Attention Irish Motorists

Vegeta

prospect wrote:

But this applies to driving at all times, obviously 50km/h gives you more time to react than at 90km/h. But does this mean you always drive at 50km/h? Or does it mean you only drive at 90km/h when there is a hard shoulder?

I generally drive at the limit or what the conditons allow.

If i was driving on a single carriage national route, lets say the N7 and I was only able to drive at 90kph (for some reason, i don't know why) I would not pull in to the hard shoulder to let some one pass. I do not deem 10kph or about 10% of the speed limit a justifiable delay to the driver behind. Why should I pull into a section of road that is slightly more dangerous for the sake of a 6 minute delay on an hour journey. That's if he doesn't get a chance to overtake within that hour

If I was doing say 50% of the speed limit (for what ever reason) and a car came up put on his indicator , yes I would pull over as at 50kph I would have loads of time to react in the hard shoulder if anything did go wrong.

Do you not agree that the hard shoulder is ever so slightly more dangerous?

Vegeta

jd wrote:

I can't see the problem, I do it when safe if that is the speed I'm comfortable driving at that particular time.
The other thing to remember is that your speedometer can overstate your speed by up to 15%- you may only be doing approx 80km/hr.

You may also be doing 100kph

prospect

Vegeta wrote:

You may also be doing 100kph

Wrong, they are set up to show above your actual speed.

Vegeta

Our arguement swings on the fact i dodn't think the hard shoulder is a safe place to drive at speed because of unseen dangers. No one would pull in if they saw trouble.

You guys don't think its dangerous.

That's what it comes down to really

Vegeta

prospect wrote:

Wrong, they are set up to show above your actual speed.

questionable i will research this and return

Vegeta

prospect wrote:

Wrong, they are set up to show above your actual speed.

Prove this to me and i will concede the point. So far i have seen they have a 5-10% error which is inherint to the design of the tachometer. I don't think its a linear relationship either

prospect

Vegeta wrote:

I generally drive at the limit or what the conditons allow.

If i was driving on a single carriage national route, lets say the N7 and I was only able to drive at 90kph (for some reason, i don't know why) I would not pull in to the hard shoulder to let some one pass. I do not deem 10kph or about 10% of the speed limit a justifiable delay to the driver behind. Why should I pull into a section of road that is slightly more dangerous for the sake of a 6 minute delay on an hour journey. That's if he doesn't get a chance to overtake within that hour

If I was doing say 50% of the speed limit (for what ever reason) and a car came up put on his indicator , yes I would pull over as at 50kph I would have loads of time to react in the hard shoulder if anything did go wrong.

Do you not agree that the hard shoulder is ever so slightly more dangerous?

Okay, I have a few points regarding this:

Who are you to "Deem 10kph or about 10% of the speed limit a justifiable delay"? The sections of the rules of the road I have quoted already clearly say that a slower vehicle shold not impeed faster moving traffic. There is no reference to figuers, and you have no right to make your own regulation in this regard.

"Why should I pull into a section of road that is slightly more dangerous", excluding extreem and specific circumstances, the hard shoulder is not more dangerous.

"Do you not agree that the hard shoulder is ever so slightly more dangerous?"
As I just said, excluding extreem and specific circumstances, the hard shoulder is not more dangerous. It is laid down at the same time, with the same materials, on the same base as the rest of the road, why would it be more dangerous?
Regarding its proximity to the edge of the road, it is no more dangerous then a single lane national route with no hard shoulder.

Obviously, hard shoulders that are in poor repair, or that have alot of blind spots, hills, left turns or are occupied by parked vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists or other obstructions are not suitable for slow vehicles to move into, but from the very start of the thread I have been quite clear that I am only referring to when "it is safe to do so" situations.

prospect

Vegeta wrote:

Prove this to me and i will concede the point. So far i have seen they have a 5-10% error which is inherint to the design of the tachometer. I don't think its a linear relationship either

Buy a Sat Nav system and prove it to yourself

prospect

Vegeta wrote:

Our arguement

I'd prefer to call it a discussion.

Vegeta wrote:

No one would pull in if they saw trouble.

I would not expect them too, but I have said that quite clearly form the outset.

jd

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/frontpagepdfs/2003/8586.pdf

This is due to a strict EU car

manufacturing regulation which

ensures that a speedometer may

only overstate the speed at which

a vehicle is travelling. The variation

may range by up to 15pc.

In other words, a car clocked at

31mph by garda equipment could

be registering a speedometer

reading of up to 34mph.

In such circumstances, gardai

could argue that a driver should

have been aware from the speedometer

reading that he or she

was driving well in excess of the

limit.

Vegeta

prospect wrote:

Obviously, hard shoulders that are in poor repair, or that have alot of blind spots, hills, left turns or are occupied by parked vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists or other obstructions are not suitable for slow vehicles to move into, but from the very start of the thread I have been quite clear that I am only referring to when "it is safe to do so" situations.

Ok so you're basically talking about long straight roads. Which should be no problem for the car behind to over take anyway

Vegeta

jd wrote:

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/frontpagepdfs/2003/8586.pdf

I concede the point

Vegeta

prospect wrote:

Okay, I have a few points regarding this:

Who are you to "Deem 10kph or about 10% of the speed limit a justifiable delay"? The sections of the rules of the road I have quoted already clearly say that a slower vehicle shold not impeed faster moving traffic. There is no reference to figuers, and you have no right to make your own regulation in this regard.

well i do cos the rules of the road say if a driver wishes to pull in he can, It does not say he must pull in. I could do 1kph and no one has the right to force me into the hardshoulder. It is a choice for you to move in and a choice for me. SO i have every right actually. Who are you to deem i should pull in?

"Why should I pull into a section of road that is slightly more dangerous", excluding extreem and specific circumstances, the hard shoulder is not more dangerous.

"Do you not agree that the hard shoulder is ever so slightly more dangerous?"
As I just said, excluding extreem and specific circumstances, the hard shoulder is not more dangerous. It is laid down at the same time, with the same materials, on the same base as the rest of the road, why would it be more dangerous?
Regarding its proximity to the edge of the road, it is no more dangerous then a single lane national route with no hard shoulder.

Again i disagree, they are not the same material. On most roads they are not even the same colour.

Obviously, hard shoulders that are in poor repair, or that have alot of blind spots, hills, left turns or are occupied by parked vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists or other obstructions are not suitable for slow vehicles to move into, but from the very start of the thread I have been quite clear that I am only referring to when "it is safe to do so" situations.

prospect

Vegeta wrote:

Ok so you're basically talking about long straight roads. Which should be no problem for the car behind to over take anyway

Yep, as I said from the outset. But it would make life easier, and more pleasent fr everyone if drivers gave others a bit of leeway.
Improves the overall mood.

prospect

Vegeta wrote:

well i do cos the rules of the road say if a driver wishes to pull in he can, It does not say he must pull in. I could do 1kph and no one has the right to force me into the hardshoulder. It is a choice for you to move in and a choice for me. SO i have every right actually. Who are you to deem i should pull in?

I like the way you 'cherry pick' the quotes that suit you.
It also says "It is, therefore, important that the general rule to keep left be strictly observed so as not to hold up faster traffic"

Vegeta wrote:

Again i disagree, they are not the same material. On most roads they are not even the same colour.

Well, I can only assume that this is because one has changed colour from the constant traffic it experiences.
Also I seriously doubt that the authorities go to the expense and time of laying different surfaces. Also a lot of hard shoulders have left turn filter lanes as part of them, so this would suggest they are the same surface, or at least a safe one to drive on.
Finally, if they are safe for large and heavy emergency vehicles to use, at speed, they are safe for you to use, at the little bit below the speed limit you like to drive at.

GreeBo

prospect wrote:

I like the way you 'cherry pick' the quotes that suit you.
It also says "It is, therefore, important that the general rule to keep left be strictly observed so as not to hold up faster traffic"

yeah, it says you should keep left so you dont hold traffic up, not dont hold traffic up (which you can do by keeping left)

Big difference.

Vegeta

prospect wrote:

I like the way you 'cherry pick' the quotes that suit you.
It also says "It is, therefore, important that the general rule to keep left be strictly observed so as not to hold up faster traffic"

That rule applies whether you are driving on a motorway, in the city or on a regional road. We are talking about the hard shoulder. It says a driver if he wishes can use the hardshoulder to let traffic pass.

I am talking about the rules for the hard shoulder as this is a discussion for about tha hard shoulder. How is that cherry picking.

Well, I can only assume that this is because one has changed colour from the constant traffic it experiences.
Also I seriously doubt that the authorities go to the expense and time of laying different surfaces. Also a lot of hard shoulders have left turn filter lanes as part of them, so this would suggest they are the same surface, or at least a safe one to drive on.
Finally, if they are safe for large and heavy emergency vehicles to use, at speed, they are safe for you to use, at the little bit below the speed limit you like to drive at.

A filter lane is a filer lane and a hard shoulder is a hard shoulder, one must end for the other to exist. Hard shoulders are made with different materials than the main lane ways. The saving is in material costs not labour. They materials used are not suitable for regualr high speed traffic.

And the hard shoulder gets no where near the volune of traffic as the main laneways even with emergency vehicles. You know this.

maidhc

prospect wrote:

Also I seriously doubt that the authorities go to the expense and time of laying different surfaces.

They used to before, but I think that practice has stopped since the "tar and chips" method has been abandoned on main roads.

God this discussion is going around in circles.

prospect

Vegeta wrote:

That rule applies whether you are driving on a motorway, in the city or on a regional road. We are talking about the hard shoulder. It says a driver if he wishes can use the hardshoulder to let traffic pass.

No it doesn't! Where did you dream that up?

Vegeta wrote:

I am talking about the rules for the hard shoulder as this is a discussion for about tha hard shoulder. How is that cherry picking.

I pointed out three sections of the rules of the road: (briefly)
1. A driver may move over to allow faster cars by
2. The hard shoulder CAN be used for this function (except motorways)
3. Slow moving vehicles should keep as far left as possible (and use the hard shoulder as per rule 2) so as not to impeed faster traffic.

You 'cherry picked' the word MAY from the first, but ignored the remaining parts.

Vegeta wrote:

Hard shoulders are made with different materials than the main lane ways.

You prove this and I'll concede it is different material.

Vegeta wrote:

They materials used are not suitable for regualr high speed traffic..

But this 'different' material you speak of is suitable for undefined volumes of high speed heavy emergency vehicles?

maidhc is right, this is going around in circles.
I think at this stage it is obvious that a slow moving vehicle should (according to the letter and spirit of the law) make way for faster vehicles, when it is safe to do so.
The arguments disputing this common sense have all been sucessfully defended, imo, and now they are being re-hashed.

Saruman

Amen to that... i think this thread is pretty much over.
There will always be someone who will drive their car like its their God Given right to be there and they will drive how they like with no consideration for other drivers.
Leave them to it then.

Fighting Irish

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

I agree 100%. If you are driving at the max limit, why should you pull in and help him/her break the law? If you help them to speed and they kill someone, how will you feel?

Also, just because someone is behind you doesnt mean they want to overtake. If they turn on their indicator then that means they want to overtake and you can deicde if you want to pull over a bit.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Fey!

If I'm travelling at 100kph, my speedo reads 68mph (checked with both satnav and cars own trip computer whilst in cruise). At 80kph, it reads 55mph. When the speedo reads 50mph (80kph), I'm doing 45mph.

So, if you're travelling at 80kph according to your speedo (and assuming, for arguments sake, that your speedo has the same 10% error as mine, and not closer to 15%), then you're actually travelling at 45mph (72kph) then you're travelling 28% below the limit. Over the course of 150km of road with a constant 100kph limit, a drive that should take 1.5 hours now takes 1.78 hours (90 minutes : 106.8 minutes), or in other terms, when you finish your journey at the limit, you still have another 23.3km to go at the 80kph your speedo shows you (or, you're in Craughwell (ish) instead of Galway).

Still think you're not holding traffic up?

BrianD3

I'm going to jump in here and give my opinion. First of all I am quite an impatient driver and do get frustrated if I get stuck behind someone doing well below the speed limit on a good road. Another annoyance is drivers who come up behind the slow car but just sit there and won't overtake even though it's perfectly clear. I think many drivers on the road have forgotten how to overtake unless the car in front moves over for them.

Despite this impatience I'm inclined to agree with Vegeta about the dangers of relatively fast moving vehicles (eg 90 km/h) pulling into the hard shoulder. I have seen plenty of near misses involving cars travelling in the HS. The HS may have looked perfectly safe but it can change quickly if someone does something unexpected or stupid. Also i'll repeat what I said in my original post - there is too much uncertainty and confusion out there about hard shoulders and what exactly are their purpose. This is a receipe for crashes.

This confusion and the fact the HS seems to have multiple uses is one reason why driving in a hard shoulder on a national primary road is not the same as keeping left on a road with no hard shoulder. For instance people generally don't drive straight out of their houses onto HS-less roads without looking/stopping. Because they don't assume the road will be clear. OTOH I often witness drivers coming out of houses without stopping/looking if they're coming out into a hard shoulder. Because they assume it will be clear

I also disagree with some posters' interpretation of the ROTR as regards the keep left rule. AFAIC the keep left rule means keep to the leftmost part of the normal driving surface. Hard shoulders are not part of the normal driving surface therefore the keep left rule does not oblige a driver to use a HS to his left. However drivers can use the hard shoulder *temporarily* if they *wish* to let faster vehicles past.

Finally I just think a lot of this is open to interpretaion and people's perceptions of what is and isn't safe. Eg Driver A is travelling along the road at below the speed limit but won't pull into the HS because he regards it as unsafe to do so. Driver B comes up behind and thinks its perfectly safe for Driver A to pull over. As A is not pulling over B gets frustrated and thinks A is deliberately being a pr1ck. B then tries to force A to pull over by tailgating him. If A allows himself to be bullied into an unsafe position by B then he's almost as bad as B. As already mentioned in the thread, good advice is to never let other drivers make your decisions for you as they can't be trusted and will get you killed.

nialler

Hang on lads, as was stated earlier, every driver has a right to drive on the road and at whatever speed they feel is safe (except motorways with a minimum 30mph/50kph) so as drivers it is at OUR discretion when to overtake, when WE feel it's safe, NOT crossing a solid white line. I never expect anyone to pull over into the hard shoulder, yes it's nice when they do and you give them a flash of the hazards to say thank you but just give yourself a few car lenghts drop a gear or two, do your usual checks then floor it, get past, indicate in, jobs oxo, good overtake.

What really annoys the sh1t outta me over here (having driven in france, germany, US etc) is the f*ckers who camp in the right hand lane of a dual carriageway/motorway, it's those people who need to be shot with balls of their own sh1te.

/endrant

peasant

Every other weekend or so I drive a vehicle that everybody is dead set on overtaking as a matter of principle ...a camper van.

The vehicle by design is a queue magnet. I drive along at 100kmh (110 according to the speedo) and I still have a queue behind me ...all sticking to my and each other's bumper.

I make it my habit to drive as far left (in the driving lane) as I can. ALWAYS.
Does anybody behind me overtake? No ! Not as long as there is a hard shoulder. I am expected to move over.

Well ..here's the news ...I'm not going to ...especially not as I'm going as fast as I'm allowed to anyway.

Driving at speed on the hard shoulder is asking for an accident. Potholes, debris, parked cars, pedestrians, tractors, etc, etc all of those can appear on a hard shoulder without warning.

And as the overtaking queue will crawl past you in the driving lane, still bumper to bumper with nobody letting you swerve back in, there is NO WAY you can avoid a sudden obstacle except by braking really hard.

After a few misses where I stopped literally inches before killing somebody in the hard shoulder i've made it my rule NOT to use the hard shoulder any more to let other vehicles past.

Live with it ...even though it's a camper in front of you

Vegeta

prospect wrote:

No it doesn't! Where did you dream that up?

"• Single broken yellow line along the edge of the roadway - indicates the edge of a carriageway where a hard shoulder is normally provided. The hard shoulder is not an extra traffic lane and should not normally be used as such by traffic other than cyclists or pedestrians.

(If a driver wishes to allow a following vehicle to overtake, use can be made temporarily of the hard shoulder in order to move out of the way if there are no cyclists/pedestrians already using it)."

I dreamt it up from here

I pointed out three sections of the rules of the road: (briefly)
1. A driver may move over to allow faster cars by
2. The hard shoulder CAN be used for this function (except motorways)
3. Slow moving vehicles should keep as far left as possible (and use the hard shoulder as per rule 2) so as not to impeed faster traffic.

The word can implies choice, if it was phrased "has to" use the hard shoulder then i would use it.

You prove this and I'll concede it is different material.

I drove from Limerick to Birdhill (N7) last night and If I had my digital camera I would have taken photos for you. It is definitely a different coulour to the rest of the road.

But this 'different' material you speak of is suitable for undefined volumes of high speed heavy emergency vehicles?

Yeah cos 1000 ambulances and fire brigades drive on the same patch of hard shoulder every hour

maidhc is right, this is going around in circles.
I think at this stage it is obvious that a slow moving vehicle should (according to the letter and spirit of the law) make way for faster vehicles, when it is safe to do so.
The arguments disputing this common sense have all been sucessfully defended, imo, and now they are being re-hashed.

I strongly disagree, hard shoulders are not safer places to be. You have not proven other wise. You can say they are safe for emergency vehicles all you want but this is an oxymoron.

Its nice to see a bit of sense from other people as well

prospect

Vegeta wrote:

"• Single broken yellow line along the edge of the roadway - indicates the edge of a carriageway where a hard shoulder is normally provided. The hard shoulder is not an extra traffic lane and should not normally be used as such by traffic other than cyclists or pedestrians.

(If a driver wishes to allow a following vehicle to overtake, use can be made temporarily of the hard shoulder in order to move out of the way if there are no cyclists/pedestrians already using it)."

I dreamt it up from here

Penalty points for using the hard shoulder on the motorway for any reason other than an emergency.

Vegeta wrote:

The word can implies choice, if it was phrased "has to" use the hard shoulder then i would use it.

Never said there wasn't a choice. My question is why you would deliberatly 'choose' to hinder the progress of other motorists?

Vegeta wrote:

I drove from Limerick to Birdhill (N7) last night and If I had my digital camera I would have taken photos for you. It is definitely a different coulour to the rest of the road.

I meant prove it is a different material, not a different colour.

Vegeta wrote:

Yeah cos 1000 ambulances and fire brigades drive on the same patch of hard shoulder every hour

Yeah cos 1000 slow cars drive on the same patch of hard shoulder every hour
(Another example of over exagerration)

Vegeta wrote:

I strongly disagree, hard shoulders are not safer places to be. You have not proven other wise. You can say they are safe for emergency vehicles all you want but this is an oxymoron.

If it is 'not safe' why would the rules of the road indicate that you can use them to allow faster vehicles pass? If they were unsafe, or built with materials unable to cope with sustained traffic, the ROTR would not tell you to use them in the circumstance I am debating in favour of.

Vegeta wrote:

Its nice to see a bit of sense from other people as well

Oh well, that is proof that you are right then :rolleyes:


I have proven that according to the ROTR you can legally use the hard shoulder to allow faster moving vehicles pass you.
I have proven that according to the ROTR you should not deliberatly impeed the progress of faster moving vehicles.
I have proven that the hard shoulder is suitable for the purpose of allowing faster vehicles pass you, as otherwise it wouldn't allow you to use it in the ROTR.
I acknowledge that it is the drivers choice. But I want to know why you would deliberatly hold up other road users.

So far, the only reasons I have received for this deliberate bad mannered and ingorant driving are, YOU THINK that 90km/h does not justify moving in, and you think that the hard shoulder is made from some unsafe and sub-standard material.
Now can you prove tthat 90km/h does not justify moving in?
Now can you prove that the hard shoulder is unsafe to use for a purpose that is outlined in the rules of the road?

Your whole argument in this matter is based on some rules and opinions you have formed without any foundation.

Vegeta

prospect wrote:

I have proven that according to the ROTR you can legally use the hard shoulder to allow faster moving vehicles pass you.
I have proven that according to the ROTR you should not deliberatly impeed the progress of faster moving vehicles.
I have proven that the hard shoulder is suitable for the purpose of allowing faster vehicles pass you, as otherwise it wouldn't allow you to use it in the ROTR.
I acknowledge that it is the drivers choice. But I want to know why you would deliberatly hold up other road users.

So you acknowledge that a driver can ignore you and stay in the normal lane. Fine I will thanks

So far, the only reasons I have received for this deliberate bad mannered and ingorant driving are, YOU THINK that 90km/h does not justify moving in

So why should I move in exacly, legally i don't have to, you say so yourself. If the driver behind doesn't like it, let him overtake. Yeah and expecting people driving slower to move in isn't bad manners. The "get out of my way I have more important things to do" attitude is just lovely

Now can you prove that 90km/h does not justify moving in?

can you prove that i have to?

Your whole argument in this matter is based on some rules and opinions you have formed without any foundation.

Legally no one has to pull in to the hard shoulder, so your posts are also opinion. They are not fact. You think people should pull in, I don't.

The law as it stands states that I do not have to pull in to the hard shoulder if I don't want. Its on my side.

prospect

Vegeta wrote:

So you acknowledge that a driver can ignore you and stay in the normal lane. Fine I will thanks



So why should I move in exacly, legally i don't have to, you say so yourself. If the driver behind doesn't like it, let him overtake.



can you prove that i have to?



Legally no one has to pull in to the hard shoulder, so your posts are also opinion. They are not fact. You think people should pull in, I don't.

The law as it stands states that I do not have to pull in to the hard shoulder if I don't want. Its on my side.

Thank you, that is my point exactly.

There is no safety reason for your actions. You are just to arrogant to allow a faster moving vehicle pass you.

Nobody said you LEGALLY HAD TO, I just wondered why you wouldn't.

All your previous posts about safety, and hard shoulder suitability were all just a load of time wasting jibberish trying to draw attention away from the fact that you are just a pig headed driver.

Thanks for wasting all of our time, on the roads, and on this forum.

Vegeta

prospect wrote:

Thank you, that is my point exactly.

There is no safety reason for your actions. You are just to arrogant to allow a faster moving vehicle pass you.

Nobody said you LEGALLY HAD TO, I just wondered why you wouldn't.

All your previous posts about safety, and hard shoulder suitability were all just a load of time wasting jibberish trying to draw attention away from the fact that you are just a pig headed driver.

Thanks for wasting all of our time, on the roads, and on this forum.

wow do you lose your cool on the roads so easily? No wonder you want others to get out of your way

we both know the ROTR, why do you keep bringing them up. They cant prove me wrong and you know it. That's why it bothers you so

The reason I don't pull in is because the hard shoulder is a dangerous place. If you don't think so fine. Still not going to pull into a lane at high speed which is not a standard width on all roads, has house, field and business entrances onto it, has debris, grit and dust, cyclists and people.

If that makes me an inconsiderate driver then i better get a bumper sticker saying so

Luckily the law favours my view and does not make me pull in there

we can argue for as long as you want but until the ROTR(which you keep bringing up) change then i am perfectly correct to stay in the normal lane if I want