slow driving

Blitzkrieger

Originally posted by DMC
Pet hate #1: **nts who flash at other drivers
Pet hate #2: Slow drivers in front.

Mine are : #1 People who are intollerant of other cultures
#2 The Dutch

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
you can only overtake on the left if
you are turning left and have indicated to do so
if the car in the right lane is turning right and has indictated to do so (and you aren't also turning right)
and in separate lanes in slow moving traffic

That's true but doesn't apply to dual carraigeways or motorways. The relevant rule there would be the outside lane is for overtaking only and you have to move back into the left as soon as it is safe to do so.

Originally posted by ColinM
As has been said before, you don't encounter this problem to any noticeable extent in any other country in Europe. Try it in Italy or Spain and you will be gently pushed off the road.

I've heard in Italy they don't slow down. If you're in the outside lane and there's someone coming up behing you at 200mph flashing their lights at you, it's best to move out of the way. The weird thing is, their A roads are the ones with the speed limits. They have no limit on B roads (though there is a limit on C roads). Don't ask me for an exact definition but A roads are motorways and main roads, B roads are country roads and C roads are dangerous/city roads.

Originally posted by redoxan
It is LEGAL to undertake if the car in front is moving slower than the traffic to the inside.

Only in two lanes of traffic, not on a dual carriageway or a motorway.


I'm out of work again at the moment but I spent the last six months driving 30 miles to and from work, mainly on dual carraigeway. There wasn't one day I wasn't held up by some ******* hogging the fast lane. Including one saturday morning at 7am when I encountered only 2 other cars; one guy in the slow lane doing 50, one guy overtaking at 51.

I'd say the best course of action was already stated above. Flash the lights to ask them to move over (when it's safe for them to do so), then undertake them if they show no signs of moving over and if it's safe (relativly) to do so.

[edit]what happened to the auto-censor? I had to put *s in myself

sceptre

Originally posted by seamus
I see your point, but driving with a what if? attitude (i.e. trying to react to everything that may happen, before it does) can be more dangerous than just being prepared for everything that may happen.

Oddly enough, the focus of the morning session in the Ignition course is "What if?" (it even gets its own slide)

The point there is obviously being prepared for something that might happen rather than reacting to something that might or might not happen though, as you said.

Silent Bob

Originally posted by Victor
Speed turns an injury accident into a fatal accident is the point.

So would extra mass (momentum == m * v), yet nobody says that excessive mass kills.

Hitting someone in a HumVee (or worse, an artic) at 30 mph will do far more damage than hitting them in a Micra at 30 mph yet no-one ever says that we should all drive smaller cars to prevent fatal accidents.

TomF

But don't we read that when a small car collides with a heavy vehicle, the small car almost always gets damaged more? I have heard many fathers say they will not give a small car to their driving-age children just for that reason.

Blitzkrieger

What's your point TomF?

Mass does have a lot to do with it, but it's also to do with how the cars collide. I forget what they're called, but there's points on every car, mostly the four corners of the chassis, that in a collision determine how the force of impact.

Because these points are higher in a 4x4, they tend to ride up over these points on most cars and this is what causes the damage; the strongest point on the 4x4 is not coming into contact with the strongest poing on the car. Manufacturers are working to combat this - by raising the points on cars and lowering them on 4x4s - but it'll be a long time before we see a significant difference on the roads.

It's scary watching footage of a 4x4 hitting a car. I saw one crash test where a Land Cruiser went more or less straight through the front corner of a Mondeo, obliterating the passenger seat.

It doesn't help that it's often the worst drivers that own 4x4s. There's a woman who lives near me who's written off 4 cars through colliding with other cars (her fault) and bizarrely the same tree twice. She now drives a huge Isuzu urban assault vehicle because 'it makes her feel safe'. I've heard her comment : "If I have an accident I'll be alright". It's a proven fact that if we all have an acceptable margin of safety. I've just bought a new car with 4 wheel drive and ABS. Because I feel safer in it, I'll probably unconsiously drive faster. Can you imagine how dangerous this woman will be now that she feels indestructable?

BrianD3

It doesn't help that it's often the worst drivers that own 4x4s. There's a woman who lives near me who's written off 4 cars through colliding with other cars (her fault) and bizarrely the same tree twice. She now drives a huge Isuzu urban assault vehicle because 'it makes her feel safe'. I've heard her comment : "If I have an accident I'll be alright".

Yeah I know, it makes my blood boil. A rough translation of the above comment would be:
"if I **** up and have a crash through my own stupidity, I'll be ok in my Isuzu tank, if I kill someone else then that's just their tough luck"

I can't stand the phrase "if I have an accident" I always think that people who use this expression regard a crash as some freak of nature that cannot be predicted or prevented.

I wonder does this bitch have bullbars on her jeep as well. So that "in case she has a bump" when parking, her car won't have any damage :rolleyes:

And if she wants to feel safe someone please tell her that she'd be better off spending her money on something like a Saab 9-5, Volvo S80 or Renault Vel Satis which will provide excellent safety yet won't wipe out more vulnerable road users if it hits them. Not to mention being more economical and better in every way (apart from offroading and towing) than any jeep.

BrianD3

[DF]Lenny

Peoples reaction speeds are hugely different.This along with other factors like experience,eye/hand co-ordination,vehicle condition,concentration means that the speed limit is irrelevant. Present limits were mostly set 30-40 yrs ago due to the oil crisis.While I maybe capable of travelling at 100mph safely I cannot legislate for the idiot coming the other way.

Capt'n Midnight

4x4 / SUV's are no safer for the occupants than other cars in the same price bracket. (Saab's / Merc's etc)

They are however, about 6 times more dangerous to other motorists.

They also tend to be owned by unpleasent ego-centric aggressive selfish & nasty people.

Re: crashes at 30mph - How many Bikers & motorcyclists die each year from accidents that don't involve something with more than two wheels.

==============================

Another problem with cars is that you are cacooned away from the world - they are advertised as blocking all extenal sound - as someone who has been kept awake by emergency sirens (they are louder now because of changes in cars) - I have reason to be upset.

As someone put it - your car is based on your living room - warm, quiet, good sound system it's cosy, you won't be paying as much attention or be as aware as if you had the radio turned down and the windows wound down a little to let the sound in.

TomF

This evening as I rounded the corner at Water Street after coming up the Lower Glanmire Road toward Cork City and into the straightaway on Horgan's Quay where the left lane ("the slow lane") is like the trenches in World War I and the right lane ("the fast lane") is smooth as glass, and as all the nincompoop drivers behind me roared into the right lane ignoring the 30 mph speed limit, as you do in Cork and everywhere else in this country packed full of crazies, I could only wonder why I shouldn't get up on that smooth pavement and go the speed limit, or 1 mph below, and to h**l with all the leadfoots. I really don't care if they flash their *&%^ headlamps/blinding front foglamps at me and petulantly beep their horns. I don't want to shake my car to pieces and the fillings out of my teeth driving in the "slow lane" and don't mind if I do impede the progress of the boy-racers. Let them go to the "slow lane" and wreck their own cars, or better yet, hurtle through the barrier and into the Lee and sink out of sight.

Seth Brundle

...undermines success claim
from Sunday Business Post (18/1/04) url]http://www.sbpost.ie/web/DocumentView/did-529799263-pageUrl--2FHome.asp[/url
By Sean Mac Carthaigh

---

The government has admitted that no one has been tasked with obtaining crucial statistics on the drivers' penalty points system.

This means it has no accurate way to assess whether it is having any effect on road deaths.

Meanwhile, The Sunday Business Post has established that, while a massive 27 per cent of all penalty points are being imposed on Dublin drivers, just 13 per cent of road deaths occur in the capital.

This undermines the correlation between the dangerous driving that attracts penalty points and the fatal accidents the system is designed to curb.

Motorists report that a large proportion of speed traps and speed cameras are being set up on dual carriageways and motorways. However, figures from the National Roads Authority (NRA) show that a minuscule 0.3 per cent of fatal ac cidents oc cur on these roads. In fact, the vast bulk of road deaths - 86 per cent - happen on Ireland's single carriageway roads, which are much harder to police.

Furthermore, the statistics available show that the overwhelming focus on speed of both the penalty points system and the government's advertising campaigns may represent a massive waste of resources.

In 80 per cent of two-car accidents, excessive speed is not a feature. In fact, "crossing to the wrong side of the road" is by far the biggest factor.

And while the NRA compiles detailed accident data, a spokesman for the Minister for Transport, Seamus Brennan, admitted this weekend that there was no information about the ages of drivers who receive penalty points,on what roads they were driving, or at what time of day.

This means there is no way to measure the fairness or efficacy of the system.

"When the system is computerised, there should be a facility to access more data," the spokesman said.

[DF]Lenny

In 80 per cent of two-car accidents, excessive speed is not a feature. In fact, "crossing to the wrong side of the road" is by far the biggest factor.

Unfortunatly the policys are decided be goons as another means of cash flow.Conservative thinking is the hallmark of Irish Goverment policy in relation to motorists.

Victor

That article is wrong and also discussed here (will post a nice rant later): http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135924

Originally posted by seamus
The general rule where speed is involved is to drive at or below the limit, and at a speed so as you have enough to time to react within the distance that you see to be clear.

You also need to account for the possibility of someone else coming around the corner - so you should be able to stop in half your clear vision distance.

seamus

Originally posted by Victor
You also need to account for the possibility of someone else coming around the corner - so you should be able to stop in half your clear vision distance.

Of someone being on your side of the road, i.e. overtaking, you mean?

If you take a 90 degree bend, then the distance that you can see to be clear is effectively halved anyway. You can't really gauge what would be a safe speed, because halving your stopping distance would hold if both cars were travelling towards eachother at the same speed. But if the oncoming car was doing say 10mph more than you, then you're going to hit it, regardless of you halving your stopping distance.

As I said, there are always cases where you can point out that the established rules of engagement won't hold. You can't react for every one of these cases. The best you can be is prepared.

Victor

Re: Penalty points article. Further discussion and a wordy rebuke from me.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135924

TomF

Here's a funny article in the Atlantic Monthly magazine on the sudden careful driving that breaks-out when a Gardai car comes in view.

The Atlantic Monthly, December 2003
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/12/wallraff.htmWord Fugitives

Word Fugitives
by Barbara Wallraff

In the July/August issue we asked for "a word to denote the tendency of traffic to cluster around and behind highway patrol cars on rural interstates because no one dares to pass the trooper vehicle." Michael Slancik, of Kalamazoo, Michigan, responded, "When I look in the rearview mirror of my patrol car and see that traffic cluster, I, like most of us 'on the job,' refer to it as V'd up. Some of us are also goose hunters and use the term for geese flying in V-formation." Gerard Farrell, of Navasota, Texas, wrote, "I can't speak to the drivers' tendencies, but in this state we refer to the police vehicle itself as a rolling roadblock." Alan Fryar, of Lexington, Kentucky, had it the other way around, though. He wrote, "My cousin, a former Kentucky state policeman, referred to the tendency of traffic to stagnate behind him on I-75 as a rolling roadblock."

Jim Reid, of Guelph, Ontario, wrote, "As coincidence would have it, on my way to buy The Atlantic I found myself suddenly braking with a string of other cars as a police cruiser appeared from a dirt side road. It then held us grimly at the speed limit. Skidlock describes the immediate response to a police car." And Mark Penney, of West Lafayette, Indiana, says that in the environs of the Indianapolis 500, "for obvious reasons we refer to this as the pace-car phenomenon."

I loved the word that Sam P. Allen, of Toledo, Ohio, and Naples, Florida, submitted to describe "the human condition that prevents motorists from passing a police patrol car": arrestlessness. As for the people who hang back behind a patrol car, a few readers designated them road worriers. A highly popular submission was cruiser control. Patricia Chu, of Houston, Texas, suggested giving new meaning to the term ticketless travel. And Jerome Kamer, of Los Angeles, thought of slowest common speedometer. Alas, those terms don't do the job requested: describing the tendency.

One that does was submitted by several people, including Kurt Sauer, of Bethesda, Maryland, who said he learned it from listening to police officers when he worked as a paramedic, and Frank Williams, of Tempe, Arizona, who learned it from a former director of the Arizona Department of Public Safety. But Dan Schechter, of Los Alamitos, California, explained it best and so takes top honors. Schechter wrote, "Some California Highway Patrol officers call the phenomenon the halo effect. The term has a double meaning: the drivers suddenly behave like angels, and the angels form an annoying halo around the patrol car."