Bizarre/Illegal things on motorways

bawn79

Deleted User wrote: »

A bit pointless discussing the legalities of switching on the lights during the day when (I believe) all new cars must have daylight driving lights installed as standard, so it's only a matter of time before only "classic" cars are unlit while driving.

Cool I look forward to that - sorry for taking the thread off-topic.

bawn79

bawn79 wrote: »

Cool I look forward to that - sorry for taking the thread off-topic.

Just to finish off this diversion..

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/safety/daytime-running-lights.html
You've probably noticed those bright LED 'eyebrows' on newer cars, but why are so many cars being fitted with them, and what are they for?
As a result of European legislation adopted in 2008 dedicated daytime running lights (DRL) have been required on all new types of passenger cars and small delivery vans since February 2011. Trucks and buses will follow from August 2012.
There is no requirement to retro-fit DRLs to existing cars and no Europe-wide requirement for drivers of cars without dedicated daytime running lights to drive with headlights on during the day.
Where fitted dedicated DRLs will come on automatically with the ignition.

zuroph

Car behind me on the m7 junction 29 overpass turned down the wrong slip road heading for the southbound lane in a northerly direction.anyone know if they made it?

Robbo

Spotted a Garda speed camera van on the M4 westbound just before Kilcock yesterday, in the hard shoulder.

It was 20m before an overbridge, I checked the 2 possible locations on Google streetview and the hard shoulder is no wider or narrower than normal there.

source

Robbo wrote: »

Spotted a Garda speed camera van on the M4 westbound just before Kilcock yesterday, in the hard shoulder.

It was 20m before an overbridge, I checked the 2 possible locations on Google streetview and the hard shoulder is no wider or narrower than normal there.

What was bizarre or illegal about that?

antoobrien

source wrote: »

What was bizarre or illegal about that?

Stopping in the hard shoulder with the exception of an emergency is illegal. Any vehicles, including those of AGS stopped in the hard shoulder for any purpose other than a breakdown/emergency should not be stopped on the hard shoulder.

Robbo

source wrote: »

What was bizarre or illegal about that?

I would have thought that the special ramps marked "Garda Only" which are separated from the carriageway and hard shoulder would have been a safer spot to park up a transit, unless it was broken down.

source

antoobrien wrote: »

Stopping in the hard shoulder with the exception of an emergency is illegal. Any vehicles, including those of AGS stopped in the hard shoulder for any purpose other than a breakdown/emergency should not be stopped on the hard shoulder.

Section 27 Road Traffic Act 1994 states that all emergency vehicles are exempt from all road traffic legislation While on duty, with exception of drink driving and dangerous driving.

EDIT:Oh and parking is not covered by dangerous driving, that is a separate offence.

Alun

That is indeed true, but unfortunately for the residents of said vehicle the laws of physics that govern what happens if an out of control vehicle rams them from behind are immune to what the Road Traffic Act says, so whilst it isn't illegal, it certainly classes as bizarre behaviour, in my book at least.

source

Alun wrote: »

That is indeed true, but unfortunately for the residents of said vehicle the laws of physics that govern what happens if an out of control vehicle rams them from behind are immune to what the Road Traffic Act says, so whilst it isn't illegal, it certainly classes as bizarre behaviour, in my book at least.

Unfortunately law enforcement is a dangerous job, and it does involve law enforcement officers putting themselves into dangerous situations In order to do their jobs. This is why legislation like the one I've quoted exist.

Alun

source wrote: »

Unfortunately law enforcement is a dangerous job, and it does involve law enforcement officers putting themselves into dangerous situations In order to do their jobs. This is why legislation like the one I've quoted exist.

I'm perfectly aware of why such legislation exists thanks.

I'm merely pointing out that if it's dangerous for us mere mortals to sit in a car on the hard shoulder, and indeed in the cases I've seen on the M11, sitting in positions on that hard shoulder deliberately chosen so that other motorists only see them at the last minute, then it's also dangerous for them.

It's also dangerous for other road users, who might, for example have a blow out and suddenly find a Garda car in their way when trying to access the hard shoulder in an emergency.

As someone else pointed out that's why the special ramps have been constructed for that very purpose, and there's really no excuse for putting both yourself and others in a dangerous position for something like setting up speed traps.

Iwannahurl

Alun wrote: »

That is indeed true, but unfortunately for the residents of said vehicle the laws of physics that govern what happens if an out of control vehicle rams them from behind are immune to what the Road Traffic Act says, so whilst it isn't illegal, it certainly classes as bizarre behaviour, in my book at least.

Eddie Shaw, chairman of the National Safety Council, which was superseded by the RSA in 2006, used to write furious letters to the Taoiseach, government ministers and Garda Commissioners complaining about their reckless disregard for road safety and the laws of Physics. All he got was acknowledgments of his correspondence.

Clearly irate at this, before Christmas [2002] he again addressed the question of speeding ministers in a letter to the [Garda] Commissioner: "It is quite simply irresponsible to behave in this way. Yet all the indications are that this is common practice and is acceptable to the Taoiseach and to you. No one is above the law."

In a letter to Mr Ahern last May, Mr Shaw warned: "Neither you nor any other member of the travel party, drivers and passengers, are exempt or immune from the laws of physics."

The National Safety Council accepts that the gardai "under certain circumstances" are exempt from the speed limit. However, Mr Shaw warns that ministers exploiting this exemption are behaving in an "irresponsible way". He said: "I do not accept that [the exemption] includes football matches, election canvassing timetables, delivering a minister's family to their home or other activities."

Mr Shaw, an expert in risk management, pointedly reminded Mr Ahern that during the two years before the election, a number of gardai had been killed and seriously injured in high-speed crashes.

Eddie Shaw eventually resigned in total frustration, November 2005.

Though awareness of legal exemptions is high, among other things knowledge of Physics still seems to be a bit lacking in certain quarters, if the number of Gardai I see driving without seatbelts is anything to go by.

So much for History and Physics. What about Trigonometry? Maybe there is a technical reason for parking in the hard shoulder/emergency lane. Could it have to do with the accuracy of speed readings, ie the cosine effect? Is it possible that the horizontal and vertical offset, relative to the carriageway, of those Garda ramps would lead to unacceptably inaccurate speed readings? Just wondering...


.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Eddie Shaw eventually resigned in total frustration, November 2005.

Irish road deaths have fallen significantly since 2006 - a lot of motorways have opened and that has made long distance travel dramatically safer. Back in 2006 the driver testing system was a shambles, it's been fixed but IMO it's overregulated a bit now. The recession has also left a lot of people out of work and with nowhere to go, so theres less car travel and that also has had an affect.

chewed

Was driving on the M1 northbound near the main toll booths and saw a woman walking her 2 dogs in the central median!!!

Robbo

Robbo wrote: »

Spotted a Garda speed camera van on the M4 westbound just before Kilcock yesterday, in the hard shoulder.

It was 20m before an overbridge, I checked the 2 possible locations on Google streetview and the hard shoulder is no wider or narrower than normal there.

In a bizarre symmetry , I was eastbound on the M4/6 this morning just after Enfield and a Garda van was parked under a bridge in the hard shoulder, changing a tyre.

Victor

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So much for History and Physics. What about Trigonometry? Maybe there is a technical reason for parking in the hard shoulder/emergency lane. Could it have to do with the accuracy of speed readings, ie the cosine effect? Is it possible that the horizontal and vertical offset, relative to the carriageway, of those Garda ramps would lead to unacceptably inaccurate speed readings? Just wondering....

At most marginal and if anything, will slightly underestimate speed.

nacimroc

I passed that garda van (plain white with garda wrote on it?) that afternoon and as far as I could see he was not on the hard shoulder. He had pulled in on a bit of gravel behind the new overhead displays which aren't on google maps yet. I could be wrong though.

Hotblack Desiato

Still, I have to wonder why they think speed checks on the safest roads in the country are worthwhile...

-Corkie-

ninja900 wrote: »

Still, I have to wonder why they think speed checks on the safest roads in the country are worthwhile...

Plus the fact the Garda in question must be feeling suicidal parking on the HS of a Motorway. All it takes is a driver to lose concentration for a few seconds and then its good night Irene..

Victor

ninja900 wrote: »

Still, I have to wonder why they think speed checks on the safest roads in the country are worthwhile...

To keep them as the safest roads.

Realise that there are very few checks (by percentage of hours) done on motorways, simply that those checks get seen by a lot of people. However, those checks will check a disproportionate amount of traffic.

FatMickey

SeanW wrote: »

Irish road deaths have fallen significantly since 2006 -
The recession has also left a lot of people out of work and with nowhere to go, so theres less car travel and that also has had an affect.

Never thought about it that way but now that you mention it I think you are spot on.

Stonewolf

Victor wrote: »

To keep them as the safest roads.

Realise that there are very few checks (by percentage of hours) done on motorways, simply that those checks get seen by a lot of people. However, those checks will check a disproportionate amount of traffic.

The perception that speed checks are being used for revenue generation will not be quashed until the fine is dropped, especially when they show up on roads which we're told are safe to travel at high speeds on.

<aside>

Dropping the fine is something I'm personally in favour of as a) we're already punished with penalty points which most people care about a lot more than a fine b) it improves peoples perception of and respect for the law in general when any doubt over the nature of a law and its enforcement are removed c) it removes any temptation that might actually exist to use speed cameras for revenue generation.

Even without the fine the way in which speed checks are carried out doesn't help the public respect their purpose. There are still totally unmarked white vans with speed cameras in the back being used in Dublin (I last saw one on the Malahide Road in August across the road from the Esso), there are still Gardai hiding in the bushes (N32, motorcycle garda, bike parked out of view of targetted traffic, garda hugged up against the hedge).

</aside>

So to get back on topic, people will continue to give out about speed cameras everywhere because they view them as a revenue generating measure and because the old culture of the "speed trap" is still alive and well. Just because the speed check that's on a motorway is visible and marked doesn't mean people wont associate it with the negative reputation of the speed trap and the fact that they're told they can safely travel at high speed on a road will only increase their hostility towards it.

Victor

Stonewolf wrote: »

Dropping the fine is something I'm personally in favour of as a) we're already punished with penalty points which most people care about a lot more than a fine

For some people, penalty points are not a punishment - foreign visitors, tourists, people without driving licences, etc.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

For some people, penalty points are not a punishment - foreign visitors, tourists, people without driving licences, etc.

Apparently, in France the police will take you to an ATM to get cash out to pay any on the spot fines incurred.

Alun

Deleted User wrote: »

Apparently, in France the police will take you to an ATM to get cash out to pay any on the spot fines incurred.

They certainly do this in Belgium .. I have first hand experience of this

Not

Deleted User wrote: »

Apparently, in France the police will take you to an ATM to get cash out to pay any on the spot fines incurred.

In the UK they will arrest and hold in custody a foreign driver who is caught committing a fineable road traffic until such time as the fine is paid, so that they dont have an opportunity to leave the country before it is paid. I remember seeing it on one of those Road Wars type programs a while ago.

Hotblack Desiato

Victor wrote: »

To keep them as the safest roads.

Yeah right.

German motorways, outside of urban and congested sections have NO speed limit, they are still safe.

SeanW

ninja900 wrote: »

Yeah right.

German motorways, outside of urban and congested sections have NO speed limit, they are still safe.

I tend to agree with ninja900 that speed checks do sod all to make motorways safer, IMO motorways enhance safety by their very presence.

Take for example this tragic accident yesterday. When I saw it on the news, the reporter said the road was popular for walkers and joggers. But looking at the actual road, a number of things struck me. First of all, the fact that this is a national primary road (I think) it has a 100kph speed limit and the hard shoulders in the immediate vicinity were thinned out so as to accomodate turning lanes for the junction with the N83, whichs starts there. There are no footpaths or anything.

Lots of pedestrians and 100kph traffic on the same road don't mix very well.

A toll free M17 bypass would likely have prevented that accident, alongside raised footpaths for the pedestrians. Much as I hate to admit it given that I think Irish speed limits are too conservative, a 60kph speed limit to the N83 junction and an 80kph limit for a few hundred metres beyond might be more appropriate.

My point is that long distance traffic should be put onto motorways and that motorways don't need speed checks for a safety improvement, they are the safety improvement.

Victor

ninja900 wrote: »

German motorways, outside of urban and congested sections have NO speed limit, they are still safe.

Relatively safe. One important factor is that German driving instruction and behaviour is taken seriously.

Despite having 12,845km of motorway, Germany has a higher death rate per capita and per km travelled than Ireland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

nacimroc

SeanW wrote: »

Much as I hate to admit it given that I think Irish speed limits are too conservative, a 60kph speed limit to the N83 junction and an 80kph limit for a few hundred metres beyond might be more appropriate.

Your falling into the same trap as the RSA. That accident had nothing to do with speed. As far as I know the driver had a seizure. Reducing the speed limits is no solution whatsoever. They need to tackle these problems with logic and not just change the speed limits or put cameras where accidents happen.

How much money will they now spend on a speed camera and changing limits and signs, instead of putting up a protected footpath.