What am I doing wrong?

John R

cormie wrote:

For the record, I have been rear-ended. It was not my fault, I was driving to Dublin from Galway, I was approaching a roundabout and my destination was the first left hand turn. I was in the right hand lane, I overtook a truck, indicated left and turned in. I saw somebody pull in between me and the truck. There was not enough room and I was applying breaks as the car in front was stopping at the roundabout. I stopped and the car in behind me didnt apply strong enough and ended up bumping into the back of me. I pulled in at the left hand turn and unfortunately they sped around to the next exit and that was the last I saw of them. My car was fine, but they smashed the glass on their headlight.

So you jumped in front of a truck at the last minute becaue you were in the wrong lane / a big hurry approaching a roundabout. Another bad driver followed you and either he was an atrocious driver who misjudged the distance from him-you-car infront or you braked harder than necessary and caught him by surprise. Either way there were two bad drivers involved in that incident and probably a truck driver with the sh!t scared out of him.

You have been driving less than 6 months, you are not yet a good driver.
I do not know anyone who was after 6 months, including me. I was over confident then as well and it is only now after 10 odd years looking back that I can see that. In time you might learn to be a competent driver but it won't happen overnight.

Esel

a person with an unusual or odd personality
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

2. flake - a person with an unusual or odd personality
eccentric, eccentric person, oddball, geek
unusual person, anomaly - a person who is unusual
crackpot, fruitcake, nut case, nutcase, screwball, crank, nut - a whimsically eccentric person
nutter, wacko, whacko - a person who is regarded as eccentric or mad

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=define%3Atroll&btnG=Search&meta=

cormie

No I didn't jump in front of the truck. I had plenty of room and time whereas the person behind me didn't. Which is why the accident was caused. If they didn't cut in, there wouldn't have been an accident! The truck didn't bump into them so while they were busy speeding past the truck into the left hand lane, I was busy breaking and bumpidy bump.


There is only one way for you all to see if I'm a good or bad driver. I say we all go out for a trip in my car! haha. Imagine that.


Unkel, Stop at amber unless it is unsafe to do so. If you're going to have to jam on and end up in the middle of a junction, you should have kept going.

Esel, thank you for the education.
Well what would be a normal personality in this day and age? I don't know.
No, I don't go starting threads for the "fun" of it. As I said, if you actually read the thread you will see I wanted to know if what I was doing wrong. As the topic title says "What am I doing wrong". If you actually look through all my posts on boards.ie you will understand I am not a "troll" I honestly have better things to be doing than creating unrest with an online message board community would you believe!

RicardoSmith

cormie wrote:

.... Stop at amber unless it is unsafe to do so. ....

Thats what I thought. But I've been told that this has been changed recently, so you HAVE to stop. I've never confirmed that however. Anyone shed some light on that?

Gurgle

RicardoSmith wrote:

But I've been told that this has been changed recently, so you HAVE to stop. I've never confirmed that however. Anyone shed some light on that?

No, thats what red is for.
I think there was a change recently because the amber light was being abused, now if your spotted by a guard going through an amber light, you'd better have some reason why you went through it. Obviously those reasone include not being able to stop safely because your being tail-gated.

cormie wrote:

I've been driving since March and I honestly think I'm probably better than allot of fully licensed drivers out there.

If you learned to drive in city traffic this year, I'd be inclined to agree. There are so so many ppl with full licenses who have no idea about lanes / roundabouts / indicators / amber lights / pedestrian crossings / cyclists / motorcyclists. If you have read the rules of the road from front to back, you certainly know more than many of our experienced drivers. If you followed them, that would be even better.

seamus

unkel wrote:

Incomparable as they may be, every experience on the road counts. If more people would have experience using different means of transport, they would be better / safer at all those because they would be more considerate of other road users as both of you are proving

Well, this is true. At least you know what's out there. A bicycle moves much more slowly then a car, and your vantage point and all the things you have to take into consideration are very very different. The amount of time you have to react to, and consider hazards is hugely slashed once you switch to the car, as you know.
What I'm saying is don't fool yourself into thinking "I'm better than him because I rode a bicycle to school/work for years."
When I switched to a motorbike, I was raging that my car experience wasn't counted by the insurance company, but it makes sense now. It was useful because I wasn't learning the roads as I was learning to use my vehicle, but the two types of driving are also incomparable.

cormie

Gurgle wrote:

No, thats what red is for.
I think there was a change recently because the amber light was being abused, now if your spotted by a guard going through an amber light, you'd better have some reason why you went through it. Obviously those reasone include not being able to stop safely because your being tail-gated.



If you learned to drive in city traffic this year, I'd be inclined to agree. There are so so many ppl with full licenses who have no idea about lanes / roundabouts / indicators / amber lights / pedestrian crossings / cyclists / motorcyclists. If you have read the rules of the road from front to back, you certainly know more than many of our experienced drivers. If you followed them, that would be even better.

Amber does mean stop unless safe to do so. if your 5 metres from the white line going 50mph and amber appears, you are not expected to jam on and stop.

Much of my learning experience has been in traffic. My job requires me to be in different locations quite often so I wouldn't be keeping the the same route or road conditions all the time. I've about 5,000 miles experience so far. I received good tuition, 10 lessons from motor school and loads from my dad who had been driving 35 years without a claim against him. I have read the theory book fully for car license and I do follow the rules.

Bri

cormie wrote:

I have read the theory book fully for car license and I do follow the rules.

Oh FFS! Have you learned nothing from us all tearing our hair out and trying to educate you? :eek:

Sleipnir

RicardoSmith wrote:

If you are driving illegally (On a provisional on a motorway is illegal) how can your insurance be valid?

Yah that auld chestnut again.
I asked someone from the Insurance Federation of Ireland and they said that an injured 3rd party would be covered by the provisional license holder's insurance but the license holder himself would not be covered.

cormie

Bri wrote:

Oh FFS! Have you learned nothing from us all tearing our hair out and trying to educate you? :eek:

Ah now here. Read what I'm replying to would you? I'm sick of having to point these things out. I was asked. I answered.

Bri

Sleipnir wrote:

Yah that auld chestnut again.
I asked someone from the Insurance Federation of Ireland and they said that an injured 3rd party would be covered by the provisional license holder's insurance but the license holder himself would not be covered.

Offhand that seems fair enough to me.

Bri

cormie wrote:

Ah now here. Read what I'm replying to would you? I'm sick of having to point these things out. I was asked. I answered.

So you know the rules and you don't break them, yet up until a few days ago you stopped in 1-lane traffic, drove on a motorway as a provisional, and previously had an accident involving you in the inner lane approaching a round-about whilst attempting to exit left. And don't forget you started this thread wondering what you "were doing wrong".

Gee, sorry.

mike65

I really think this thread is played out, there little to gain by jousting against Cormie and Cormie you should proberly seeek to develope some (sadly not so) common road sense. No more picking folk up in the middle lane eh?

Mike.

cormie

Bri wrote:

So you know the rules and you don't break them, yet up until a few days ago you stopped in 1-lane traffic, drove on a motorway as a provisional, and previously had an accident involving you in the inner lane approaching a round-about whilst attempting to exit left. And don't forget you started this thread wondering what you "were doing wrong".

Gee, sorry.

As I said, I'm willing to take a risk to use the motorway. Picking my associate up was also necessary. I have now arranged to meet him in the suggested construction site. The crash was not my fault. I pulled in, they sped off.

seamus

cormie wrote:

The crash was not my fault. I pulled in, they sped off.

There is always a lesson to be learned from a crash, legally your fault or otherwise. Unless your vehicle wasn't moving at the time, "There was nothing I could have done to avoid it", isn't true, regardless of blame. Not at getting at you, just another thing to keep in mind.

fjon

seamus wrote:

Experience affords one the ability to lose some of the practices taught by driving schools. There's not really any need to have the handbrake on at lights unless you're on a hill. Otherwise I just use the footbrake.

Not quite sure about this one...
If you are behind a car at a light, with only your footbrake applied,and someone rear-ends you, the shock *may* just make you pull your foot off the brake and run into the car in front of you. It hasn't happened to me, so I can't speak from experience, it's just been said to me on more than one occasion. I also believe if you do one of those Advanced Driving Courses with Hibernian they *will* fail you if you do not apply the handbrake at a traffic light...

seamus

fwk wrote:

Not quite sure about this one...
If you are behind a car at a light, with only your footbrake applied,and someone rear-ends you, the shock *may* just make you pull your foot off the brake and run into the car in front of you. It hasn't happened to me, so I can't speak from experience, it's just been said to me on more than one occasion. I also believe if you do one of those Advanced Driving Courses with Hibernian they *will* fail you if you do not apply the handbrake at a traffic light...

I can't see how the shock from being hit from behind would make you take your foot off the brake, if anything it would make me press down harder, but that could be just me.

On more than one occasion, I've heard it's frowned upon by official testers to put your handbrake on at the lights if it's not necessary, as it increases your reaction time and slows your progress, holding up the traffic behind you. I'd be inclined to agree...

One of those arguments that will never be settled probably.

cormie

I agree but I know this was not my fault. It was completely wrong for them to try and get inbetween the truck and I.

Luckily I'm used to applying handbreak almost every time I stop, except for places like toll bridge cash queues and real slow moving traffic. It's good to learn the right things from the start.

Thanks for your help and tips people. Here's to safe driving! Let's drink to that! haha (don't worry, I don't even drink)

cormie

seamus wrote:

I can't see how the shock from being hit from behind would make you take your foot off the brake, if anything it would make me press down harder, but that could be just me.

On more than one occasion, I've heard it's frowned upon by official testers to put your handbrake on at the lights if it's not necessary, as it increases your reaction time and slows your progress, holding up the traffic behind you. I'd be inclined to agree...

One of those arguments that will never be settled probably.

Applying handbreak is the right thing to do. That's what I have been told. You should apply handbreak whenever you stop. Surely there can't be different rules for different testers?

seamus

cormie wrote:

Applying handbreak is the right thing to do. That's what I have been told. You should apply handbreak whenever you stop. Surely there can't be different rules for different testers?

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

RicardoSmith

Gurgle wrote:

No, thats what red is for.
I think there was a change recently because the amber light was being abused, now if your spotted by a guard going through an amber light, you'd better have some reason why you went through it. Obviously those reasone include not being able to stop safely because your being tail-gated.



If you learned to drive in city traffic this year, I'd be inclined to agree. There are so so many ppl with full licenses who have no idea about lanes / roundabouts / indicators / amber lights / pedestrian crossings / cyclists / motorcyclists. If you have read the rules of the road from front to back, you certainly know more than many of our experienced drivers. If you followed them, that would be even better.

I've been told the amber light thing by a couple of guards and taxi drivers. I dunno what the official line it. Someone also told me that the change is in the latest rules of the road. I've never checked up on it. These days I'm not going to go through on amber. If someone rear ends me then thats their fault. Try telling a judge you went through a red light because someone was tailgating you. You'll be laughed at. What the first rule of Italian driving? Whats behind you is NOT important! (Quote from which movie). theres a few junctions now where you only about 5-10 secs between changes. Its almost impossible to get throught those on green!

Personally I'd say theres more bad inexperienced drivers than bad experienced drivers.

BrianD3

On the subject of traffic lights - I find that driving in Dublin nowadays very many drivers don't stop for RED lights (never mind amber)

A couple of times I have stopped at red lights only to have the guy behind me almost rear end me because he wasn't excepting me to stop. He was expecting me to boot the accelerator and break the light because that's what most of the other muppets on the road do. I've also gotten into a couple of road rage incidents (verbal and hand gestures) over me stopping at red lights.

What needs to happen to these assholes is: they break a red light and get side impacted by a truck/big van/jeep travelling at 30 mph. Lets see if they show a blatant disregard for traffic signals after that :mad:

BrianD3

cormie

Well when I read my theory book in say January, it definitely said "stop unless safe to do so". It was only bought a few months prior to reading so that must be the correct rule.

sceptre

cormie wrote:

As I said, I'm willing to take a risk to use the motorway. Picking my associate up was also necessary. I have now arranged to meet him in the suggested construction site. The crash was not my fault. I pulled in, they sped off.

"Convenient", not "necessary":)

Esel

cormie wrote:

Well when I read my theory book in say January, it definitely said "stop unless safe to do so". It was only bought a few months prior to reading so that must be the correct rule.

Shouldn't it have read 'stop unless unsafe to do so'?

Victor

cormie wrote:

Well when I read my theory book in say January, it definitely said "stop unless safe to do so". It was only bought a few months prior to reading so that must be the correct rule.

"stop unless safe to do so"?

Red = stop

Orange = stop unless it is not safe to do so (e.g. you are likely to pass the stop line by the time you brake)

RicardoSmith

Victor wrote:

"stop unless safe to do so"?

Red = stop

Orange = stop unless it is not safe to do so (e.g. you are likely to pass the stop line by the time you brake)

I can still be safer to stop over the red line than continuing through a junction. Personally I think if you had to argue this one in court or to a guard it wouldn't hold much weight. Is that the exact wording of the law?

John R

BrianD3 wrote:

On the subject of traffic lights - I find that driving in Dublin nowadays very many drivers don't stop for RED lights (never mind amber)

A couple of times I have stopped at red lights only to have the guy behind me almost rear end me because he wasn't excepting me to stop. He was expecting me to boot the accelerator and break the light because that's what most of the other muppets on the road do. I've also gotten into a couple of road rage incidents (verbal and hand gestures) over me stopping at red lights.

What needs to happen to these assholes is: they break a red light and get side impacted by a truck/big van/jeep travelling at 30 mph. Lets see if they show a blatant disregard for traffic signals after that :mad:

BrianD3

I would say it is a rare day that I do not see someone break a red light by at least 5 seconds, it is pretty much standard now. The joke is these are the same idiotic muppets who when they are stopped at a red light pay no attention and are not ready to move off when it turns green.

I will say it again. I ****ing HATE driving in this country, the only thing is it is even worse being a cyclist/biker/pedestrian.

cormie

Yes "stop unless it is un-safe to do so" woops:)

Well if I was done for going through amber is such conditions I'd just take the government to court! As you do!

Gurgle

cormie wrote:

Yes "stop unless it is un-safe to do so" woops:)

For the questions part of your driving test, you have to add 'unless it is unsafe to do so' to the end of every answer.