Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

Tombo2001

blackwhite wrote: »

I disagree. Responsibility is not a zero-sum game.

Nothing reduces the responsibility of someone who causes an accident with a dangerous overtake.

Equally well, someone who is driving with due care and consideration is also creating circumstances that potentially could result in a collision occurring. Whilst they aren't directly responsible for the collision, they can still be responsible for creating circumstances that contributed to it happening.

Surely it cant be both. This doesnt make sense.

If your driving is leading to accidents - you are not driving with due care and consideration.

However, its a stretch for me to say that a 'slow driver' is creating accidents by 'forcing people to overtake them'. Drivers always have the option of waiting if its not safe to pass - and if they are not doing so, then they are not driving with due care and consideration. If thats the case, why would you target and blame other drivers for their behaviour.

magicbastarder

it's simple, if you've stopped your car without due reason on a windy country road, you're creating a hazardous situation.
if someone comes around the bend and smashes into your car, they have been driving without due care.
it's not as if there's 100% of 'responsibility' to allocate, which has to be shared between the drivers. both are fully guilty of what they've done, i.e. more than 100% to dish out between them. the latter is a more egregious offence than the former, of course.

blackwhite

tomasrojo wrote: »

But you're describing shared culpability so it does reduce the responsibility of someone who does a dangerous pass.

Just to be clear, maybe you could describe one of these scenarios: type of road and the maximum speed a slow-moving driver would need to be doing to share culpability.

IMO it's not a case of shared culpability. I get you might be talking about a courtroom situation whereby a judge is forced to apportion blame, but that's not what I mean here. When it comes to trying to make the roads safer, you can only be responsible for your own actions.


If I park my car on a corner with limited visibility, with the rear of the car sticking onto the roadway, that doesn't suddenly absolve someone of their responsibility to drive at a speed that allows them to stop within the distance they can see to be clear. If someone comes along and crashes into that parked car then there's no reduction in their responsibility for their poor driving.

However that doesn't mean that I'm absolved of any responsibility for parking dangerously.

blackwhite

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Surely it cant be both. This doesnt make sense.

If your driving is leading to accidents - you are not driving with due care and consideration.

However, its a stretch for me to say that a 'slow driver' is creating accidents by 'forcing people to overtake them'. Drivers always have the option of waiting if its not safe to pass - and if they are not doing so, then they are not driving with due care and consideration. If thats the case, why would you target and blame other drivers for their behaviour.

Typo - that should have read "without"

tomasrojo

Parking on a blind bend isn't the same as slow driving though. Unless you regard it as an extreme case of 0km/h driving.

I don't quite get the scenarios where someone driving at, say, 50km/h can be convincingly blamed, partially or otherwise for a dangerous pass. It's not very slow, and if the speed limit is above 80km/h it has to be a multi-lane road, AFAIK, so passing isn't that hard to accomplish anyway.

I can vaguely imagine some scenarios below 30km/h, but I haven't thought them through.

blackwhite

tomasrojo wrote: »

if the speed limit is above 80km/h it has to be a multi-lane road, AFAIK, so passing isn't that hard to accomplish anyway.

You'd want to revisit your rules of the road there TBH.

Vast majority of our national primary route network is single-carriageway and limited at 100km/h

tomasrojo

Actually, Wikipedia has this as a 100km/h road in Irelad:


That is quite something.

Hurrache

Two single lanes in each direction, i.e. multi lanes, I believe is what he means.

tomasrojo

Yeah, I did have in mind a straight stretch of road that can accommodate two cars side by side.

Not that thing with all the bends though!

blackwhite

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, I did have in mind a straight stretch of road that can accommodate two cars side by side.

Not that thing with all the bends though!

You should try the N17 between Collooney and Charlestown some time. :eek:

tomasrojo

I know that roads like this do or did get 80km/h, but they don't get 100km/h ever, do they?

blackwhite

tomasrojo wrote: »

I know that roads like this do or did get 80km/h, but they don't get 100km/h ever, do they?

I hope not, and not that I'm aware of!


You do however, still have plenty of stretches like below at 100

https://www.google.ie/maps/@54.2209488,-8.6235681,3a,75y,341.02h,92.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLLPCQEwPK8_J7xQAvObjmQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

tomasrojo

Looks ok-ish, but that might be the camera concealing how narrow the lanes are?

I guess that's a no-passing section anyway?

I think I find a lot of speed limits a bit on the high side anyway!

blackwhite

tomasrojo wrote: »

Looks ok-ish, but that might be the camera concealing how narrow the lanes are?

I guess that's a no-passing section anyway?

They aren't overly narrow -but not the multi-lane road you seemed to think all 100km/h roads are either. It's a road where for much of it it's safe to do the 100, but you do need to drop to 70-80 for some of the curves on it.

N59 Ballisodare to Ballina (which is the primary Sligo-Ballina route) is approximately 50km. The entire route is basically stretches like that where no passing is possible regardless for 3-4km at a time, followed by 500m-1km where it's actually safe to pass if there's no oncoming traffic.

Get stuck behind someone doing 50-60 on both the straight and curved parts (which is not unusual around there) and you could find it being 10-15 minutes before you get a safe overtaking opportunity. It doesn't excuse the person who decides to do something dangerous - but the roads would be better for everyone if the crawler shows some consideration of those behind them and took opportunities to pull in etc.


I don't see it much differently to the conversations that were had on here around the death of a cyclist that was before the courts lately where a driver recklessly pulled onto the wrong side of the road to pass cars that were parked near a Church.

Nothing absolves the driver of his responsibility for killing that woman, but equally well him being 100% responsible for his dangerous actions doesn't absolve the irresponsible parkers of their culpabilities either.

tomasrojo

blackwhite wrote: »

They aren't overly narrow -but not the multi-lane road you seemed to think all 100km/h roads are either.

Hurrache is right. I was thinking of a road with proper-width lanes, at least two. I know there are substandard 80km/h ones.

blackwhite wrote: »

Get stuck behind someone doing 50-60 on both the straight and curved parts (which is not unusual around there) and you could find it being 10-15 minutes before you get a safe overtaking opportunity. It doesn't excuse the person who decides to do something dangerous - but the roads would be better for everyone if the crawler shows some consideration of those behind them and took opportunities to pull in etc.

Yeah, they should pull in, if the person following has been there for a while, but I just don't see it as that much of a burden travelling at that speed.

The upper end of the distances involved in these scenarios is 15km. I don't recall being behind someone for that sort of distance before an ok passing opportunity arose. I can't say it's impossible though.

carfinder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Hurrache is right. I was thinking of a road with proper-width lanes, at least two. I know there are substandard 80km/h ones.



Yeah, they should pull in, if the person following has been there for a while, but I just don't see it as that much of a burden travelling at that speed.

The upper end of the distances involved in these scenarios is 15km. I don't recall being behind someone for that sort of distance before an ok passing opportunity arose. I can't say it's impossible though.

It is very plausible that a significant queue of traffic would build up over that sort of distance. The limited overtake opportunities would only be available to the vehicles at the start of the queue. You dont consider being stuck at 50 - 60 kph as a burden but most people would consider it extremely annoying, burdensome for anyone on a schedule (e.g. truck drivers) and it is a desperately inefficient use of the road infrastructure

tomasrojo

carfinder wrote: »

It is very plausible that a significant queue of traffic would build up over that sort of distance. The limited overtake opportunities would only be available to the vehicles at the start of the queue. You dont consider being stuck at 50 - 60 kph as a burden but most people would consider it extremely annoying, burdensome for anyone on a schedule (e.g. truck drivers) and it is a desperately inefficient use of the road infrastructure

Should truck drivers be driving at 100km/h on winding roads?

Macy0161

carfinder wrote: »

The limited overtake opportunities would only be available to the vehicles at the start of the queue.

Often times from my viewpoint (higher up as I drive a van), it's often those at the front of the line of traffic that are part of the issue (if there is one) in such circumstances. Won't/ aren't confident enough/ not bothered to overtake when it is safe, and driving too close to allow anyone to come in between them either.

However, it ultimately all comes down to a complete lack of patience by those driving. Yes, it's annoying, but really this and speeding comes down valuing time over lives.

tomasrojo

Macy0161 wrote: »

Often times from my viewpoint (higher up as I drive a van), it's often those at the front of the line of traffic that are part of the issue (if there is one) in such circumstances. Won't/ aren't confident enough/ not bothered to overtake when it is safe, and driving too close to allow anyone to come in between them either.

Not what you're talking about, but reminds me of the old days of driving out to Connemara in a steady stream of traffic, and you had to get used to drivers leap frogging into gaps between cars, trying to take advantage of small gaps in the steady stream of traffic coming the other way. It was nuts, because the gaps between the cars was just the safe distance you're supposed to leave, so you had to slow down to get the safe distance back, and then someone else would suddenly appear from over your shoulder and swerve into that space, and so it continued.

Hurrache

tomasrojo wrote: »

Not what you're talking about, but reminds me of the old days of driving out to Connemara in a steady stream of traffic, and you had to get used to drivers leap frogging into gaps between cars, trying to take advantage of small gaps in the steady stream of traffic coming the other way. It was nuts, because the gaps between the cars was just the safe distance you're supposed to leave, so you had to slow down to get the safe distance back, and then someone else would suddenly appear from over your shoulder and swerve into that space, and so it continued.

A couple of weeks ago I had business in the west, Mayo specifically. Never did I have so many cars inappropriately pull out of side roads into my path on the national routes in that county.

Anyway, it was the leap frogging point that caught my attention. Coming into and out of Longford there was a steady stream of traffic heading towards Dublin moving reasonably well, but I noticed a white van doing the stupid leap frog crap in my mirrors. When he got to me, just outside of Longford town, he used a hatched bit of road to go by me and the car in front. The hatching was for a right turn island in the middle of the road, and there was a car in it. White van clown managed to nip in just in time.

But the monumentally stupid thing about this is that you don't make any progress whatsoever. He continued to do this but yet he was within visual distance of me right up as far at the Mullingar bypass. He was probably less than 30 seconds ahead of me at that point, despite his dangerous and impatient driving. Sure by then we got to a dual carriageway which turned into a motorway as far as Dublin and he could have overtaking everyone he wanted safely.

Tombo2001

blackwhite wrote: »

IMO it's not a case of shared culpability. I get you might be talking about a courtroom situation whereby a judge is forced to apportion blame, but that's not what I mean here. When it comes to trying to make the roads safer, you can only be responsible for your own actions.


If I park my car on a corner with limited visibility, with the rear of the car sticking onto the roadway, that doesn't suddenly absolve someone of their responsibility to drive at a speed that allows them to stop within the distance they can see to be clear. If someone comes along and crashes into that parked car then there's no reduction in their responsibility for their poor driving.

However that doesn't mean that I'm absolved of any responsibility for parking dangerously.

But the things is that 'blame' doesnt really matter if its subjective and people are allowed believe what they want to believe.

It only matters if its subject to punishment, otherwise behaviours dont change.

blackwhite

Tombo2001 wrote: »

But the things is that 'blame' doesnt really matter if its subjective and people are allowed believe what they want to believe.

It only matters if its subject to punishment, otherwise behaviours dont change.

Not necessarily.
This whole debate is kicked off not by penalties or sanctions, but by an awareness campaign.

Highlighting behaviours that, if improved upon, might contribute to reducing collisions on our roads can have an impact as well.
I agree that when coupled with enforcement the impact is even stronger, but even just highlighting these behaviours can still help.

If enforcement was all that mattered, why bother with all the safe passing distance advertising?

carfinder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Should truck drivers be driving at 100km/h on winding roads?

No, but thats hardly the point. The 100kph may not be relevant. HGV's being limited to 80kph. The example mentioned 50-60kph and was not limited to winding roads. There are pictures of straight, no overtake roads (eg sections of N4) on this very thread so its a bit disingenuous of you to pose a question based on the maximum permitted speed on the worst possible road shape when, often, the issue is experienced on straight sections of our National Primary roads (with hard shoulders).

hesker

All this reminds me of a story my brother told me. He drives a HGV for a living. He was driving along keeping just under the speed limit required. N road, single lane each way with hard shoulder. A guy came up behind impatient to overtake and started flashing and blowing the horn. Brother is not permitted to drive in the hard shoulder so not much he could do. Guy eventually overtook and then veered over to the hard shoulder, gesticulating to show where he reckoned he thought my brother should be. While he wasn’t watching the road carefully a car stuck its nose out from a side road and your man ploughed straight into him.

Paddigol

hesker wrote: »

All this reminds me of a story my brother told me. He drives a HGV for a living. He was driving along keeping just under the speed limit required. N road, single lane each way with hard shoulder. A guy came up behind impatient to overtake and started flashing and blowing the horn. Brother is not permitted to drive in the hard shoulder so not much he could do. Guy eventually overtook and then veered over to the hard shoulder, gesticulating to show where he reckoned he thought my brother should be. While he wasn’t watching the road carefully a car stuck its nose out from a side road and your man ploughed straight into him.

Couldn't possibly have happened. Car drivers pay attention at all times, are noble guardians of the road with sage-like wisdom and are never at fault. Must've been a cyclist your brother saw.

carfinder

Paddigol wrote: »

Couldn't possibly have happened. Car drivers pay attention at all times, are noble guardians of the road with sage-like wisdom and are never at fault. Must've been a cyclist your brother saw.

Yes, the gesticulating gave it away:pac:

Tombo2001

blackwhite wrote: »

Not necessarily.
This whole debate is kicked off not by penalties or sanctions, but by an awareness campaign.

Highlighting behaviours that, if improved upon, might contribute to reducing collisions on our roads can have an impact as well.
I agree that when coupled with enforcement the impact is even stronger, but even just highlighting these behaviours can still help.

If enforcement was all that mattered, why bother with all the safe passing distance advertising?

Indeed, its very questionable if its had impact at all. Plus, the guards wont act on it.

In this day and age, its questionable whether you can run an awareness campaign? No one will see it on Netflix.

What I do think makes a difference is more road signage - make sure people know they are breaking the limit.

tomasrojo

carfinder wrote: »

No, but thats hardly the point. The 100kph may not be relevant. HGV's being limited to 80kph. The example mentioned 50-60kph and was not limited to winding roads. There are pictures of straight, no overtake roads (eg sections of N4) on this very thread so its a bit disingenuous of you to pose a question based on the maximum permitted speed on the worst possible road shape when, often, the issue is experienced on straight sections of our National Primary roads (with hard shoulders).

Can you stop the bolded bit?

Ok, another question. Is it a tailback if it's travelling at 60km/h? Seems a bit fast for "tailback" which is basically a long traffic jam. A traffic jam travelling at 1km per minute?

Actually, you said being "stuck" in a "queue", now I check it. Ok, are you really "stuck in a queue" if you're travelling at 1km per minute?

carfinder

Are we debating semantics? Of course, if you are in a line of traffic, moving slower than your desired legally permitted speed, you are in a queue to overtake the slower traffic which will be one or more of the traffic in front of you. If I am interpreting your point correctly I would only agree with your sentiment if the line of traffic was travelling at the legal maximum.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Can you stop the bolded bit?

Ok, another question. Is it a tailback if it's travelling at 60km/h? Seems a bit fast for "tailback" which is basically a long traffic jam. A traffic jam travelling at 1km per minute?

Actually, you said being "stuck" in a "queue", now I check it. Ok, are you really "stuck in a queue" if you're travelling at 1km per minute?

tomasrojo

carfinder wrote: »

Are we debating semantics? Of course, if you are in a line of traffic, moving slower than your desired legally permitted speed, you are in a queue to overtake the slower traffic which will be one or more of the traffic in front of you. If I am interpreting your point correctly I would only agree with your sentiment if the line of traffic was travelling at the legal maximum.

That's one fast-moving queue.