Road issues that irritate me.......

PFL

I drive for work and honestly for me it's lack of progress on the roads and not using indicators - driving at 70KM in 100KM zone does not make you a safe driver, it shows you're not able to drive to the road conditions.

Not using indicators shows you're not paying attention or know the fundamentals of driving, it's an automatic action when making a turn and if you can't get that basic thing right, what happens in an emergency situation.

JillyQ

PFL wrote: »

I drive for work and honestly for me it's lack of progress on the roads and not using indicators - driving at 70KM in 100KM zone does not make you a safe driver, it shows you're not able to drive to the road conditions.

Not using indicators shows you're not paying attention or know the fundamentals of driving, it's an automatic action when making a turn and if you can't get that basic thing right, what happens in an emergency situation.

100% agree with you anyone who can't drive at the 100km speed limit on a clear dry straight road needs to go back a resit there test.

casscass4444

90% of the drivers on the road don't use indicators.keep an eye out and you will notice it.its just that it's so common now you wouldn't notice it.
Most road users are too selfish to think of others using the road and have their heads up their hxxxs and wouldn't dream of thinking of anyone but themselves.
In the meantime the rest of us are left guessing what the fxxk it is they are planning to do.
As for the "fast lane" saga,round here we call it the outside lane.you use it to overtake slower vehicles in front of you and having passed them you tuck back in to the inside lane immediately out of the way.it really is that simple

km991148

casscass4444 wrote: »

90% of the drivers on the road don't use indicators.keep an eye out and you will notice it.its just that it's so common now you wouldn't notice it.

ye - I don't even consider it an annoyance - just used to it these days.

Got pretty close to the back of a van this morning that parked up immediately after he made a left turn into side road. Confusingly he did indicate for the left, sped up then came to a sudden halt grrr..

(If I had hit him I know i would be at fault for being too close. But I wasn't and didnt!)

WestWicklow1

Maybe mentioned earlier....

Motorists coming to a stop for lights in a line of vehicles but stop short by two, three maybe even four car lengths of the car in front. You stop behind the he/she then proceeds to creep forward while waiting for the line of traffic to move.

degsie

Idiots who pull up too far back from the stop line at traffic lights such that the road sensor does not detect their presence and fail to trigger the lights.

km991148

degsie wrote: »

Idiots who pull up too far back from the stop line at traffic lights such that the road sensor does not detect their presence and fail to trigger the lights.

or funnier still - ones that go too far ahead! Sitting there like d!cks until someone turns up behind them.

EDIT: That should be under "Road issues that amuse me.."

Seth Brundle

casscass4444 wrote: »

90% of the drivers on the road don't use indicators.keep an eye out and you will notice it.its just that it's so common now you wouldn't notice it.

The only thing that a flashing indicator tells you is that the bulb works!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

kbannon wrote: »

The only thing that a flashing indicator tells you is that the bulb works!

Or that they are double parked.

duffman3833

Franco Acidic Corkscrew wrote: »

Or that they are double parked.

or even when they are parked in the parking space but right up again the white line leaving you little space to get out of your car next to them cause there too lazy to park correctly

NiallBoo

duffman3833 wrote: »

or even when they are parked in the parking space but right up again the white line leaving you little space to get out of your car next to them cause there too lazy to park correctly

That really is annoying.
Loads seem to have the idea that anywhere inside the lines is "good" parking.

I like places that have double sets of lines (blanchardstown centre comes to mind). They have the exact same width overall but having the lines closer together is a great little "nudge" for getting folks to park more considerably.

Sugarlumps

The non use of indicators would be my major gripe. In my world, an assassin would be waiting upon arrival of the offender. Wielding a machete, severs the arm, hands you a hook. Trump would be on board.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Anyone over 65 who still drives should be subject to a full medical every 2 years and a refreshing of the rules of the road, the amount of older drivers who still think its 1955 when there were only 5 other cars on the road- they indicate 1000m before the junction, they spend an age turning into streets and they are very unpredictable.

Drink drivers- cnuts every single last one of them.

People who text and drive deserve to die a slow horrible death when they hit the wall at 100mph.

Speeders- whats the fcuking rush? Whatever or whoever you want to speak to will still be there if you slow down.

What about all the under 65s who don't understand speed limits, or keeping a safe distance from the car in front of you, and who think it's okay to speed across three lanes of the M50 at the last minute to get to their exit. Not to mention the many drivers who think the overtaking lane is the 'fast lane'. The vast majority of rude, inconsiderate and downright reckless driving on our roads certainly doesn't come from older people.
Maybe everyone should be forced to take a refresher course on the rules of the road every couple of years. I'd far prefer to be stuck behind an elderly person driving slowly, than have my safety put at risk by some of the loons on the roads nowadays.

degsie

Old Micra's, front fogs.... need I say more?

Roadhawk

duffman3833 wrote: »

or even when they are parked in the parking space but right up again the white line leaving you little space to get out of your car next to them cause there too lazy to park correctly

I always have a few of these printed off and in the car to fill out for people who park bad.

http://unspokenpictures.com/funny-bad-parking-form-checkbox-2/

:cool:

Seth Brundle

degsie wrote: »

Old Micra's, front fogs.... need I say more?

So bright, they can be seen from space...

diomed

Off Road vehicles

Right2Write

Drivers who insist on driving forwards into parking spaces and then reverse back out into the traffic flow. Can't see f**k. Idiots.

If there was one sensible thing to gain penalty points, that'd be it.

Then people who drive up your arse, when you go to reverse into a parking space.

durtybit

astrofool wrote: »

I think this is where road etiquette comes in, and the cyclists should switch to single file to allow traffic through at regular intervals, just as a farmer driving a tractor should, and just as a car will give way to other cars.

This also means it can happen when safe to do so, and reduces the risk of an accident by the idiot who was beeping you and then braking heavily in front of you. Yes you were technically in the right, but did you have to risk a crash to prove your point? Same idiot will just do the same next week, had you gone single file, that idiot may learn something about road etiquette themselves and be more allowing of cyclists the following week.

You may be lacking in the knowledge of what etiquette means

No. 182 of 1997 “ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997” Overtaking 10. (1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person. (2) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, unless the roadway ahead of the driver— ( a ) is free from approaching traffic,

"free from approaching traffic" means if there is one or 2 cyclists this would not matter as you would have to wait until traffic is clear which also means you would have the whole of the other lane to pass.

Its also a lesser distance to pass 2 cyclists side by side than in single file

Shenshen

astrofool wrote: »

I think this is where road etiquette comes in, and the cyclists should switch to single file to allow traffic through at regular intervals, just as a farmer driving a tractor should, and just as a car will give way to other cars.

This also means it can happen when safe to do so, and reduces the risk of an accident by the idiot who was beeping you and then braking heavily in front of you. Yes you were technically in the right, but did you have to risk a crash to prove your point? Same idiot will just do the same next week, had you gone single file, that idiot may learn something about road etiquette themselves and be more allowing of cyclists the following week.

I can't speak for cycling two abreast as I always cycle on my own, BUT - having grown up in Germany and cycling there for as long as I can remember, I did when I first started cycling here follow German road etiquette and would move as far as possible to the kerb whenever there was a car passing me.

I stopped doing that here after about a week. Doing that here results in a significant number of cars FOLLOWING you into the kerb, in what I can only assume is a deliberate attempt at making me fall of my bike.
So now when I hear a car approaching I actually move away from the kerb and into the road, giving me a buffer safety zone.
It may not be polite to the other 99% of drivers who do overtake safely and now have to move out further, but it gives me better odds at surviving the nutcases. Sorry.

Shenshen

Also, this.

NiallBoo

Shenshen wrote: »

Also, this.

I don't get why there are such complaints about this.

You should go the limit on roads that can handle it, but also have the sense to understand that on narrow L/R roads you have to use your own judgment. This will be based not just on the road, but also the type and condition of your vehicle.

What's the alternative? A detailed study of every bit of road, with speed limits changing every few hundred metres?

Limits are assigned by type, to do otherwise would be impractical.

Shenshen

NiallBoo wrote: »

I don't get why there are such complaints about this.

You should go the limit on roads that can handle it, but also have the sense to understand that on narrow L/R roads you have to use your own judgment. This will be based not just on the road, but also the type and condition of your vehicle.

What's the alternative? A detailed study of every bit of road, with speed limits changing every few hundred metres?

Limits are assigned by type, to do otherwise would be impractical.

Well, to follow that thought, surly someone must have at some point looked at that road to assign it a type?
And someone must have put that sign up - seems a waste of money putting up a sign for a limit that nobody in their right mind would ever get close to anyway.

ohnonotgmail

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, to follow that thought, surly someone must have at some point looked at that road to assign it a type?
And someone must have put that sign up - seems a waste of money putting up a sign for a limit that nobody in their right mind would ever get close to anyway.

or more likely it has been dumped into a.n.other and assigned a default limit with the assumption that people will use their common sense.

ETA after a quick check it appears that 80KMH is the default speed limit for non-national roads

maudgonner

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, to follow that thought, surly someone must have at some point looked at that road to assign it a type?
And someone must have put that sign up - seems a waste of money putting up a sign for a limit that nobody in their right mind would ever get close to anyway.

It will have been designated either an R (regional) or L (local) road, and as been given the general speed limit for roads of this type, 80kph.

Turn the camera 180 degrees on that Streetview and you will see that the road is leading out of a built-up area. One with a lower speed limit, more than likely. That's why the 80 kph sign was erected, to mark the end of the built-up speed limit.

As always, it's a limit, not a target. You should drive the speed suitable for the road conditions.

Hermy

ken wrote: »

Mod-Gardai are exempt in certain situations. Do not turn this in to a Garda bashing thread

Ken, I don't mean to throw stones at the Gardaí for the sake of picking an easy target. The fact is most road users, myself included, display contempt or ignorance of road safety at one time or another whether on foot, on two wheels or more.

But the job of An Garda Síochána is to enforce the law. It's also their job to attend the scene of an accident so they know better than most the right thing to do on the road and what happens when things go wrong. And if they lead by example that sets the standard for the rest of us.

But far too many of them show utter contempt for road safety, not using indicators, texting while driving and just generally not bothering to do the basics right. And if that's their attitude what hope for the rest us.

NiallBoo

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, to follow that thought, surly someone must have at some point looked at that road to assign it a type?
And someone must have put that sign up - seems a waste of money putting up a sign for a limit that nobody in their right mind would ever get close to anyway.

You'd expect it to be a L road.

You need to put signs up because the limit there will just have changed from something else.

The thing is that these roads vary hugely. There might be a narrow stretch like that, followed by a stretch where 80 is fine 200m later, followed by another narrow stretch, etc. etc.

NiallBoo

maudgonner wrote: »

As always, it's a limit, not a target.

This is a statement that really divides people; it's too black and white.

It would be better to say that you should drive at the (quickest*) speed suitable to the road/vehicle/conditions or to the speed limit - whichever one is slower.

Or in other words - the limit should be a target, unless there's a reason it shouldn't.

*out of consideration to other road users

Shenshen

NiallBoo wrote: »

You'd expect it to be a L road.

You need to put signs up because the limit there will just have changed from something else.

The thing is that these roads vary hugely. There might be a narrow stretch like that, followed by a stretch where 80 is fine 200m later, followed by another narrow stretch, etc. etc.

I would have expected that, yes.
I was driving down it two days ago, the limit did change up from 50, but you'd have to know the road like the back of your hand and be in possession of a crystal ball or a contraption to see around corners to go even that fast. There was no point along the road where I would have gone above 40 kph - what google maps don't show is the gradient, it's very steep as well as being very narrow.

NiallBoo

Shenshen wrote: »

I would have expected that, yes.
I was driving down it two days ago, the limit did change up from 50, but you'd have to know the road like the back of your hand and be in possession of a crystal ball or a contraption to see around corners to go even that fast. There was no point along the road where I would have gone above 40 kph - what google maps don't show is the gradient, it's very steep as well as being very narrow.

So don't go 80, or 50. Happy days.

The fact remains that you can't waste effort assigning an individual limit for every little bit of the 100,000km of our road network - 78,000km of which are L roads.