Overtaking against traffic in the dark

Omcd

I'm beginning to think some drivers actually think they have a right to pull out and overtake and the oncoming traffic is obliged to get out of the way. It's just happening more and more often. Last night was forced into the hard shoulder by a motorbike nutter doing a Joey Dunlop past a line of cars, only to have a car come flying out of a side road after missing the stop line due to approaching it too fast and had to swerve between the two at 100ks and almost got punted into the line of oncoming traffic. Same stretch of road last month went around a bend, and was confronted with a scene like as if going up the Nass Road on the wrong side, went for hard shoulder in pitch dark (at 100k) only to discover it was only half a car width and almost ploughed a tree. Before Christmas, again on same stretch of road some oncoming lunatic in a car pulled out ahead of me as if I wasn't there to floor it past a line of cars, there was only a bicycle width hard shoulder, so had to swerve in and out of walled lay by in front of someones house at 100k in the pitch dark to avoid him. Someday I'm going to hit an unlit pedestrian or cyclist if not a solid obstruction while being forced over in the dark by some idiot overtaking with no regard to oncoming traffic - these people seem to assume in the dark that there is a car width hard shoulder across the yellow line in which there is room for oncoming to take refuge, but this is often not the case.

Am I just unlucky, or has anyone else experienced this ? Does anyone here think that the overtaking vehicles are within their rights to force oncoming traffic over ? And why, in heavy traffic, do people think there is a point in overtaking 5 cars when there is miles of traffic all travelling at the same speed ahead ?

There is talk of average speed cameras being deployed to reduce speed on some roads. I think these would also reduce incidences of dangerous overtaking.

blackbox

Omcd wrote: »

There is talk of average speed cameras being deployed to reduce speed on some roads. I think these would also reduce incidences of dangerous overtaking.

You can overtake dangerously without exceeding the speed limit.

I agree with you that there is a lot of inconsiderate and downright dangerous driving.

Speed cameras are not the answer.

astraboy

Yes there are a lot of bad drivers out there. Hardly news though is it? People often resort to silly overtaking due to frustration. Speed cameras, or average speed cameras won't solve this. More cops on the roads might, and people showing consideration to others and pulling over if your a slow prick dadaling along a 45mph would probably solve the issue straight away. Road quality is another issue, with fewer are fewer places to overtake. So the issue is not just "Speed", please look at the bigger picture.

smemon

Yeah there's time i feel like pulling out and just overtaking a 10 car convery on blind bends just to teach the guy at the top a lesson and make him say - jesus look at that eejit.

I often pull in to let oncoming cars past if i think the cars body language suggest they want past - i don't need a big wide road, they need it more than me.

Provided it's safe and there's no pedestrians/blind turn offs up ahead and i know the road of course

The main cause of accidents is slow drivers. I have no stats to prove it, but i see it all the time. People forced in to taking risks because other people can't keep up with traffic.

There should be penalty points and fines for slow driving, just as there are for fast driving as they are equally dangerous imo.

astraboy

smemon wrote: »

Yeah there's time i feel like pulling out and just overtaking a 10 car convery on blind bends just to teach the guy at the top a lesson and make him say - jesus look at that eejit.

I often pull in to let oncoming cars past if i think the cars body language suggest they want past - i don't need a big wide road, they need it more than me.

Provided it's safe and there's no pedestrians/blind turn offs up ahead and i know the road of course

The main cause of accidents is slow drivers. I have no stats to prove it, but i see it all the time. People forced in to taking risks because other people can't keep up with traffic.

There should be penalty points and fines for slow driving, just as there are for fast driving as they are equally dangerous imo.

Well said. I was thinking I was going insane and that certain people on this forum were completely detached from reality and what happens on our roads.

Gregor Samsa

astraboy wrote: »

people showing consideration to others and pulling over if your a slow prick dadaling along a 45mph would probably solve the issue straight away.

Actually, in my experience, it doesn't. I see it a lot on the narrow roads around Clare and Galway. A tractor (or whatever) pulls in as much as he can (the hard shoulder usually isn't wide enough to accommodate the full width of the vehicle), and the car(s) behind overtake regardless of the oncoming traffic, forcing them to move to the HS on their side - which isnt' necessairily safe.

Just because someone pulls in to give some space to overtake, doesn't mean it's actually safe to do so.

D_murph

phutyle wrote: »

Just because someone pulls in to give some space to overtake, doesn't mean it's actually safe to do so.

X2 but theres no excuse for holding up traffic if there is space to let people out safely either IMO.

it involves common sense on both sides

KerranJast

I drive a lot at night and what really annoys me is people who drive everywhere with dipped headlights meaning you can't see more than a car length ahead of them on the road making it impossible to overtake them safely (there could be a dip ahead in the road obscuring oncoming traffic). It's also incredibly dangerous for them and others as there could be pedestrians on the road verge ahead out of range of their dipped lights that they won't see until the last minute.

D_murph

KerranJast wrote: »

I drive a lot at night and what really annoys me is people who drive everywhere with dipped headlights meaning you can't see more than a car length ahead of them on the road making it impossible to overtake them safely (there could be a dip ahead in the road obscuring oncoming traffic). It's also incredibly dangerous for them and others as there could be pedestrians on the road verge ahead out of range of their dipped lights that they won't see until the last minute.

i find it more annoying when people leave the full headlights on you after you overtake them in some twisted effort to make you "pay" for overtaking them :rolleyes:. even on dual carriageways, muppets :mad:

javaboy

D_murph wrote: »

i find it more annoying when people leave the full headlights on you after you overtake them in some twisted effort to make you "pay" for overtaking them :rolleyes:. even on dual carriageways, muppets :mad:

That's annoying alright but not nearly as annoying as the ones who overtake you after for 'revenge'! Then they go back to cruising at the slow speed they were at before :mad:

KerranJast

javaboy wrote: »

That's annoying alright but not nearly as annoying as the ones who overtake you after for 'revenge'! Then they go back to cruising at the slow speed they were at before :mad:

I used to get that all the time when I had the L plates up. If I overtook some dozy f'er in a Beemer driving at 60kph in a 100kph (possibly fiddling with his bluetooth headset ) he'd bomb on the road again and swing in right in front of me and slow right down to a crawl again.

javaboy

KerranJast wrote: »

I used to get that all the time when I had the L plates up. If I overtook some dozy f'er in a Beemer driving at 60kph in a 100kph (possibly fiddling with his bluetooth headset ) he'd bomb on the road again and swing in right in front of me and slow right down to a crawl again.

Strangely enough since the L plates went down a few months ago, the number of incidences of this has shrivelled up like a California raisin.

KerranJast

javaboy wrote: »

Strangely enough since the L plates went down a few months ago, the number of incidences of this has shrivelled up like a California raisin.

Same here. Hmm I wonder if this is a pattern? :rolleyes:

BarryCreed

was driving out of moneygall on way to roscrea last week, and an artic truck overtook me. I was going 60 mph. Trucks and traffic coming in the opposite direction had to pull in, and traffic in front of me had to pull in. He basically bullied his way up the road. He was right up my arse from limerick city. I called the police on him, but as it was dark, I didnt get the reg, and there were no markngs as such on the truck. i passed a few more generic looking ones after but wasn't him..a right f**king c**t. I'd hate to think what he'd do in a car.....

D_murph

BarryCreed wrote: »

I'd hate to think what he'd do in a car.....

not much id say tbh, in a car he'd be another mere mortal like the rest of us but i bet he feels safer in a big truck where he can "be above it all" the tool :rolleyes:

Tea drinker

Yeah,
I really hate this kind of poor quality inconsiderate driving.
To expect people to pull out of the way while you overtake is absolutley stupid. All it takes is another Mad Max coming the opposite direction or someone not concentrating on their driving for absolute carnage.
There is no excuse for it at all. If you or your car is not capable of making a safe overtaking manouever just STFU.

I've often seen people overtake on a bend with no view in front only the car they are following, you get a couple of guys doing it and they think it's safe, sort of formation driving. And yeah, the guy in front might make it, doesn't mean his good luck tranfers to you when the Artic hits.

Yeah, one of my hates would be the retard who tailgates, or even flashes at you to break the speed limit. Lets face it, if he was such a good driver in such a good car, surely he can manage to control himself or make an overtaking manouever? Or failing that be in Australia this weekend on the front row of the grid. Asshats.

astraboy

Tea drinker wrote: »

Yeah,

I've often seen people overtake on a bend with no view in front only the car they are following, you get a couple of guys doing it and they think it's safe, sort of formation driving. And yeah, the guy in front might make it, doesn't mean his good luck tranfers to you when the Artic hits.

I see this a lot, its like people can't decide themselves when its safe to pass out! I'll make my own decisions on when to overtake, not based on what the guy in the car in front does!

Omcd

blackbox wrote: »

You can overtake dangerously without exceeding the speed limit.

I agree with you that there is a lot of inconsiderate and downright dangerous driving.

Speed cameras are not the answer.

Granted you can overtake dangerously at any speed.

But the people who tend to like blasting by 4 or 5 cars at a time without any consideration to other traffic (which appears to cause the most carnage on our roads) generally dont have any consideration for the speed limits either. So if average cameras were deployed, this would discourage them from such overtaking where the traffic they are is travelling at close to the limit. If the traffic is not travelling close to the limit, then IMO overtaking is ok so long as its done safely and with consideration to other road users

I forgot to mention another experience last weekend (so many now I'm losing count) between Navan and Kells where I met an oncoming car that was coming around a left hand curve and overtaking on a ghost island and the driver was fighting to regain control of it after losing it on the bumpy road markings (luckly he succeeded - Im here to tell the tale). If there were average cameras deployed on that stretch maybe the drivers mind would have been on keeping to speedlimit instead of on
overtaking everything in sight.

astraboy

It can often be safer to break the speed limit to overtake in good time. The less time spent on the other side of the road the better as far as I am concerned. I often do this, speed up to maybe 110Kph and overtake, then go back below the limit after the manover and continue on my journey. I perfer people to watch the road, not their speed. Average speed cameras are a jib as well, you'll have people slow right down on the last mile of a stretch.

Sundy

Omcd wrote: »

Granted you can overtake dangerously at any speed.



I forgot to mention another experience last weekend (so many now I'm losing count) between Navan and Kells where I met an oncoming car that was coming around a left hand curve and overtaking on a ghost island and the driver was fighting to regain control of it after losing it on the bumpy road markings (luckly he succeeded - Im here to tell the tale). If there were average cameras deployed on that stretch maybe the drivers mind would have been on keeping to speedlimit instead of on
overtaking everything in sight.

How would u lose control of a car on bumpy road markings, i mean there rarely more than 3/4 mm high.. Actually what made u think he was out of control?

Haz33

I was on dual carriageway the other day doing 110kph ( yes Iknow its a 100kph limit but it's a dual carriageway ) on the inside lane when I was over taken by an artic. Now to be overtaken meant he had to be doing more than 110kph. This is happening more often and its a disgrace. By law this vehicle should be restricted to 80kph, and before you ask it was irish reg. I dont have statistics but from what I can see half the truck drivers in the country are breaking the law. I do agree 80kph is too slow on a motorway for a truck but the law is the law.
Also too much gets blamed on speed. A guy stoned out of his head hits a wall and its blamed on speed because he was doing 120kph.
A guy hits a car and kills someone. It was speed cause he was doing 120kph. Was it F**k. He was overtaking coming into a bend. He was a moron. If you overtake coming into a bend and hit something its stupitidty not speed. Try it at 50kph and you may still kill someone. You can quite hapily drive around this country at 120kph if you are a good driver and are careful not stupid. As for slow drivers I know a Garda who got chastised in court for bringing up someone for doing 40kph on the motorway and the case was thrown out. So I think we a flogging a dead horse!

javaboy

Haz33 wrote: »

I was on dual carriageway the other day doing 110kph ( yes Iknow its a 100kph limit but it's a dual carriageway ) on the inside lane when I was over taken by an artic. Now to be overtaken meant he had to be doing more than 110kph. This is happening more often and its a disgrace. By law this vehicle should be restricted to 80kph, and before you ask it was irish reg. I dont have statistics but from what I can see half the truck drivers in the country are breaking the law. I do agree 80kph is too slow on a motorway for a truck but the law is the law.
Also too much gets blamed on speed. A guy stoned out of his head hits a wall and its blamed on speed because he was doing 120kph.
A guy hits a car and kills someone. It was speed cause he was doing 120kph. Was it F**k. He was overtaking coming into a bend. He was a moron. If you overtake coming into a bend and hit something its stupitidty not speed. Try it at 50kph and you may still kill someone. You can quite hapily drive around this country at 120kph if you are a good driver and are careful not stupid. As for slow drivers I know a Garda who got chastised in court for bringing up someone for doing 40kph on the motorway and the case was thrown out. So I think we a flogging a dead horse!

You might have contradicted yourself a couple of times there.

tech77

astraboy wrote: »

It can often be safer to break the speed limit to overtake in good time. The less time spent on the other side of the road the better as far as I am concerned. I often do this, speed up to maybe 110Kph and overtake, then go back below the limit after the manover and continue on my journey. I perfer people to watch the road, not their speed.

Well said.
I've become so obsessed with keeping my speed down lately that I have in the past tried to institute a strict policy of overtaking at an even 100 instead (the "perfect" overtake so to speak).
Now I think fcuk that:
The less time I spend on the other side of the road is more important than keeping it under 100 while I overtake.
Crazy what a stupid obsesssion with keeping your speed down can do to someone.

Also if I was overtaking and exceeded the limit ever so slightly while doing so, and I saw a cop car, my natural instinct would be to get below 100 while i'm overtaking- paradoxically making things more unsafe.
Again obsession with keeping speed down doesn't necessarily always translate into safer driving.

_Kaiser_

I'd be one of those who thinks the less time spent on the opposite side of the road the better as well.

With regards to slow drivers, I commute on the N3 daily and I've found that people seem to have less trouble driving at the limit (if safe/appropriate to do so etc etc) when coming from the Dublin side, but dawdle along at 60-80 if coming from the opposite direction - maybe it's just me, but it's something I've noticed in the past month or so.

Then you have the clowns like the black 4x4/SUV driver (complete with limo black windows) towing one of those mini-diggers on a trailer outside Navan yesterday evening (rush hour) who held a whole queue of traffic behind him while he plodded along at 60 km/h. Think he'd move into that nice lane-sized hard shoulder with plenty of visibility every so often so a few cars could get by? Nope! :mad:
Eventually - several miles later - I got my chance and managed to get past him and the other 3 dawdling idiots behind him (and yes, I admit.. I did lean on the horn rather hard as I passed him ), but as others noted, it's inconsiderate, slow drivers like this that cause half the problems on the roads.

Personally I'd be in favor of all HGV's (and especially all these tractors towing heavy equipment I see lately) being banned from major roads during rush hour, but of course if there was more enforcement on the roads (beyond the cynical revenue-gathering of course) that'd be a good start.

cyclopath2001

smemon wrote: »

The main cause of accidents is slow drivers. I have no stats to prove it, but i see it all the time. People forced in to taking risks because other people can't keep up with traffic.

That's just wrong-minded blame-shifting. It's like saying that the main cause of muggings is that people don't run fast enough.

Del2005

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Personally I'd be in favor of all HGV's (and especially all these tractors towing heavy equipment I see lately) being banned from major roads during rush hour, but of course if there was more enforcement on the roads (beyond the cynical revenue-gathering of course) that'd be a good start.

Why not ban private cars and force people to use public transport at rush hour. If all the 1 person cars where off the road then there would be no rush hour:D

A HGV is delivering something somewhere that people want and have no other way of getting it delivered. Do you want the shop shelfs empty or factories reducing hours so people can drive on their own into work?

Del2005

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

That's just wrong-minded blame-shifting. It's like saying that the main cause of muggings is that people don't run fast enough.

People who drive slowly on major roads then to go really slow on bends then speed up on straights so people can't overtake safely. If they maintained the slow speed they would be safer but since they floor it on the straights they fustrate drivers who are capable of maintaining progess around bends. I've had several occasions of where someone going slowly accelerates when I start to overtake them, I'm commited to doing the overtake and the gobsh!te I'm overtaking decides now is the time to speed up when I'm on the opposite side of the road. That's how they cause accidents

People driving on major roads should be able to drive at a reasonable pace, if they can't drive at or near the limit on dry roads in daylight then they should pull out of the way and stop obstructing traffic that can. And if they aren't confident enough to drive at or near the limit on major roads at night they should stay off them.

All this only applies to major roads not the sh!tty back roads where people tend to fly along at 80km/h regardless of how safe it is.

cyclopath2001

Del2005 wrote: »

People driving on major roads should be able to drive at a reasonable pace, if they can't drive at or near the limit on dry roads in daylight then they should pull out of the way and stop obstructing traffic that can. And if they aren't confident enough to drive at or near the limit on major roads at night they should stay off them.

The speed limits that you want everyone to drive at, are only safe under ideal conditions. Many wise drivers might choose, as required by law, to drive at a lower speed compatible with their level of confidence, the road conditions or the capability of their vehicle.

If you want to want to insist that drivers should be reasonable and considerate and not hold others up, then, let's also tackle the gross waste of space posed by single-occupant cars travelling at 6kph in city traffic or parked on valuable street-space.

astraboy

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The speed limits that you want everyone to drive at, are only safe under ideal conditions. Many wise drivers might choose, as required by law, to drive at a lower speed compatible with their level of confidence, the road conditions or the capability of their vehicle.

If you want to want to insist that drivers should be reasonable and considerate and not hold others up, then, let's also tackle the gross waste of space posed by single-occupant cars travelling at 6kph in city traffic or parked on valuable street-space.

Good Grief. I think, yes, I might.....actually agree with you on this one!:) What a turn up for the books! Yes speed limits are there for ideal conditions, I rarely exceed them(thats another thread) but I am often driving under them due to consideration for the conditions. Common sense really.

My issue, and most people issue is not with slow drivers per se. It is with a combination of a slow driver and inconsideration for others on the road. If you are not comfortable making good progress on the road(and the definition of good progress depends on the conditions!) then you should not really be on the road. However, if you insist on driving slower then is reasonable for conditions, or you are towing a boat/trailer etc, pull in every so often and let others pass. If you are going slowly a few seconds on the side of the road will make marginal difference to you, however it shows courtesy and respect to those behind you and helps prevent frustration for a genuine reason.

Obviously this can be applied to people that drive too fast as well, they are not showing respect or consideration to others on the road either. (in my view "too fast" and going over the speed are not one and the same, they may or may not be, we'll have to disagree on that. My feelings towards stupidly low limits has been made clear.) It also applies to those not paying attention, texting while driving, not indicating and hogging the overtaking lane!

As for city traffic, well down here in Cork the bus service is actually a joke, I see the clamper van around my area more then I see the number 5, so that pretty much sums up the city councils and the Governments priorities as far as I'm concerned. People do not like using an overpriced, unreliable and shoddy service, no matter what it is. Public transport is great, when it is properly planned for! Other cities I have lived in it is a dream to use, in Ireland it is a disgrace TBH.

Seth Brundle

Slow drivers don't force impatient drivers to pass and/or crash. That is something they did all by themselves. However, you would have to question whether the incident would have occured if the slow driver wasn't driving as slow/had allowed those behind to pass.

cyclopath2001

astraboy wrote: »

If you are not comfortable making good progress on the road(and the definition of good progress depends on the conditions!) then you should not really be on the road.

It is possible for someone to lack confidence but to still be a safe driver. It may be frustrating for strong, fit, advanced drivers like yourself, whose cars are the epitome of modern motor engineering, but a just society is judged on its tolerance and sympathy for the weakness of others.

You've justified the stupid waste of road space in our cities as being caused by public transport not being of an acceptable standard for drivers. Is it not also true that in rural areas, these slow, frustrating drivers that you want to banish from your sight, have no public transport at all and rely on their cars?

Perhaps you only want to share the road with people like yourself?

astraboy

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It is possible for someone to lack confidence but to still be a safe driver. It may be frustrating for strong, fit, advanced drivers like yourself, whose cars are the epitome of modern motor engineering, but a just society is judged on its tolerance and sympathy for the weakness of others.

You've justified the stupid waste of road space in our cities as being caused by public transport not being of an acceptable standard for drivers. Is it not also true that in rural areas, these slow, frustrating drivers that you want to banish from your sight, have no public transport at all and rely on their cars?

Perhaps you only want to share the road with people like yourself?

O For ****s sake. You must really be a troll? I agree with most of your point and you nit pick. I drive in the country and the city in equal measure. You are making driving out to be a right. It is not. You need to display a certain level of competence to be able to get a license. I have no issue with those going slowly ONCE they show consideration to others. That is also the measure of a tolerant society?

If you lack confidence on the road then you obviously require more practice. Fine, no problem. Just be a courteous and aware driver while doing it.

Quit standing up for those drivers dawdaling along too ignorant to move over to allow others to pass, or not paying enough attention to others on the road. I have no issue sharing the roads, and frankly your comments appear to be more at an attempt to rise me and take a jab then in the flow of the debate.

Comments like "It may be frustrating for strong, fit, advanced drivers like yourself, whose cars are the epitome of modern motor engineering," are clearly just there to take my point out of context.

Then again, how am I supposed to argue with a man that believes you are not insured on the hard shoulder of a road?:rolleyes:

And yes, my car is the epitome of modern engineering, and I am a qualified advanced driver. So drive as slow as you like sir, just show me and others the same consideration we show you.

Haz33

javaboy wrote: »

You might have contradicted yourself a couple of times there.

Eh no. I've read it again and The point I'm making is that when people crash after a stupid move it is automatically blamed on speed because they happen to be going too fast. Some of the stupid things people do will still lead them to crash if they are going slow. Hence it is not about the speed but instead stupidity. Is this clearer?

ART6

Sundy wrote: »

How would u lose control of a car on bumpy road markings, i mean there rarely more than 3/4 mm high.. Actually what made u think he was out of control?

May be easier than it sounds! The road markings might not be very high, but they are a different texture to the road surface and often have a much lower slip resistance particularly when wet. I have seen a number of cars nearly lose it on small roundabouts with those endless yellow boxes painted all over them, and that without any indication of excessive speed. That doesn't excuse some plonker for driving over the ones you describe of course, but neither does it excuse the highway authorities who seem to think that a few thousand gallons of paint will fulfill their responsibilities.

ART6

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I'd be one of those who thinks the less time spent on the opposite side of the road the better as well.

With regards to slow drivers, I commute on the N3 daily and I've found that people seem to have less trouble driving at the limit (if safe/appropriate to do so etc etc) when coming from the Dublin side, but dawdle along at 60-80 if coming from the opposite direction - maybe it's just me, but it's something I've noticed in the past month or so.

Then you have the clowns like the black 4x4/SUV driver (complete with limo black windows) towing one of those mini-diggers on a trailer outside Navan yesterday evening (rush hour) who held a whole queue of traffic behind him while he plodded along at 60 km/h. Think he'd move into that nice lane-sized hard shoulder with plenty of visibility every so often so a few cars could get by? Nope! :mad:
Eventually - several miles later - I got my chance and managed to get past him and the other 3 dawdling idiots behind him (and yes, I admit.. I did lean on the horn rather hard as I passed him ), but as others noted, it's inconsiderate, slow drivers like this that cause half the problems on the roads.

Personally I'd be in favor of all HGV's (and especially all these tractors towing heavy equipment I see lately) being banned from major roads during rush hour, but of course if there was more enforcement on the roads (beyond the cynical revenue-gathering of course) that'd be a good start.

I think it's illegal to drive on the hard shoulder, isn't it?

Haz33

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It is possible for someone to lack confidence but to still be a safe driver. It may be frustrating for strong, fit, advanced drivers like yourself, whose cars are the epitome of modern motor engineering, but a just society is judged on its tolerance and sympathy for the weakness of others.

You've justified the stupid waste of road space in our cities as being caused by public transport not being of an acceptable standard for drivers. Is it not also true that in rural areas, these slow, frustrating drivers that you want to banish from your sight, have no public transport at all and rely on their cars?

Perhaps you only want to share the road with people like yourself?

If a person has no confidence or is terrified to drive when they see snow or heavy rain and arrive at their destination a nervous wreck, then these people need more practise and should get lessons and do whatever it takes before they kill someone. Just because these people may never be in an accident doesn't mean they dont directly or indirectly cause accidents. I would say if you cant drive, dont drive because its only a matter of time before you kill someone.
The road deaths in this country are (believe it or not ) a hell of a lot better than they were. In the seventies when there was 30 or 40 % of vehicles on the road in comparison to today, there were 500 - 600 people a year being killed. now its down to just over 300. Thats half the deaths for more than twice the traffic. Some of this is down to safer cars and I believe most of it is down to Younger generations learning to drive and having to past the test. Older generations got into a car because they could so easily, not because they could drive and this shows on our roads so I think it will be a good few more years before these people are off the roads.

golfpaul

ART6 wrote: »

I think it's illegal to drive on the hard shoulder, isn't it?

On a motorway.

Mr. Presentable

Haz33 wrote: »

I was on dual carriageway the other day doing 110kph ( yes Iknow its a 100kph limit but it's a dual carriageway ) on the inside lane when I was over taken by an artic. Now to be overtaken meant he had to be doing more than 110kph. This is happening more often and its a disgrace. By law this vehicle should be restricted to 80kph, and before you ask it was irish reg. I dont have statistics but from what I can see half the truck drivers in the country are breaking the law. I do agree 80kph is too slow on a motorway for a truck but the law is the law.
Also too much gets blamed on speed. A guy stoned out of his head hits a wall and its blamed on speed because he was doing 120kph.
A guy hits a car and kills someone. It was speed cause he was doing 120kph. Was it F**k. He was overtaking coming into a bend. He was a moron. If you overtake coming into a bend and hit something its stupitidty not speed. Try it at 50kph and you may still kill someone. You can quite hapily drive around this country at 120kph if you are a good driver and are careful not stupid. As for slow drivers I know a Garda who got chastised in court for bringing up someone for doing 40kph on the motorway and the case was thrown out. So I think we a flogging a dead horse!

Don't you see the irony in this?

Mr. Presentable

Haz33 wrote: »

Also too much gets blamed on speed. A guy stoned out of his head hits a wall and its blamed on speed because he was doing 120kph.

Funny how people persistently miss the point here. The cause of the accident was drink/drugs/bad driving or whatever. The cause of the death/serious injury was the speed.
If he hit the wall at 60kph he'd probably walk away.

Mr. Presentable

Haz33 wrote: »

If a person has no confidence or is terrified to drive when they see snow or heavy rain and arrive at their destination a nervous wreck, then these people need more practise and should get lessons and do whatever it takes before they kill someone.

Yeah, the trouble is the only way to get experience of adverse conditions is to be out in them. Catch 22 really, how often do we drive in snow in this country?

javaboy

Haz33 wrote: »

Eh no. I've read it again and The point I'm making is that when people crash after a stupid move it is automatically blamed on speed because they happen to be going too fast. Some of the stupid things people do will still lead them to crash if they are going slow. Hence it is not about the speed but instead stupidity. Is this clearer?

nipplenuts wrote: »

Don't you see the irony in this?

Thanks for saving me the bother nipplenuts.

_Kaiser_

ART6 wrote: »

I think it's illegal to drive on the hard shoulder, isn't it?

golfpaul wrote: »

On a motorway.

Not having a go at you in particular ART6, but this is an example of one of the biggest problems on the roads (including this particular topic) - people are out driving around but don't even know the basic rules of the road!!

There's no excuse for that - after all, didn't everyone get a copy through the door last year? What's even worse about this is that most of the rules are simply common sense and courtesy - what does THAT say about Irish drivers in general then?

Back on topic: If someone isn't capable/comfortable driving at higher speeds on R/N/M-roads where appropriate to do so, then they shouldn't be on that road in the first place or at the very least, they shouldn't impede the progress of those who are.

astraboy

nipplenuts wrote: »

Funny how people persistently miss the point here. The cause of the accident was drink/drugs/bad driving or whatever. The cause of the death/serious injury was the speed.
If he hit the wall at 60kph he'd probably walk away.

Do we all limit ourselves to 60 so? Yes speed makes accidents worse. But I'm a fan of prevention rather then cure, so its best to avoid accidents in the first place! How, through Education of the driving population, Enforcement of all traffic laws(that does not mean shooting fish in a barrel poilcing, I'm talking enforcement of people hogging the overtaking lane, bad driving in general) and Engineering of our roads to be safer. The fact is all driving is a risk. If I'm on a dual carriage way thats safe to do 120Kph, I will do so. You say I'm not qualified to choose the speed limit, well the guys that make the limit are not either! Speed limits are a blanket enforced on all roads of a certain type, IE all national primary routes are 100 except where built up, even on safer stretches the limit remains at a max of 100. If a person chooses to make a risk assessment and speed up to 120, thats none of your business as long as it effects no one else. If it is likely to cause an accident, that is another matter, which brings me nicely back to the use of common sense and courtesy on our roads!

Del2005

Del2005 wrote: »

People who drive slowly on major roads then to go really slow on bends then speed up on straights so people can't overtake safely. If they maintained the slow speed they would be safer but since they floor it on the straights they fustrate drivers who are capable of maintaining progess around bends. I've had several occasions of where someone going slowly accelerates when I start to overtake them, I'm commited to doing the overtake and the gobsh!te I'm overtaking decides now is the time to speed up when I'm on the opposite side of the road. That's how they cause accidents

People driving on major roads should be able to drive at a reasonable pace, if they can't drive at or near the limit on dry roads in daylight then they should pull out of the way and stop obstructing traffic that can. And if they aren't confident enough to drive at or near the limit on major roads at night they should stay off them.

All this only applies to major roads not the sh!tty back roads where people tend to fly along at 80km/h regardless of how safe it is.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The speed limits that you want everyone to drive at, are only safe under ideal conditions. Many wise drivers might choose, as required by law, to drive at a lower speed compatible with their level of confidence, the road conditions or the capability of their vehicle.

I've had to highlight the section where I said on dry roads as you obviously missed it from your high horse or bike.

And again if you aren't confident to drive at or near the limit pull over so that people who are can, and people who can't but think they are can hit the next ditch. It's not Joe Public's job to slow down traffic thats the job of the Gardai.

If you want to want to insist that drivers should be reasonable and considerate and not hold others up, then, let's also tackle the gross waste of space posed by single-occupant cars travelling at 6kph in city traffic or parked on valuable street-space.

Do you not see the buses, trams and trains at rush hour? They are all packed solid with people, some of then are dangerously overcrowded. How are people supposed to get out of their cars to get onto public transport that barely copes now?

astraboy

Del2005 wrote: »

I've had to highlight the section where I said on dry roads as you obviously missed it from your high horse or bike.

And again if you aren't confident to drive at or near the limit pull over so that people who are can, and people who can't but think they are can hit the next ditch. It's not Joe Public's job to slow down traffic thats the job of the Gardai.

Don't worry about him Del, he reckons its ok for slow and ignorant drivers to hold everyone up, but damn you to hell if you have the nerve to speed up to 110Kph on a decent road! How dare you.:p

I agree with you, if you can't make a decent pace, get off the road. You fail the driving test if you don't make decent progress.

E92

And quite rightly too. Nothing worse than people travelling well under the speed limit when conditions permit a higher driving speed. Not only is it highly annoying, but highly dangerous too as it results in people making all sorts of stupid overtaking manoeuvres. The driver going ridiculously slow is not causing any danger himself/herself but he/she is frustrating a lot of other people which can cause loads of accidents.

Don't forget all our Dual Carriageways built to Motorway standard and actual Motorways have a design speed of 160 km/h(and NOT 120 as is often said).

Because of the fact that these roads are built for 160 I see no safety issue with a speed limit of 160(I would be against anything higher, but I see no problem with 160, as that's what these very expensive roads are built for), and I make no apologies for saying that I have the utmost sympathy for people caught speeding on Motorways/Dual Carriageways built to Motorway standard as long as they were under 160 km/h.

Sundy

ART6 wrote: »

May be easier than it sounds! The road markings might not be very high, but they are a different texture to the road surface and often have a much lower slip resistance particularly when wet. I have seen a number of cars nearly lose it on small roundabouts with those endless yellow boxes painted all over them, and that without any indication of excessive speed. That doesn't excuse some plonker for driving over the ones you describe of course, but neither does it excuse the highway authorities who seem to think that a few thousand gallons of paint will fulfill their responsibilities.

Cars lose control on roundabouts because of understeer and not because of road markings

Wertz

On the point of slow drivers, especialy in more rural parts, the problem lies as much with the first one or two cars tailing that slow driver that will not either attempt to get past when safe to do so, or else to fall back, match the speed and let someone behind have a go....when it gets to 5 or more cars it all seems to bunch up and nothing from any further back can even safely "leapfrog" up the queue...all the while traffic is building from behind and you end p with this long string, until idiots at the front either pass or leave room.

This thread would put you off driving at night...if what the OP says is true then we're probably looking at one of the main killers on the roads, overtakers forcing their way into oncoming traffic...

cyclopath2001

Del2005 wrote: »

Do you not see the buses, trams and trains at rush hour? They are all packed solid with people, some of then are dangerously overcrowded. How are people supposed to get out of their cars to get onto public transport that barely copes now?

You're missing the point. I am highlighting the inconsistentcy of the argument where people, such as our dear AstroBoy, believe it is OK for solitary, fit and healthy drivers in empty cars to massively waste road space and obstruct buses, cyclists and motorcyclists in cities but not OK for cautious, elderly people to cause delay on main roads outside of the city.

_Kaiser_

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You're missing the point. I am highlighting the inconsistentcy of the argument where people, such as our dear AstroBoy, believe it is OK for solitary, fit and healthy drivers in empty cars to massively waste road space and obstruct buses, cyclists and motorcyclists in cities but not OK for cautious, elderly people to cause delay on main roads outside of the city.

Again, if you're not comfortable driving at the posted limit when safe to do so, or keeping up with the flow of traffic on a major road then you shouldn't be there in the first place!

As for the whole "wasting roadspace in cities" argument. As I've pointed out on the Commuting/Transport forum, unfortunately we in Ireland DON'T all live in a public transport utopia. Here it's unreliable, overcrowded, dirty, staffed by too many ignorant jobsworths, and run for the benefit of the company/staff/unions - not the customer.

I'll use the same example again. If I want to get from Blanchardstown to Coolock, using public transport means at least 2 bus journeys (each way) with a completely unnecessary detour via "An Lar" (because of Dublin Bus and it's obsession with the O'Connell Street area) and will take a minimum of 90mins.

In a car, via the M50 (off-peak) - 20 mins or so.
Via Finglas and Ballymun - about 40 mins.

Plus I'll be guaranteed a seat, be dry and warm/cool, NOT have to put up with scumbags smoking, roaring and fighting down the back, AND I can leave when I want to - not 25 minutes earlier because it'd very possible that bus (or the one after it) won't even show up.

Then there's the fact that if you live outside the major cities, public transport (as a viable alternative) becomes non-existant.

These are reasons why people put up with the commute and the traffic. You surely don't honestly think that they enjoy sitting in gridlock, or paying ridiculous parking charges do you? When CIE and the rest sort out the above then come back to me about switching to public transport.

ART6

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Not having a go at you in particular ART6, but this is an example of one of the biggest problems on the roads (including this particular topic) - people are out driving around but don't even know the basic rules of the road!!

There's no excuse for that - after all, didn't everyone get a copy through the door last year? What's even worse about this is that most of the rules are simply common sense and courtesy - what does THAT say about Irish drivers in general then?

Back on topic: If someone isn't capable/comfortable driving at higher speeds on R/N/M-roads where appropriate to do so, then they shouldn't be on that road in the first place or at the very least, they shouldn't impede the progress of those who are.

No worries Kaiser. I'm not a sensitive individual and didn't take your post personally. The reason I made the point about the hard shoulder is that a few years ago I knew a truck driver who had been pulled by the Gards for running on the hard shoulder of an "N" road (not a motorway) when he was simply letting traffic past. However, I still do it when someone behind me is in more of a hurry than I am. I do agree entirely with your point about speed, though there is also the question of someone who is quite capable of driving at high speed but is not in any hurry. Should he then drive faster than he wants or needs to simply because someone else is impatient?