Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Slow drivers.... Slow for a reason...

1…1011121416

Comments

  • #392
    Duckjob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    mgn wrote: »
    So do i,but i also pay a separate tax and insurance to allowed to drive on a road cyclist don't.

    You should really educate yourself on what taxes you pay and what they're for.

    The motor tax (the clue is in the name) is an emissions tax that you pay to offset the environmental damage you do every time you drive your car, and the wear and tear you do to the roads every time you drive your car on them. Paying motor tax doesn't give you any entitlement over any other road user.

    The roads themselves are paid for by everybody who pays income tax.


  • #393
    kirving
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,302 ✭✭✭kirving


    jmayo wrote: »
    Then there should be a special place in hell for the fookers that will just sit behind someone going a fair bit under the limit.
    These spanners no matter how good the road and how good the conditions will not dare overtake.
    This then means others have to overtake both them and the eejit at the head of the queue.

    My car can overtake quicker than most. Nothing crazy, but more power than I need to safely overtake in most circumstances, and more often than not, I use it.

    In a 65km section of road I often drive, there is just 4 safe overtaking places. I know the road very well, and there's nothing I can do to change that

    I come up behind a slow driver on country roads, I'll sit there until the next place where I *know* I can overtake safely.

    The most dangerous incidences I've seen on the road, are due to impatient idiots who think they have a quick car, and try to overtake myself and the slower car on blind bends, or on a short straight that opposing traffic will enter quickly.

    Noone is forcing you to overtake, so there's no excuse doing it when you can't do it safely.


  • #394
    mgn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,898 ✭✭✭mgn


    Duckjob wrote: »
    You should really educate yourself on what taxes you pay and what they're for.

    The motor tax (the clue is in the name) is an emissions tax that you pay to offset the environmental damage you do every time you drive your car, and the wear and tear you do to the roads every time you drive your car on them. Paying motor tax doesn't give you any entitlement over any other road user.

    The roads themselves are paid for by everybody who pays income tax.

    I need to educate myself,Don't make me laugh.
    Motor Tax is an emission tax now,you haven't got a clue.


  • #395
    facehugger99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 7,943 ✭✭✭facehugger99


    beauf wrote: »
    Pretty sure if you could pass them easily it would be a non issue.

    So its about not being able to pass them easily. Overtake.

    ... and now about not having a luas in the middle of nowhere apparently.

    If you’re confused as to the topic being discussed, the thread title’s a good place to start.


  • #396
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,308 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    stop animal cruelty wrote: »
    Everyday. Everyday, she says she get hooted at and is the victim of road rage from other drivers. She said the beeping and hooting distresses her son.
    Going 30kmph for 20km without pulling in once would piss off a lot of people going to work.


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    Duckjob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    mgn wrote: »
    I need to educate myself,Don't make me laugh.
    Motor Tax is an emission tax now,you haven't got a clue.

    Yes, since 2008 it is directly related to emissions.

    Apologies if facts offend you :P


  • #398
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,863 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    mgn wrote: »
    So do i,but i also pay a separate tax and insurance to allowed to drive on a road cyclist don't.


    You pay insurance to cover the huge costs of the huge amount of damage done by motorists. Cyclists don't kill 2 or 3 people each week and maim many more. Cyclists don't destroy cars and walls and houses. Why would they need insurance?


    And yes, your motor tax has been based on emissions for about ten years.


    https://www.motortax.ie/OMT/motortaxinfotype.do


    And presumably, if you think a road user has to pay motor tax to use the road, do you push ambulances, hearses and diggers out of your way?


    Cordell wrote: »
    Now, about the slow drivers: they are part of the problem. Not the main part, but there is no need to dismiss their contribution to the problem.
    How much a part of the problem are they? Have any road deaths been down to slow drivers?

    mgn wrote: »
    Cyclists paying everything the law demands,which is nothing.

    Not everybody lives in a city where the have access to Bus/Tax/Luas and dart and need cars to get around.


    Indeed, lots of people insist on building their large house on a site from daddy and then expect the rest of the country to pay the price for getting every possible service up every boreen in the country.


    Duckjob wrote: »

    The roads themselves are paid for by everybody who pays income tax.
    Not just income tax - VAT, excise duties, CGT, LPT - roads are funded by all taxes, paid by everybody.

    mgn wrote: »
    I need to educate myself,Don't make me laugh.
    Motor Tax is an emission tax now,you haven't got a clue.
    Yep, that's it.


  • #399
    Cordell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,834 ✭✭✭Cordell


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    How much a part of the problem are they? Have any road deaths been down to slow drivers?
    They don't directly cause accidents, but they create the conditions for accidents. I will quote myself:
    Cordell wrote: »
    Accidents are almost never caused by a single person making a single mistake. Case in point, the impatient driver and the slow driver both contribute to the accident by creating the proper environment for it to happen. It does not matter who's to blame, or it only matters after the accident happens. Preventing it from happening must be the goal, and that can be achieved only if both drivers have the proper consideration for safety and the other drivers.


  • #400
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,863 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Cordell wrote: »
    They don't directly cause accidents, but they create the conditions for accidents. I will quote myself:
    Let's stop referring to 'accidents' - terminology designed to let motorists off the hook. You won't hear Gardai or RSA using that terminology. They are crashes or collisions.


    But rather than hypothetical scenarios, I was hoping for some concrete evidence - something comparable to the work done by the RSA that shows that inappropriate speed was a factor in about a third of road deaths.


  • #401
    Micky 32
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,628 ✭✭✭Micky 32


    Duckjob wrote: »
    Problem I have with that is that it assumes human behavior is fixed, whereas behavioral studies show consistently the opposite.

    I have a major problem with people not taking responsibility for their actions on the road. People need to be held to a higher standard of duty of care on the roads as a means of bringing up the standard generally.

    Lets look at where the danger level changes in the example we've talking about-

    - Empty road - No danger

    - Add 1 driver driving below the speed limit - Actually slightly less than normal danger (assuming driving at the speed limit= normal danger)

    - Add 1 car with patient driver that waits and makes a safe overtake - Still normal danger

    - Add 1 car with impatient driver that makes a dangerous overtake - HUGE instant spike in danger.

    The heightened level of danger does not exist until the impatient driver makes the decision to prioritise a couple of seconds of his/her own time over the safety of all those around him/her. Up until that point, all you have is annoyance, and annoyance doesn't kill anyone.

    Quite frankly, anybody who cannot deal with a bit of annoyance and keep it in check should not hold a licence. We need to change peoples mindset, or else get them off the road because people with this mindset will heighten the danger levels on the road whereever they are and whatever the situation.

    Just for curiosity, and honesty too. If you were driving slow and you had a large queue of vehicles behind you, would you have the courtesy to pull over ( if safe to do so)


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    Micky 32
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,628 ✭✭✭Micky 32


    beauf wrote: »
    70% the speed limit.



    72% the speed limit.

    Thank you for the lesson in mathematics.


  • #403
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,461 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Micky 32 wrote: »
    Just for curiosity, and honesty too. If you were driving slow and you had a large queue of vehicles behind you, would you have the courtesy to pull over ( if safe to do so)

    That also describes heavy traffic. Do you pull over in heavy traffic?


  • #404
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,461 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Micky 32 wrote: »
    Thank you for the lesson in mathematics.

    Why is one ok and the other isn't.... Perception?


  • #405
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,461 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    There is also this....

    https://youtu.be/wTVDpOaTGsc


  • #406
    Micky 32
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,628 ✭✭✭Micky 32


    beauf wrote: »
    Why is one ok and the other isn't.... Perception?

    You are talking crap now. Regarding heavy traffic they are different scenarios,


  • #407
    Micky 32
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,628 ✭✭✭Micky 32


    beauf wrote: »
    That also describes heavy traffic. Do you pull over in heavy traffic?

    So i’m guessing you are one of those who will never pull over if you were driving slow ?


  • #408
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,461 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Micky 32 wrote: »
    So i’m guessing you are one of those who will never pull over if you were driving slow ?

    I do but it got me fired from my job driving the hearse...


  • #409
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,461 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    .. I'm hoping it's not a problem with the new job.... Train driver...


  • #410
    Micky 32
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,628 ✭✭✭Micky 32


    beauf wrote: »
    .. I'm hoping it's not a problem with the new job.... Train driver...
    .


    I believe they can do 160kmhr in spots so i’ll doubt many you’d have to pull over for ;-)


  • #411
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,461 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    When I master the art of not pulling over (keeps getting me fired) I'm hoping to get my dream job.... Pace car driver..


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    beauf wrote: »
    That also describes heavy traffic. Do you pull over in heavy traffic?

    It describes nothing of the sort. Traffic implies the slow driver is obstructed by... traffic. In the example given, they aren't.

    Slow drivers are patently dangerous and if you can't drive at reasonable progress you should be off the road. I struggle to see that actual speed is the cause of alarm for the child described in the OP - it can be difficult to sense your actual speed vs surroundings. In reality it's probably that to get to the speed limit the lady, perhaps unwittingly, accelerates harshly. I'm speculating of course and won't pretend to know for sure.

    The limit "isn't a target" but in reality just because you can doesn't mean you should. Would you walk into a crack den and start lecturing the addicts about the choices they've made?

    Limits are wholesale too low vs reasonable countries and if it's safe at the limit and there are no extenuating conditions such as rain there is no reason not to travel at it. Not doing so is selfish and directly impacts everyone else on the road. Like cycling two abreast, or parking in a disabled bay.


  • #413
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,461 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    sdanseo wrote: »
    It describes nothing of the sort. Traffic implies the slow driver is obstructed by... traffic. In the example given, they aren't..

    Obstruction wasnt mentioned... If you mean the OP that's different...
    sdanseo wrote: »
    ....... Like cycling two abreast, or parking in a disabled bay.

    Isn't Cycling two abreast legal? The other (without the permit) isn't.


  • #414
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,461 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    sdanseo wrote: »
    ....Slow drivers are patently dangerous and if you can't drive at reasonable progress you should be off the road.....

    I assume you'll have some stats to say it's more dangerous than speeding and similar penalities so...


  • #415
    Hal3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 818 ✭✭✭Hal3000


    Drove home from Cork today. Flashed, tailgated and given the finger for doing 100km in the middle lane. Amount of people breaking the 60km enforcement limit near Naas is crazy. Hope they all get caught. We cannot drive in this country!


  • #416
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    beauf wrote: »
    Obstruction wasnt mentioned... If you mean the OP that's different...

    Exactly. Re-read what you quoted, and my reply.
    beauf wrote: »
    Isn't Cycling two abreast legal? The other (without the permit) isn't.

    Never said it was illegal. It's inconsiderate.
    Hal3000 wrote: »
    Drove home from Cork today. Flashed, tailgated and given the finger for doing 100km in the middle lane. Amount of people breaking the 60km enforcement limit near Naas is crazy. Hope they all get caught. We cannot drive in this country!

    Completely agree, but at the same time we have far too many people occupying the middle lane who shouldn't. Were you overtaking anyone at the time you were in it?
    Also completely agree re Naas, there's no excuse for tailgating people through a roadworks zone. Let natural selection take them.
    That type of extremely overt policing/enforcement for a stated reason (safety of workers, even if there never seems to be any there) is reasonable enough as opposed to shooting fish in a barrel.
    beauf wrote: »
    I assume you'll have some stats to say it's more dangerous than speeding and similar penalties so...

    I can only preach common sense in this regard, stats on accidents where someone speeds up to overtake are ultimately going to be disproportionately slated as "speed a factor" more quickly than anything else. It's an easy label with a very simple measurement for enforcement unlike the many other types of shoddy driving which aren't so easy to measure, and therefore aren't enforced.
    Not excusing the speeding, or the dangerous overtaking. But driving slowly when there's no reason to induces others to take risks as well as being wholly inconsiderate. It can also directly generate a risk, especially where there is a high variance between the speed being travelled and the general speed of traffic around. Best example is the slow merge onto a motorway where traffic doing 120 suddenly meets a car doing 60 and has to drop 60km/h quite quickly or take evasive action.


  • #417
    Hal3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 818 ✭✭✭Hal3000


    sdanseo wrote: »
    Exactly. Re-read what you quoted, and my reply.


    Completely agree, but at the same time we have far too many people occupying the middle lane who shouldn't. Were you overtaking anyone at the time you were in it?
    Also completely agree re Naas, there's no excuse for tailgating people through a roadworks zone. Let natural selection take them.
    That type of extremely overt policing/enforcement for a stated reason (safety of workers, even if there never seems to be any there) is reasonable enough as opposed to shooting fish in a barrel.

    I was doing 100 most of the way from Cork in the correct lane not the fast lane but the one beside it. I've precious cargo in my car and I'm not doing 120km.


  • #418
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    Hal3000 wrote: »
    I was doing 100 most of the way from Cork in the correct lane not the fast lane but the one beside it. I've precious cargo in my car and I'm not doing 120km.

    At least you tried, marks for effort. :rolleyes:

    There is no such thing as the fast lane. There is the driving lane, and one or more overtaking lanes.

    You stay as far to the left as you can (M50 accepted, auxilliary lane is for next exit, with the wider markings) unless overtaking.

    You mentioned the middle lane, the M8 only has two lanes. Which one is in the middle?

    It's sad that they don't teach this stuff in, you know, the driving test or something. Maybe that's something Lord Ross could set his sights to when he's finished working on the tender for the gold-plated toilets in Stepaside Garda Station.


  • #419
    Hal3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 818 ✭✭✭Hal3000


    sdanseo wrote: »
    At least you tried, marks for effort. :rolleyes:

    There is no such thing as the fast lane. There is the driving lane, and one or more overtaking lanes.

    You stay as far to the left as you can (M50 accepted, auxilliary lane is for next exit, with the wider markings) unless overtaking.

    You mentioned the middle lane, the M8 only has two lanes. Which one is in the middle?

    It's sad that they don't teach this stuff in, you know, the driving test or something. Maybe that's something Lord Ross could set his sights to when he's finished working on the tender for the gold-plated toilets in Stepaside Garda Station.

    Sorry the driving lane. I can do 100 as I please. I don't need lessons to go faster. I don't venture into the fast lane much except when overtaking.


  • #420
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 996 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Hal3000 wrote: »
    Sorry the driving lane. I can do 100 as I please. I don't need lessons to go faster. I don't venture into the fast lane much except when overtaking.

    ...

    There is no "fast lane"!


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 996 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    beauf wrote: »
    Obstruction wasnt mentioned... If you mean the OP that's different...



    Isn't Cycling two abreast legal?

    It is.

    It's also exceptionally inconsiderate.


Advertisement