Piss off people - obey the speed limit

py2006

jdwals wrote:

Actually, I for one would be delighted if people obeyed the speed limit. And when I say this, I mean actually drive at the maximum speed allowed! If the road lets you drive at 100kph - then bloody well drive at 100kph! (Weather and road conditions allowing!)
Not 80kph or even 60kph but 100kph!
The type of driving that pi**es me off the most is when I have to drive from Dublin to Kerry and back and get stuck behind some idiot travelling as low as 40kph (yes, they are out there) below the posted speed limit and I can't get past them either due to traffic, lack of overtaking stretches or more likely the tendency of these slower drivers to be so far into the middle of the road, they may as well be driving on the other side of it!
If on the other hand someone is going above the speed limit, I give them as much space as I can to safely overtake and let them on their way. That way, they are happy, I am happy - everyone is happy!

I think the key word here that some people forget is the word LIMIT!! 100km/h is the LIMIT. That means the fastest you can go. It doesn't actually mean that you must drive at that speed all the time and don't go any slower.

People who go a little slower than that are not doing anything wrong. Even though it can be annoying to people who want to speed.

Manic Moran

SouperComputer wrote:

The risks\dangers don’t get necessarily higher because you have crossed a legal limit. Yes, reaction distances increase obviously, but this is where inappropriate use of speed comes in, it has nothing to do with the legal limit

Again, in California: Highway 101 was designed back in the pre-Federally-mandated speed limit days to allow people to get from San Francisco to LA at an average speed of about 90mph. It is possible to get off a speeding ticket in California if you can show that you were not exceeding the safe speed for the road given the road conditions, state of your vehicle, and so on, so speeding tickets on 101 at anything less than 80mph are rare, simply because they can be thrown out fairly easily.

Also, chances are they were probably driving nearer 50MPH if they were using their vehicle's speedo's to judge their speed.

Fair point, though I'm not sure if American manufacturers are held to the (I think German) law that a speedo cannot show less than what you are doing, so there may not be any attempt at a fudge factor.

Manic Moran

py2006 wrote:

I think the key word here that some people forget is the word LIMIT!! 100km/h is the LIMIT. That means the fastest you can go. It doesn't actually mean that you must drive at that speed all the time and don't go any slower.

People who go a little slower than that are not doing anything wrong. Even though it can be annoying to people who want to speed.

Again, representative law from my state (Since the movie is presumably an American one). I make no statement as to if similar laws are in Ireland.

21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of
traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving
vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more
vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the
nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the
authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever
sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the
vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a
slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed
less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and
place.

Again, my bold. Some vehicle tooling along with a caravan or a truck is legally obliged to let people behind pass, by pulling off the road and stopping if required. Note again, the use of 'normal' flow of traffic, with no reference whatsoever to the speed limit.

NTM

cooperguy

ruprect wrote:

if both cars are 2 abreast on the motorway driving at the speed limit, then there is nothing any highway patrol could do. One is trying to pass out the other and not breaking the law. I doubt the one on the inside is breaking the law, just common sense.

No it is against the law if you are unable to pass the car in front of you while staying within the limit then you are not supposed to be in the outside lane. The idea of both cars travelling at the same speed and the outside one is trying to overtake is not legal, if you cannot overtake then you shouldnt be there

mackerski

robinph wrote:

That isn't a minimum speed limit though, its that your vehicle has to be capable of travelling at at least that speed not that you have to keep to at least that speed. The only place I'm aware of minimum limits is on the outside lanes of the autobahn.

There is not, as a rule, any minimum speed mandated for the outside lane of an Autobahn. Very occasionally, typically on steep uphill stretches with 3 lanes or more, a minimum speed will be posted, using standard signage (blue disc) for all but the right-most lane.

Commander Vimes wrote:

the slow lane is for people who drive below the limit. if someone was driving at the limit and pulled into the slow lane, they'd be breaking the law.

I wouldn't have thought it possible to pack so many incorrect assertions into such a small space. Not a fact anywhere to be seen.

Dermot

johnnyrotten

bounty wrote:

no, its the fast and slow lane, everyone knows that

No, its the Inside lane and Overtaking lane, Everyone knows that, Ask Gay Byrne:p

maidhc

Oh how I would love to do that on the N25 and N8. I think 50mph would be reasonable. (If I wanted to be unreasonable I could bring out my tractor!)

They might then change the signposts to blue!

Guy:Incognito

py2006 wrote:

I think the key word here that some people forget is the word LIMIT!! 100km/h is the LIMIT. That means the fastest you can go. It doesn't actually mean that you must drive at that speed all the time and don't go any slower.

People who go a little slower than that are not doing anything wrong. Even though it can be annoying to people who want to speed.

To keep a proper flow of traffic people should drive at the speed limit. Anyone who argues against this go see the chaos that is th eM50 with people pootling along at 60 - 80 km. It's ridiculous.

Also these people don't know how to merge. If the traffic on the motorway is travelling at 120km's you DO NOT merge at 80km, it's dangerous. I wouldnt be able to count the number of people I see everyday who breka to merge, what sort of idiots are these. You merge with traffic at the speed its going, not th espeed you think everyone should have to break heavily down to because you've graced the road with your presence.

I've driven up the north a few times recently from dublin. Not sure of road names but its the main road that begins as the M1 I think and is mostly motorway. Most people seem to drive at around 130km which keeps the traffic moveing brilliantly with most of the traffic that is moving slower, but mostly around 110 -120km , occuping the left lane so others can overtake. Yet on the way back when the carsthat are going to the M50 turn onto it, some drive the same, while others revert to idiot mode like the traffic already on the M50 and drive at 80km, thus keeping the whole M50 moving at 80 -100km. I rarely manage to get up to 120kms on the M50 anymore.

Commander Vimes wrote:

i doubt that would happen. the slow lane is for people who drive below the limit. if someone was driving at the limit and pulled into the slow lane, they'd be breaking the law.

This proves that people in this country havnt a clue how to use motorways and should take it upon themselves, seeign as the government wont do it for them, to go to another country to be thouaght how to use them.

In a way it's not the fault of most people as it's not part of learnign to drive, but tbh I learned by a combination of a bit fo cop on (which seems to be severly lackking here) and by observign people in countries whre they know how to use motorways (mostly Germany)

TempestSabre

The problem it that the odds of the guards enforcing the rules and getting caught is so slim most people ignore the rules. Until that issue is resolved you won't improve peoples driving.

samb

I'm new on the roads, and I can't believe how much people speed. I try to stick to the limit which I think is generally a reasonable speed, but very quickly find a line of cars behind eagerly waiting for a straight patch of road to overtake. 100Kph is fine for these roads. Also I often find that when we reach a town or village, I am just behind those who overtook me.

Please, stick to the limits.

mackerski

samb wrote:

I'm new on the roads,

samb wrote:

which I think is generally a reasonable speed,

samb wrote:

100Kph is fine for these roads.

That's us told...

Dermot

On the subject of speed limits, the gards are out speed checking on a stretch of good road on the Naas kilcullen road that used to be 60mph speed limit.

The speed limit on this road is now 50mph or 80kph because technically it is a regional road.

It is is clear they are only there for revenue collection purposes as the road hasn't suddenly got more dangerous since the change over to metric, nor is it anywhere near a built up area.

cargrouch

samb wrote:

I try to stick to the limit which I think is generally a reasonable speed, but very quickly find a line of cars behind eagerly waiting for a straight patch of road to overtake.

I don't mind someone doing even 10kph below the limit* if they pull over when they see a build up of traffic. No, they are not obliged to, but if they're not in a hurry then there's no harm is there?

BTW, on the flip side I also completely object to (**cough** Beemer **cough**) drivers rubbing off someones back bumper trying to force them to speed up/pull over. Maintain a reasonable distance, overtake when possible.

*Disclaimer - this applies in good driving conditions. Bad weather at night on country roads = below the limit, end of story.

grizi

Oh don't start with this "it's all about making money" lark. There was a minister for road safety on Top Gear before Christmas who faced up to Jeremy Clarkson on speed cameras and fines etc. Even Jeremy had to admit the amount of money taken in was tiny, not even worth talking about and the UK is littered with cameras. So unless you can produce some figures to show how the government is raking in money from easy speed fines then drop it.

Personally I think what they did in the US was crazy but maybe not illegal. I would presume that references to the normal speed of traffic are for traffic moving at less than or equal to the limit, i.e. avoid a string of really slow cars slowing people moving close to the limit. In the US too I understand that they don't have the same concept of the "overtaking" lane and you can have 3 or 4 lanes moving at pretty much the same speed.

If the speed limit in your area is inappropriate what have you done about it? How about finding out about how to change it. Go to transport.ie, roads section and then road safety - wouldn't you know it, there's a report from the working group on reviewing speed limits!
Also in that report and a simple guide to speed limits on http://oasis.gov.ie/transport/motoring/road_traffic_speed_limits_in_ireland.html mention that local authorities can change speed limits (although its normally down rather than up)

Also - what about less powerful cars? Have you any idea how long it takes a 998cc car to get up to 120km/h? Insisting that they must merge with the motorway at this speed is fairly demanding but obviously it is best to try to get up to speed as soon as you can

mackerski

grizi wrote:

Also - what about less powerful cars? Have you any idea how long it takes a 998cc car to get up to 120km/h? Insisting that they must merge with the motorway at this speed is fairly demanding but obviously it is best to try to get up to speed as soon as you can

Irish slip roads are very long, and usually downhill for traffic entering the motorway. A less powerful car will have trouble merging at 120 if the driver piddles down the entire slip road at 60 and waits until he's in the acceleration lane. What you need to do, especially if your car is a bit less oomphy, is to wait until you're past the blue sign and then step on it.

Dermot

SouperComputer

Also - what about less powerful cars? Have you any idea how long it takes a 998cc car to get up to 120km/h?

That's one of the reasons for the ramps. In reality, the left lane is rarely doing 120k's, usually at most 100 at busy times and somtimes 80 or less. The problem is not the car, its the driver.

They fail to correctly read the speed of the lane and match it. If im driving a puny car, I will usually boot it until I can see the traffic flow and brake/slow if needed, although this is rare as you can usually get away with modulating the power. This is provided of course I dont have cars too close in front or behind.

maidhc

grizi wrote:

If the speed limit in your area is inappropriate what have you done about it?

Sadly all the "speeding kills" propaganda has probably ruled this out. Every day I drive roads that are crying out for a 120kmph limit, but have a 100kmph one, but if the County Council raised the limit they would be attaked by hoardes of finger-waggers.

grizi wrote:

Also - what about less powerful cars? Have you any idea how long it takes a 998cc car to get up to 120km/h? Insisting that they must merge with the motorway at this speed is fairly demanding but obviously it is best to try to get up to speed as soon as you can

I dont see how this is relevant at all! You pay your money and take your choice!

mackerski

maidhc wrote:

Sadly all the "speeding kills" propaganda has probably ruled this out. Every day I drive roads that are crying out for a 120kmph limit, but have a 100kmph one, but if the County Council raised the limit they would be attaked by hoardes of finger-waggers.

The new N2 will have a 120 limit on the bulk of the mainline. Let's hope this isn't an isolated incident.

Dermot

Gegerty

SouperComputer wrote:

Speed doesn’t kill. Inappropriate speed is ONE possible cause amongst many of accidents and there is a major difference.

I find it interesting the scapegoat that "speeding" has become. I have to laugh at the TV shows preaching about speeding, and yet the incident involves a lunatic running a red light at 40MPH or whatever. That has nothing to do with speeding whatsoever!

Speed or speeding is an easy target as it can be quantified, but IMO the real issue is people's attitude and understanding towards\of driving. This of course is much more difficult to judge and to apportion blame in a post-mortem (not neccarily in the death sense) situation.

The risks\dangers don’t get necessarily higher because you have crossed a legal limit. Yes, reaction distances increase obviously, but this is where inappropriate use of speed comes in, it has nothing to do with the legal limit.

As a few people pointed out, this "exercise" was illegal, provocative and unnecessary. Also, chances are they were probably driving nearer 50MPH if they were using their vehicle's speedo's to judge their speed.

Speed is the difference between having time to react and not, its the difference between damaging someones car and damaging someones skull, its the difference between life and death in many accidents. My brother was mushed by an SUV. If only the silly cow wasn't speeding everything would be fine. There are many families saying the same thing. "If only he was going slower". If only people would cop on.

Believe it or not I venture out beyond the pale now and again. It's frustrating getting stuck behind someone "going slow". I'd wager a guess that if you check your speedo you'll see that they're not "going slow" but actually they're sticking to the limit. Unfortunately alot of our roads are too dangerous to overtake and you can travel KM's before getting a chance and even then there'll probably be traffic coming the other way. Again all I can say is get over it.

Another thing, you may think a person is going slow but to them they could be going very fast. What are they to do? Should your dash have an electronic display saying "I like to drive faster so speed up or I'll get angry and do something stupid!"?

I do agree with you that peoples attitudes need to change and is a major factor. Including peoples attutude to speed though.

spockety

Deleted User wrote:

I would imagine one or the other could be done for driving without due care and attention for other users of the road. The rules of the road certainly state that you should not accelerate if a car is overtaking you. If someone is accelrating enough to get by but suddenly both cars are travelling at the same speed, then clearly one or other has declerated to cause the obstruction.

Not necessarily!

What if someone is coming down the on-ramp to a motorway, accelerates to 120kph, and as they reach the bottom of it, they happen to be exactly in line with a car in the driving lane who is also doing exactly 120kph? that car pulls over into the overtaking lane to allow enough room for the car enetering the motorway to get onto it safely. You then have 2 cars going exactly the same speed abreast of each other, with no one having to have decelerated or broken the law! ;-)

Gegerty

samb wrote:

Also I often find that when we reach a town or village, I am just behind those who overtook me.

Please, stick to the limits.

This is always the case. Speeding does not get you there quicker and whats the rush anyway?

Gegerty

spockety wrote:

You then have 2 cars going exactly the same speed abreast of each other, with no one having to have decelerated or broken the law! ;-)

In that case the guy in the inside lane should drop his speed and allow the car in the overtaking lane to drop in front of him. Its not the rules its just corteous. If not, the guy overtaking is not actually overtaking so he is braking the rules and if he has to he should decelerate and drop behind the guy in the inside lane. As mention above this would be down to bad attitude on the road. People should be courteous to one another and look out for each other on the road.

mackerski

spockety wrote:

What if someone is coming down the on-ramp to a motorway, accelerates to 120kph, and as they reach the bottom of it, they happen to be exactly in line with a car in the driving lane who is also doing exactly 120kph? that car pulls over into the overtaking lane to allow enough room for the car enetering the motorway to get onto it safely. You then have 2 cars going exactly the same speed abreast of each other, with no one having to have decelerated or broken the law! ;-)

The car that enters the overtaking lane is guilty of the offence of doing so without cause (there is no car on the mainline for him to overtake, the about-to-merge car is none of his concern). The car about to merge may be guilty of foolishness, if he matched his speed to the car in the left lane, but did so while alongside, rather than a little in front of or behind. That's not an offence, though, and he'd only really be committing an offence if he started his lanechange while the other car was still in the left lane beside him.

Dermot

grizi

maidhc wrote:

Sadly all the "speeding kills" propaganda has probably ruled this out. Every day I drive roads that are crying out for a 120kmph limit, but have a 100kmph one, but if the County Council raised the limit they would be attaked by hoardes of finger-waggers.

Calling people finger-waggers does no good really and those councillors, ministers and finger-waggers are road-users too. Just because it may be possible to do 200 or 300kph on a stretch of road doesn't mean that it should be that limit for a variety of reasons.

maidhc wrote:

I dont see how this is relevant at all! You pay your money and take your choice!

What I'm saying is that you've got to consider that some cars are capable of accelerating much faster than others. The smaller car might be newer, safer, better equipped, more efficient etc that the 3ltr from the early 90's tearing up behind it on the slip road/slow lane. The limits and rules must take account of this.

SouperComputer

Speed is the difference between having time to react and not, its the difference between damaging someones car and damaging someones skull, its the difference between life and death in many accidents. My brother was mushed by an SUV. If only the silly cow wasn't speeding everything would be fine. There are many families saying the same thing. "If only he was going slower". If only people would cop on.

I am very sorry to hear about your brother. However like all accidents there are many factors.........

......speed is only one of them.

What happened was most likely the result of an inappropriate use of speed, not necessarily speeding. By inappropriate I mean relative to the conditions including:

The state of awareness of the driver
Visibility
Field of vision
Available traction
Proximity to hazards such as junctions and pedestrians.
Availability of surfaces to take evasive action.

This accident did not happen because the driver was doing X speed, but because of a combination of the above factors which ultimately come down to the driver’s attitude and education.

maidhc

grizi wrote:

Calling people finger-waggers does no good really and those councillors, ministers and finger-waggers are road-users too. Just because it may be possible to do 200 or 300kph on a stretch of road doesn't mean that it should be that limit for a variety of reasons.

What I'm saying is that you've got to consider that some cars are capable of accelerating much faster than others. The smaller car might be newer, safer, better equipped, more efficient etc that the 3ltr from the early 90's tearing up behind it on the slip road/slow lane. The limits and rules must take account of this.

Your argument seems to be that the ROTR should cater for the lowest common denominator, i.e. those that drive the slowest or have the most underpowered cars. It is almost the equivalent of saying that censorship laws should conform to the mores of the most prudish.

I dont think we are taking about 300kmph here, all I am looking for is a 20kmph incease on a road that is in every way the equivalent of a motorway! If certain cars are unfit to travel at these speeds then I would think limiting them like lorries/coaches would be more sensible than applying their shortcomings across the board.

grizi

maidhc wrote:

Your argument seems to be that the ROTR should cater for the lowest common denominator, i.e. those that drive the slowest or have the most underpowered cars. It is almost the equivalent of saying that censorship laws should conform to the mores of the most prudish.

Not at all, it must cater for everyone who uses the roads including slow and fast cars and even then, there's a minimum engine and license requirement to be on the motorway. Indeed what goes out on TV has to be acceptable to most people and they don't use the standards of the most prudish.

maidhc wrote:

I dont think we are taking about 300kmph here, all I am looking for is a 20kmph incease on a road that is in every way the equivalent of a motorway! If certain cars are unfit to travel at these speeds then I would think limiting them like lorries/coaches would be more sensible than applying their shortcomings across the board.

20kmph may be fine in the dry weather on a good day but what about wet days, windy days, icy days - many of the people here might still be going at 120. And if you looked at the report you'll see that dual carriageways are an issue of division right across Europe - we like several other countries treat it as a national primary road for speed limits. Even in Germany the dual carriageway is limited to 100. Yet one of the recommendations is:

6(a) The deployment of separate special speed limits on different carriageways on dual-carriageways should be pursued.

It's up to the government and the minister to act on that report.

How would limiting the speed of a small car help? Would you close off some of the road network to them? I'm sure loads of people would love to hear you put economical, environmentally friendly cars off the main roads!

maidhc

grizi wrote:

20kmph may be fine in the dry weather on a good day but what about wet days, windy days, icy days -

If it is OK for the M50 it should be OK for the roads I am referring to! Obviously one has to use their better judgment when driving conditions are bad!

grizi wrote:

It's up to the government and the minister to act on that report.

AFAIK the legislation enabling these higher speed limits is there (i.e. the report's recommendations were adopted by the minister), and is being acted upon by some LAs (see posts above) however there is a degree of inertia about it, presumably the fear of finger-waggers...

grizi wrote:

How would limiting the speed of a small car help? Would you close off some of the road network to them? I'm sure loads of people would love to hear you put economical, environmentally friendly cars off the main roads!

I wouldnt be in favour of it, but was merely suggesting that it would be an option if it was shown that they were incapable and dangerous at 120k. I think this is a moot point though since most small cars built in the past 10 years are quite comfortable at these speeds.

Manic Moran

grizi wrote:

20kmph may be fine in the dry weather on a good day but what about wet days, windy days, icy days - many of the people here might still be going at 120.

Again, looking at where I live as an example, there is what is called the 'Basic speed law'. In a nutshell, it says 'notwithstanding posted signs, the speed limit shall be whatever is the maximum safe speed given the prevailing conditions' which includes weather. If you're doing 55mph in a 55mph zone, in thick soup fog, you can be ticketed.

NTM

grizi

maidhc wrote:

If it is OK for the M50 it should be OK for the roads I am referring to! Obviously one has to use their better judgment when driving conditions are bad!

IMHO there are people out there who believe that if the the rule says one thing, they're going to push it to the limit regardless. If only we had a country full of drivers with good judgement....or even some training.

maidhc wrote:

AFAIK the legislation enabling these higher speed limits is there (i.e. the report's recommendations were adopted by the minister), and is being acted upon by some LAs (see posts above) however there is a degree of inertia about it, presumably the fear of finger-waggers...

Well have you looked into it - indeed the road traffic Act went ahead and the minister issued guidelines for LAs when considering a 120km limit:

5.5 Special Speed Limit of 120 km/h
The Road Traffic Act 2004 provides that county and city councils can apply a special speed limit of 120 km/h on dual carriageways on national roads. The Act establishes that in pursuing such an application, a county or city council must comply with relevant provisions in guidelines made by the Minister for Transport.
The facility in relation to the application of this special speed limit is limited to dual carriageways that form part of national roads. Accordingly all such proposals must have the consent of the National Roads Authority.
As is the case in relation to the deployment of special speed limits generally, county and city councils will be influenced by particular considerations, including the collision history, that arise in relation to dual carriageways on national roads in their areas. However, the following specific criteria must apply in respect of any proposals for the deployment of this special speed limit in addition to any such localised considerations –

• The special speed limit should be applied over a minimum continuous length of 3 kilometres;
• Roads should meet the standards for stopping sight distance, horizontal curvature and vertical alignment for 120 km/h as set out in the NRA’s Road Geometry Handbook (allowing for permitted relaxations but not for departures);
• There should be no direct access from premises to the section of road under consideration;
• There must be continuous medians and no at grade junctions in the section under consideration.

Tell that to the finger waggers