Tailgating and Undertaking on Motorways

TheChizler · 07-07-2017 2:52pm

lawred2 wrote: »

not sure about that...

You're not sure about my experience?

GreeBo · 07-07-2017 2:56pm

Patww79 wrote: »

That's two cars that shouldn't be where they are then.

I'm sure they'll stick that on your headstone.

"It was only half his fault"

firemansam4 · 07-07-2017 7:20pm

TheChizler wrote:

At 120 km/h you should for safety, and courtesy to the driver you've just overtaken, leave 67 metres (2 seconds) before pulling back in to the left. Plenty of room for someone 10 feet from your bumper to be impatient and cut in. The only way to stop these impatient drivers is to cut in dangerously close to the overtaken vehicle yourself which for me isn't an option. Even with indicators on it rarely stops these dangerous cut-offs in my experience. Very frustrating when you're trying to drive safely and courteously by leaving the proper space before moving back to the left that someone (and even a line of people speeding bumper to bumper) will cut in to your left and effectively trap you in the wrong lane until they're past.

TheChizler wrote:

If they were leaving the proper gap behind you they wouldn't even be overtaking themselves until you were pulling in.

I think this concept seems to be lost on some people.
Even if the overtaking driver didn't indicate straight away there is absulutely no excuse to cut in dangerously and undertake.
Nothing drives me more mad than someone hogging the overtaking lane but the amount of people who seem to think tailgating and undertaking are OK is worrying.

kravmaga · 07-07-2017 10:39pm

siobhan08 wrote: »

So been working in Dublin for the first time the last week, so I have been up and down the motorways. I've really noticed how fond drivers are of tailgating other drivers and undercutting them if they don't move in fast enough.

Happened to me twice and seen it happen to a few other drivers.

The two drivers who did it do me both tried to get in front of me when coming up to the express lane at the toll by moving over early and going over the white lines at the very start of the lane while I waiting until the arrow that directs you to move over.

After the toll I stayed in the overtaking lane as I was overtaking a few other cars and both were so far up my back that If I braked suddenly It would have caused a serious crash. I was going a good bit over the speed limit and it still wasn't good enough for them.

When I was finished overtaking and intended to move over they didn't give me a chance and just flew up on my inside. Only saw them when I looked in my wing mirror to check the distance from the car I had just overtaken before starting to move over.

One was a van and other was car, the van in particular was going so fast I wouldn't be suprised if he wasn't too far off 180km when they went by me. They would have killed themselves or somebody else going the speeds they were if they crashed.

Is this a common occurance around commuting time?

Was shocked at the risks drivers took simply becase they were impatient.

Because Irish drivers dont know how to drive on a motorway, ie kept left rule.

I lived and worked in the UK and used the M25, M40,M6 , never saw under taking like here on the M50 in Dublin, impatient idiots risking their own lives and other road users.

Needs more Policing from Traffic division of AGS

Isambard · 08-07-2017 9:12am

TheChizler wrote: »

At 120 km/h you should for safety, and courtesy to the driver you've just overtaken, leave 67 metres (2 seconds) before pulling back in to the left. Plenty of room for someone 10 feet from your bumper to be impatient and cut in. The only way to stop these impatient drivers is to cut in dangerously close to the overtaken vehicle yourself which for me isn't an option. Even with indicators on it rarely stops these dangerous cut-offs in my experience. Very frustrating when you're trying to drive safely and courteously by leaving the proper space before moving back to the left that someone (and even a line of people speeding bumper to bumper) will cut in to your left and effectively trap you in the wrong lane until they're past.

If they were leaving the proper gap behind you they wouldn't even be overtaking themselves until you were pulling in.

I think that's nonsense, when you are passed a car you are still pulling away from it, so I can't seewhere the danger lies.67 metres is about 200feet or ,what?, 12 car lengths? One car length is fine by me and then you don't give anyone the chance to dive through underneath you.

magicbastarder · 08-07-2017 9:59am

Isambard wrote: »

when you are passed a car you are still pulling away from it

that doesn't bloody well matter. the gap is there in case something goes wrong, to give the person behind reaction time and braking time. you are not allowing for that, and the fact that you are going a bit faster is utterly immaterial if something then *does* go wrong.

at 100km/h, your 'adequate' one car length gap is covered five times a second by the car you're overtaking.

kirving · 08-07-2017 2:13pm

Tigger wrote: »

If you are undertaken then why are you in the overtaking lane
How are you being undertaken if you are overtaking a vehicle
It's hard to visualise

After you overtake a car, the correct thing to do is build up a little distance before pulling back in, so that you haven't eaten into their braking zone.

This is often not good enough for tailgaters who will immediately cut up the car you have just overtaken and proceed to undertake, leaving no time to even get back into the left lane.

kirving · 08-07-2017 2:16pm

Isambard wrote: »

I think that's nonsense, when you are passed a car you are still pulling away from it, so I can't seewhere the danger lies.67 metres is about 200feet or ,what?, 12 car lengths? One car length is fine by me and then you don't give anyone the chance to dive through underneath you.

That's incorrect and dangerous. Anyone who pulls in front of me leaving 1 car length at 120kph+ is leaving absolutely zero room for error.

Also very stupid to rely on the person they have just cut off's reaction time to prevent an accident, not their own.

Isambard · 08-07-2017 2:17pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

that doesn't bloody well matter. the gap is there in case something goes wrong, to give the person behind reaction time and braking time. you are not allowing for that, and the fact that you are going a bit faster is utterly immaterial if something then *does* go wrong.

at 100km/h, your 'adequate' one car length gap is covered five times a second by the car you're overtaking.

what's the difference between one car follwoing another in a lane at x distance and another overtaking a car and pulling into it's lane after x distance? To suggest that either gap should be 67 metres isn't tenable.

kirving · 08-07-2017 2:22pm

Why so? If you cut off my reaction distance and have to brake for some reason, then I hit you. The car in front almost always comes off worse in an rear ending accident due to the crumple zone design. Dangerous game you're playing.

magicbastarder · 08-07-2017 6:38pm

Isambard wrote: »

To suggest that either gap should be 67 metres isn't tenable.

why?

NickNickleby · 08-07-2017 7:01pm

GreeBo wrote: »

it's not strictly speaking, it's simply the law.

Come back to us when the guy in the middle pulls in on top of you as you aren't sopposed to be there.

It's very worrying that despite multiple people quoting the law to you two, you still believe your version of driving is better.

I'm honestly confused as to what bit you are not getting here?
It's.
The.
Law.

You'll need to go back through my posts for me and find where I contradicted ANYONE about the law on this. In one post I asked about my own experience and to see was it covered by the "if the traffic to the right is moving more slowly" exception in the law.

In response to the many clarifications offered I signed off with:
"Right, that's my motorway driving discipline sorted. Over to the roundabouts thread "

My post quoted by you above was in response to an unsolicited lecture from someone else, and was prompted by the tone of the post. Much like your own.
Some people are like those bores in pubs that invite themselves into a discussion and then proceed to self righteously 'lay down the law'.

There's nothing factually wrong with what they say, they just like to hear their own voices. But no one else does.

But I'm sure in your case, your hearts in the right place.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 08-07-2017 8:37pm

Tigger wrote: »

two cars did not under take someone driving at 95 mph
it did not happen

Why not?

dbagman wrote: »

Careful now, the concept of a long overtake is lost on some.....youre meant to keep jumping in and out of the left lane.......apparently.

Yea, if there's room to do so. Long overtakes as you call them, are selfish. "But sure i'll be overtaking the next lad soon enough"... :rolleyes:

Move over and let the cars behind you overtake. If they are breaking the law and it bothers you that much, report them, but I doubt it warrants such extreme measures.

GreeBo · 08-07-2017 9:16pm

NickNickleby wrote: »

You'll need to go back through my posts for me and find where I contradicted ANYONE about the law on this. In one post I asked about my own experience and to see was it covered by the "if the traffic to the right is moving more slowly" exception in the law.

In response to the many clarifications offered I signed off with:
"Right, that's my motorway driving discipline sorted. Over to the roundabouts thread "

My post quoted by you above was in response to an unsolicited lecture from someone else, and was prompted by the tone of the post. Much like your own.
Some people are like those bores in pubs that invite themselves into a discussion and then proceed to self righteously 'lay down the law'.

There's nothing factually wrong with what they say, they just like to hear their own voices. But no one else does.

But I'm sure in your case, your hearts in the right place.

Apologies if I upset you, had you confused with the rest of the MLM crew.

Oh and it's upper left, near the lung.

GreeBo · 08-07-2017 9:18pm

Isambard wrote: »

what's the difference between one car follwoing another in a lane at x distance and another overtaking a car and pulling into it's lane after x distance? To suggest that either gap should be 67 metres isn't tenable.

Sorry, you are saying that your X safe distance on a motorway is 1 car length?!

No wonder people hit each other every bloody day.
I despair.

NickNickleby · 09-07-2017 1:17am

GreeBo wrote: »

Apologies if I upset you, had you confused with the rest of the MLM crew.

Oh and it's upper left, near the lung.

Hahaha, thank you for the apology, but its really not necessary, and perhaps I came across as being a little bit sensitive.

As I suspected, your heart is in the right place!!

the_pen_turner · 09-07-2017 1:34am

I had o take a car trailer to Dublin a few months ago. I se the cruise control to 100 and sat there in the left lane in the m8 . as I was driving a car overtook me with an Audi tailgating it. as soon as there was about 1-2 car lengths the Audi swings into my lane to undertake.
I have a dash cam with a collision avoidance thing on it. it beeps if you get to need the car in front. he was so close that it went off. frightened the life out of me.

when I overtake I wait until I can start to see the overtaken vehicle in my mirror . this way I know exactly where it is. I got an awful fright one time. my van has no windows in the sides at the back so there is a huge blind spot in that situation. the car I over took didn't like that I did it and put the foot down. I didn't see him until the last moment . we almost crashed

lawred2 · 09-07-2017 10:22am

Isambard wrote: »

I think that's nonsense, when you are passed a car you are still pulling away from it, so I can't seewhere the danger lies.67 metres is about 200feet or ,what?, 12 car lengths? One car length is fine by me and then you don't give anyone the chance to dive through underneath you.

One car length at 120km/hr

You're a dangerous lunatic if you believe that

sdanseo · 09-07-2017 1:04pm

Isambard wrote: »

I think that's nonsense, when you are passed a car you are still pulling away from it, so I can't seewhere the danger lies.67 metres is about 200feet or ,what?, 12 car lengths? One car length is fine by me and then you don't give anyone the chance to dive through underneath you.

If you think this, your driving license should be taken off you until you learn how to drive. That's a disgraceful attitude which will get you or someone else around you killed some day.

Cop on.

Isambard · 09-07-2017 2:23pm

you're misrepresenting me....my intention was to say that it's fine by me if a car begins to return to my lane when a car length clear. Obviously he will be pulling away still and will be 2 or 3 legths clear by the time he has merged.

magicbastarder · 09-07-2017 2:38pm

Isambard wrote: »

what's the difference between one car follwoing another in a lane at x distance and another overtaking a car and pulling into it's lane after x distance? To suggest that either gap should be 67 metres isn't tenable.

we are not misrepresenting you, we are reacting to how you represented yourself. the example you give above makes no mention of your one car length distance being applicable at the *start* of the manouevre, you merely mention 'pulling into its lane after X distance', which is not the same as what you are now arguing.

sdanseo · 09-07-2017 3:34pm

Isambard wrote: »

you're misrepresenting me....my intention was to say that it's fine by me if a car begins to return to my lane when a car length clear. Obviously he will be pulling away still and will be 2 or 3 legths clear by the time he has merged.

And what if the driver pulling back in has to brake suddenly? Do you have super-sharp, spidey-sense anchor dropping response times?

It's dangerous driving and if anything it's more dangerous than tailgating because it's much harder to judge the distance behind your car than the distance in front, especially when travelling forwards at 120km/h.

IE 222 · 09-07-2017 4:04pm

Has been any major benefits to the new speed cameras in the port tunnel. I'd suspect that with these in place and with the lower speed limits compared to the motorway that 95% of cars, vans, trucks and bikes are travelling at the same speed removing the need to overtake.

If this is the case and if cost benefit would a similar system work on the M50. Reduce the limit to 80kph so all traffic will travel together at the same speed and implement a junction to junction ave speed cameras removing the need to "overtake".

OldMrBrennan83 · 09-07-2017 4:06pm

This post has been deleted.

plodder · 09-07-2017 4:16pm

IE 222 wrote: »

Has been any major benefits to the new speed cameras in the port tunnel. I'd suspect that with these in place and with the lower speed limits compared to the motorway that 95% of cars, vans, trucks and bikes are travelling at the same speed removing the need to overtake.

If this is the case and if cost benefit would a similar system work on the M50. Reduce the limit to 80kph so all traffic will travel together at the same speed and implement a junction to junction ave speed cameras removing the need to "overtake".

I've used the tunnel regularly before and after the new system came in and what you say is pretty much the case. Since the speed cameras, everyone is going the same speed, and there is very little overtaking happening.

I think the same system would work on the M50 using variable limits at peak times. Leave it at 100km/h off peak, but with automatic detection. Then at peak times, they'd reduce it to 80 using overhead signs and maybe 60 when particularly congested.

IE 222 · 09-07-2017 4:30pm

Yeah I'd agree off peak traffic could be increased to 100KPH again as mentioned. Even if costly to implement the system would eventually repay itself with fines been issued.

The reduced speed would probably also remove a lot of the congestion and do away with the "lane hogger", "fast lane" attitudes.

Autochange · 09-07-2017 4:58pm

Ok I admit it. I am one of those drivers who will drive right up your bumper in the overtaking right hand lane if you arnt going fast enough. I have on occasion flashed my lights at those who wont move over. Im not sorry for it either.

If you are in the overtaking lane but not passing anyone out move out of the way! I then move back to the left land until overtaking again. I never undertake though

magicbastarder · 09-07-2017 9:41pm

is that supposed to be an example of two wrongs making a right?

Shemale · 10-07-2017 7:13am

AfterDusk wrote: »

You need to leave adequate space once you've passed the vehicle to your left before changing lanes. You can't just cut across straight away. It's entirely possible that in this case the arrogant prat behind the OP wasn't patient enough to wait and allow her leave the space before returning to the left lane.

You should be indicating and going faster than them so it shouldn't take that long and if it does why are you overtaking if they are 1Kmph slower than you

GreeBo · 10-07-2017 2:20pm

You should be indicating to pull out, then once you are in the right lane, indicate your intentions to pull back in.

Its an overtaking maneuver, your indicators should be on at all times.

If they are off, you are driving in the lane, which you are not supposed to be doing.

The road is full of people overtaking a sparsely populated lane 1 by travelling 10kp/h faster in lane 2 with the rational of "but I'm overtaking!"

Get back into lane 1 as soon as there is a gap, that way you dont obstruct someone driving faster than you in lane 2. Same goes for lane 3.

TheChizler · 10-07-2017 3:27pm

GreeBo wrote: »

You should be indicating to pull out, then once you are in the right lane, indicate your intentions to pull back in.

Its an overtaking maneuver, your indicators should be on at all times.

If they are off, you are driving in the lane, which you are not supposed to be doing.

Maybe in a single-lane carriageway but I wouldn't expect anyone to be indicating constantly in a multi-lane situation.

GreeBo · 10-07-2017 3:36pm

TheChizler wrote: »

Maybe in a single-lane carriageway but I wouldn't expect anyone to be indicating constantly in a multi-lane situation.

Why not though?

Not indicating, at least to me, implies they are in that lane for the long haul.

TheChizler · 10-07-2017 4:23pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Why not though?

Not indicating, at least to me, implies they are in that lane for the long haul.

Indicating is supposed to be showing your intention of what you plan to do in the next few seconds, if you're doing a long (many cars) overtake you're not planning on changing your position any time soon.

Ash.J.Williams · 10-07-2017 5:05pm

GreeBo wrote: »

You should be indicating to pull out, then once you are in the right lane, indicate your intentions to pull back in.

Its an overtaking maneuver, your indicators should be on at all times.

If they are off, you are driving in the lane, which you are not supposed to be doing.

The road is full of people overtaking a sparsely populated lane 1 by travelling 10kp/h faster in lane 2 with the rational of "but I'm overtaking!"

Get back into lane 1 as soon as there is a gap, that way you dont obstruct someone driving faster than you in lane 2. Same goes for lane 3.

ever driven on a busy motorway?

10-07-2017 5:17pm

smunchkins wrote: »

I see this quite a bit on my long drives (I do Dublin to West Cork each week, so get a lot of M50, M7, M8). What the poster may be completely unaware of is that the car they are oh so casually keeping on their left whilst they cruise along in a different lane might actually want to make their own manoeuvres around upcoming traffic, but have to constantly check their mirrors to gauge what lazybones is doing in the lane they'd like to eventually be in.

I'm not trying to be funny, but is your argument against my driving style that other motorists might have to check their mirrors?

If I'm far enough away, do what you want and I'll react. If I'm practically beside you, wait til I'm gone. It's not difficult, in fairness.

GreeBo · 11-07-2017 11:16am

TheChizler wrote: »

Indicating is supposed to be showing your intention of what you plan to do in the next few seconds, if you're doing a long (many cars) overtake you're not planning on changing your position any time soon.

I disagree, its *very* common in the rest of Europe.
You are signalling your intent to return to the driving lane.
The problem we have in Ireland is that people stay too long in the overtaking lane(s) out of either laziness or some fear that that wont get back out again.

a 2 second Google gave me this

Overtaking on motorways (indicators) – when people overtake on motorways in France they tend to leave their left hand indicator on all the time they are staying in the outside lane. It stops people ‘tail-gating’ you. And they will return to the inside lane almost straight away.

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

ever driven on a busy motorway?

Yes I have. Did you have a point or question to make?

plodder · 11-07-2017 11:40am

GreeBo wrote: »

You should be indicating to pull out, then once you are in the right lane, indicate your intentions to pull back in.

Its an overtaking maneuver, your indicators should be on at all times.

If they are off, you are driving in the lane, which you are not supposed to be doing.

The road is full of people overtaking a sparsely populated lane 1 by travelling 10kp/h faster in lane 2 with the rational of "but I'm overtaking!"

Get back into lane 1 as soon as there is a gap, that way you dont obstruct someone driving faster than you in lane 2. Same goes for lane 3.

Can you explain the difference between the two bold statements? Why is it ok for some people "driving faster than you in lane 2" to be there, but others are not supposed to be? I suspect a lot of this, is people seeing themselves as that person driving faster in lane 2..

GreeBo · 11-07-2017 1:49pm

plodder wrote: »

Can you explain the difference between the two bold statements? Why is it ok for some people "driving faster than you in lane 2" to be there, but others are not supposed to be? I suspect a lot of this, is people seeing themselves as that person driving faster in lane 2..

Someone fastter than you in lane 2 is overtaking you.

You should only be in a lane other than lane 1 when you are actively overtaking someone.

i.e. there should be someone pretty much immediately to your left.
Where "immediately" takes into consideration a safe gap before and after the car you are passing.

Other than this scenario, you should be in lane 1.
Its "OK" to move into lane 2 to facilitate merging, but you shouldn't be doing it if by doing so you are forcing someone behind you to move into lane 3 to pass you.

Either the motorway traffic is light and the merger(s) can easily merge without impacting traffic already on the motorway
OR
motorway is busy and traffic in lane 1 will be slow moving, allowing them to merge anyway.

Its a courtesy, but should never be at the expense of traffic already on the motorway. Its the "main road" and is the most important one to keep moving freely.

I think the main issue is that a lot of people seem to think that "whew, I'm on the motorway now, I can just relax and toddle along in whatever lane I happen to be in, but I'm a *fast* driver, so better stay in lane 2 so I don't get stuck in lane 1"

Motorway driving is not a time to relax in cruise control, effectively oblivious to all the traffic around you.
Driving is an active task, MLM's are passive drivers.

Roadhawk · 11-07-2017 2:34pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Someone fastter than you in lane 2 is overtaking you.

You should only be in a lane other than lane 1 when you are actively overtaking someone.

i.e. there should be someone pretty much immediately to your left.
Where "immediately" takes into consideration a safe gap before and after the car you are passing.

Other than this scenario, you should be in lane 1.
Its "OK" to move into lane 2 to facilitate merging, but you shouldn't be doing it if by doing so you are forcing someone behind you to move into lane 3 to pass you.

Either the motorway traffic is light and the merger(s) can easily merge without impacting traffic already on the motorway
OR
motorway is busy and traffic in lane 1 will be slow moving, allowing them to merge anyway.

Its a courtesy, but should never be at the expense of traffic already on the motorway. Its the "main road" and is the most important one to keep moving freely.

I think the main issue is that a lot of people seem to think that "whew, I'm on the motorway now, I can just relax and toddle along in whatever lane I happen to be in, but I'm a *fast* driver, so better stay in lane 2 so I don't get stuck in lane 1"

Motorway driving is not a time to relax in cruise control, effectively oblivious to all the traffic around you.
Driving is an active task, MLM's are passive drivers.

I agree with this!

And just to add, there is nothing worse that person who sits in the 3rd lane doing 95km that refuses to move in to lane 1 or 2. This is exactly why traffic is so bad and there is so much undertaking and tailgating.

plodder · 11-07-2017 2:53pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Someone fastter than you in lane 2 is overtaking you.

You should only be in a lane other than lane 1 when you are actively overtaking someone.

i.e. there should be someone pretty much immediately to your left.
Where "immediately" takes into consideration a safe gap before and after the car you are passing.

I think a point comes where it's no longer safe or appropriate to move back to the left. If you are continuously "overtaking" traffic and weaving in and out, then it makes more sense to stay in lane 2, so long as you are in fact constantly passing traffic to your left. If an extended gap opens to your left, you should move into it. I'd be surprised if anyone disagrees with that. Though, people will differ in specific cases. In the US, undertaking is perfectly legal. You just go with the flow of whatever lane you are in, and constant lane changing is frowned upon. That's because most major highways there have many more lanes typically than here.

GreeBo · 11-07-2017 3:05pm

plodder wrote: »

I think a point comes where it's no longer safe or appropriate to move back to the left. If you are continuously "overtaking" traffic and weaving in and out, then it makes more sense to stay in lane 2, so long as you are in fact constantly passing traffic to your left. If an extended gap opens to your left, you should move into it. I'd be surprised if anyone disagrees with that. Though, people will differ in specific cases. In the US, undertaking is perfectly legal. You just go with the flow of whatever lane you are in, and constant lane changing is frowned upon. That's because most major highways there have many more lanes typically than here.

When would it not be safe?

If you are continuously overtaking then you have to make multiple individual maneuvers, exact same as if you were on a single lane carriageway.

As long as by pulling in you are not removing the safe gap in front and behind, then there is room to pull in and you should.

5 seconds between cars is plenty to move in.
If you dont pull in that 5 seconds causes a concertina effect behind you and 2km traffic comes to a halt. Sure it seems fine to you but the problems caused by MLM's are always behind them, thats why they are so unaware. It seems fine and dandy to them.

Obviously if there is no other traffic behind you its appropriate to overtake multiple cars, but as soon as someone appears you should pull in, not force them out into lane 3.

If we had infinite lanes it would be fine, we have 3, so lets use them as they were designed

plodder · 11-07-2017 3:14pm

GreeBo wrote: »

When would it not be safe?

when traffic levels are such that gaps between vehicles in lane 1 goes below 'some level'.

If you are continuously overtaking then you have to make multiple individual maneuvers, exact same as if you were on a single lane carriageway.

As long as by pulling in you are not removing the safe gap in front and behind, then there is room to pull in and you should.

5 seconds between cars is plenty to move in.
If you dont pull in that 5 seconds causes a concertina effect behind you and 2km traffic comes to a halt. Sure it seems fine to you but the problems caused by MLM's are always behind them, thats why they are so unaware. It seems fine and dandy to them.

Obviously if there is no other traffic behind you its appropriate to overtake multiple cars, but as soon as someone appears you should pull in, not force them out into lane 3.

Again, I think you are looking at this from the point of view of "the traffic behind", and you are that traffic it seems.

If I am overtaking a line of traffic to the left, I don't have to get out of your way, just because you want to go faster. We all want to get to our destinations as fast as possible, and we are (nearly) all driving vehicles capable of going a lot faster than we are forced to drive at.

GreeBo · 11-07-2017 5:02pm

plodder wrote: »

when traffic levels are such that gaps between vehicles in lane 1 goes below 'some level'.

Then you aren't driving in the lane, you are by definition overtaking.

plodder wrote: »

Again, I think you are looking at this from the point of view of "the traffic behind", and you are that traffic it seems.

Yes, the traffic behind that is trying to drive faster than you are.
Everyone other than you is that traffic, thats the problem with being a MLM.

plodder wrote: »

If I am overtaking a line of traffic to the left, I don't have to get out of your way, just because you want to go faster. We all want to get to our destinations as fast as possible, and we are (nearly) all driving vehicles capable of going a lot faster than we are forced to drive at.

I'm not at all saying that you have to force your way back into lane 1 after each car, but if there is a gap, thats where you should be, NOT in lane 2/3.

Yes you do have to get out of their way, if there is space for you to pull in, failing to do this is what clogs up the road!

Imagine the following scenario going by your logic.

Lane one has 10 cars spaced out over 10KM, all nicely travelling along at 80km/h.
Car 11 moves into lane 2 and starts to overtake at 90km/h.

Car 12 moves into lane 2 and then into lane 3 to overtake care 11 at 100km/h.

We now have a rolling roadblock for all the cars wishing to driver faster than 100km/h all because car 11 doesnt just pull in to let car 12 overtake.

The alternative is that car 11 starts overtaking cars in lane 1, car 12 approaches from behind, can 11 completes overtaking the current car and pulls in. Car 12 continues overtaking the cars in lane 1 and car 11 pulls back out.

All the while lane 3 is free for people to pass at any speed they like greater than 100km/h.

Which do you think is a better use of the infrastructure?
Sure, it means "more work" for cars 11 and potentially 12, but so fricken what?
its part and parcel of driving.

plodder · 11-07-2017 10:03pm

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not at all saying that you have to force your way back into lane 1 after each car, but if there is a gap, thats where you should be, NOT in lane 2/3.

Fair enough. In post #242, you asked "when would it not be safe (to pull back in)?". So, maybe we are just disagreeing on the size of the gap. In my book, you don't need to move left, if you are immediately going to have to overtake again.

GreeBo · 12-07-2017 10:53am

plodder wrote: »

Fair enough. In post #242, you asked "when would it not be safe (to pull back in)?". So, maybe we are just disagreeing on the size of the gap. In my book, you don't need to move left, if you are immediately going to have to overtake again.

Possibly, but if there is a gap, thats really where you should be...

What would you consider "immediately" have to overtake again?
5s, 10s, 1m?

Problem is that people will use that to justify staying in lane 2 because there is any traffic in lane 1.
5 people do that and then 5 more do the same but in lane 3.

Boom! You have the current state of our M50.
30 cars in a 5KM, 3 lane road and all lanes in constant use

Not aimed at you directly, but whats peoples adversion to overtaking?
As I said earlier, Motorway driving isnt supposed to be when you shut out the rest of the world and cruise.

plodder · 12-07-2017 12:28pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Possibly, but if there is a gap, thats really where you should be...

What would you consider "immediately" have to overtake again?
5s, 10s, 1m?

It's hard to be specific about it. It depends on actual speed and relative speed. But, in any case, a lot less than 1m, maybe less than 10 seconds sometimes, but not always. The purpose of a three lane motorway like the M50 is to get the maximum number of vehicles traveling at a steady speed, probably close to the limit. Anyone wanting to travel significantly below the limit has to keep left.

Problem is that people will use that to justify staying in lane 2 because there is any traffic in lane 1.
5 people do that and then 5 more do the same but in lane 3.

Boom! You have the current state of our M50.
30 cars in a 5KM, 3 lane road and all lanes in constant use

Not aimed at you directly, but whats peoples adversion to overtaking?
As I said earlier, Motorway driving isnt supposed to be when you shut out the rest of the world and cruise.

The problem that concerns me more than the above, is people who want to shove all other traffic into the left and middle lanes, leaving the "fast" lane free for them to shoot along at 120+. Speeding drivers in the inside lane, going a lot faster than the other lanes is what causes accidents imo, especially in volatile conditions with possible stoppages along the route.

Sure, the scenario you describe is not the most efficient use of road space, but it still leads to everyone traveling at 100km/h to their destination. And don't get me wrong, I think everyone should keep left.

As traffic increases, the utilisation increases too anyway. There's a strong case to make for variable speed limits, automatically enforced. 80km and sometimes 60km/h speed limits on the M50 would pack much more vehicles into the same space. The whole question just goes away, because each lane is the same. Everyone is doing 60 or 80. That's how it works in the tunnel now. There is no incentive to overtake because everyone is doing 80.

GreeBo · 12-07-2017 2:05pm

plodder wrote: »

The problem that concerns me more than the above, is people who want to shove all other traffic into the left and middle lanes, leaving the "fast" lane free for them to shoot along at 120+. Speeding drivers in the inside lane, going a lot faster than the other lanes is what causes accidents imo, especially in volatile conditions with possible stoppages along the route.

To be blunt, thats not your concern.
Worse than speeding along at 120+ is driving at 100km/h in the outer lanes to prevent others from speeding.
Leave that to the cops.

You cant have speeding drivers in the inside lane if everyone is keeping left!

If everyone drives left then faster traffic is in the outer lanes where traffic is lightest, thats where you want it.

Traffic density should significantly increase as you move further right.
You cant say that about the M50, usually all lanes are somewhat sparsely populated.

Even during rush hours (I travel the M50 from Sandyford to Tallaght multiple times a week at 6:30pm) lanes 2 and 3 are way more populated than lane 1.
Its like we are driving on the continent!

First Up · 12-07-2017 8:23pm

I hear some radio ads from the RSA telling people to keep left on the M50 and only use the outer lanes for overtaking. I wonder will they start putting the message on the overhead gantrys?

plodder · 12-07-2017 11:17pm

GreeBo wrote: »

To be blunt, thats not your concern.

Worse than speeding along at 120+ is driving at 100km/h in the outer lanes to prevent others from speeding.

If I am driving at 100km/h in lane 2 or 3 of the M50, passing slower traffic to my left, then I make no apology for preventing drivers behind me who want to break the speed limit, from passing me. They can slow down and wait until there is a decent break that allows me to comfortably move back into the lane to my left. As said before, the sooner there is automatic speed enforcement on the M50, that will soften the cough of these drivers.

Yawns · 12-07-2017 11:25pm

plodder wrote: »

If I am driving at 100km/h in lane 2 or 3 of the M50, passing slower traffic to my left, then I make no apology for preventing drivers behind me who want to break the speed limit, from passing me. They can slow down and wait until there is a decent break that allows me to comfortably move back into the lane to my left. As said before, the sooner there is automatic speed enforcement on the M50, that will soften the cough of these drivers.

I'd like to see cameras installed along all motorways that tracks the cars as they are in the overtaking lanes with massive gaps in the diving lane. Automatic fines starting at €80 and increasing with each offence.

Tailgating and Undertaking on Motorways

Comments