Most appauling driving I have ever seen

Anan1

Doolittle51 wrote:

That's illegal, and you'll get penalty points if caught.

It's not and you won't.

Vegeta

Prosperous Dave wrote:

It appears from some of the reactions to the OP, that there's more than one one eejit in a 03D black Peugeot (or the like) on the roads and on these boards.

Typical of this country now, everyone's in such a bloody hurry to get where they're going that they don't give a fu*k about anyone else on the road.

Now I've three small kids and I recently went out and bought my wife a Renault Scenic. Not because I'm a fan of MPV's but basically because if some assh0le hits this car, the chances of my wife and kids surviving is increased because its loaded with airbags and other safety features.

As for those posters who argue that anyone driving under the posted limit should get out of the way, I'd like to re-iterate its a speed LIMIT, NOT A TARGET gob****es. I'm sick of morons sitting on my rear bumper, with them driving so close that I can't see their bonnets, let alone their number plates. I always try to keep a reasonable distance from the car in front, but this is just an invitation to some eejit to overtake and cut in front of me just so they can get where they're going two seconds quicker.

My Uncle is an ambulance driver and to this day, he says he throws up when he sees the aftermath of some car smashes. Perhaps the speeding Gobsh1tes out there should be forced to view the mangled remains of road traffic victims. Maybe, just maybe, it might slow them down. Then again, the typical, self centred, egotistical, selfish, stupid, arrogant Gobsh1tes who speed probably wouldn't give a damn. What's one more dead man, woman or child to them. They probably shouldn't have gotten in their way!!!!

here here

My dad is in the first response unit in the local fire brigade and I hear about way too many of these stories.

thewing

In an ideal world, everyone would drive to the limit's safely and efficiently according to the conditions, but as long as you have people who want to drive slow, and people who want to go fast, your going to have accidents.This thread is a perfect example of why the govt is not totally to blame for the carnage on our roads.

Hagar

thewing wrote:

Lack of progress is a genuine black mark against you in the driving test, you get it for driving under the limit.

Are you for real?
Did somebody officially tell you to drive exactly on the limit or you would fail?
You will fail for driving over it.

ambro25

thewing wrote:

as long as you have people who want to drive slow, and people who want to go fast, your going to have accidents.This thread is a perfect example of why the govt is not totally to blame for the carnage on our roads.

With the exception of the OP, with all of which I happen to agree (90 i/of 100, down to steady 80 when tailgated, no subsequent speeding to catch up and 'avenge' etc.), that is the most on-target post of the thread so far.

However, I can't rep+1 thewing, because most experienced drivers will hopefully confirm this: whenever you're driving on an open road, the last variable you periodically ("every so often", if you like) check is your speed. And therefore you will easily move + or - 5 kph or more at any one time.

Moreover, you have to relativise speed and stop being so anal: I'd hardly consider 90 lack of progress, but I would consider 70 or less lack of progress in a 100 zone. In the same way as I would not consider 40 lack of progress, but I would consider 30 or less lack of progress in a 50 zone.

In either case, if I'm the following driver, the responsibility is entirely mine as to whether to overtake or not, and nothing whatsoever to do with the driver about to be overtaken, whose responsibility is not to make my life easier but ensure his own safety (he may be courteous and facilitate my manoeuver, or not - it's totally irrelevant: at the end of the day, it's not my place to dictate how he/she should drive, it's my place to make sure I do not inconvenience/endanger him/her during my manoeuver).

The way some posters argue about driving at the limit, you'd think their lives depended on it or something or they were going to get charged for every kph not reached :rolleye:

thewing

@Hagar

Yup, keep the needle on the limit to pass the test I was told....it's all about foot control on accelerator, cos obviously when going downhill you speed up, and you dont want to go over it...

el tel

It's always nice when someone posts a thread which recounts an experience of some retarded driving but in decscribing the incident the poster actually implicates themselves as a bit of a dime bar behind the wheel too. This is another one of the classic "There I was minding, my own business..." posts which can be swiftly dissected down to "I was driving like I was under anaesthetic, having no perception of how my irritating driving affected other drivers who are much less righteous than I".

ianobrien

Here is an experiement for you all to do on the road home.

If the journey home is on a N road, with a 100kph limit, try driving at 90kph instead the usual 100kph. See how much longer it takes you go home.

I drive approx 12 km on a main road on the way home. Compared to driving at 100kph, driving at 90kph the journey takes an extra minute, it saves petrol and I find it more relaxing.

I do the same in the mornings goind to work. I always pull into the hard shoulder for the speed merchants pass but in the morning, they are only 2 or 3 cars ahead of me in the traffic jam coming into town.

So, try driving at 90kph and see how it goes.

By the way, the Peugeot in the OP should be banned for life. I think the OP was correct in slowing down to 80 as he appeared to be aproaching a 50kph zone. I always slow down gently coming into villages that way, so that I won't be rear ended if I stamp on the brakes.

Sleipnir

It's perfectly reasonable to drive below the maximum speed limit i.e. the one on the signposts.
Ask any Garda, judge, paramedic or person who has lost someone on the roads and I would imagine they would agree.

thewing

ambro25 wrote:

With the exception of the OP, with all of which I happen to agree (90 i/of 100, down to steady 80 when tailgated, no subsequent speeding to catch up and 'avenge' etc.), that is the most on-target post of the thread so far.

However, I can't rep+1 thewing, because most experienced drivers will hopefully confirm this: whenever you're driving on an open road, the last variable you periodically ("every so often", if you like) check is your speed. And therefore you will easily move + or - 5 kph or more at any one time.

Moreover, you have to relativise speed and stop being so anal: I'd hardly consider 90 lack of progress, but I would consider 70 or less lack of progress in a 100 zone. In the same way as I would not consider 40 lack of progress, but I would consider 30 or less lack of progress in a 50 zone.

In either case, if I'm the following driver, the responsibility is entirely mine as to whether to overtake or not, and nothing whatsoever to do with the driver about to be overtaken, whose responsibility is not to make my life easier but ensure his own safety (he may be courteous and facilitate my manoeuver, or not - it's totally irrelevant: at the end of the day, it's not my place to dictate how he/she should drive, it's my place to make sure I do not inconvenience/endanger him/her during my manoeuver).

The way some posters argue about driving at the limit, you'd think their lives depended on it or something or they were going to get charged for every kph not reached :rolleye:

What I was saying in relation to driving to the limit was as I was instructed.I don't drive around with my eyes glued to the speedo - pretty dangerous.All experienced drivers after a while develop a 'kinetic' sense - you can pretty much tell what speed you are doing without looking at speedo

Like I said, ideal world we'd all drive to limit, occasionally + or - 5 as you say.

As regards lack of progress, if any instructors here, clarification would be good.Someone mentioned earlier knew someone who failed test for constantly driving at 5mph under limit, but seeing as most tests are done in residential(old 30mph/50kmh) zones, 25 would be lack of progress.

shoegirl

ianobrien wrote:

Here is an experiement for you all to do on the road home.

If the journey home is on a N road, with a 100kph limit, try driving at 90kph instead the usual 100kph. See how much longer it takes you go home.

I drive approx 12 km on a main road on the way home. Compared to driving at 100kph, driving at 90kph the journey takes an extra minute, it saves petrol and I find it more relaxing.

I used to regularly drive to work at around 120kmph on a 100kmph road.
Then one day as an experiment I reduced my max to the speed limit (the drive was around 9 miles or about 14.5km) and was shocked to notice it only took about 1 minute extra.
Mathematically it was taking me almost 8 minutes to drive 9 miles as the crow flies. Reducing my speed to 100 increased the net journey time to around 9 minutes. The net extra time per week was only 10 minutes extra. This might not make a huge difference to my lifestyle, but perhaps it saved mine - or somebody elses - life or lives.

Since then I've slowed down to stay within the limits. The one thing I do notice is that most of the cabbages who flew past at around 120kpmh on the 100km road usually end up right in front of me at the next set of red lights or roundabout, so they really ended up gaining almost no time at all.

Vegeta

thewing wrote:

What I was saying in relation to driving to the limit was as I was instructed.I don't drive around with my eyes glued to the speedo - pretty dangerous.All experienced drivers after a while develop a 'kinetic' sense - you can pretty much tell what speed you are doing without looking at speedo

Like I said, ideal world we'd all drive to limit, occasionally + or - 5 as you say.

As regards lack of progress, if any instructors here, clarification would be good.Someone mentioned earlier knew someone who failed test for constantly driving at 5mph under limit, but seeing as most tests are done in residential(old 30mph/50kmh) zones, 25 would be lack of progress.

again 25kph would only be lack of progress if you drove at that speed for no reason, i.e. if there is a clear road ahead and the weather is perfect and you are not approaching traffic lights etc etc then there is no reason to drive at 25mph.

Overly slow acceleration will also get you done for lack of progress.

On the other hand if the car/tractor in front is doing 25mph and there's a solid white line then there's not much you can do.

Kashkai

Looks like the posts here today can be broken down into those who feel the OP should have gotten out of the way and those who feel they were driving responsibly (like me).

I feel sorry for the first group who must lead such gruelling, hectic lives that they have to do Warp 9 (Star Trek term for those not in the know!!) to get from A to B. They probably believe that they should have machine guns behind their headlights a la James Bond, so they can blast those evil snail drivers out of their way while they zoom around saving the world or such like.

I'll finish with a thought for the day -

A crash at thirty miles per hour has the same impact on the human body as a fall from a height of 10 metres or 33 feet. Now 2 cars travelling at 80 kph or 50 mph having a head on collision is the same as hitting a wall at 160kph or 100mph. Do you honestly think any amount of airbags, ABS, crumple zones etc will save you from death or at the very best, permanent disability?

Think about that for a while and slow down before you kill some innocent.

thewing

There is such a thing as a safe overtaking procedure....overtaking isn't against the law.Undertaking on the hard shoulder(never witnessed this one) is f*cking banana's....

Padraig Mor

I have to concur with the 'evil speeding merchants of death' here. If the road and environmental conditions are good - good weather, not 'twisty' etc
(I am unaware of these parameters WRT the OP so am not commenting on their specific situation) - you should be travelling at the speed limit or *slightly* below. As has been pointed out by several posters you *will* be marked down in a driving test for not doing so - indicating, to me at least, that not driving at the limit is, in effect, illegal. In this respect, the speed limit is UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS a target. Furthermore, anyone not 'comfortable' with driving at the limit under the appropriate conditions should be examining their own driving - and getting driving lessons, as they are obviously not in control of their car under circumstances where they should be.

PS The Peugot driver should be banned.

gyppo

I would see 90km/h as being only slightly below the speed limit.

Padraig Mor

gyppo wrote:

I would see 90km/h as being only slightly below the speed limit.

Note where I said I was not commenting on the OP's incident.

pheasantplucker

ninty9er wrote:

While what this idioot did is absolutely stupid, i hate nothing mor when driving than being stuck behind idiot drivers like you who don't travel at (not above or below) the speed limit. It really really really really bugs me and we've had massive threads about it on here before. In future just speed up to the 100 kph

Whats the hurry? You obviously need to relax a little. Get a massage.. go for a walk on a beach. Admire nature. think of the bigger issues in the world rather than getting from A to B in over 100K/ph. God, you are so no clued in.

ambro25

Padraig Mor wrote:

I have to concur with the 'evil speeding merchants of death' here. If the road and environmental conditions are good - good weather, not 'twisty' etc (etc.)

You haven't exactly substantiated your post with any factual components (RoR, Case Law, Penalty point list entry, etc.). Have you?

I could just as well postulate that you would be marked down in a driving test for not driving exactly at the limit, because it only lasts 30 mins or so and the inspector wants to test (within that very short timeframe) your multitasking capacity with artificially-precise requirements.

Who regularly drives exactly in the same way/focus/attention/etc. as they did during their practice test? [note to self - stupid question, I'm sure every poster here does, this being the Interweb and all that... :rolleyes:]

Padraig Mor wrote:

Furthermore, anyone not 'comfortable' with driving at the limit under the appropriate conditions should be examining their own driving - and getting driving lessons, as they are obviously not in control of their car under circumstances where they should be.

Erm... b0ll1x. Whenever I get the chance to tale the convertible out, you'll not see me tear-@assing down the N11 at 100/120, but taking a leisurly stroll at 90 or so. And probably much less on a 100-signed, narrow single carriage way. It just relaxes me, for a short while during which I can believe that the rat race and capital city pace doesn't exist.

Note that I could just as well be driving down either roads way in excess of 150/170. Or at the exact 100 limit. I just choose not to. Nothing to do with capacity (or lack thereof) whatsoever.

And if you're behind and in a rush, pass on when it's safe to do so. Or leave earlier. Being civil won't kill you.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

pheasantplucker wrote:

Whats the hurry? You obviously need to relax a little. Get a massage.. go for a walk on a beach. Admire nature. think of the bigger issues in the world rather than getting from A to B in over 100K/ph. God, you are so no clued in.

his an ambulance driver...

Idleater

Padraig Mor wrote:

.... you should be travelling at the speed limit or *slightly* below....

Absolutely not.

No No No.

You should drive within your and your vehicles limitations taking into account ALL road conditions etc etc etc.

No one, not even a driving tester can tell you to go faster if you are not comfortable doing so given the driving conditions.

To those who get all annoyed at slow drivers, do they not even bother considering some reasons for that person's speed?

Maybe there is an elderly person or infant in the car, maybe an ill person or an injured animal. Maybe the car is new (to the driver) and they are not used to it. There are so many parameters that you cannot begin to consider all of them.

Also, as regards speed and the Driving test:
If you fail because you are driving slowly (as some have pointed out) during the DoE test, then that is something you have to work on with experience and practice. More than likely, during the DoE test, if you are driving slowly, you are accelerating slowly as well and displaying an over cautious approach to driving. Therefore the fail.

The fail is not specifically because you didnt nail the 50kmph limit it is because you have not gained enough driving experience to be confident to drive within the road conditions at the time of the test (a stressful time as well).

L.

Kashkai

ambro25 wrote:

Erm... b0ll1x. Whenever I get the chance to tale the convertible out, you'll not see me tear-@assing down the N11 at 100/120, but taking a leisurly stroll at 90 or so. And probably much less on a 100kph-signed, narrow single carriage way. It just relaxes me, for a short while during which I can believe that the rat race and capital city pace doesn't exist. Note that I could just as well be driving down either roads wayyy in excess of 150/170. Or at the exact 100 limit. I just choose not to. Nothing to do with capacity whatsoever. And if you're behind and in a rush, pass on when it's safe to do so. Or leave earlier.

A nice leisurely drive in the country, I've forgotten what thats like.

I live in a rural area and the narrow country road outside my place is full of eejits blasting up and down the road. I'm afraid to let my kids play in the front garden (even though its a half acre) as that ad where the driver flips his car, rolls through the hedge and flattens the kid in the front garden keeps playing in my mind.

When I go for a drive on the weekend, I've got the speed freaks hanging on my rear bumper trying to get past. I'd love to be a cop sometimes so I could pull these morons over and give them a piece of my mind (not that there's much left!!)

Carb

Prosperous Dave wrote:

Looks like the posts here today can be broken down into those who feel the OP should have gotten out of the way and those who feel they were driving responsibly (like me).

I feel sorry for the first group who must lead such gruelling, hectic lives that they have to do Warp 9 (Star Trek term for those not in the know!!) to get from A to B. They probably believe that they should have machine guns behind their headlights a la James Bond, so they can blast those evil snail drivers out of their way while they zoom around saving the world or such like.

If it was me in the OP's position, and the conditions allowed, I would be inclined to pull into the hard shoulder to let them past, for one reason only; I'd feel safer having somebody that was driving like an idiot in front of me rather than behind me.

It certianly doesn't justify what the other driver done. As I've posted earlier, its happended to me before and there are some people you really would love to see banned for life.

mike65

Whatever happened to defencive driving and the laws of self-preservation?

Mike.

LikeOhMyGawd!

ianobrien wrote:

I drive approx 12 km on a main road on the way home. Compared to driving at 100kph, driving at 90kph the journey takes an extra minute, it saves petrol and I find it more relaxing.

shoegirl wrote:

Then one day as an experiment I reduced my max to the speed limit (the drive was around 9 miles or about 14.5km) and was shocked to notice it only took about 1 minute extra.
Mathematically it was taking me almost 8 minutes to drive 9 miles as the crow flies. Reducing my speed to 100 increased the net journey time to around 9 minutes. The net extra time per week was only 10 minutes extra.

Yeah, but since when has being sensible been FUN?

Prosperous Dave wrote:

Think about that for a while and slow down before you kill some innocent.

Couldn't have put it more condescendingly myself

Kashkai

LikeOhMyGawd! wrote:

Yeah, but since when has being sensible been FUN?



Couldn't have put it more condescendingly myself

Ah, at last, the real eejit comes crawling out of the woodwork.

I take it from your flippant reponse (if you could even call it a response, more a pathetic attempt at humour) that you've:

never had friends killed by drunk drivers (I lost two good mates mangled by drunken fools),

haven't had your brother knocked off his motorbike by a gobsh1te doing a u-turn on a dual carriageway, or

have small kids who you don't want to end up seeing on a slab in the morgue.

If you haven't got some kind of logical argument, why don't you go to some other thread where you can discuss who is shagging who in Trinners or Blackrock College. You strike me as the type of eejit who sees life as a joke, who was cosseted by mommy and daddy in an exclusive south Dublin suburb and who doesn't give a fcuk about anyone but herself.

Likeohmygawd, you're soooooooo not funny.

Sleipnir

well said Prosperous Dave!

mike65

Prosperous Dave - thats enough. you are making assumptions and do not know Likeohmygawd from a hole in the ground. Play the ball not the man.

Mike.

Kashkai

mike65 wrote:

Prosperous Dave - thats enough. you are making assumptions and do not know Likeohmygawd from a hole in the ground. Tackle the ball not the man.

Mike.

Sorry Mike, but this is one topic that really gets my blood boiling. As my last post stated, I've had friends and relatives killed and badly injured on the roads and when someone starts to take the pi$$ and treat dangerous driving and the like as a joke, I get annoyed.

However, you're right about me having a go at the poster on a personal level. I'm old enough to know better.

Dave

ninty9er

1 - apologies to the OP for not nocing the approaching 50 kph zone remark and accusing of an edit.

2 -

overdriver wrote:

I regularly get abuse for sticking to the limits.
Ridiculous behaviour that needs to stop, but only the Gardai can do it - I can't issue points to some gobsheen who flies by me at 120 kph on a 80 kph road.

Also this title has the " Most Appalling Spelling I Have Ever seen!"

I also stick on the limit, when falling under i accelerate to bring myself back up to speed. I have no problem with you or anyone else sticking to the speed limit

3-

Hagar wrote:

Are you for real?
Did somebody officially tell you to drive exactly on the limit or you would fail?
You will fail for driving over it.

Yes. My instructor (with the exception of corners etc.. kids playing in the road) told me to do 2-3 mph over rather than under. Did this and passed 1st time.

4-

el tel wrote:

It's always nice when someone posts a thread which recounts an experience of some retarded driving but in decscribing the incident the poster actually implicates themselves as a bit of a dime bar behind the wheel too. This is another one of the classic "There I was minding, my own business..." posts which can be swiftly dissected down to "I was driving like I was under anaesthetic, having no perception of how my irritating driving affected other drivers who are much less righteous than I".

well said

5-

ambro25 wrote:

And if you're behind and in a rush, pass on when it's safe to do so. Or leave earlier. Being civil won't kill you.

I would consider it uncivil to slow to 80 if someone was trying to pass me.
I drove from Limerick to Dublin and back 3 Saturdays ago. It did me no harm at all to pull in and let people pass evne though I was on the limits. Their licence - not mine!!

6-

nereid wrote:

Absolutely not.

No No No.

You should drive within your and your vehicles limitations taking into account ALL road conditions etc etc etc.

No one, not even a driving tester can tell you to go faster if you are not comfortable doing so given the driving conditions.

No but they can fail you for it

nereid wrote:

Also, as regards speed and the Driving test:
If you fail because you are driving slowly (as some have pointed out) during the DoE test, then that is something you have to work on with experience and practice. More than likely, during the DoE test, if you are driving slowly, you are accelerating slowly as well and displaying an over cautious approach to driving. Therefore the fail.

The fail is not specifically because you didnt nail the 50kmph limit it is because you have not gained enough driving experience to be confident to drive within the road conditions at the time of the test (a stressful time as well).

L.

Doing 25 mph in an old 30 mph zone will get you failed unless there is a school sign or children playing sign or some such ahead doing 31-32 however you will not be failed. I didn't!!

7-

Prosperous Dave wrote:

Ah, at last, the real eejit comes crawling out of the woodwork.

I take it from your flippant reponse (if you could even call it a response, more a pathetic attempt at humour) that you've:

never had friends killed by drunk drivers (I lost two good mates mangled by drunken fools),

haven't had your brother knocked off his motorbike by a gobsh1te doing a u-turn on a dual carriageway, or

have small kids who you don't want to end up seeing on a slab in the morgue.

If you haven't got some kind of logical argument, why don't you go to some other thread where you can discuss who is shagging who in Trinners or Blackrock College. You strike me as the type of eejit who sees life as a joke, who was cosseted by mommy and daddy in an exclusive south Dublin suburb and who doesn't give a fcuk about anyone but herself.

Likeohmygawd, you're soooooooo not funny.

I have had a cousin knocked off his motorbike by some idiot who never checked her mirrors

An aunt hit head on by a fool passing a horse

An inlaw hit head on by an articulated truck which required bone to be rebuilt and plastic reconstruction of her face

In 2 of 3 cases someone was seriously hurt ( my cousin braked the bike in time not to be mangled), and the other driver was at fault but if we let these dictate how we drive - or if they let these incidents dictate how they drive (they don't) then we'd be a country of nervous wrecks on Prozac in which case we'd be medicated and unfit to drive

Not meaning to sound nasty but if you look at the number of people killed on the roads this year as rear seat passengers, while drivers who bore the brunt survived; you have to ask how many of them would still be alive if they'd bothered to put on a fu<king seatbelt

* edit 20:00 quotes not showing properly