Lane hogging

K4t

CiniO wrote: »

Wrong understaning on your side.
Speed limit, actual speed, etc doesn't matter.
If you pass another vehicle which is going the same direction as you, becuase you are going quicker that means you are overtaking.

It's not about philosophy.
Law doesn't permit you to do it, so what you are doing is illegal.
Your philosophy is of very little relevance here.

I'd be willing to bet there is some room for maneuver in that law, whereby if a car in the overtaking lane is doing a speed well below the limit, a car passing by at a safe speed in the left hand lane would not be pulled for dangerous driving or for breaking the law.

DublinWriter wrote: »

It's either people going too slow, or people speeding and tailgating.

Bolded what I believe to be the biggest problem on Irish roads.

MrMaki

CiniO wrote: »

Have you got any reliable source of data to confirm that fact?

I do- google young drivers accidents stats compared to older drivers. First results will be from Uk but you can find Irish stats too. Unfortunately I'm too young on this forum to paste links.

dr.fuzzenstein

ironclaw wrote: »

Its not the speed, its the energy. You're talking huge amount of kinetic energy. That has to go somewhere. That somewhere is either into the brakes or the surrounding environment. Throw off the balance with a nudge and you'll skip like a stone of the surrounding cars / wall. The difference in energy between 50km/h and 120km/h is orders of magnitude given the squared relationship.

It's about speed relative to each other. Also, the speed vectors are important.
If two cars are driving side by side at 120 km/h, their speed relative to each other is 0. Now the important speed is closing speed. If one car moves to the side, it will happen at a very low speed, though the forward momentum is 120, the sideways momentum is very little.
Two cars crashing head long into each other is something very different to two cars driving side by side at that speed and touching laterally.
In the first scenario all energy is converted, resulting in a major crash.
In the second scenario it is very possible for both cars to touch when changing lane slowly and...nothing.
Otherwise two people touching each other on a moving train would be thrown out the window, since they also move at 120 km/h each on a fast train.
Kinetic energy in itself means nothing, a boulder resting on the ground has kinetic energy.

An aside, the old "two cars crashing will double the damage" is also a fallacy. There is more energy, but that energy is also tied to more mass to absorb the energy, so hitting a car at 120 is the same as hitting a wall at 120. The wall could even be worse, because it has no give.
But that is just an aside.

And the last thing, traveling at 120 km/h does not equate having an accident at 120. One could see the obstruction and slow down significantly before hitting. So many factors that 10 accidents at 120 could have 10 different outcomes.

edit:

I all depends of course. Two cars could touch and nothing happens, or one of the driver uses the tried and tested method of wildly yanking the steering wheel and then there's going to be a big splat.

mudstack

Depends what the wall is made from

In reality, things are rarely that simple.
We're not talking perfectly set up laboratory conditions here.

First off, the cars will more than likely not be of equal mass e.g. a Range Rover and a Micra.

A car pulling into the left lane unaware of a car undertaking it on it's blind spot could very easily put that other car into the rail at the side of the road. It wouldn't necessarily take a Dukes of Hazard style ditching. If the car in the inside lane is travelling at speed, it will be harder for the driver to regain control of the car.

It would also depend on where the car was hit. In reality the cars probably won't be exactly side by side.
The car moving into the inside lane in this case may be clipped at the rear causing a spin.

Same goes for a side hit to a car in the overtaking lane.

So no, if two cars driving side by side of equal mass collide, the result may not be a catastrophic crash but in reality things are rarely this simple.

We're not dealing with robots here and ideal conditions.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Pov06 wrote: »

That's exactly the kind of drivers we don't need on the motorways. "I've been driving for 28 years, I never crashed therefore I'm right"

Look at yourself, you're pathetic. It doesn't matter how many years you drove, you're still learning each time you drive, so don't come here and dare to say you're a perfect driver. You don't need to drive for 50 years to learn lane usage, it's a simple concept I grasped in a few minutes.

You must be great if it only took you your 10 years experience to learn that.

Where did I say I was a perfect driver, only a fool would think that they can be perfect in a few minutes.
Anyhow we should all bow to your superior road skills and knowledge as you have been driving for ten whole months on your own,on the roads without your mammy holding your hand.

Pov06

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

you have been driving for ten whole months on your own,on the roads without your mammy holding your hand.

Provisional licence since 2012 sir. Add that to experience driving vans while I was working at a van repair centre at the age of 16.

You have minimal information and maximum insults.

There is no need to say X is a bad driver because they are a learner driver or whatever. Your ego will only kill you to be honest. By saying "oh you haven't had a full licence for a year" you are implying you're a better driver when in fact there are so many factors to being a good driver, such as good reactions which an older person may start losing.

So go on, tell my why do I have to tell you my "qualifications" to be able to express my opinion on this forum?

Dr Turk Turkelton

Pov06 wrote: »

Provisional licence since 2012 sir. Add that to experience driving vans while I was working at a van repair centre at the age of 16.

You have minimal information and maximum insults.

There is no need to say X is a bad driver because they are a learner driver or whatever. Your ego will only kill you to be honest. By saying "oh you haven't had a full licence for a year" you are implying you're a better driver when in fact there are so many factors to being a good driver, such as good reactions which an older person may start losing.

So go on, tell my why do I have to tell you my "qualifications" to be able to express my opinion on this forum?

Where did I ask for your qualifications, sure it's obvious that you have only been driving for ten months unaccompanied and a couple of years before that when you could get a licenced driver to accompany you.
Not sure where your getting that I have an ego tbh, maybe have a look closer to home.

Pov06

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

Where did I ask for your qualifications, sure it's obvious that you have only been driving for ten months unaccompanied and a couple of years before that when you could get a licenced driver to accompany you.
Not sure where your getting that I have an ego tbh, maybe have a look closer to home.

Yet again making judgements I see :pac: Who told you I have driven unaccompanied?

Anyway lads & lasses, I will be out of this thread because I'm being denied access here by this experienced driver who knows everything about anything.

Feel free to PM me when I am experienced enough to drive on my own, thanks.