Most appauling driving I have ever seen

Kashkai

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[/QUOTE]


Good point. I'd say you have to be the world's biggest eejit not to buckle up in a car. There's no end to the statistics about how your chances of surviving a crash improve if you're properly restrained by a seatbelt. I saw an interesting article the other day about people who carry infants unrestrained on their laps in cars. If the car is involved in a crash at the relatively modest speed of 30 mph, the infant's weight becomes the equivalent of 1 tonne and therefore you have no chance of hanging onto them and they become a missile to kill the front seat passengers or they hurtle through the windscreen. Try living with that!!!!

As for the drivers of these smashes surviving while their rear seat passengers died, I'd say this was down to the airbags. It should be cumpulsory for car makers to fit airbags for all passengers in a car. At the moment this is only an option on high spec models

BrianD3

Prosperous Dave wrote:

As for the drivers of these smashes surviving while their rear seat passengers died, I'd say this was down to the airbags. It should be cumpulsory for car makers to fit airbags for all passengers in a car. At the moment this is only an option on high spec models

Nah, when people die in the back seats of cars generally it has very little to do with lack of airbags and a lot to do with seatbelts not being worn. IME the majority of back seat passengers don't wear their seatbelt and look at you funny if you instruct them to put it on. Also overlaoding of back seats is common. people think nothing of cramming 4 or 5 people into the back seat, obviously this is a receipe for disaster if the car crashes.

In that recent crash in Galway (2 parents + baby killed in an Opel Corsa) I suspect there were no seatbelts being worn. The car was not that badly damaged and it looked like it should have been a survivable crash.

ninty9er

BrianD3 wrote:

Nah, when people die in the back seats of cars generally it has very little to do with lack of airbags and a lot to do with seatbelts not being worn. IME the majority of back seat passengers don't wear their seatbelt and look at you funny if you instruct them to put it on. Also overlaoding of back seats is common. people think nothing of cramming 4 or 5 people into the back seat, obviously this is a receipe for disaster if the car crashes.

My uncle refused to put his on in the back of my car the othger night and i switched the engine off until he did

BrianD3 wrote:

In that recent crash in Galway (2 parents + baby killed in an Opel Corsa) I suspect there were no seatbelts being worn. The car was not that badly damaged and it looked like it should have been a survivable crash.

Ditto for most teenagers killed on the roads. OK I'm only 19 but a guy I went to school with drove an overloaded car but only one person died. One of the people without a seatbelt.

I asked had to ask a friend to put his on once but now he does it automatically as he sees that the car is goin nowhere unless he does

aubhall

ninty9er wrote:

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!!

It's more civil to slow down to allow somebody behind to pass more easily than what some people do, speed up as you pass! And slightly safer too.

I don't care what speed anybody wants to do as long as they do it safely and without putting anybody else in danger.

ninty9er

aubhall wrote:

It's more civil to slow down to allow somebody behind to pass more easily than what some people do, speed up as you pass! And slightly safer too.

I don't care what speed anybody wants to do as long as they do it safely and without putting anybody else in danger.

I was mentioning this in *relation(spelling mistake) to not pulling in and slowing down, that's just downright stupid and uncivil.

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

[quote=pheasantplucker] 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... [/quote]

Actually I'm not but I'm voluntary crew and will be driving the things when I hit 25...:D.

Are you:eek:now trying to be smart??

Also the word you were looking for is he's

Idleater

ninty9er wrote:

6-

No but they can fail you for it



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!!

You missed my point. What I said was that you could get failed for generally being "slow" and generally not having the confidence to make progress when there is ample opportunity.

Such incidences as you describe (children playing, schools etc) should have a bearing on how you drive and as an experienced driver you will be able to adapt your driving to the conditions as they change.

A underconfident learner on the other hand may be very hesitant, and not react appropriatly to changing conditions on and off the road. This is the 35 in a 50 zone that gets you failed.

If you look at the way that the test is marked nowadays, you will not fail for once driving "slower" than you should. You will only fail if you do it continuously and in conjunction with other traits of an underconfident driver.

Failing due to "not making sufficient progress" has more to do with the overall lack of confidence than driving at below the speed limit.

Interestingly, if someone goes for the Advanced driving test (like I have done) you learn that what the driving instructor "told" you is wrong in the general sense of driving safely. What he told you is correct "nowadays" because of the nature of the DoE test. Having "passed" your DoE test, Im sure you would agree that bears little resemblance to the actual driving conditions encountered every day.


L.

ninty9er

nereid wrote:

You missed my point. What I said was that you could get failed for generally being "slow" and generally not having the confidence to make progress when there is ample opportunity.



If you look at the way that the test is marked nowadays, you will not fail for once driving "slower" than you should. You will only fail if you do it continuously and in conjunction with other traits of an underconfident driver.

Failing due to "not making sufficient progress" has more to do with the overall lack of confidence than driving at below the speed limit.

Interestingly, if someone goes for the Advanced driving test (like I have done) you learn that what the driving instructor "told" you is wrong in the general sense of driving safely. What he told you is correct "nowadays" because of the nature of the DoE test. Having "passed" your DoE test, Im sure you would agree that bears little resemblance to the actual driving conditions encountered every day.


L.

Well I mostly do city and suburban driving so the test environment is exactly as i would normally drive except i look in my mirrors slightly less often ( which nearly casued me to casue a pile-up on the M7 - but at least I'll admit I didn't check my blindspot [I didn't think looking over your shoulder at 110 would be safe] but it's safer than forcing some poor guy off the road)

But the OP was continuously failing to make progress, which was my point

nupplenits

I honstly can't understand the people with the mentality that doing 90% of the speed limit is unacceptable.

Just to back up my case a little more, here are some facts I may have neglected to mention in my first post(as I didn't think they were needed, see "can't understand" comment above).
1. About 300metres from where this "incident" happened, is a large factory(Glanbia/Avonmore). Artic trucks are pretty much on this road 24/7.
- Doing 90km/h on a road where artics are constantly crossing the road/turning/pulling in/slowing down etc. is reasonable, no?
2. It is a rural area, loads of fields etc and plenty of farmers with tractors etc going about their business. Coming home today there was a bale of hay on the side of the road(a road with no hard shoulder/margin mind you!).
2. We were on a bend in the road.
- Slowing down to 80km/h on a bend is fair, no?
3. I honestly believe she would have done the same thing if I was actually keeping up with the speed limit, because when we hit the "slower" zones, she just didn't slow down.
4. To whoever said that I should be looking in my RV mirror until it was obvious that she was going to overtake me; I was looking in my RV mirror, she had made the turn out to the right to overtake, I knew the 50km/h area was ahead and hence, it was around this time I decided to slow down a little.
5. I'm not sure how much petrol would be saved doing 90km/h instead of 100km/h, but I'm sure it's some and it was a factor in deciding the speed I was travelling.
6. As already mentioned, considering the amount of deaths lately on the road, I think it is reasonable to drive that little bit slower than usual.

I can't believe people think the roads are perfect and "because the sign says 100 I should do 100".
Driving at the speed I was travelling was appropriate.

Never seen a large rock on the road?
Never seen muck/mud/loose gravel on the road?
A bale of hay?
A stray dog?
A person walking?
A cyclist?
Etc.

I am not doubting my own abilities to drive, or my own reaction times. I want to stay alive and don't want to kill anyone.
That is all.

peasant

ninty9er wrote:

Well I mostly do city and suburban driving so the test environment is exactly as i would normally drive

That explains your previous postings about sticking to the limit.

If you drive one of our glorious roads cross country (and I don't mean the main arteries) you will soon learn to read the road and not the speedo.

Never mind what your instructor said.

Select a few N roads off the beaten track, drive them and then report back here (if you live to tell the tale:eek: ) on how many percent of those roads you could actually stick to the 100 km/h

Oh ...and don't forget to look at the road every now and then ...there might be bends ...crossroads...potholes...narrow bridge ...humps ...dips ...usually accompanied by a shiny new 100km/h sign ...so do keep up that speed !!

ninty9er

Petrol - It's called a higher gear. Genrally it wouldn't make that much difference anyhow if you didn't have a gear to shift up

No Hard Shoulder Margin on the stretch of road- How did the idiot undertake you??? in the air???

Factory not important as the road is clear ahead ( i assume)
Ditto farmers.

Monitor road conditions - Slow down if there are chippings/ ahead not if there MIGHT be.
If we lived on mights and maybe's nothing would ever get done

Deaths aren't always or even most often caused by speed - HOW MANY TIMES - deaths are caused by bad driving [if you can't distinguish between the 2; take a trip to Germany and do an intercity run]. There's this thing called a seatbelt that people are just so thick they don't or often won't wear in the back of a car

On a bend fair enough to slow down.

If she would have done the same anyway no matter what the limit you must have seen her approaching fast in the RV mirror so it would have made sense to let her go kill herself or get points if she wanted to - not your problem. Even at the limit I pull in and let people pass

ninty9er

peasant wrote:

That explains your previous postings about sticking to the limit.

If you drive one of our glorious roads cross country (and I don't mean the main arteries) you will soon learn to read the road and not the speedo.

Never mind what your instructor said.

Select a few N roads off the beaten track, drive them and then report back here (if you live to tell the tale:eek: ) on how many percent of those roads you could actually stick to the 100 km/h

Oh ...and don't forget to look at the road every now and then ...there might be bends ...crossroads...potholes...narrow bridge ...humps ...dips ...usually accompanied by a shiny new 100km/h sign ...so do keep up that speed !!

I do often use a dualcarriageway and a new N road in Limerick I generally would check the speedo every 10-15 seconds

nupplenits

ninty9er wrote:

Petrol - It's called a higher gear. Genrally it wouldn't make that much difference anyhow if you didn't have a gear to shift up

Well can't get much higher than 5th I'm afraid!
How would it not make much difference? More revs on the engine means more work for the engine, hence, more fuel used

ninty9er wrote:

No Hard Shoulder Margin on the stretch of road- How did the idiot undertake you??? in the air???

This was a different road, maybe I should have made it clearer, I'll edit the post in a minute.

ninty9er wrote:

Factory not important as the road is clear ahead ( i assume)
Ditto farmers.

I'm also talking about the sh1t on the roads. Since you said you drive mostly around city and suburbs, you obviously have no idea of the amount of crap a rural road picks up.

ninty9er wrote:

Monitor road conditions - Slow down if there are chippings/ ahead not if there MIGHT be.
If we lived on mights and maybe's nothing would ever get done

Never seen lose gravel, maybe dropped off a truck?
See previous point.

ninty9er wrote:

Deaths aren't always or even most often caused by speed - HOW MANY TIMES - deaths are caused by bad driving [if you can't distinguish between the 2; take a trip to Germany and do an intercity run]. There's this thing called a seatbelt that people are just so thick they don't or often won't wear in the back of a car

I agree. But I'm pretty sure a lot more deaths are caused by speeding than doing under the limit. If some idiot wants to speedily overtake me, he can. I'm just (slightly) minimising the chance of me crashing by doing 90% of the limit.

ninty9er wrote:

On a bend fair enough to slow down.

....

ninty9er wrote:

If she would have done the same anyway no matter what the limit you must have seen her approaching fast in the RV mirror so it would have made sense to let her go kill herself or get points if she wanted to - not your problem. Even at the limit I pull in and let people pass

Yes I noticed her coming fast in my mirror.
It seems you are trying to say that I was intentionally "blocking" her from getting past me, which is not the case. Exactly, what do I care what she does.
I also pull in and let people pass sometimes. Maybe I shouldn't in future, for fear of getting creamed on the inside.

The last thing I expected was for her to undertake me.

ninty9er

nupplenits wrote:

Well can't get much higher than 5th I'm afraid!
How would it not make much difference? More revs on the engine means more work for the engine, hence, more fuel used

90kph/ 100kph - I'd be surprised if there was 500rpm in it. I drive a 1.0 Corsa and It doesn't make that much of a differnece

nupplenits wrote:

I'm also talking about the sh1t on the roads. Since you said you drive mostly around city and suburbs, you obviously have no idea of the amount of crap a rural road picks up.

I grew up in the country and horse sh1t etc would generally be under the underbody or else in massive doses(which would call for reconsidering speed - though not necessarily reducing)

nupplenits wrote:

Never seen lose gravel, maybe dropped off a truck?
See previous point.

Wouldn't really slow for loose gravel. come across it a lot going to the driving range

nupplenits wrote:

I agree. But I'm pretty sure a lot more deaths are caused by speeding than doing under the limit. If some idiot wants to speedily overtake me, he can. I'm just (slightly) minimising the chance of me crashing by doing 90% of the limit.

I wouldn't be so sure either way. And if someone did perform a dangerous overtaking manouver and have a collision you'd also feel the brunt as the oncoming car would cause the overtaking car to be forced back into your lane and you'd most likely hit it in an overtaking situation if it was stopped suddenly


....

nupplenits wrote:

Yes I noticed her coming fast in my mirror.
It seems you are trying to say that I was intentionally "blocking" her from getting past me, which is not the case. Exactly, what do I care what she does.
I also pull in and let people pass sometimes. Maybe I shouldn't in future, for fear of getting creamed on the inside.

The last thing I expected was for her to undertake me.

It sounded like you intentionally slowed without pulling in to slow her down - not smart

edit 00:30-spelling again!!!

ambro25

You're 19, ninty9er, right?

I don't mean to be condescending (too much ), but...

ninty9er wrote:

I didn't check my blindspot [I didn't think looking over your shoulder at 110 would be safe]

If you can't check your blind spot on a dual carriage way @ 110, you shouldn't be on it.

ninty9er wrote:

Wouldn't really slow for loose gravel. come across it a lot going to the driving range

You do know that loose gravel can be worse than snow or even black ice on vehicle traction, right? Not to mention projections onto following and oncoming vehicles (and/or pedestrians about if any).

ninty9er wrote:

Factory not important as the road is clear ahead ( i assume)

Assumption is the mother of all f*ck-ups. Especially on the road. Don't anyone teach that at (nromal/driving) school anymore?

The amount of experience is showing a bit here.. :rolleyes:

gyppo

ninty9er wrote:

Factory not important as the road is clear ahead ( i assume)
Ditto farmers.

Would you apply the same rationale to schools?

peasant

ninety9er

No offense mate ...but you need to come off that high horse of theoretical knowledge, FAST!

Forget what you have heard or read somewhere about due progress and sticking to the limit ...instead concentrate on the road and your surroundings, learn to identify potential hazards and to adjust your speed to them.

Otherwise you're just an accident waiting to happen.


Sorry about the "fatherly" words ...I'm an old fart, can't help it.

Vegeta

I too cannot believe someone gets negative comments about doing 90% of the limit

The road outside my girlfriends house is 1 car wide with grass growing in the centre, anyone want to guess the limit on this bad boy.......80kph. Not every road is safe to drive the limit on and if anyone is of the opinion that it is they are crazy.

Just this morning I was driving from Killaloe to Limerick, N road, and a guy (black golf) pulled out from his house in front of me when i was doing 100kph, luckily there was an empty overtaking lane beside me and I pulled over. It got me thinking if that road was safe for that speed limit.

How true the following is i don't know but i'll throw it out there anyway.
One of the lads i work with, his girlfriend is a garda and according to her the 3 biggest factors in all the accidents are

1. Speeding
2. Seat Belts
3. Drink Driving

ambro25

Vegeta wrote:

One of the lads i work with, his girlfriend is a garda and according to her the 3 biggest factors in all the accidents are

1. Speeding
2. Seat Belts
3. Drink Driving

Stating the obvious somewhat here, but -

Re. 1 - the faster you drive, the lesser the available reaction time for any given identical set of circumstances. Unlike the variable speed of your car, your reflexes as a driver are invariable. Therefore, for any given identical set of circumstances, inappropriate (i.e. excessive) speed is likely to result in an accident.

You might think yourself safe driving @ 100 on a good-surfaced N single-carriage way straight as an I. Until...

_ the farmer in the tractor peeks out of the field and onto a portion of your lane, but oncoming artic so no way around.
_ the farmer left fresh manure/gravel/mud on the surface and you aquaplane (well 'dungplane' really!)
_ the fox-venison-rabbit-dog legs it across within 50 meters, thinking he's gonna make it (not!)
_ the rabid oncoming driver decides to overtake and pulls out within 50 meters, and hasn't seen you from behind the artic/tractor/etc.

And still, oh well...gawan...t'is a good road innit? 'be safe enough driving @ 120? Maybe even thrill it up a bit and push to 130? And then you're outta luck because your same reaction time + increased stopping distance = nearly twice as long to bring the car to a halt. You're dead. Ain't driving life a byatch?

Re. 2 - not a factor of accidents as such, I don't think. But she probably meant injuries/fatalities vs none in any given accident.

Re. 3 - goes without saying (but actually dovetails into 1 above, in that it affects your judgement, therefore your reaction time).

Vegeta

by accidents i meant fatal accidents, sorry should have stated that.

as i said though i cant prove it as it was only told to me by a garda. being an engineer i am always suspicious of info i cant prove, i don't know how they brain washed me to think like that but i do.

cullenswood

Take a look at this "driving", this is as bad as I have seen....Ridiculous, these drivers should be banned. It's about a minute in, when he comes on to the motorway (The M1)

unkel

cullenswood wrote:

Take a look at this "driving", this is as bad as I have seen....Ridiculous

That's a Lithuanian driving a LHD M3 in and around Dublin by the looks of it

ninty9er

gyppo wrote:

Would you apply the same rationale to schools?

Only
after 9 before 10:45
after 11 before 1
After 2 before 2:30
After 5:30

ninty9er

IO would consider that BMW video to be evidence for dangerous driving looks like a personalised UK plate but probably northern plate if it was on the M1

gyppo

So, you think kids are that well disciplined that they will stay within the confines of the school within the times you stated?? That there wont be any exceptions?? You must lead a very regimental life.

Cop yourself on.

el tel

I knew it wouldn't take long before someone said it:-

ninty9er wrote:

IO would consider that BMW video to be evidence for dangerous driving looks like a personalised UK plate but probably northern plate if it was on the M1

unkel wrote:

That's a Lithuanian driving a LHD M3 in and around Dublin by the looks of it

Yeah, it's bound to be a Northerner or a Lithuanian...:p
BLOODY FOREIGNERS

breanoh

Oh come on, everyone knows to adjust speed on gravel/loose chippings. 90km/h is ok by me, if I want to go faster, I can just overtake, my problem. What that woman did was stupid, wreckless dangerous etc. Personally, I slow down when someone tailgates me, to the extent that one time a woman in an avensis was so close I could barely see her bonnet, I went right down to 50 until she got the message. I don't want my pride and joy written off, whichever one I'm driving. and I am only 21. Really guys, this is not the fault of the OP, I agree with his actions. ninety9er, it is rediculous to try to give out to him for driving safely, and within his rights. It is the likes of her that has your premium as it is! And as previously stated, speed limits are a maximum, not a target.

kdevitt

el tel wrote:

Yeah, it's bound to be a Northerner or a Lithuanian...:p
BLOODY FOREIGNERS

That video is on the BMW car club site too - the guy driving posted it himself, he's definitely Lithuanian or Latvian. Not that it makes a huge difference - have seen plenty of similar driving from Irish people.

ninty9er

breanoh wrote:

Oh come on, everyone knows to adjust speed on gravel/loose chippings. 90km/h is ok by me, if I want to go faster, I can just overtake, my problem. What that woman did was stupid, wreckless dangerous etc. Personally, I slow down when someone tailgates me, to the extent that one time a woman in an avensis was so close I could barely see her bonnet, I went right down to 50 until she got the message. I don't want my pride and joy written off, whichever one I'm driving. and I am only 21. Really guys, this is not the fault of the OP, I agree with his actions. ninety9er, it is rediculous to try to give out to him for driving safely, and within his rights. It is the likes of her that has your premium as it is! And as previously stated, speed limits are a maximum, not a target.

You're car isn't exactly ISO 9001 anyway since you fitted the seatbelts yourself.

Cop on Breandán now. I've heard you go on about exceeding limits at times. Tailgating bugs me if i'm doing 62-3 kph in a 60kph zone, however if i was doing 50 I could see exactly where the person behind was coming from

and on the issue of my age and experience. Since I have gone to the bother of taking 13 hours practical instruction on Public roads before taking them on on my own, screw anybdoy who tells me that every driver on the road longer than me has better reactions

Hagar

unkel wrote:

That's a Lithuanian driving a LHD M3 in and around Dublin by the looks of it

It looks like a personalised British plate and judging by the colour of plates/ regs of cars he is dicing with I would guess it was filmed in N.Ireland.

He's a class A1 gobshyte anyway.

peasant

ninty9er wrote:

and on the issue of my age and experience. Since I have gone to the bother of taking 13 hours practical instruction on Public roads before taking them on on my own, screw anybdoy who tells me that every driver on the road longer than me has better reactions

Whoooo ...all of 13 hours.


Boyo ...that's exactly the kind of cockiness that'll have you ending up in an accident sooner rather than later.

I hope for your sake that it's going to be a minor one, that you don't injure anybody else and that you live to learn your lesson.


Belive me ...been there, done that