offending nail or other bit of metal on the road ?

If you could see it, then why did you drive over it

cpoh1

Lads it works quite simply in other countries why cant it here? If you are aware of traffic building up behind you or even a car approaching you from behind at a faster speed then just pull over if you can. At least half the main roads in Ireland have a hard shoulder and 99% of the time they are clear and safe to pull into, you may be there for less than 5 seconds and can drive away at your own pace without impeding others.

If youre on a country road and see a decent number of cars following behind pull into a driveway and wait 2 minutes to let the dozen or so cars pass. Your 2 minutes delay is preventing much much more for others by holding them up.

Its not in the rules of the road but it is good manners.

craichoe

cpoh1 wrote:

Lads it works quite simply in other countries why cant it here? If you are aware of traffic building up behind you or even a car approaching you from behind at a faster speed then just pull over if you can. At least half the main roads in Ireland have a hard shoulder and 99% of the time they are clear and safe to pull into, you may be there for less than 5 seconds and can drive away at your own pace without impeding others.

If youre on a country road and see a decent number of cars following behind pull into a driveway and wait 2 minutes to let the dozen or so cars pass. Your 2 minutes delay is preventing much much more for others by holding them up.

Its not in the rules of the road but it is good manners.

If your driving that slowly then pull in and stop altogether, leave the traffic pass etc.

I mean, i can see the point of a Tractor or HGV pulling in doing 50 kp/h but not a car doing 80-100kp/h

Theres tons of stuff you cannot plan for and your limiting your options to get out of a situation if one occurs

PanhardPL

GTC wrote:

As a Garda, I don't prosecute those who stray over the limit to overtake. If you slow back to a reasonable speed after the overtake, its fine by me and most other guards.

Advanced driving demands that you overtake as quickly and efficiently as possible to minimise your time across the centre of the road.

I am fond of issuing penalty points for the "Failure to Yield" offence to cars who stay in the overtaking lane where they are not overtaking any vehicles. This is also applied to truck drivers, who are banned from overtaking on motorways, unless the speed limit is below 65 kph.

If a patrol car sees you on a single lane road with a good hard shoulder, and you refuse to let other cars behind you (we're talking a few cars here) they very well might pull you over to have a chat about due care and consideration. That is an offence, do it a few times and you will be prosecuted. TBH, its one of my pet hates, these slow pokes policing the roads.

One of my colleagues had an interesting parallel.

If you went into Starbucks and ordered a coffee, you don't block the door until you're finished. Other people drink faster and have places to go. Driving is the same, be courteous and considerate. Let other drivers by where you have room and space to do so.

I am in full agreement with your views, such a shame more unmarked cars wouldn't be driving on our roads observing, rather than sitting in safe spots with radar guns and never getting these drivers who cause traffic hold ups and congestion and of course others for dangerous overtaking.

iblis

craichoe wrote:

There was no bend, it was on the N8 After just after Urlingford, on a straight road, could see down the road for about 400metres maybe more, but you cannot see stuff on the ground, lights don't go that far ahead at night.

Well .. next time i'll be sure to tell the Tree to wear a hi-vis jacket.

Could you see a shard of metal on the road that could blow out a tyre on the hard shoulder up ahead ?

Have you ever found you have a flat tyre .. did you notice the offending nail or other bit of metal on the road ?

If you could see it, then why did you drive over it

I don't get your point. If you can't see stuff on the road ahead in the hard shoulder, then how pray tell can you see stuff on the road ahead in the middle of the traffic lane? What your describing does not appear to be related to letting people overtake really. It was an unfortunate incident, but if it had been a road with no hard shoulder then it's just as likely there would be a tree in the main traffic lane. Does that mean they should not drive on roads with no hard shoulders?

iblis

MrPudding wrote:

See, I agree with all this. I just seems sensible. Why do these guys not see and understand it?

MrP

I don't know. But if people started to think about what they are doing it could help road safety. Worry about what's safest to do in a certain situation. Don't try and control someone in another vehicle (unless you are a Garda).

If someone is trying to speed and tailgating you, he's a danger to you while he's behind you and if he tries a dangerous overtaking maneouvre. If you make it easier for him to pass (without endangering yourself or other road users) he is behind you for less time (less danger) and he overtakes you more safely (less danger).

If you must focus on being the controller of the roads, let yourself concentrate on the fact you controlled when he got by.

GTC

iblis wrote:

I often wondered about this as to me it doesn't make sense to hang about when overtaking. Personally, I think it's far more pressing to get out of the opposite traffic lane than to stick rigidly to the speed limit.

I'd actually also be very interested to hear your opinion of people joining motorways, say for example where there is a double slip road, one long entry one short entry (if that makes sense) in the right hand shorter on ramp at less than lets say for arguments sake < 100kph.

It's something that frustrates me a lot because these people seem to believe they are doing something good by driving slower. However, I think in this situation it puts them and everyone behind them in danger when they try and join the faster moving traffic. They may can run out of onramp very quickly, and people behind them end up in a very awkward situation through no fault of their own.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. The double slip road entry is, (I imagine) for very busy junctions, where merging is done in a staggered fashion to allow two lanes of merging traffic to join the motorway. It is best if both lanes got up to speed asap, to allow more smooth merging with the motorway/dual carraigeway.

It is of no safety benefit to slow down and block other drivers, it only serves to increase road rage and fatique, and contributes to our collisions. Speed is a factor in accidents, but rarely (it must be said) is it singled out as the cause. If people can't drive at a safe speed (either direction of the speedo with regard to the limit) it is dangerous and ignorant.

We would do well to introduce a new offence for "not making adequate progress" like the have in some other EU countries. This would make driving at 80 kph in a car in a 100 zone illegal and punishable.

Believe me, I feel your pain!!! Even with a marked patrol car, we get caught behind morons.

iblis

I guess which slip road lane is irrelevant, the shorter one gives other drivers less time to react to their muppetry, that's all.

The real point was speed in this case is necessary, as you are merging with a motorway, and you should be prepared to meet traffic travelling at 100-120kph in the left hand lane.

But I think you got that.

Alun

GTC wrote:

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. The double slip road entry is, (I imagine) for very busy junctions, where merging is done in a staggered fashion to allow two lanes of merging traffic to join the motorway. It is best if both lanes got up to speed asap, to allow more smooth merging with the motorway/dual carriageway.

Agreed, but the way these things are implemented here (as opposed to other countries) is often that the right hand one of the two sometimes, with little advance warning, launches you almost straight onto the motorway with very little time running parallel to the main carriageway to allow you to match your speed, whereas the left hand one careers on for the best part of a kilometre or so before eventually merging. They don't seem to be able to get the balance right. It's especially unnerving if you're going uphill on the slip road as well and therefore haven't also had a chance to eye up the traffic on the main carriageway to see how busy it is first. M50 northbound at Dundrum is particularly bad in this respect.

Agree with you though that it's a major problem here .. people trying to merge with traffic doing 120km/h at 50-60 km/h isn't uncommon unfortunately.

cyclopath2001

iblis wrote:

Not trying to be smart here, you have made a valid point (the first if I'm not mistaken)

This was the only point I wanted to make. Driving along the hard shoulder is illegal.

I did attempt to explain intended meaning in the ROTR, but I can see you are strongly confident of your own interpretation. But, consider this Dail question:

Dáil Éireann - Volume 224 - 12 October, 1966
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Road Traffic Markings.

Dr. Gibbons asked the Minister for Local Government what legal significance the broken yellow line on recently improved roads has in guiding traffic; and if slower moving traffic is expected to travel on the roadway between the yellow broken line and grass margin if it is wide enough, so as to allow faster moving traffic through; and if he will make a statement on the use of roads so marked.

Mr. Blaney: The yellow broken line to which the Deputy refers is intended to indicate to road users the edge of the carriageway proper. This is of particular benefit where “hard shoulders” are provided on major routes as a built-in safety feature. These shoulders or margins serve as emergency stopping or parking places for vehicular traffic and provide a “safety zone” for pedestrians. They are not intended as an additional lane for vehicular traffic and should not be so used. I may add that the significance of these markings is stated clearly in the “Rules of the Road”.

iblis wrote:

I'm also curious as to what you make of the pulling out on to national primary routes I mentioned.

See article 8 of SI 182. My interpretation is one should wait until it is possible to do so without causing inconvenience or hazard to others. If you are fortunate, maybe some slower-moving driver will let you out.

iblis

Alun wrote:

Agreed, but the way these things are implemented here (as opposed to other countries) is often that the right hand one of the two sometimes, with little advance warning, launches you almost straight onto the motorway with very little time running parallel to the main carriageway to allow you to match your speed, whereas the left hand one careers on for the best part of a kilometre or so before eventually merging. They don't seem to be able to get the balance right. It's especially unnerving if you're going uphill on the slip road as well and therefore haven't also had a chance to eye up the traffic on the main carriageway to see how busy it is first. M50 northbound at Dundrum is particularly bad in this respect.

Agree with you though that it's a major problem here .. people trying to merge with traffic doing 120km/h at 50-60 km/h isn't uncommon unfortunately.

I guess the idea is that people in higher power cars go in the right lane. And people that need (or want) time to speed up go in the right one. My car is well able to get up to speed on those short lanes. Actually, I'm sure anything over a 1.4 n/a can get up to speed with out ragging their car in those short lanes. They're significantly shorter than the long ones, but plenty long to accelerate from about 50-60 to 100-120

iblis

cyclopath2001 wrote:

I did attempt to explain intended meaning in the ROTR, but I can see you are strongly confident of your own interpretation. But, consider this Dail question:

That dail question says it's explained in the ROTR? Clearly not. I can't understand how the ROTR can instruct drivers to break the law and give definitions of road markings that completely contradict the law.

Not trying to say it's your fault, but surely you can see what a ridiculous situation it is if the Road Safety Authority set up by the government clearly contradicts in their teachings the law written by the government. In fact the minister who answered the question seems to think the law and the ROTR agree.

EDIT:
I just spotted that Dáil report was from 1966.

Alun

iblis wrote:

I guess the idea is that people in higher power cars go in the right lane. And people that need (or want) time to speed up go in the right one. My car is well able to get up to speed on those short lanes. Actually, I'm sure anything over a 1.4 n/a can get up to speed with out ragging their car in those short lanes. They're significantly shorter than the long ones, but plenty long to accelerate from about 50-60 to 100-120

I've been driving for long enough, and in enough countries to know why they're there, thanks. My car is also well able to get up to speed on short(er) slip roads, but my issue is more with the exact implementation of them on Irish motorways.

In other countries, they also have these kinds of setups, but the problem with the ones here is that in general, the right hand one merges far too abruptly. At the junction I mentioned at Dundrum, you come up an incline with no view of the main carriageway, and as soon as the road starts to level off, wham! there you are with a dashed white line disappearing off to the right only a few metres in front of your nose. The lane should really continue on for a good 100m or so to give you at least a fighting chance of merging properly. If you're coming downhill at them, then at least you're pre-warned.

In Holland and Germany, such short merging lanes would have warning signs ahead of them "Warning: short merging lane ahead" or such like.

_Kaiser_

As most people here know, I generally don't have much time for the Gardai (and with good cause as I've given examples of in the past), but I have to say fair play to GTC here for displaying the common sense, honesty and flexibility that I wish more of his colleagues had.

As to your comment about being stuck behind morons - I think that's because a lot of people either freeze or err dramatically on the side of caution simply because you DON'T know what the Garda will do if you stray a few km over the limit, and with fines and instant penalty points it's just not worth the risk to most people.

If the force made a concerted effort to improve its public image by actively enforcing the law fairly and reasonably in the same manner as you seem to, and people knew that they won't be done for something like going a few km over on a motorway/wide, straight road (and I mean a few km) but that the Garda WILL come down on them for taking the piss or dangerous/inconsiderate driving, then I think it'd be a good start to improving driver behaviour on the roads.

iblis

Alun wrote:

I've been driving for long enough, and in enough countries to know why they're there, thanks. My car is also well able to get up to speed on short(er) slip roads, but my issue is more with the exact implementation of them on Irish motorways.

In other countries, they also have these kinds of setups, but the problem with the ones here is that in general, the right hand one merges far too abruptly. At the junction I mentioned at Dundrum, you come up an incline with no view of the main carriageway, and as soon as the road starts to level off, wham! there you are with a dashed white line disappearing off to the right only a few metres in front of your nose. The lane should really continue on for a good 100m or so to give you at least a fighting chance of merging properly. If you're coming downhill at them, then at least you're pre-warned.

In Holland and Germany, such short merging lanes would have warning signs ahead of them "Warning: short merging lane ahead" or such like.

I'm not sure I get your point. You say you have no problem using the short lanes correctly, both you and your vehicle can handle it. So I'm not reaching by suggesting that I can do so also. We have the longer lanes for people who can't or do not want to.

So what's the issue? The shorter lanes should be made longer in case the people who can't/won't use the short lane can choose which side they prefer? There's a lane there all for them. Why do they need two?

Would you consider it a valid argument if I suggested there should be two short lanes as I want to be able to choose which side I want to be on?

_Kaiser_

On another note, I can't see why people here seem to be having such difficulty understanding the concept, and usage of, a hard shoulder where provided.

Seems pretty simple to me, you may pull into it BRIEFLY (whilst still moving) to allow a following car to pass then you must move back out into the driving lane once that car has completed the manoeuvre. This is perfectly permissible according to both the ROTR, the Gardai (based on GTC's comments) and even that quote from the Dail report

There is a BIG difference between this and using the hard shoulder as an additional driving line. It's not rocket science.

Darragh29

Kaiser2000 wrote:

As most people here know, I generally don't have much time for the Gardai (and with good cause as I've given examples of in the past), but I have to say fair play to GTC here for displaying the common sense, honesty and flexibility that I wish more of his colleagues had.

As to your comment about being stuck behind morons - I think that's because a lot of people either freeze or err dramatically on the side of caution simply because you DON'T know what the Garda will do if you stray a few km over the limit, and with fines and instant penalty points it's just not worth the risk to most people.

If the force made a concerted effort to improve its public image by actively enforcing the law fairly and reasonably in the same manner as you seem to, and people knew that they won't be done for something like going a few km over on a motorway/wide, straight road (and I mean a few km) but that the Garda WILL come down on them for taking the piss or dangerous/inconsiderate driving, then I think it'd be a good start to improving driver behaviour on the roads.

As another poster said, penalty points, the lowering of the drink driving limit and also random breath testing have done nothing to reduce road deaths. If this is true, I think it must be because the Gardai are still not enforcing the RTA. One question I'd like to ask GTC is how come you pass pub car parks on a Saturday night and still not a check point to be seen within miles of the pub??? Is it just assumed that all the drivers are in the pub drinking 7UP??? If I'm right, 381 drivers were prosecuted for drink driving over last weekend. Should that not be 3,810 if people driving home drunk from pubs were properly targeted??? To stay on topic, is there any possibility that the people driving slow in the overtaking lane and people driving home from the pub drunk are the same people?!? Sorry GTC, it's probably not for this thread, but I think you guys are not even trying to enforce road traffic legislation. Unless it's down to lack of facilities or something that I'm not really aware of, I'd say that it's down to pure laziness. That's the impression I get anyway.

ninty9er

Mortmain wrote:

however I have driven with older people who, whilst competent drivers do not like to go above a certain speed.

Are they the ones that like to hold the rest of us up on the N7 but power through Oola, Cappamore etc (50km/h) at 80km/h just as they were doing on the stretch in??

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: GRRR. Words can not express how much these people piss me off, especially after I've gone to every effort to overtake safely and then find them up my ass going through some small village!!!

Alun

iblis wrote:

I'm not sure I get your point. You say you have no problem using the short lanes correctly, both you and your vehicle can handle it. So I'm not reaching by suggesting that I can do so also. We have the longer lanes for people who can't or do not want to.

I know why the longer lanes are there, I wasn't born yesterday, and I spent a large amount of my driving career driving in Germany, where if you don't merge properly you're really in trouble.

I'm not complaining about the length of the actual slip road itself, but about the bit that runs parallel to the main carriageway once the slip road proper ends that gives you the chance to merge. It's one thing getting up to speed on the slip road proper, but if then you've only got a few metres to merge, especially if the circumstances are such (as in the example I gave) that you haven't got a good view (if any) of the main carriageway until you're almost on top of it, then things can get very difficult.

In the UK they have a lot of these too, but in general, there's a longer distance to merge on the shorter of the two, and the longer of the two are generally not as overly long as they are here.

If you're still confused, get on the M50 going north at Dundrum when it's really busy, stay in the right lane and you'll soon get the picture.

I'm not saying that they're all like this, but there are a few that would benefit from a little redesign IMO.

Darragh29

GTC wrote:

I am fond of issuing penalty points for the "Failure to Yield" offence to cars who stay in the overtaking lane where they are not overtaking any vehicles. This is also applied to truck drivers, who are banned from overtaking on motorways, unless the speed limit is below 65 kph.

Don't see any enforcement of this on the M50 whatsoever. The only point I will agree on with some posters here with regard to people hogging the overtaking lane is that I do see trucks hogging the overtaking lane, at least on the M50.

cyclopath2001

Kaiser2000 wrote:

Seems pretty simple to me, you may pull into it BRIEFLY (whilst still moving) to allow a following car to pass then you must move back out into the driving lane once that car has completed the manoeuvre.

Well, if it comes to a court case, you'll be on your own. The law requires you to drive on the roadway. The so-called 'hard shoulder' is not part of the roadway. If you hit a pothole there & lose control of your vehicle, you'll only have yourself to blame.

More to the point, nobody should expect slower drivers to bend the rules for their benefit.

If you accept that the ROTR cannot contradict the law, then the only legally compatible interpretation of what is said in the ROTR is that you can pull over and stop to allow faster vehicles to pass.

If everyone decides that the law can be broken briefly for nothing other than reasons of convenience, where does that leave us?

iblis

Alun wrote:

I know why the longer lanes are there, I wasn't born yesterday, and I spent a large amount of my driving career driving in Germany, where if you don't merge properly you're really in trouble.

I'm not complaining about the length of the actual slip road itself, but about the bit that runs parallel to the main carriageway once the slip road proper ends that gives you the chance to merge. It's one thing getting up to speed on the slip road proper, but if then you've only got a few metres to merge, especially if the circumstances are such (as in the example I gave) that you haven't got a good view (if any) of the main carriageway until you're almost on top of it, then things can get very difficult.

In the UK they have a lot of these too, but in general, there's a longer distance to merge on the shorter of the two, and the longer of the two are generally not as overly long as they are here.

If you're still confused, get on the M50 going north at Dundrum when it's really busy, stay in the right lane and you'll soon get the picture.

I'm not saying that they're all like this, but there are a few that would benefit from a little redesign IMO.

I actually know that junction relatively well. A parent lives there. I wouldn't always take that route, but I have done so many times. I can't say I've ever had a particular problem there. But I can imagine how someone could. But I'd have to argue that if someone did they should have been in the other lane to start with.

However, having re-read your first post, I don't think that has any bearing on the point you were trying to make. I took you up wrong and I apologise for that.

You seem to also have taken me as insulting your driving in some way. That was not my intention.

iblis

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Well, if it comes to a court case, you'll be on your own. The law requires you to drive on the roadway. The so-called 'hard shoulder' is not part of the roadway. If you hit a pothole there & lose control of your vehicle, you'll only have yourself to blame.

More to the point, nobody should expect slower drivers to bend the rules for their benefit.

If you accept that the ROTR cannot contradict the law, then the only legally compatible interpretation of what is said in the ROTR is that you can pull over and stop to allow faster vehicles to pass.

If everyone decides that the law can be broken briefly for nothing other than reasons of convenience, where does that leave us?

In fairness, it is clear what the ROTR is saying. Very very clear. For one thing the word "briefly" has no purpose in there if you are pulling over and stopping. What's the hurry to get back on to the road? It is also clear from what you have posted that the law says something different.

There is something wrong here. But the law in question is quite old. I'm not going to suggest that someone break the law. Or that it can be ignored. But we cannot ignore that the RSA was formed by the government and is specialised in road safety, and entrusted with driver instruction.

Should we really ignore what they have to say? Quite a pickle. And it should be addressed. But by who?

On a side note, do you really believe someone would be prosecuted for allowing a following vehicle to pass safely by making "brief" use of the hard shoulder?

Alun

iblis wrote:

I actually know that junction relatively well. A parent lives there. I wouldn't always take that route, but I have done so many times. I can't say I've ever had a particular problem there. But I can imagine how someone could. But I'd have to argue that if someone did they should have been in the other lane to start with.

Again, for clarity, I have absolutely no problem getting up to a decent speed going up the slip road. The particular problem with that junction, in my mind, is that once the slip road levels off, and you can actually see the traffic you're trying to merge with, the available merge-space is, again to my mind, rather on the short side . It's hardly a problem when traffic is light, but can be difficult when it's busy. Thing is though, as someone who might not know the junction in question, you don't really have anything to go by to make the decision on which lane to choose, and often the left lane is choked with heavy lorries struggling to get up what is quite a steep incline, making the right lane the more attractive option on the face of it.

iblis

Alun wrote:

Again, for clarity
...
face of it.

I've taken your point. It was quite clear in your last post.

cyclopath2001

iblis wrote:

the RSA was formed by the government and is specialised in road safety, and entrusted with driver instruction.Should we really ignore what they have to say? ...

It would not be the first time that a government agency has made a mistake.

On a side note, do you really believe someone would be prosecuted for allowing a following vehicle to pass safely by making "brief" use of the hard shoulder?

It would depend on the circumstances, particularly the speed and also the conditions and if any pedestrians complained. Certainly, if anything goes wrong during the manoeuvre, it would be taken into consideration.

Maybe it would help if I compared driving on the 'hard shoulder' to cycling on a footpath? That's an offence that usually animates drivers to write letters to the Times.

Darragh29

iblis wrote:

On a side note, do you really believe someone would be prosecuted for allowing a following vehicle to pass safely by making "brief" use of the hard shoulder?

If the cops can only catch 381 drunk drivers over an August bank holiday weekend, I'd safely say your chances of being charged for "brief" use of the hard shoulder is extremely close to zero...

Alun

cyclopath2001 wrote:

It would not be the first time that a government agency has made a mistake.

Indeed. Some of the language in the ROTR is rather imprecise, out of necessity, I suppose .. just re-quoting the relevant legislation would rather evade the point of having the ROTR in the first place, but in this case the addition of a few extra words would make all the difference and would make the actual intention of what was written much clearer and less subject to interpretation.

A similar section is the one referring to overtaking which is sufficiently woolly in it's phrasing to allow some people to interpret it as saying that you can overtake on the left with impunity. (Now where's that 'can of worms' smiley when you need it )