Slow drivers. Hogging the road

milmo

Hi,
I do high mileage and regularly drive in Connaught, particularly the Galway-Dublin road.

Can anybody tell me why people here drive at 80kmph???

Small Print

(Before some of you start, I am not advocating speeding, I am not a boy racer, and have had my NCD for 9 years. I am also aware that there is a problem with inappropriate signage, but all 100kmph zones on this route are appropriate.)

I am of the opinion that given the number of cars on the roads these days that people have a moral obligation, for the sake of all road users, to use roads as efficiently as possible. i.e keep it feckin moving!!!

This means (so long as it is safe to do so) driving at the speed limit for a given road.

There are relatively few places to overtake on this route, and given the numbers of vehicles coming against you, it is often impossible to overtake for the duration of the journey.

If you are incapable, or unwilling to drive at 100kmph on a main arterial road then you should hand back your license.


Roll on the Galway-Athlone dualcarriageway.

Mena

1. Agreed

2. *Waits for the "It's a limit not a target" brigade to start posting

Blue850

You do know the old Dublin-Galway road from the Kilcock turn off to Kilbeggan has an 80kmh limit?.. to persuade people to use the tolled road...

RobAMerc

I totally agree but I suggest you put your flak jacket on - some of the drive slow and save lives crew will be along shortly to lambast you.

Anan1

You can fit more cars per hour down a given stretch of road at 80km/h than at 100. That said, I do sympathise with the OP's point.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Drive slow and save lives. It's a limit not a target!

R.O.R

Anan1 wrote:

You can fit more cars per hour down a given stretch of road at 80km/h than at 100. That said, I do sympathise with the OP's point.

siralfalot

Blue850 wrote:

You do know the old Dublin-Galway road from the Kilcock turn off to Kilbeggan has an 80kmh limit?.. to persuade people to use the tolled road...

I know its crazy, a year ago it was packed and fit for 100kph
now its empty and only fir for 80kph?

thing I hate when caught behind some of uncle gaybos 80kph brigade, is feckers tailgating me, and trying to overtake in some of the most ludacris places and conditions. for some strange reason they are nearly always driving either a Silver Passat or A4 with TDi badges...........

Anan1

R.O.R wrote:

If you double the speed of the cars, you have to more than double the distance between them. The result is fewer cars per hour going down the road. I wouldn't have thought of it myself either.;)

Dwilly

Jees man, you think folk shouldn't be allowed do 80kmph in a 100kmph zone? There are plenty of nervous and timid drivers out there with just as much right to be on the road as you. Cut them some slack, what are you going to lose, 10 minutes?

Also, without the aid of cruise control it's a lot more difficult to keep your speed close to 100 without going over, much easier if you hang back a bit.

RobAMerc

Dwilly wrote:

Jees man, you think folk shouldn't be allowed do 80kmph in a 100kmph zone? There are plenty of nervous and timid drivers out there with just as much right to be on the road as you.

If you an incapable of keeping to the limit you should pull in to let those who can or get the f**k off the road!

I have to say the road markings don't help - most of that particular road has continuous white lines even on the good stretches now - "SAFETY" my hole

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I have to agree with Dwilly. Would you give people a break for feckssake! Others are entitled to use the road and how many minutes of your life have you lost by being stuck behind a driver doing 80 in a 100 zone? Get a grip. There are many much more important things in life.

Zulu

Fu(k them, they should pull in. I'm going fast because I'm in a rush. You're going slow because your not. So use your bloody manners and let me past.

People are ignorant.

GoalsGoneWild

point is that people should have the ability/presence of mind to understand that if they choose to do 80kmh in a 100kmh zone, they should be aware of other drivers around them and try - where possible and safe to do so - allow those drivers the opportunity to go past.

the attitude of 'it's not a target, i have a right to be here' is somewhat smallminded, no? you do have every right to be there, but just because you choose not to drive at the legal limit, you don't have any right to stop people who want to drive at that speed from doing so.

my 2c...

RobAMerc

I don't really have a problem with folk doing 80 in the 100 - but when its a main artery (Dublin - Galway etc) and they decide to stay in the middle of the road at 80 rather than pull over then they should get a good feckin bollickin.

Problem in Ireland is the people who do listen to the stupid "Slow Down" mantra are the ones driving feckin slow in the first place and then they start to slow down further !

R.O.R

Anan1 wrote:

If you double the speed of the cars, you have to more than double the distance between them. The result is fewer cars per hour going down the road. I wouldn't have thought of it myself either.;)

While that would actually ring true in vast parts of the developed world, safe distance between cars at speed isn't really something that's caught on here. e.g On the M1 northbound last night, there were 8 or 9 cars with probably a cars length between each. Total distance from front to back was probably safe for 2 (maybe 3 at a push) at the speed everyone was travelling, 110km ish.

Anan1

I was thinking the same thing myself.;)

Padraig Mor

Dwilly wrote:

There are plenty of nervous and timid drivers out there with just as much right to be on the road as you. .

They should get sufficient driving lessons that they become competent drivers. For their own good as well as everyone else.

mikemac

Out of interest, what's the general profile of these drivers?
Are they driving 1l-1.2l cars? I suppse all cars are capable of 100km but maybe the drivers are timid and not very confident.

Also, I've a 125cc motorcycle and while I can do 80km in 100km/ph zone I sure can't do more 100-105 km/ph in 120km/ph zone.
So does that me a fool if you pass me on the M4 motorway and I'm not doing 120km/ph for instance?

Relax anyway, people are too wound up.

jameshayes

the people going below the speed limit does bother me. for instance, if you drive at about 7pm on the M50 southB. you will be going past tallaght at 80km/h where the limit is 100km/h. then you keep driving and hit the 120km/h part of the road and people speed up - but they still only go 100!?!?!?!

I dont understand!?! why speed up but not go the speed limit?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Zulu wrote:

Fu(k them, they should pull in. I'm going fast because I'm in a rush. You're going slow because your not. So use your bloody manners and let me past.

People are ignorant.

Aren't you just!

What hope is there for us with such narrowminded rage on our roads?

Steve

Anan1 wrote:

You can fit more cars per hour down a given stretch of road at 80km/h than at 100. That said, I do sympathise with the OP's point.

Utter crap.

Given an average 5m long car and 2 second gap between them
100km/h = 1651 cars/hour
80km/h = 1618 cars/hour

Did you even think about what you posted? can you do basic maths?

gyppo

GoalsGoneWild wrote:

point is that people should have the ability/presence of mind to understand that if they choose to do 80kmh in a 100kmh zone, they should be aware of other drivers around them and try - where possible and safe to do so - allow those drivers the opportunity to go past.

the attitude of 'it's not a target, i have a right to be here' is somewhat smallminded, no? you do have every right to be there, but just because you choose not to drive at the legal limit, you don't have any right to stop people who want to drive at that speed from doing so.

Totally agree with the above post.

However, (and this happens a lot) what about the situations where people driving at 100km/h and making good progress are being bullied (ie. tailgated, lights flashed at, etc..) into pulling in to allow speeders to get by.
Should someone who is driving at the limit be expected to aid those who want to drive faster??

R.O.R

stevec wrote:

Did you even think about what you posted? can you do basic maths?

It would appear he can do higher level maths, and more importantly stevec - English (as in reading the whole thread with the explanation - try it, might save you looking like a tool).

Zulu

micmclo wrote:

So does that me a fool if you pass me on the M4 motorway and I'm not doing 120km/ph for instance?

Not at all so long as you have the good manners to pull in (where possible) and let someone past.

Mr. Presentable

Here's another thing. Try overtaking in a 64bhp Polo Diesel on that road

Zulu

Kaelyn Whispering Storyteller wrote:

Aren't you just!

There's no need to call me ignorant,. Getting personal only weakens your argument. And actually no, I'm not. I'm quite the considerate driver. I'll always let someone by where I can.

What hope is there for us with such narrowminded rage on our roads?

I'm sorry, are you suggesting I have "narrowminded rage"? :rolleyes: But in a way you are right, there is very little hope for us. We live in a country were people get in their cars, a leave their manner behind. Drivers in this country will not let another driver past, pull out, merge lanes, overtake on the motorway... the list goes on.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Zulu wrote:

There's no need to call me ignorant,. Getting personal only weakens your argument.

You are the very one who referred to anybody driving at below the speed limit as ignorant if they don't get out of your way. You are the one showing total ignorance of what others may have been dealt. It may well be a nervious disposition (not totally unexpected when we seen the tailgating, flashing lights etc of some drivers), it may be because the car can't go any further, it may be that they know the road is unsafe at greater speed despite what your opinion is, there could be a fragile cargo on the back seat, it could be many things.
Read your own post before getting on your high horse.

craichoe

If more people took a chill pill and relaxed a bit we wouldnt have so many accidents.

Speed limit is not a target and all this doesnt make any sense.

If theres a guy in front of you driving at 80, why lose the head ? Its not going to change anything.

Relax and wait for a safe time to overtake. If they drive slowly then thats their problem, unfortunately is beyond your control to change it.

Also, its your average speed that makes the difference, you realise this from driving alot.

You never know, the guy thats doing 80 kph on a strech of road could actually have a similar average speed to yours and get there about 10 - 15 mins after you on a 320km journey,

humanji

GoalsGoneWild wrote:

the attitude of 'it's not a target, i have a right to be here' is somewhat smallminded, no?

But it's jsut as small minded as the attitude "It is a target and I have a right to be here", or for some on these roads "It is a target and I have more of a right to be here." Everyone just needs to relax, drive at their own pace and if anyone wants to pass, let them. Me, I just enjoy the ride.

astraboy

If people want to drive slow, fine, but have the manners and consideration to pull over or make room to allow people to pass you out. I have overtaken people that drive well below the limit only to have them speed up my arse further on down the road! Also older drivers etc, people are saying give them a break, grand but if they do not have the ability to either make decent progress on the road or pull over to allow others to pass. Saying its only 10 minutes one would save is irrelevant, its highly fustrating to be stuck behind a slow driver! It comes down to consideration for other users at the end of the day. I drove a lot in the U.S. over the summer and people are flashed or beeped off the road if they hold people up on the highway!:D

Zulu

You couldn't just apologise could you...
Ok, fine take it personal. Really mature.

Kaelyn Whispering Storyteller wrote:

You are the very one who referred to anybody driving at below the speed limit as ignorant if they don't get out of your way.

Nope, that's what you interpreted. You can drive any speed you like, so long as you make an effort to let others by. Ignorance is driving at any speed you like and having total disregard for the people around you - ie not pulling over where possible. Like the tractor who won't pull onto the hard shoulder, or the driver that thinks it's his god given right to slow traffic down because he can.

You are the one showing total ignorance of what others may have been dealt.

Dealt?!? Get over yourself will you.

It may well be a nervious disposition

no reason not to let faster traffic by. In fact, all the more reason - it takes pressure off you.

it may be because the car can't go any further

what, like there's a wall in the way? I'll take it you mean faster, again - no reason not to let faster traffic by.

it may be that they know the road is unsafe at greater speed despite what your opinion is,

the type of person that determines whether or not the road is "unsafe" at greater speed and refuses to pull over (in an attempt to keep the road safe?!?) is ignorant.

there could be a fragile cargo on the back seat, it could be many things.

again - no reason not to let faster traffic by.

You have failed to provide ONE SINGLE reason, as to why it's not ignorant to let faster traffic through when possible - so I'll stand by my original statement: it's ignorant. It's all about basic manners.

Read your own post before getting on your high horse.

I don't need to, I posted what I meant, although you seemed to gallop off on your horse quickly enough.

jebuz

I agree with the OP to a certain extent. They have every right in the world to be on the road but for crying out loud, if you're going to drive slower, at least have the decency and common sense to allow faster drivers to pass.

Nothing annoys me more than driving in the faster lane (i.e the limit, 120) on a dual carraigeway and there's some fool who has no right being in that lane, maybe going around 100 or so. He or she hasn't a clue that there's cars behind trying to get by when all it takes is a quick glance in the rear mirror and get back into the other lane. I don't understand the complete lack of awareness with some folk. Not trying to be funny now but it's usually women and thats speaking from personal experience.

_Kaiser_

If you're not comfortable/capable of driving at the posted limit (when safe and appropriate to do so), then really you shouldn't be on that road in my opinion.

At the very least you should not cause your car to be an obstruction to cars behind you that wish to overtake by moving over/in - again when safe/appropriate to do so.

jhegarty

If someone wants to speed I have no problem keeping left to let them by... don't see why the 80k crowd keep in the middle of the road....


and to the people who say they are just safe drivers...ever notice how they always break the 60kph limit when you get to town....

transylman

Yeah, I hate it when people drive slowly on the major routes. Dublin-Galway can be especially bad. Once spent an unpleasant half an hour stuck behind a learner driver who decided half four on friday evening would be a good time to do some 80km/h driving practice. End result, at least a 1/2 mile tailback and a lot of frustrated drivers.

Didnt even pull over onto the hard shoulder when they had the chance.

smemon

slow drivers are the enemy..

whatever about tractors/lorries on the road, car drivers with new cars doing well below the limit don't have any excuses...

if in doubt, pass them out.

these guys are the type who'll constantly brake for no real reason and are slow to accelerate out of built up areas.

Stuck behind 2 tractors today, plus a car doing 80 in a 100 zone. Car annoyed me the most.

minimum limits FTW..

Steve

R.O.R wrote:

It would appear he can do higher level maths, and more importantly stevec - English (as in reading the whole thread with the explanation - try it, might save you looking like a tool).

That was a bit harsh - nothing I said was incorrect. Simple maths says that more cars per hour will travel on any road at 100kph than at 80kph.
If you are referring to this explanation:

If you double the speed of the cars, you have to more than double the distance between them.

While it's nearly accurate, it's irrelevant. Twice the distance between cars at twice the speed equals the same time interval between them.
According to the NRA and other road safety sources, the recommended safe following distance is a 2 second interval between you and the vehicle in front.
At 100kph this is 55 metres, at 80kph this is 44m, 50kph is 27m.
The average car takes 0.18s to travel it's own length at 100kph and 0.22s at 80kph therefore at 100kph a car passes every 2.18s and at 80kph a car passes every 2.22s.
I hope this isn't too difficult for you.
If you still think I'm wrong then please feel free to provide figures to back up what you are saying otherwise you too run the risk of "looking like a tool".
It now seems that there are a$$h0les that toddle along at 20kmh below the speed of everyone else with the misguided notion that they're actually helping the flow of traffic.:mad:

Anan1

stevec wrote:

According to the NRA and other road safety sources, the recommended safe following distance is a 2 second interval between you and the vehicle in front.

I think you may be going a little heavy on the calculator and a little light on the common sense there, steve. Can a car stop from any speed in the same amount of time?

Steve

@anan1 - no it can't - I only wanted to correct your earlier statement because it was misleading. I don't want people to incorrectly believe that by driving slower that they are somehow helping traffic flow.
I was labelled a "tool" by another poster and justifiably felt the need to exhonerate myself. Sorry to have bored you with the maths.
If we are all honest, few drivers comply with the recommended safety gap "lest we be robbed of our place" - so the "gap" is, in reality, less - therefore more traffic per hour.
It was not my intention to offend you - I just wanted to explain that what you said was errant.

Anan1

Don't worry steve, i'm not offended. Given that a car takes more time to stop from a higher speed, it follows that the 'two second rule' provides less safety as speed rises. This is why if you double the speed of the cars, you have to more than double the time and therefore distance between them. The result is that you can fit more cars per hour down a given stretch of road at 80km/h than at 100. Are you with me now?:)

smemon

slow drivers = more danger

thats my opinion/experience... people must then overtake - something most people aren't comfortable with.

given our weather and poor roads, visibility is poor ahead most of the time so tail backs build up, everyone gets frustrated nd you'll have the odd eejit who tries to overtake 3/4 cars at a time and ends up forcing other drivers to reduce speed/change road position etc..

that's all cause by the guy doing 80 in 100 zone imo.

it's much safer doing 100km/hr in the flow of traffic, than doing 100km/hr on the wrong side of the road.

for sake of other road users, speed limits should be viewed as requirements, not maximum speeds.

Stark

Dwilly wrote:

Jees man, you think folk shouldn't be allowed do 80kmph in a 100kmph zone? There are plenty of nervous and timid drivers out there with just as much right to be on the road as you. Cut them some slack, what are you going to lose, 10 minutes?

Nervous and timid is no reason to hug the centre line.
They're not being nervous and timid when they slam on the accelerator every time someone does try to get past them.
They're not being nervous and timid when they speed off into the distance in front of you as you slow down coming into a village.

I'm perfectly fine with cutting nervous drivers some slack. Not so fine with cutting the 80kph gob****e brigade some slack.

stevec wrote:

@anan1 - no it can't - I only wanted to correct your earlier statement because it was misleading. I don't want people to incorrectly believe that by driving slower that they are somehow helping traffic flow.
I was labelled a "tool" by another poster and justifiably felt the need to exhonerate myself. Sorry to have bored you with the maths.

Actually in some countries, the police will impose a reduced speed limit to help traffic flow during times of heavy congestion and it works. It's more effective on roads with junctions though.

Steve

Anan1 wrote:

Are you with me now?:)

Lets just agree to disagree - by your reasoning, reducing the speed of traffic to 10kph should alleviate all traffic jams

Anan1

With all due respect, steve, you began by dismissing my point as 'utter crap', asking me whether I even thought about what I posted and whether I can 'do basic maths'. I have not only responded to your posts with courtesy and patience but have explained myself in terms that could easily be understood by a ten-year-old. What part exactly are you having problems with?

BostonB

milmo wrote:

...
Can anybody tell me why people here drive at 80kmph???...

Because they can, and its not against the law to do so.

All the other stuff about people not pulling over, and hogging a lane are completely different issues. If someone drives at 80 and lets you by that ok. So the 80kph isn't the issue.

Zulu

Anan1 wrote:

I think you may be going a little heavy on the calculator and a little light on the common sense there, steve.

To be fair Anan1, common sense dictates that people in this country don't follow the spacing rules, and drive the same distance behind the car in front pretty much regardless of the speed (80, 100, 120Kmph). So the point is moot.

Given that a car takes more time to stop from a higher speed, it follows that the 'two second rule' provides less safety as speed rises.

The rule is two seconds to the car in front. I think you are forgetting that this car is travelling at an equal speed, therefore will take a similar breaking time (say x seconds therefore the actual breaking time you now have is x+2 seconds)

This is why if you double the speed of the cars, you have to more than double the time and therefore distance between them.

Sorry I don't understand this, why now exactly do you need to double the distance? I think we are confusing two issues here 1) safe distance between moving cars and 2) stopping distances

Anan1

Zulu - my original point assumed the same level of safety - of course road capacity will be higher again if cars can do 250km/h bumper-to-bumper!

The safe distance between moving cars is the distance taken to react plus the stopping distance. A safe distance will allow you to stop without hitting the car in front, even if it stops more suddenly than it could under its own braking - for example if it were to broadside a truck coming from a side road.

Who me?

I agree , it's very annoying to be stuck behind someone driving 20 km below a speed limit when there is no reason to do so. Driving slowly can create just as many problems on the roads as speeding.

Zulu

Anan1 wrote:

Zulu - my original point assumed the same level of safety - of course road capacity will be higher again if cars can do 250km/h bumper-to-bumper!

Fair enough, but we're talking about Irish roads, not ideal roads.

The safe distance between moving cars is the distance taken to react plus the stopping distance. A safe distance will allow you to stop without hitting the car in front, even if it stops more suddenly than it could under its own braking - for example if it were to broadside a truck coming from a side road.

The example of a truck crossing the road, is fair enough; the same could be said if a plane fell out of the sky and landed on the road in front. But thats stopping distance. While driving would indeed be far safer, it's unrealistic to expect drivers to drive with the stopping distance between them.

Nice attempt at building a straw man though.

Anan1

I give up.:)