dukedalton wrote: » Do you read through the thread, or just pick out one post and start tapping away from there? I've said this three times already- and just for you, I'll say it a fourth time:I don't have a problem with people slowing down to take a bend. Now, is that clear? While I'm at it, I might as well say I don't have a problem with people slowing if there's three foot pot holes, a hurricane, tornado or monsoon. I'll even make an exception for someone dipping under the speed limit it there's a body lying on the road in front of them. But the speed limit is there for a reason. If conditions are good, and none of the above is present, then drive to the limit! Comprende?
Iwannahurl wrote: » Read my post: not just at bends, is what I said. You have attempted to define the posted speed limit as the "maximum speed at which it is safe to travel". Can you point to an authoritative source for that definition?
dukedalton wrote: » Why would the Road Safety Authority advertise a speed limit that is unsafe?
Iwannahurl wrote: » Are you working on assumption and personal interpretation then? Has the RSA or AGS stated anywhere officially that the posted speed limit is "safe" in any given location or circumstance? What you said was "maximum speed at which it is safe to travel". Have you got a definitive, independent source for that?
dukedalton wrote: » Deary me. How do you think the RSA come to decide a speed limit for a road? Presumably they do testing of some sort to decide what is safe/unsafe? (Otherwise, there would be no need for an RSA, presumably.)
rogieop wrote: » you are an idiot. Hand in your driving license. please. you make commuting to work a nightmare for people. You stay in the lane as far to the left as possible untill you need to overtake. once you have over taken you return to the lane closest to the left as possible. As long as you watch yuor own speed you need not worry about others.
Iwannahurl wrote: » Deary deary me, you seem to be doing a lot of presuming. What you said was "safe". I'm still waiting for an explicit, definitive, authoritative source for that claim. You can presume that presumption is not sufficient. Evidence please.http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/roads_and_safety/road_traffic_speed_limits_in_ireland.html
dukedalton wrote: » Common sense, you see. It's how most of us get through life. If/when you did your test, do you remember that section called "Reasonable Progress". Look it up and come back to us and tell us what you found By the way, remember this conversation next time you're on a straight stretch of road and the person in front of you is doing 40k/h below the speed limit.
An applicant should make reasonable progress moving off, on the straight, overtaking, at cross-junctions, at roundabouts, turning right, turning left, changing lanes, and at traffic lights, or a fault may be recorded for 'Progress' as appropriate Examples of 'Progress' faults include: When an applicant intends to turn right and waits at a stop line when traffic lights are on green, and it is feasible to go forward towards the centre of the junction. Where an applicant waits at a stop line for a green arrow to come on when a full green light is showing. Where an applicant waits at a stop line for a full green light to come on when a green Arrow or flashing amber arrow is showing for the direction to be taken. Where an applicant does not avail of an acceptable gap in traffic to proceed. Where an applicant stays too far back from the vehicle in front while driving along. Where an applicant stops too far back from the vehicle in front. Where an applicant makes slow progress on the approach to a left or right turn, having been given a direction by the tester to make the turn. Where an applicant intends to go directly ahead at a Cross Junction which is controlled by traffic lights, a fault may be recorded for 'Progress at Traffic Lights' where the applicant does not proceed on a green light. Stopping 'short' at a junction for no good reason.
Shenshen wrote: » If I'm reading this correctly, a non-national road outside of built-up areas would have a blanket standard speed limit of 80 kph, no matter the state of the road (width, bend, surface condition, visibility, etc.), and only if the local council makes a conscious decision will that limit be lowered on any stretch of road? That would explain a good few insane speed limits in this country all right.
Fuinseog wrote: » lets not get personal. so you advocate breaking the speed limit?
summerskin wrote: » Yes, I overtook about 11 cars on one straight stretch, 4 on the next, and then overtook the middle aged man with hairy cheeks driving the Yaris and beeped my horn at him, gave him the universal hand gesture for "wánker" and felt much better for it. It's nigh on impossible to not tailgate a car driving that slowly. The cars behind it we all tailgating each other, hence the need for me to pass them all at once. The man was a dangerous driver.
--Kaiser-- wrote: » If you cannot drive at a reasonable speed you should not be driving at all. End of
Fuinseog wrote: » so you advocate breaking the speed limit?
Using lanes properly It is very important that you understand the purpose of each lane on a motorway. To help explain how and when to move from one lane to another, each lane is given a number. Lane 1 is the lane nearest the hard shoulder. This is also known as the inside lane. On a two-lane motorway, the lane nearest the central median is lane 2 (also called the outside lane). On a three-lane motorway, this lane is lane 3.Lane 1 The normal 'keep left' rule applies. Stay in this lane unless you are overtaking.Lane 2 On a two-lane motorway, use this for overtaking only and move back into lane 1 when you have finished. You may also use this lane to accommodate traffic merging from the left. On a three-lane motorway, you may stay in this centre lane while there is slower moving traffic in lane 1.Lane 3 If you are travelling on a three-lane motorway, you must use this lane only if traffic in lanes 1 and 2 is moving in queues and you need to overtake or accommodate merging traffic. Once you've finished overtaking, move back to your left and allow faster traffic coming from behind to pass by.
Topper Harley wrote: » Other people speeding is not your concern. It's not your job to police the roads. Familiarise yourself with this: Rules of the Road - On the Motorway
Topper Harley wrote: » This is exactly the kind of wrong thinking which causes the M50 to go from three lanes to two lanes with an empty lane on the left. Always drive left, overtake on the right. That's the correct way to drive on any motorway and the speed of other drivers isn't your concern. If you are driving correctly, you usually won't need to get out of the way, you'll already be out of the way except when you are briefly overtaking, when you're entitled to use the right lane.
Iwannahurl wrote: » By the same token other people breaking any of the road rules is not your concern. Presumably.
doolox wrote: » Overzealous enforcement of limits causes pile-ups.
doolox wrote: » We are reaching the situation in this country when a pile up will happen because of overzealous enforcement of unduly low speed limits on what I call Revenue Roads; Busy, wide dual carriageways with ridiculously low speed limits of 60 or 80 kph where a majority of the users persistently go 10 to 20 kph faster than the posted speed limit and to go at the speed limit causes hold ups and weaving traffic and aggravation to other road users. We are being told until we are sick in the face being told that excessive speed is dangerous but it is also true that untypically slow speeds in an inappropriate place is also hazardous to other road users. While trucks and other speed-limited vehicles are forbidden from using the outer lane of most multilane roads a lot of them do so at 100kph, much to the frustration of faster cars and bikes coming up behind them. Some car drivers insist on driving in the outer lane at 20kph below the speed limit forcing traffic to undertake or otherwise endanger themselves and others by their thoughtless behaviour. Somewhat analagous to formation flying of bombers in WW2, close formation driving, forced on other road users by slow drivers in the outside lane is dangerous, requires a lot of concentration at long distances and should be avoided at all costs. I usually try and get by them but undertaking is illegal in most jurisdictions and inadvisable. The other alternative is to slow down and drift back out of the pile of cars until such time as the slow driver in the overtakeing lane move back to the slower lanes, usually to exit the motorway and then you can be on your merry way. If any mistake is made in such a pile of slow moving cars it can result in a multicar pile up. Slow drivers should minimise their use of the outer lane and keep and eye on their rear view mirror, many do not do this.
dukedalton wrote: » 1. Apparently the speed limit has nothing to do with how fast people should go. We should all decide to go at whatever (slow speed) we judge safest. 2. The implied assumption of the phrase "speed kills" is that you are a danger if you drive too fast. And I do agree, speeding does kill. But driving too slow is also a hazard. Would be interesting to know how many crashes are caused by drivers being frustrated by unreasonably slow moving vehicles.
Iwannahurl wrote: » 1. Quote/link? 2. Motorists who like to drive fast seem to be fond of the "slowness kills" mantra. I suspect the causes of crashes allegedly due to "frustration" are not simply down to "unreasonably slow" drivers, and that there are a number of factors at play. There is some evidence that crashes are caused by speed variation, which is another theory popular among drivers who resent speed controls, but AFAIK the evidence is not as strong as it is for the risks associated with higher speed. .
dukedalton wrote: » 1. For someone who chided me earlier for making presumptions, you're awfully fond of it yourself. 2. Do you have a link for any of the pearls of wisdom you present? 3. Just to be clear, in case you box me into the category you've described, I have no points on my licence, and I make a point not to speed. And anyway, whether you speed or not is irrelevant to the nuisance of slow-moving drivers.
Iwannahurl wrote: » Motorists who like to drive fast seem to be fond of the "slowness kills" mantra. I suspect the causes of crashes allegedly due to "frustration" are not simply down to "unreasonably slow" drivers, and that there are a number of factors at play. There is some evidence that crashes are caused by speed variation, which is another theory popular among drivers who resent speed controls, but AFAIK the evidence is not as strong as it is for the risks associated with higher speed. .
Stovepipe wrote: » Well, I had the pleasure of seeing one aggressive tailgater get his come-uppance, of a sort. I was going over Bohernabreena, towards the M50 and was just after passing the reservoir at the top when a guy in a big SUV came right up behind me, lights flashing, horn going, the whole lot. I had just slowed down, because I knew it was the time when deer go back uphill into the trees for the night and they often come out of the fenceline on the left as you descend. I had narrowly missed one the evening before and had seen them frequently. So I slowed right down and SUV guy overtakes in a fierce hurry, angry written all over him, fingers, roars,etc. Just in time for three deer, one mother and two young, to appear out of the fenceline. The mother and one stopped at once but one kept going and was promptly mowed down by SUV guy. I waved as I went by and I didn't use my whole hand. Pity a deer had to die to put manners on yer man. regards Stovepipe
el diablo wrote: » Idiots that potter along at 70-100KPH in the overtaking lane of a motorway (with no cars in front of them) and totally oblivious to a line a traffic behind them really piss me off. :mad:
