dangerous driving - opinons please

Andrew Duffy

x_in_the_city wrote:

i was cought doing 95 or something on a dual carriageway last december.

x_in_the_city wrote:

in reality, i thought they were boy racers tailgaiting me...........

Pot - kettle.

Boggle

mike65 wrote:

Those belonging to the age group most likely to die are reading these words.

Yeah stats point at this - and of course stats wouldn't lie. Would they???

Point of interest for you - my brother has been in the firebrigade for about 5 years (Clonmel area) and has been at loads of RTA's (including his girlfriend's) and he was telling me that he cut his second 'Boy racer' out of a car the other week. Incidentally, he has an RTA every other week. (RTA = road traffic accident)

Sleipnir

That's because for every one boy-racer out there, there are 50 other people.
That is, they are a smaller demographic than others such as "mothers with kids in the car"

Boggle

When does a boy racer graduate to a racer. 17, 18, 19, 21, 25???? Or does it apply to any lad who likes to spend money on his car? Anyway, most real boy racers I know dont wreck their cars - they've invested too much to risk damaging them (the car park bunch). The danger comes from kids in their daddy's car's. (- whole other topic)

Sleipnir

Imposter wrote:

Sleipnir,

I see what you're saying but that analysis fails to mention that you can avoid obstacles by going around them and not just stopping before them. Another thing on a motorway is that all traffic should be going in the same direction and there should be no other 'obstacles' (people, animals, etc) other than traffic. Motorways don't have sharp turns on them so if you are keeping an appropriate distance from the car in front there shouldn't be a problem even at 90mph.

On a dual carraigeway however this is not the case. There are junctions, footpaths and bus stops which makes a lower limit sensible. Then you often have, what can only be described as idiots , people who try and cross the carraigeway on foot!

So basically 90mph can be safe on a motorway whereas it isn't safe ona dual carraigeway.

"Should not" have obstacles? Yes you're dead right, but they do. That's the reality.
It should be safe if you can be guaranteed that nothing will happen; no unforeseen obstacles or events but can you offer me that guarantee?
The only place you get that is a racetrack.

Plus, let's take night driving. You dipped lamps project for about 160 feet in front of the car.
If you're bumbling along the motorway at 50mph
Reaction distance is 110ft.
braking takes another 158 feet.
Total = 268ft.
By the time you see it and reacted, you've hit it.

At 80mph.
Reaction distance is 168ft.
Braking - 404ft
Total - 580ft.

You actually don't even have time to think about stopping before you've hit the object. Never mind begin to brake.

seamus

Sleipnir wrote:

"Should not" have obstacles? Yes you're dead right, but they do. That's the reality.
It should be safe if you can be guaranteed that nothing will happen; no unforeseen obstacles or events but can you offer me that guarantee?
The only place you get that is a racetrack.

Plus, let's take night driving. You dipped lamps project for about 160 feet in front of the car.
If you're bumbling along the motorway at 50mph
Reaction distance is 110ft.
braking takes another 158 feet.
Total = 268ft.
By the time you see it and reacted, you've hit it.

At 80mph.
Reaction distance is 168ft.
Braking - 404ft
Total - 580ft.

You actually don't even have time to think about stopping before you've hit the object. Never mind begin to brake.

Not that I don't agree with you, but motorways are lit. The above scenarios hold only if there's a citywide blackout. If you can't make out unlit objects (e.g. cars with no lights on) from 300 feet away on a motorway, you should either get your eyes checked or get off the motorway, go home, and go to bed.

Sleipnir

Boggle wrote:

most real boy racers I know dont wreck their cars - they've invested too much to risk damaging them

Oh, we're talking about crashing on purpose now eh? That's a good un'.

Cars are never investments.

BrianD3

but motorways are lit

Not all of them. There are long stretches on the M4 (maynooth/kilcock bypass) that are completely unlit. I'd say there are plenty of other examples too.

BrianD3

Sleipnir

seamus wrote:

Not that I don't agree with you, but motorways are lit. The above scenarios hold only if there's a citywide blackout. If you can't make out unlit objects (e.g. cars with no lights on) from 300 feet away on a motorway, you should either get your eyes checked or get off the motorway, go home, and go to bed.

Are all motorways lit for 100% of the road? Drive the N11 at night.

Anyway Seamus, I'm just trying to show how HUGE the stopping distances are because I don't believe people really know about them. I mean, they might know "it's this number" but if they actually walked it and looked back from where they started, they might be surprised.

a_ominous

seamus wrote:

Not that I don't agree with you, but motorways are lit. The above scenarios hold only if there's a citywide blackout. If you can't make out unlit objects (e.g. cars with no lights on) from 300 feet away on a motorway, you should either get your eyes checked or get off the motorway, go home, and go to bed.

Hi Seamus,
don't often disagree with you, but when I used to travel the M9 to Carlow it was unlit. And I think the M7 after Naas doesn't have lights. Just at the junctions.

seamus

Interesting. Haven't travelled on motorways at night except for the M50 and part of the M4 (never had a need to). I just assumed they were all lit - sounds like common sense to me that if you're going to be travelling at 70mph, having the road lit would be a basic requirement. Typical Irish.

impr0v

seamus wrote:

Interesting. Haven't travelled on motorways at night except for the M50 and part of the M4 (never had a need to). I just assumed they were all lit - sounds like common sense to me that if you're going to be travelling at 70mph, having the road lit would be a basic requirement. Typical Irish.

The reasons for this are partly economical, as the electricity and maintenance bills can be quite high, but primarily environmental. Light spillage and pollution are hot topics when trying to get a road design approved by An Bord Pleanala, and the nimby brigade tend to enjoy going to town on the subject, imagining their pretty little bunglows bathed in a stark halogen white 24/7, despite it being 200m from the proposed scheme.

The M50 would have been the exception because of the fact that it mainly traverses an urban environment and would be considered by most to be an urban environment itself. The high volumes would probably also have been a factor. There is only a short section of the M4 lit, from Leixlip to roughly the Liffey bridge, and then a stretch around each junction, as is standard good practice.

mackerski wrote:

But when the M1 is empty, as it often is, I contend that 100mph can actually be safer than 70 - simply because, at 70, boredom and complacency can cause attention lapses. Let's also remember that one of the (many) reasons that Germany can sustain very fast Autobahn speeds is the very fact that every driver expects them - which drives correct behaviour in getting them the hell out of the overtaking lanes in good time.

Valid points.

Hagar

I watched Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear test the Jaguar 220 on the Autobahn. He wanted to show it at it's top speed of 220mph. As he neared the top speed a car pulled into the fast lane 2 miles ahead of him doing and estimated 70mph. He nearly shat himself. He only had 48 seconds to shed a speed difference of 150mph. He just about managed it. He is what I would call an expert driver. He said if anyone had pulled out into that lane while he was trying to slow down he was dead.

I know this is an extreme example but everything is relative. You're no Jeremy Clarkson, you car isn't factory perfect, we don't have Autobahn standard roads, the drivers you are dicing with are just ordinary punters with no special driving skills.

If you are travelling at 100mph you are covering 49yds per second. If a driver ahead doesn't see you approach at that speed and pulls out 200yds ahead your chances of surviving are small.

Pay the fine, learn your lesson, slow down, live longer.

mike65

Only Belgium has all lit motorways I belive.

Boggle, not all young drivers are "boy-racers" while some boy-racers never grow up. That your brother has only cut two such types as you/he describe them does'nt really prove anything. Young men die or are injured in disproportionate numbers vis-a-vis the motoring population as a whole.

Mike.

ps boy-racer is for me not someone who has a flash motor but rather thinks he's Gods gift/immortal and either has a flash motor or really wants one.

comanche_cor

I somehow doubt that anybody in the thread can consider themselves safe drivers - how many people have driven tired, angry, while one the phone etc. We all do stupid things while driving.

I think that 100mph should be deemed as dangerous driving and you should be willing to accept the wrap if you were doing that speed. You knew you were travelling that fast face up to your actions. But think about if, if you had had an accident at that speed would trying to make your meeting on time have been worth it? Tell the judge you realise how stupid you were now!

The fact is that although some of the road here are capable of carrying traffic high speed the fact is that drivers here are not trained to do such speed. When people can sit a driving test without having any lessons and half (don't know actual percentage - just an expression) the drivers out there have been driving on licence given out in the aminsty you cannot say that roads here are safe.

People here are terrible drivers and until such time are driving improves driving at speeds over 100mph should be considered dangerous driving.

But back to the point - own up all you will get is points. Friend was caught doing 96mph in a 50 zone and my bother was caught doing similar speeds in a 60 zone and all they both go 2 penalty points.

mackerski

Hagar wrote:

we don't have Autobahn standard roads

We do. People seem to have some funny idea that the German word for Motorway implies some magic road spec, uniquely suited to higher speeds and denied the rest of the world. Not so. The mainline carriageways and ramps on Irish Motorways are in every respect as highly-specced as the bulk of German Autobahnen. Ours are strictly two-laners, of course, and for speeds over about 180km/h it's nice to have a third lane to decrease the chances of having to brake.

Dermot

secret_squirrel

Sleipnir wrote:

Anyway Seamus, I'm just trying to show how HUGE the stopping distances are because I don't believe people really know about them. I mean, they might know "it's this number" but if they actually walked it and looked back from where they started, they might be surprised.

Tell me what year and what car you got these figures for - only then are they anything more than a meaningless generalisation - just like speed limits infact.

Hagar wrote:

He just about managed it. He is what I would call an expert driver.

The point is he did make it - which means he was travelling within both his limits and the cars. Which is the point most of the holier-than-thou posters here arent willing to conceed.

Sleipnir wrote:

Whatever you think about your own driving, statistically, you are an unsafe driver.

You're so wrong here its not funny - statistically most accidents happen under 40 miles an hour in an urban area. so by your logic we should all be doing 90+ out on the dual carraigeways.

And if you want any proof that the people setting our speed limits are clueless morons check out the old m1 dual carraigeway between the airport and swords. It actually increases from a 40 to a 50 as you enter Swords.

The fact of the matter is that the final arbiter of my speed is neither a road sign, the Guards or a Judge - its my own judgement based on the conditions and the vehicle Im in. And if that causes me to end up before said judge then so be it. I might regret it a little but hey thats life - its my choice no matter how many of the preaching posters here dont like it.

unkel

secret_squirrel wrote:

Tell me what year and what car you got these figures for - only then are they anything more than a meaningless generalisation - just like speed limits infact.

Agree and disagree

I feel Sleipnir made a significant contribution to this discussion by coming up with figures for stopping distance, etc. A lot of people would probably not be aware of these at all

Agree with you, secret_squirrel, that these figures vary wildly from car to car. I've no doubt that some cars with superior brakes would need only half the stopping distance compared to the benchmark figures used

Capt'n Midnight

I must admit to being confused as to how a "letter from the boss" about being "late for a meeting" somehow gives carte blanche to someone to endanger lives.

If it were me, the Boss would get hauled up in front of a judge on health and safety grounds, what meeting is that important, how exactly was it going to increase anyones life expectancy ?? And in this day and age when everyone has mobile phones and our transport infrastructure is as bad as is then you could simply phone and say you'd be late because of either the real reason or the traffic.

Actually there is an argument that if you were involved in an accident and you suspected that it was a company car or the person was on expenses you might be able to show through meeting / delivery times or the payment of fines by the company that the organisation was encouraging it's employees to speed. In which case you may hit the compo jackpot.

Blitzkrieger

smokey2 wrote:

100 mph is an instant ban afaik and you were just under it by 1 mph you'll be luck to get away with your licence!!

Can they prove you were doing 99mph?

Kaskade wrote:

can your solicitor not prove that you were just speeding and not dangerous driving, ie was it bright, dry, good tyres on the car, are you an experienced driver, no history of dangerous driving. Dont really have a clue but people always get off with it and dont loose their licence.

This is the usaual route. Forget about any notes from your boss. Get a solicitor to argue that your speed wasn't dangerous. Talk about road conditions, traffic flow and all that stuff. At the end of it, can the gardai produce any proof of your car doing 99mph?

Shoolaboola wrote:

all you dangerous drivers should go kill yourselves, rather than killing innocent people with your driving. it should be you people that died not people like my dad.

o ffs - go buy a clue. Dangerous driving != speeding.

The goverment tells you speed kills and you aumotmatically believe them? Every saftey group will tell you that increased driver training, increased enforcement of traffic laws and moving the speed traps to more dangerous places (like school zones and accident black spots) are the only ways we'll lower road deaths.

mike65

Enough enough enough!

Mike.