Need to vent my anger - slow drivers

iblis · 08-08-2007 07:00PM

cyclopath2001 wrote:

It would not be the first time that a government agency has made a mistake.

Maybe the law should have been updated? That would be a mistake by a government agency also.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

It would depend on the circumstances, particularly the speed and also the conditions and if any pedestrians complained. Certainly, if anything goes wrong during the manoeuvre, it would be taken into consideration.

If anything goes wrong, or pedestrians/cyclist were present I would consider it not safe to have done so. That's dangerous/careless driving and I agree completely.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Maybe it would help if I compared driving on the 'hard shoulder' to cycling on a footpath? That's an offence that usually animates drivers to write letters to the Times.

No. But if you compared driving in cycle lanes to cyling on footpaths I would completely and wholeheartedly agree.

cyclopath2001 · 08-08-2007 07:26PM

iblis wrote:

No. But if you compared driving in cycle lanes to cycling on footpaths I would completely and wholeheartedly agree.

But you'd be partly wrong (legally speaking that is), the regulations in that same SI were explicitly amended in 1998 (by Bobby Molloy) to permit driving in cycle lanes which have a broken white line on the right. Only driving in a cycle track which has a continuous white line to the right is prohibited.

But it is an interesting that drivers are generally adamant that driving along a 'hard shoulder' is permissible (even though it's clearly unlawful) whereas cycling on a footway is not.

MrPudding · 08-08-2007 07:37PM

Darragh29 wrote:

according to the Road Safety Authority and the Gardai, you are the number one cause of carnage on our roads.

Apparently not:

http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/upload/2005%20Road%20Collision%20Facts.pdf

Page 33, table 36.

Other Action 34.1%
Went to Wrong Side of Road 26.5%
Drove through stop/yield sign 16.2%
Exceeded Safe Speed 12.9%

So thatwould be number 4 cause then....

MrP

MrPudding · 09-08-2007 07:46AM

cyclopath2001 wrote:

But it is an interesting that drivers are generally adamant that driving along a 'hard shoulder' is permissible (even though it's clearly unlawful)

Very few people base their driving on the statute book, it is a pain to follow. My understanding is this is what the rules of the road are for, the road traffic act for the layman, or at least an interpretation of it.

As far as you are concerned, pulling briefly onto the hard shoulder briefly to allow a car to pass, without coming to a stop is illegal. You are quite certain of this. The rules of the road does not have your certainly, it is slightly ambiguous. I would be surprised if any driver making a reasonable interpretation of the rules of the road was prosecuted.

I have asked before, but I will try again. Are you aware of anyone who has been prosecuted, or even charged with an offence, when following the rules of the road, where it appears that the action is illegal under the RTA but it is a bit woolly in the rules of the road?

MrP

iblis · 09-08-2007 09:30AM

cyclopath2001 wrote:

But you'd be partly wrong (legally speaking that is), the regulations in that same SI were explicitly amended in 1998 (by Bobby Molloy) to permit driving in cycle lanes which have a broken white line on the right. Only driving in a cycle track which has a continuous white line to the right is prohibited.

But it is an interesting that drivers are generally adamant that driving along a 'hard shoulder' is permissible (even though it's clearly unlawful) whereas cycling on a footway is not.

lol, you clearly have your own agenda here!

Just to clarify, I do not in anyway condone driving along a hard shoulder per se. I believe this is what the law directs you against doing. As the Dáil statement said it is not a traffic lane. However I see a difference between (A) making brief use of the hard shoulder, while it is safe to do so, and in order to increase the safety of an overtaking maneouvre and (B) using it as a traffic lane.

I do take your point about cycle tracks, nitpicking as it may be. I will happily amend my statement from:

iblis wrote:

No. But if you compared driving in cycle lanes to cycling on footpaths I would completely and wholeheartedly agree.

to:
No. But if you compared driving in a cycle track which has a continuous white line to the right to cycling on footpaths I would completely and wholeheartedly agree.
as this is the point I was making.

Also if you compared making brief use of a hard shoulder while there are pedestrians/cyclists in your path to cycling on a footpath which is in use by pedestrians I would agree.

And again, if you compared making brief use of a hard shoulder while there are no pedestrians/cyclists in the immediate vicinity (and you can clearly see that this is the case, no assumptions) to cycling on a footpath which is deserted (and you can clearly see that this is the case, no assumptions) I would agree.

GTC · 09-08-2007 09:51AM

Kaiser2000 wrote:

As most people here know, I generally don't have much time for the Gardai (and with good cause as I've given examples of in the past), but I have to say fair play to GTC here for displaying the common sense, honesty and flexibility that I wish more of his colleagues had.

As to your comment about being stuck behind morons - I think that's because a lot of people either freeze or err dramatically on the side of caution simply because you DON'T know what the Garda will do if you stray a few km over the limit, and with fines and instant penalty points it's just not worth the risk to most people.

If the force made a concerted effort to improve its public image by actively enforcing the law fairly and reasonably in the same manner as you seem to, and people knew that they won't be done for something like going a few km over on a motorway/wide, straight road (and I mean a few km) but that the Garda WILL come down on them for taking the piss or dangerous/inconsiderate driving, then I think it'd be a good start to improving driver behaviour on the roads.

Very true!! Sometimes there is a great cloud of mystery over how a Garda thinks. (TBH, half of them are still mysteries to me!)

Pootling along at lower speeds when a squad car comes shooting along at 120/130 km/h is hardly safe driving. Move into the shoulder for a few seconds and we are past you in 3 or 4 seconds anyway. What's the fuss?

GTC · 09-08-2007 09:55AM

No drivers are prosecuted for using the hard shoulder to let drivers by. So long as they do not remain driving in the hard shoulder for extended periods or around blind bends etc. And use your judgement, if it's safe to use the hard shoulder, fine. If you're under the impression that driving is a right because you pay your road taxes and can drive however you feel; you are wrong. Driving is a priviledge and showing due care and consideration to other drivers is essential in preventing road rage.

There is a penalty points offence for driving in the hard shoulder on motorway or dual carraigeway (IIRC), but obviously this doesn't apply to single lane roads.

I would agree with MrP on a point he has raised many times in the past. Inappropriate speed kills. If you are too far off the posted speed limit on either side of the speedo, you are driving dangerously, i.e. too slow or too fast.

cyclopath2001 · 09-08-2007 05:46PM

iblis wrote:

And again, if you compared making brief use of a hard shoulder while there are no pedestrians/cyclists in the immediate vicinity (and you can clearly see that this is the case, no assumptions) to cycling on a footpath which is deserted (and you can clearly see that this is the case, no assumptions) I would agree.

I'd disagree, cycling on the footpath, deserted or not is just as illegal as driving along on the hard shoulder.

Whether or not a Garda would chose to chose to prosecute either offence is a very different question. Drivers may choose to gamble on this, just was they do when breaking the lights (briefly) or exceeding the speed limit (briefly). or parking on a footpath (briefly), or overtaking illegally (briefly) but they are taking a legal and safety risk. But, more to the point, it is completely wrong for fast drivers to criticise or bully slower ones who choose not to break the law and instead drive only on the roadway.

Let's all adhere to the law and high safety standards.

astraboy · 09-08-2007 06:02PM

cyclopath2001 wrote:

But, more to the point, it is completely wrong for fast drivers to criticise or bully slower ones who choose not to break the law and instead drive only on the roadway.

Let's all adhere to the law and high safety standards.

Its also wrong for a slow driver to be totally unaware that they are holding everone up, and not have the good courtesy to pull over and let others pass.

astraboy · 09-08-2007 06:02PM

cyclopath2001 wrote:

But, more to the point, it is completely wrong for fast drivers to criticise or bully slower ones who choose not to break the law and instead drive only on the roadway.

Let's all adhere to the law and high safety standards.

Its also wrong for a slow driver to be totally unaware that they are holding everone up, and not have the good courtesy to pull over and let others pass.

peasant · 09-08-2007 06:09PM

I don't care where they're driving ...anyone doing more than 20% under the safe speed and/or the speed limit in a vehicle that is capable of going faster and holding up others while doing so ...deserves to be taken out and shot

(alternatively be fined 100 Euro and get 2 points)

cyclopath2001 · 09-08-2007 06:10PM

astraboy wrote:

Its also wrong for a slow driver to be totally unaware that they are holding everone up, and not have the good courtesy to pull over and let others pass.

It is indeed illegal to drive without due care or attention. It is, in fact, illegal to overtake if this causes inconvenience to anyone. But, is it illegal for a driver not to be courteous?

It's interesting to see how drivers who so often insist that everyone (else) should obey the law, change tack when it becomes the law becomes an inconvenience.

Our society depends on law-abiding citizens, let's abide by the laws.

astraboy · 09-08-2007 06:18PM

cyclopath2001 wrote:

It is indeed illegal to drive without due care or attention. It is, in fact, illegal to overtake if this causes inconvenience to anyone. But, is it illegal for a driver not to be courteous?

It's interesting to see how drivers who so often insist that everyone (else) should obey the law, change tack when it becomes the law becomes an inconvenience.

Our society depends on law-abiding citizens, let's abide by the laws.

Our society also depends on people displaying common courtesy and taking others into account when considering ones actions. If you want to pootle along 20mph under the limit on a road and in conditions where the limit is perfectly safe, fine, it is a free country. But do not force others to do your speed, pull in and prevent people getting fustrated(understandably) and taking risks. Slow drivers are a danger also. If you can't handle driving near the speed limit when conditions allow, you should not be on the road, simple as.

cyclopath2001 · 09-08-2007 06:22PM

astraboy wrote:

Slow drivers are a danger also. If you can't handle driving near the speed limit when conditions allow, you should not be on the road, simple as.

Nonsense, slow drivers are not a danger. That's just blame transfer.

What if you are elderly and drive carefully within your ability?

Does taking others into account only work one way...in favour of young, fast drivers?

peasant · 09-08-2007 06:29PM

cyclopath2001 wrote:

What if you are elderly and drive carefully within your ability?

If pootling along at 60 km/h on a perfectly good road is all your ability allows for, then I wouldn't call that an "ability"

Time to avail of the bus pass (selling the car will also buy a good few taxi rides)

astraboy · 09-08-2007 06:33PM

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Nonsense, slow drivers are not a danger. That's just blame transfer.

What if you are elderly and drive carefully within your ability?

Does taking others into account only work one way...in favour of young, fast drivers?

Thats fine, pootle along at a speed you like but pull over if you are holding people up. You cannot, and do not have the right to hold up everyone
going in the same direction as you because you feel like it. Slow drivers are a danger, they aggrivate other drivers
and lets be honest, most of the slow coaches I have seen are unaware of whats going on and do not indicate when they finally
pull off the road. A lot of the roads over here in the US where I am now have a min speed, which is a great idea.
ALso people drive at the limit on most roads when they can, meaning everyone makes good progress.

Also, not all young drivers are fast, and not all fast drivers are young.

cyclopath2001 · 09-08-2007 07:02PM

astraboy wrote:

Slow drivers are a danger, they aggrivate other drivers

Utter tosh. Drivers who allow their tempers to affect their driving are dangerous. The sooner they accumulate enough points to be be put off the road, the better.

peasant wrote:

If pootling along at 60 km/h on a perfectly good road is all your ability allows for, then I wouldn't call that an "ability" Time to avail of the bus pass (selling the car will also buy a good few taxi rides)

That's a very fascist view. Perhaps these people don't live near a taxi or bus service and depend on a motor car for mobility? Is there no room in your world for people whose driving ability is, although not dangerous, inferior to your masterly control of what is, no doubt a splendid piece, of engineering?

astraboy · 09-08-2007 07:10PM

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Utter tosh. Drivers who allow their tempers to affect their driving are dangerous. The sooner they accumulate enough points to be be put off the road, the better.

That's a very fascist view. Perhaps these people don't live near a taxi or bus service and depend on a motor car for mobility? Is there no room in your world for people whose driving ability is, although not dangerous, inferior to your masterly control of what is, no doubt a splendid piece, of engineering?

Ok, I'll drive home at 25mph along a national secondary route some day because I feel like it. When someone goes to pass me out, I will speed up(behaviour similar of most of these drivers) and then people take risks to get past me. At the end of the day, I am forcing someone to make a decision due to my behaviour on the road. If you can't handle driving at a resaonable speed, you should be off the road. Driving is not a right, if you can't do it at a reasonable level of skill then get the bloody bus.

Darragh29 · 09-08-2007 07:19PM

astraboy wrote:

Ok, I'll drive home at 25mph along a national secondary route some day because I feel like it. When someone goes to pass me out, I will speed up(behaviour similar of most of these drivers) and then people take risks to get past me. At the end of the day, I am forcing someone to make a decision due to my behaviour on the road. If you can't handle driving at a resaonable speed, you should be off the road. Driving is not a right, if you can't do it at a reasonable level of skill then get the bloody bus.

Sounds like you're in the "get the fu*k out of my gang". I've never seen anyone in my life driving at 25MPH on a secondary road, what are you on about???

astraboy · 09-08-2007 07:22PM

Darragh29 wrote:

Sounds like you're in the "get the fu*k out of my gang". I've never seen anyone in my life driving at 25MPH on a secondary road, what are you on about???

National secondary routes, such as the one between Cork and Clonakilty(or is it a national primary road, if it is my mistake!)? I was trying to prove a point regarding slow drivers, that was all.

cyclopath2001 · 09-08-2007 07:24PM

astraboy wrote:

When someone goes to pass me out, I will speed up(behaviour similar of most of these drivers)

That would be illegal.

Darragh29 · 09-08-2007 07:26PM

astraboy wrote:

National secondary routes, such as the one between Cork and Clonakilty(or is it a national primary road, if it is my mistake!)? I was trying to prove a point regarding slow drivers, that was all.

I dunno, I'm not the one on here giving out about people driving on it!

peasant · 09-08-2007 07:40PM

cyclopath2001 wrote:

That's a very fascist view. Perhaps these people don't live near a taxi or bus service and depend on a motor car for mobility? Is there no room in your world for people whose driving ability is, although not dangerous, inferior to your masterly control of what is, no doubt a splendid piece, of engineering?

It's not fascist, it's realistic.

If you're not (no longer) able to drive on a road the way its meant and designed to be driven on ...then you shouldn't drive.

If you don't feel safe doing a reasonable speed then you obviously aren't.

Holding other people up is just one part of the story ...what about your ability to control the car in an emergency, what about your reaction times?

You say people have a right to mobility ...how about letting kids drive to school themselves then?

In order to use the roads safely and not to endanger others you have to have certain skills and abilities ...whosoever hasn't, mustn't.

And believe me, it pains me to say this, because I'm closer to the bus pass than most here ...but I hope that I will be sensible enough to give up driving when I'm no longer able to do so properly.

As for my "splendidly engineered" transportation ...

*giggles*

cyclopath2001 · 09-08-2007 08:30PM

peasant wrote:

If you're not (no longer) able to drive on a road the way its meant and designed to be driven on ....reasonable speed ...then you shouldn't drive.

Please describe 'the way its meant and designed to be driven on', 'reasonable speed' and provide legal references. Maybe your idea of these concepts needs some examination.

Holding other people up is just one part of the story ...what about your ability to control the car in an emergency, what about your reaction times?

By driving within one's ability, one has more time to react.

You say people have a right to mobility ...how about letting kids drive to school themselves then?

They're too young.

certain skills and abilities ...whosoever hasn't, mustn't.

You mean that they've passed a medical examination required for their license renewal?

peasant · 09-08-2007 09:20PM

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Please describe 'the way its meant and designed to be driven on', 'reasonable speed' and provide legal references. Maybe your idea of these concepts needs some examination.

Ochh ...will you ever go away with your *** legal references.

How about some insight and responsibility on behalf of the driver?

When someone knows themselves that they can't hack it anymore (and hence drive slowly) they should just show some responsible behaviour and admit to themselves that it might just be safer for them and all the others on the road to just stop driving ...without the nanny state having to tell them so.

My ninetythree year old granny has the legal right to go skateboarding in the local halfpipe. She could do it slowly (and annoy everybody else) ...but she knows that she's too old for that sh*it ...so she doesn't

GreeBo · 09-08-2007 09:27PM

GTC wrote:

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. The double slip road entry is, (I imagine) for very busy junctions, where merging is done in a staggered fashion to allow two lanes of merging traffic to join the motorway. It is best if both lanes got up to speed asap, to allow more smooth merging with the motorway/dual carraigeway.

It is of no safety benefit to slow down and block other drivers, it only serves to increase road rage and fatique, and contributes to our collisions. Speed is a factor in accidents, but rarely (it must be said) is it singled out as the cause. If people can't drive at a safe speed (either direction of the speedo with regard to the limit) it is dangerous and ignorant.

the problem with this is the idiot already on the motorway who speeds up to prevent you merging and then matches pace with you because they think they have more of a right to be there than you have to merge

ninty9er · 09-08-2007 09:33PM

cyclopath2001 wrote:

They're too young.

Maybe they'd less of a hazard than the slowcoaches on our roads. but mabye isn't are so that's one nil to the schoolkids!!

cyclopath2001 · 09-08-2007 09:54PM

peasant wrote:

Ochh ...will you ever go away with your *** legal references.

So, we'll just let you decide who can drive and who cannot?

ninty9er wrote:

Maybe they'd less of a hazard than the slowcoaches on our roads. but mabye isn't are so that's one nil to the schoolkids!!

There seems to be an unfounded assumption here that slow drivers are dangerous.

Doesn't this conflict what we know from RTA statistics?

I suppose that just like asking certain motorists here to respect both our elders and our laws, asking for factual evidence would be bad manners?

peasant · 09-08-2007 10:10PM

cyclopath2001 wrote:

So, we'll just let you decide who can drive and who cannot?

You CAN read, can you?
That's not what I said

I suppose that just like asking certain motorists here to respect both our elders and our laws.

Well aren't you a nice young man ...ever so law abiding and respectful

sorry, but no!

I have no respect for anyone (elder or otherwise) who by sheer singlemindedness inconveniences large amounts of others and also puts them into danger (never mind themselves)

Whether the law has explicitly ordered those people off the road or not is rather beside the point

And yes, slow drivers are a risk on the road.

Simple example:
You come round a blind bend on a normal, good road and see a tractor in front of you. You know that a tractor is a slow moving vehicle, hence you can react quickly and slow down, if neccesary.

Come round the same bend to see a normal car in front of you ...you can reasonably expect it to be doing a speed near enough the limit or the speed which is appropriate for the conditions (which, unless you're speeding, is near enough your own speed).
You do NOT expect it to be a mobile roadblock. By the time you realise that they are, a dangerous situation may have developed.

Esel · 09-08-2007 10:31PM

peasant wrote:

Come round the same bend to see a normal car in front of you ...you can reasonably expect it to be doing a speed near enough the limit or the speed which is appropriate for the conditions (which, unless you're speeding, is near enough your own speed).
You do NOT expect it to be a mobile roadblock. By the time you realise that they are, a dangerous situation may have developed.

If the car in question was not in front of you previously, then no, you can't reasonably expect that. Such assumptions are dangerous, imo.

Need to vent my anger - slow drivers

Comments