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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

How are more people not killed on our Roads

1235»

Comments

  • #202
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I've had the 'trying to ignore' thing occasionally too, so I know what that looks likes. These people were generally surprised when I finally managed to get their attention by waving or whatever, so they just didn't hear a knock at their window, due to their immersive audio experience.


    So if people are actively concentrating on podcasts or talk radio played over their car speakers, surely this would be an equivalent problem?


    The problem with looking at 'more than the obvious' is that it becomes a distraction from dealing with the obvious at best, and avoidance of dealing with the obvious at worst. Just look at the breadth and frequency of ideas from motorists to 'fix' cycling, while ignoring the obvious of slowing down, stopping drinking and putting the phones away.

    It's not an either, or scenario.
    There are rules in place for motorists and cyclists. We don't get to decide which ones we want to obey and which ones we want to ignore.
    "But! But! Motorists" and "But! But! Cyclists" are not valid excuses for breaking any of them. I'm not interested in ANY arguments along those lines and neither will a Gard be, when he stops a car or a bike and bloody fcuking right he won't be.
    Anyone with even the emotional maturity of a six year old should be able to grasp this astonishingly simple concept. Anyone else, kindly take the fcuking bus.


  • #203
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Anyone with even the emotional maturity of a six year old should be able to grasp this astonishingly simple concept.
    You'd think that... TBH I rarely enough have issues with cyclists. I give them a wide berth out of road manners and safety reasons. They're just way more vulnerable and they're a pretty minor threat to me in a car. I'd have more WTF? moments with other drivers. They could kill me. So I can see why cyclists would have more WTF? moments with cars.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #204
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Wibbs wrote: »
    You'd think that... TBH I rarely enough have issues with cyclists. I give them a wide berth out of road manners and safety reasons. They're just way more vulnerable and they're a pretty minor threat to me in a car. I'd have more WTF? moments with other drivers. They could kill me. So I can see why cyclists would have more WTF? moments with cars.

    And I can fully agree with that.


  • #205
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,442 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    It's not an either, or scenario.

    It really is. We have finite Garda resources. Every Garda hour spent chasing cyclists is an hour NOT spent reducing the death toll on the roads.

    Every RSA and Dept Transport hour spent considering new laws for cyclists is an hour NOT spent reducing the death toll on the roads.

    It's a classic political distraction.


  • #206
    Sittingpretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,872 ✭✭✭Sittingpretty


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    It really is. We have finite Garda resources. Every Garda hour spent chasing cyclists is an hour NOT spent reducing the death toll on the roads.

    Every RSA and Dept Transport hour spent considering new laws for cyclists is an hour NOT spent reducing the death toll on the roads.

    It's a classic political distraction.


    It’s a rare encounter to find someone who seems capable of reason and argument so indelibly fixated on making something an either or scenario.

    Again, being careful as a cyclist and being careful as a motorist are not mutually exclusive and surely if everyone at the helm of either mode of transport adhered to that we possibly would have less deaths on the road?

    Like others have said as a motorist I’m rarely annoyed by misbehaviour of cyclists, nowhere near the same degree I would be by that of other motorists. I can only speak for myself when I say that whenever I sit in my car, I don’t break the speed limit and I keep within the law ALWAYS. I’m fully aware others don’t. Likewise, when I’m on my bike I take every precaution to abide by my rules of the road mainly to keep myself safe but also so as to avoid any accident that might hurt anyone.

    In summary I think another poster put it very well when s/he said as a nation we view rules as something to be broken not as ideas to follow for our common good. If we could collectively shake this off and maybe all behave a bit better on our shared routes then we might eventually reduce road deaths.


  • #207
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,442 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Sittingpretty wrote: »
    Again, being careful as a cyclist and being careful as a motorist are not mutually exclusive
    Fully agree.


    Sittingpretty wrote: »
    surely if everyone at the helm of either mode of transport adhered to that we possibly would have less deaths on the road?
    Mmmm, let's dig a bit deeper here. Do we actually have evidence that supports this? The underlying assumption is that the behaviour of the person killed is a direct factor in the death.



    In the case of motorists, yeah, this is a fairly valid statement. Given that about 75% of road deaths are motorists killing other motorists or passengers, and that the causes of road deaths involving motorists are well established (speeding, drink driving, seat belts, driver fatigue) - yes, better behaviour will result in less death on the road.


    In the case of cyclists, international research shows that cyclist/motorist collisions are more often than not, primarily the fault of the motorist 70% up to 92% motorist fault depending on which international research you look at.



    Let's be generous to motorists and say that it's 50:50, for the sake of argument. So cyclist behaviour is a factor for about 2% or 3% of road deaths (half of all cyclist deaths), whereas motorist behaviour is a factor in 80%+ of road deaths (all motorist deaths, half of cyclist deaths and a bunch of pedestrian deaths).



    So yes, it is technically true to say that 'if we all behave', then there will be less road deaths - but this is a long, long way off equal responsibility. Certainly, any suggestion that enforcement or legislative resources should be focused on 2% to 3% of the problem instead 80% of the problem would be foolish and futile.


  • #208
    OldMrBrennan83
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,658 ✭✭✭✭OldMrBrennan83


    Sittingpretty wrote: »
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    It really is. We have finite Garda resources. Every Garda hour spent chasing cyclists is an hour NOT spent reducing the death toll on the roads.

    Every RSA and Dept Transport hour spent considering new laws for cyclists is an hour NOT spent reducing the death toll on the roads.

    It's a classic political distraction.


    It’s a rare encounter to find someone who seems capable of reason and argument so indelibly fixated on making something an either or scenario.

    Again, being careful as a cyclist and being careful as a motorist are not mutually exclusive and surely if everyone at the helm of either mode of transport adhered to that we possibly would have less deaths on the road?

    Like others have said as a motorist I’m rarely annoyed by misbehaviour of cyclists, nowhere near the same degree I would be by that of other motorists. I can only speak for myself when I say that whenever I sit in my car, I don’t break the speed limit and I keep within the law ALWAYS. I’m fully aware others don’t. Likewise, when I’m on my bike I take every precaution to abide by my rules of the road mainly to keep myself safe but also so as to avoid any accident that might hurt anyone.

    In summary I think another poster put it very well when s/he said as a nation we view rules as something to be broken not as ideas to follow for our common good. If we could collectively shake this off and maybe all behave a bit better on our shared routes then we might eventually reduce road deaths.

    Unfortunately cyclists will always be of the opinion that because they have a lighter vehicle that it excludes them from following rules laid out.


  • #209
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Fully agree.




    Mmmm, let's dig a bit deeper here. Do we actually have evidence that supports this? The underlying assumption is that the behaviour of the person killed is a direct factor in the death.

    Well, let's dig indeed.
    If I cycle and I break lights, don't look where I cycle and just blindly cycle out onto the main road without looking, my behaviour will definitely result in death. Mine.
    As.far as I'm concerned that's slam dunk as an argument and only an aspiring Darwin Award candidate or complete imbecile could possibly argue otherwise.
    Maybe you're arguing from the point of view that cyclists don't generally cause death and injuries in other road users, and that may be true.
    But I'm still going by the "don't be a cnut" principle in traffic. And I like to arrive alive.
    If you really argue that your own behaviour has no bearing on your personal safety, you are a fool or trolling.
    Well, as long as you only act the dick on your bike, with a bit of luck only you will end up a 20 foot red smear and the roads will be a tiny bit safer


  • #210
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,442 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Patww79 wrote: »
    Unfortunately cyclists will always be of the opinion that because they have a lighter vehicle that it excludes them from following rules laid out.


    Or to be clearer, some cyclists will fortunately be of the opinion that because they have a lighter, slower vehicle that isn't the same kind of vehicle that kills 3 or 4 people each week, it excludes them from having to listen to lectures from those who do kill 3 or 4 people each week. It also excludes them from listen to 'but we ALL have to be careful' arguments that are largely designed to divert attention from those motorists who kill 3 or 4 people each week.

    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Well, let's dig indeed.
    If I cycle and I break lights, don't look where I cycle and just blindly cycle out onto the main road without looking, my behaviour will definitely result in death. Mine.
    As.far as I'm concerned that's slam dunk as an argument and only an aspiring Darwin Award candidate or complete imbecile could possibly argue otherwise.
    While I wouldn't disagree with your hypothetical, my main point is that this doesn't happen very often if at all. So arguments that are based around this hypothetical are weak, by comparison with arguments that ask motorists to stop speeding, drink driving, fatigued driving and put on their seat belts.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    While I wouldn't disagree with your hypothetical, my main point is that this doesn't happen very often if at all. So arguments that are based around this hypothetical are weak, by comparison with arguments that ask motorists to stop speeding, drink driving, fatigued driving and put on their seat belts.

    It doesn't happen often that cyclists who don't pay attention get killed?
    That seems like a very reckless attitude to have.


  • #212
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Or to be clearer, some cyclists will fortunately be of the opinion that because they have a lighter, slower vehicle that isn't the same kind of vehicle that kills 3 or 4 people each week, it excludes them from having to listen to lectures from those who do kill 3 or 4 people each week. It also excludes them from listen to 'but we ALL have to be careful' arguments that are largely designed to divert attention from those motorists who kill 3 or 4 people each week.
    Jaysus, my memory must be going with age as I can't recall mowing down 3 or 4 people last week. Or the week before. Maybe a month ago? Must check under my car for bits of cycling helmet.

    Your focus on this is so narrow you could look through a keyhole with both eyes at once. The very cliche of the self involved cyclist type. Tiresome doesn't begin to describe it. I'm out, at least regarding your good self.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #213
    average_runner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,855 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    But majority of cyclists are motorists also. So these cyclists are killing 3-4 people a week according to you, so yes they should listen.


  • #214
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    No answer from Andrew. One of those murdering motorists must have broken in and finished him off.


  • #215
    Sittingpretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,872 ✭✭✭Sittingpretty


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Fully agree.




    Mmmm, let's dig a bit deeper here. Do we actually have evidence that supports this? The underlying assumption is that the behaviour of the person killed is a direct factor in the death.



    .

    Your assumption, certainly not mine, not by a long shot. If, as a cyclist you are obeying all rules of the road and you are hit and killed by a car that breaks a red light or any car doing anything it shouldn’t be doing then how you could make the assumption that the cyclist is somehow culpable I do not know.

    If however as a cyclist you think you’ll go up the left side of a truck turning left because “you think you’re invincible and you’ll make it” and you get pinned under their driveshaft then more fool you.


  • #216
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,442 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    No answer from Andrew. One of those murdering motorists must have broken in and finished him off.


    Aw Jaysus, sorry to keep you waiting lads. I didn't realise that you were hanging on my every word. I was on dinner duties today, hence the delay. The roasties were particularly good, even if I say so myself. Anyway, normal service resumes.

    Wibbs wrote: »
    Jaysus, my memory must be going with age as I can't recall mowing down 3 or 4 people last week. Or the week before. Maybe a month ago? Must check under my car for bits of cycling helmet.
    That's the great thing about basing your views on facts and data rather than anecdote and personal experience. You don't need to recall mowing people down. You just need to check the stats to see that it happens week in, week out - 3 or 4 people on average not coming home to their families, largely due to the actions of motorists.

    Wibbs wrote: »
    Your focus on this is so narrow you could look through a keyhole with both eyes at once. The very cliche of the self involved cyclist type. Tiresome doesn't begin to describe it. I'm out, at least regarding your good self.

    'Narrow'? My focus is on the 80% of the road death problem, and I'm challenging those who seem obsessed with spending their time and energy on 2% of the problem as their top priority. I'm not sure that your 'narrow' accusation really sticks.

    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    It doesn't happen often that cyclists who don't pay attention get killed?
    That seems like a very reckless attitude to have.
    Here's a great opportunity to correct my reckless attitude with some evidence. I've followed these matters fairly closely in the past 5-10 years or so, and I don't recall many cases that fit your description. I do recall a tiny number of cases where the cyclist was responsible for their own death - the cyclist who cycled drunk onto the M1 and got killed, and the one who cycled into the back of a parked car in Cork and got killed, and the one who came off into a ditch on a steep descent in Wicklow.



    But perhaps you're aware of a significant number of other cases in recent years - maybe the much-vaunted scenario of the cyclist riding through the red light and getting killed? The closest to this scenario that I recall was when Eugene Coleman, husband and parent, was killed in Clontarf cycling through a green light when hit by a disqualified driver driving through a red light. But perhaps you have other examples you'd like to share to prove your point


    Sittingpretty wrote: »
    Your assumption, certainly not mine, not by a long shot. If, as a cyclist you are obeying all rules of the road and you are hit and killed by a car that breaks a red light or any car doing anything it shouldn’t be doing then how you could make the assumption that the cyclist is somehow culpable I do not know.
    How often does the reverse happen - that cyclists are killed as a result of their own actions?

    Sittingpretty wrote: »

    If however as a cyclist you think you’ll go up the left side of a truck turning left because “you think you’re invincible and you’ll make it” and you get pinned under their driveshaft then more fool you.

    Would you also apply the 'more fool you' approach to Rose Hoey, the elderly lady killed by the reversing truck in Ranelagh?



    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/coroner-s-court/reverse-lights-broken-on-truck-which-killed-ranelagh-pedestrian-1.2567865


    Or do you reserve victim-blaming just for cyclists?


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Sittingpretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,872 ✭✭✭Sittingpretty


    No Andrew, I’m equal opportunities when victim blaming. They’re all losers and deserve to die as a consequence of their own actions :rolleyes:

    I, like others am done with your blinkered, one trick pony opinion.


  • #218
    erica74
    Registered Users Posts: 2,619 ✭✭✭erica74


    It is irrelevant who was to blame when you're under a car or a lorry or you're dead. The reality is that the only person interested in getting you home safely is yourself so you need to do everything you can to ensure your safety. Sometimes that means braking sharply to avoid hitting someone who pulled out in front of you. If you hit them, it might be "their fault" but who cares if your bike/car/whatever is fucked or the impact caused you injury.


  • #219
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,442 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Sittingpretty wrote: »
    No Andrew, I’m equal opportunities when victim blaming. They’re all losers and deserve to die as a consequence of their own actions :rolleyes:
    How else could I interpret 'more fool you' but as victim-blaming?


    Sittingpretty wrote: »
    I, like others am done with your blinkered, one trick pony opinion.

    It's not my pony. It's what the data shows.

    erica74 wrote: »
    It is irrelevant who was to blame when you're under a car or a lorry or you're dead. The reality is that the only person interested in getting you home safely is yourself so you need to do everything you can to ensure your safety.
    At an individual level, this is perfectly correct. However, at a systemic level, at a policy level, it is absolutely relevant who was to blame. We're not going to solve the problem and reduce these deaths if we don't clearly identify the causes and address those causes.


    At present, the vast majority of road deaths are caused by drivers who drive too fast, or too drunk, or too tired, or without seat belts. They're the priority issues we need to fix.


  • #220
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Tl/dr


  • #221
    brianregan09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,482 ✭✭✭brianregan09


    People should be made do driving education in school , not the pointless bollx like cspe, geography and the like,

    Driving in ireland is terrifying , half the people on the road haven't a clue how to use lanes or roundabouts or dim there lights or in some cases stay on there own side of the road


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    'Narrow'? My focus is on the 80% of the road death problem, and I'm challenging those who seem obsessed with spending their time and energy on 2% of the problem as their top priority. I'm not sure that your 'narrow' accusation really sticks.
    Jesus. That you are so blissfully unaware of it speaks volumes.

    Hang on... I wasn't gonna engage with your anymore. Too much overhead for too little gain. And yet here I am. So, Im not so rigid.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #223
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,442 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Wibbs wrote: »
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    'Narrow'? My focus is on the 80% of the road death problem, and I'm challenging those who seem obsessed with spending their time and energy on 2% of the problem as their top priority. I'm not sure that your 'narrow' accusation really sticks.
    Jesus. That you are so blissfully unaware of it speaks volumes.

    Hang on... I wasn't gonna engage with your anymore. Too much overhead for too little gain. And yet here I am. So, Im not so rigid.
    If I'm "blissfully unaware" of anything, all you need to do is post the relevant facts and I will absorb them with interest.

    Everything that I've said is backed up by evidence.


  • #224
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    ....lectures from those who do kill 3 or 4 people each week.

    You were corrected on this only last week. Why are you still peddling this falsehood?


  • #225
    Thomyokk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 130 ✭✭Thomyokk


    There needs to be a clampdown on phone use

    They've completely gone to town on the drink driving which is fair enough

    Meanwhile phone use is epidemic because there's little enforcement.

    Its not like it would be difficult for a couple of strategically place patrol cars to nab a load of drivers.


  • #226
    Gazzmonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 816 ✭✭✭Gazzmonkey


    imme wrote: »

    Vehicles are speeding more in urban areas, taking chances that shouldn't be taken, travelling in lanes that they shouldn't be using.

    Cyclists are cycling faster than ever, taking chances they shouldn't be taking, cycling on footpaths, cycling without lights or sufficient illumination.

    How are many more people not killed on Irish roads.

    You've been recording measurements? Are these facts or just a rant?


  • #227
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,442 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    ....lectures from those who do kill 3 or 4 people each week.

    You were corrected on this only last week. Why are you still peddling this falsehood?
    Broken link?


  • #228
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,442 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Thomyokk wrote: »
    There needs to be a clampdown on phone use

    They've completely gone to town on the drink driving which is fair enough

    Meanwhile phone use is epidemic because there's little enforcement.

    Its not like it would be difficult for a couple of strategically place patrol cars to nab a load of drivers.
    Canada have put some cops on buses, with a nice high view to catch drivers on the phone.

    One UK police force sends out cops in a truck to be able to see into truck cabs.


  • #229
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Broken link?


    the link works fine


  • #230
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,442 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Broken link?


    the link works fine
    Not working for me on the phone


  • #231
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Not working for me on the phone

    Full text of post
    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Look at the breakdown of deaths by road user type. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

    For 2016, 76% of deaths are motorists, passengers and motorcyclists.

    For 2017, it is 71%.
    But that's not what you said, hence the genuine confusion. You said 75% of road deaths are motorists "killing other motorists and passengers".

    30 of the 67 driver deaths in 2017 were single vehicle collisions. 8 of the 20 motorcyclist deaths were single vehicle collisions. So in these cases it's people "killing" themselves. Even the word "killing" is problematic, since it it implies some degree of intent or negligence and excludes genuine accidents.

    All the RSA statistics tell you is who died. It's impossible to infer from them who (if anyone) was to blame for each death.

    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    So once again, I wonder where the repeated obsession with fixing cycling comes from, given that it represents 5-10% of road deaths, depending on what year you choose.

    The vast majority of the meagre enforcement efforts we have are against motorists. A significant proportion of public information and education efforts are directed towards motorists. I don't see why its controversial to encourage cyclists to use decent lights.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    facehugger99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,376 ✭✭✭facehugger99


    The amount of people who don't know how to use 2-lane roundabouts is frightening.

    Those drivers who are taking the straight ahead exit but start in the left most lane and drive straight across the circulatory carriageway are a menace. The only reason the don't take someone out is usually due to the quick reactions of others.

    I presume that most of them are blissfully aware of how shockingly bad they are at driving.


  • #233
    Sittingpretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,872 ✭✭✭Sittingpretty


    facehugger99 wrote: »
    The amount of people who don't know how to use 2-lane roundabouts is frightening.

    Those drivers who are taking the straight ahead exit but start in the left most lane and drive straight across the circulatory carriageway are a menace. The only reason the don't take someone out is usually due to the quick reactions of others.

    I presume that most of them are blissfully aware of how shockingly bad they are at driving.

    If you are approaching a roundabout to take the straight ahead exit (at 12o’clock) you should be in the leftmost lane.


  • #234
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Sittingpretty wrote: »
    If you are approaching a roundabout to take the straight ahead exit (at 12o’clock) you should be in the leftmost lane.

    Yes, but you're supposed to go around the roundabout, not cut straight across the inner lanes.


  • #235
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I had a very lucky one over the weekend. I took a sudden notion on Friday that my timing belt needed changing. The car was jolting a bit, plus it had been leaking water for the last 10 months or so. I was topping it up every few weeks. Then I realised that the timing belt is connected to the water pump. The guys in the garage told me they could change the belt first thing the next morning.

    When I went to pick up the car on Saturday, they told me that the belt that was in the car was rotten, and it looked like it had never been changed, plus it wasn't even sitting correctly in position. In other words it was ready to snap at any minute.

    When they were doing this job they also noticed that the 2 front tyres were badly worn on the inside. So bad in fact that the wire was coming through on both tyres... the guy in the tyre centre even called over one of his work mates to have a look at how bad it was. The thing was this was very hard to spot unless you were underneath the car, because the tyres were not that badly worn on the outside. The cause of this was a loose track rod end. In other words I had been driving a time bomb.

    Im so glad I went with my instinct on Friday.


  • #236
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    facehugger99 wrote: »
    The amount of people who don't know how to use 2-lane roundabouts is frightening.

    Those drivers who are taking the straight ahead exit but start in the left most lane and drive straight across the circulatory carriageway are a menace. The only reason the don't take someone out is usually due to the quick reactions of others.

    I presume that most of them are blissfully aware of how shockingly bad they are at driving.
    Sittingpretty wrote: »
    If you are approaching a roundabout to take the straight ahead exit (at 12o’clock) you should be in the leftmost lane.
    amcalester wrote: »
    Yes, but you're supposed to go around the roundabout, not cut straight across the inner lanes.
    I take the racing line myself.
    racing-line-late-apex.png

    ...

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #237
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I had a very lucky one over the weekend. I took a sudden notion on Friday that my timing belt needed changing. The car was jolting a bit, plus it had been leaking water for the last 10 months or so. I was topping it up every few weeks.

    Im so glad I went with my instinct on Friday.
    No offence AG, but why did it take you so long to have your car checked if it's been "jolting a bit" and you've had to feed it coolant for nearly a year? Now I grant you most people aren't petrolheads and a car is a conveyance, another "white good" like a fridge or washing machine, but surely some mechanical sympathy would come into play?

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #238
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Wibbs wrote: »
    No offence AG, but why did it take you so long to have your car checked if it's been "jolting a bit" and you've had to feed it coolant for nearly a year? Now I grant you most people aren't petrolheads and a car is a conveyance, another "white good" like a fridge or washing machine, but surely some mechanical sympathy would come into play?




    hi Wibbs.. the slight jolting issue started to become noticeable after the gearbox oil was changed about 10 months ago. It is an automatic. A better way to describe it would be a half second delay from when you accelerated until when the car would move. The OH was driving it last week and told me there was a more pronounce jolt as she was approaching a roundabout. This was also in my mind on Friday when I decided to have it looked at. That issue now seems to have disappeared now that the timing belt has been changed. I would never have guessed that the slow reaction with acceleration would have been a symptom of a badly fitted timing belt.



    I was told that this particular model had a habit of leaking at the water pump. I have put getting it looked at on the long finger, as it wasn't such a large inconvenience to keep topping up the water level, so long as I didn't forget to do it.



    As it turned out, the leak was on one of the hoses and not the pump.


  • #239
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,442 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    You were corrected on this only last week. Why are you still peddling this falsehood?


    The data stands. 3 or 4 people are killed by motorists each week on our roads. Yes, that includes people who are killed by themselves in single-vehicle collisions. Yes, killed is the right word, as it doesn't imply premeditation or intention.


  • #240
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    466453.jpg

    sheldon-cooper.jpg

    466455.gif

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement