Motorway Ethics Question

Idleater

unkel wrote:

I doubt there has been a single fatal crash on motorways in this country from anyone driving at say 140-150km/h where the circumstances allowed and even if there was, it was most likely caused by someone failing to give right of way to the speeder (i.e. by moving into the path of the speeder)

While I fully agree with you and this sentiment in the thread (the opposite being the pull in in front of them - that'll show em), I would also like to say that driving at speeds you mention in this country is illegal (for the general public), and is irresponsible to other road users regardless of how stupid the idiot that tries to slow the speeder down is.

I think my point is that those trying to slow speeders down are playing a deadly game with lethal weapons, and unfortunately those doing the speeding are just playing the same game.

Doesn't make either one right - I would say it makes them both wrong.

L.

311

I always thought that powerful cars are quieter at high speed than say a 1.4 car.

If big cars come up behind me or approaching me quicker than I am approaching up and coming traffic ,it doesn't mean that the person in the big car is trying to speed ,they're just driving their car that cost a lot more than I spent.

Why would anyone want to drive behind trucks with the intention of passing them out ??

Stark

Because you don't need to pass them out when you're driving in front of them?

311

Stark wrote:

Because you don't need to pass them out when you're driving in front of them?

I thought it was a thread about motorways ,if i was driving along side them ,I would be in the right lane ,if I was driving behind them I would be in the left lane.

BigCon

TwoShedsJackson wrote:

Why people feel obliged to speed up and sacrafice control of their car and the situation they're in to some moron behind them, is beyond me.

Who said anything about sacrifacing control of their car and situation they're in?
Once again this even I witnessed more moronic behaviour on the way to work - I was cruising at 120 on the motorway when I approach two cars side by side driving at approx 100, one in the driving lane and the other muppet in the overtaking lane.
I indicated and pulled out into the overtaking lane to pass out the guy in front of me, but remained some distance back from the Sunday driver so as not to suprise him. After a minute or so he was still driving alongside the other car and not for budging.
I decided to flash him once to make him aware of my presence (some way back) and he accelerrated. Result, I thought, until he caught up with a lorry and slowed right down to the lorries speed of about 80 kmh, therby blocking the motorway altogether!?!
I calmly remained some distance back dispite wanting to flash him and blow the horn. He eventually overtook the lorry after a couple of minutes and pulled back into the driving lane, allowing me and the tailback that had built up past him.
06 Volvo driver, you know who you are, muppet...

cast_iron

I'm amazed that we are on page 4 here. It's actually quite funny. And the amount of hypothetical nonsense is even funnier.

The OP wasn't actually asking about safety (it was assumed to be safe regardless), but that's all people seem to be discussing. I'm wondering how many actually read the OP's post.

Wishbone Ash

cast_iron wrote:

I'm wondering how many actually read the OP's post.

The fact that he/she used "Ethics" in the title didn't help matters. Ethical matters are much more serious than courtesy and manners, or the lack thereof, on our motorways.

cast_iron

Wishbone Ash wrote:

The fact that he/she used "Ethics" in the title didn't help matters.

Perhaps not, but it was explained reasonably well in the edit at the end.

Somehow, I think he could have given an hour lecture on the what he was asking and some people would still not have understood / kept to the question

Hagar

cast_iron wrote:

The OP wasn't actually asking about safety (it was assumed to be safe regardless), but that's all people seem to be discussing.

Isn't Ethics concerned with what is socially and morally acceptable, right and wrong, legallity and illegallity, actions and consequences? Surely it's not unreasonable to judge the ethics of an action based on it's probable consequences therefore safety cannot be totally ignored.

The OP detailed a scenario containing 3 truck drivers in convoy breaking the law, another motorist breaking the law by speeding and proposed that a third illegal act of speeding be added to the equation and asked us to the judge the ethics. Well if two wrongs don't make a right, three most certainly won't. The driver cannot change the actions of the other drivers so he must be ethically bound not to worsen an already bad situation by adding another illegal and dangerous action to the equation.

My 2c.

Wishbone Ash

Hagar wrote:

Isn't Ethics concerned with what is socially and morally acceptable, right and wrong, legallity and illegallity, actions and consequences? Surely it's not unreasonable to judge the ethics of an action based on it's probable consequences therefore safety cannot be totally ignored.

Ethics has nothing to do with legality. Something which may be considered ethical may be illegal and something which may be considered unethical may be perfectly legal.

cast_iron

Hanging on 1 word in the title has lead to 4 pages of drivel. Farcical.

Read the edit - that's what the OP is asking about - not the philosophy of ethics or the legality of 3 truckers in convoy or a speeding driver or anything else.

Unless the OP can clarify that this was quite clearly what he wanted:rolleyes:

Hagar

Fair point re legality. In theory though we do strive to enshrine our moral standards within our legal system, not 100% sucessfully I will admit.

I can see no moral dilemma to be answered if safety and legality are not at issue; either course of action is equally ethical.

gingerhousewife

I chose the second option. It will only delay me marginally (as to overtake would only delay the driver behind marginally), but as has already been stated, in the majority of situations like this, the driver behind will not reduce his/her speed until right up my arse, and will then proceed to flash, wave and beep to encourage me to move in (when it is blatantly obvious that I can't move in until I have passed the trucks) or to break the speed limit, which I have no intention of doing.

I would always rather have this type of driver ahead of me rather than behind - especially as I cling to the hope of someday passing one of them pulled over at a checkpoint a couple of miles further down the road and adding just a little bit of sunshine to an otherwise dull day

biko

Wait for the speeder and then turn on my blue lights and nail his a$$

MercMad

Should everyone go by your mentality above of not assuming he will: A. See you at all, B. Decide to slow down in time or C. Be physically able to slow down then of course there would be no accidents at all as nobody would have the courage to drive on the roads at all.

Until I see otherwise, I will assume that the driver in front, behind and beside me is a competent driver. Using this assumption I will drive in a manner which I see fit and feel comfortable in doing.

..............one hell of an assumption, and one I hope most folk dont subscribe to ! I realise "if's" can get out of hand but I'd rather err on the side of caution when the road death statistics are what they are, and when the last 20 years of driving has kept me not only alive but also accident free !

Everyone will have their own opinion on this, my opinion is that as the OP put it, it would be safe to pull into the overtaking lane, which is what I would do here. Overtake the trucks, slot back into the driving lane and let the speeder go on his merry if slightly delayed way.

.......yes but the OP also pointed out that he would only have got past the first truck by the time the speeding car caught up with him ! That was an assumption on his part, what if he miscalulated the speed of the approaching car. Besides when will folk realise that holding back for another ten seconds wont make any significant addition to their journey time, yet it may, in this case save a life, but it will without doubt reduce stress !

Well if two wrongs don't make a right, three most certainly won't. The driver cannot change the actions of the other drivers so he must be ethically bound not to worsen an already bad situation by adding another illegal and dangerous action to the equation.

.........now that is exactly the point. Making a bad situation worse is something everyone should avoid ALL the time !

I chose the second option. It will only delay me marginally (as to overtake would only delay the driver behind marginally), but as has already been stated, in the majority of situations like this, the driver behind will not reduce his/her speed until right up my arse, and will then proceed to flash, wave and beep to encourage me to move in (when it is blatantly obvious that I can't move in until I have passed the trucks) or to break the speed limit, which I have no intention of doing.

...........very true, and how many times have we seen this ? How many times has there been a similar thread here ??

Put yourself in the position of being the driver of the speeding car for a moment. Nobody knows why you've decided to drive like a lunatic, nobody knows that you have an emergency, nobody knows if your girfriend has just dumped you, or you think you are Scumacher.........and nobody knows that you have 500BHP under your foot and instead of watching the car ahead and wondering will he stay where he is you have decided you have enough time to zip past him without him even noticing.................so you floor it, and now you are acceleratin g at warp speed.................but what's this ..........the guy ahead looks as though he's going to overtake the trucks.............idiot.....
........well I 'aint backing off...............I can slip past on the inside.............
possibly !!

All the above is me painting a picture again, but the fact remains, I'd rather add a minute to my journey than risk being involved in a fatal accident,and I'm putting my cards on the table...........................you are an a55hole if you think any different !!

Pherekydes

MercMad wrote:

.
Put yourself in the position of being the driver of the speeding car for a moment. Nobody knows why you've decided to drive like a lunatic, nobody knows that you have an emergency, nobody knows if your girfriend has just dumped you, or you think you are Scumacher.........and nobody knows that you have 500BHP under your foot and instead of watching the car ahead and wondering will he stay where he is you have decided you have enough time to zip past him without him even noticing

Wait until you get off the motorway, eh? What are you going to do then? Every driver has been dumped, is high as a kite, drives like a lunatic, thinks he is Schumi and has 500 HP under his right foot! And they're only a couple of feet away from you, driving in the opposite direction! One sneeze and you are bound to get mangled beyond economic repair.

Don't worry about the guys with 50000HP coming from behind on the motorway. They have high powered cars, with high powered brake systems. Worry about the dreamer who thinks that every guy on the M-Way is a hash-smoking, whiskey-swilling, crack-swallowing, homicidal maniac, who's just lost his entire family to an alien invasion and now he just wants to end it all and wants to take as many people with him as he can...


...by rear-ending them on the M-Way.


Why not a head-on on a back road?


But maybe he's just trying to get out of the way of that Jumbo that's trying to land on the M-way...






P.S. How do you manage to get from A to B?

MercMad

Now you are just being stupid.............!

Sandwich

So, it seems pretty conclusive:

Ethically the right thing to do is :

slow the speeder down, even if he does not recognise your generosity in making him a better person for driving within the speed limit. Endure his curses knowing that you are doing so for his own good.:D

Seth Brundle

TwoShedsJackson wrote:

99 times out of a 100 that you see someone obviously exceeding the speed limit, it's because they're a fool, not a doctor.

What makes them a fool?
If someone does 100kmh on a 80km/h road then by your logic they are a fool. If the speed limit of that stretch was raised are they still a fool for driving at that speed?
When a national Primary Route road is 'replaced' by a motorway and downgraded to an 'R' road (and thereby a lower limit), does it suddenly become less safe?

Pherekydes

MercMad wrote:

Now you are just being stupid.............!

Check out the accident stats. You are less likely to be involved in a fatal collision on the M-Way, not more. This is because the traffic is going in the same direction.

And you never did tell us how you deal with oncoming traffic on ordinary roads...

TwoShedsJackson

What makes them a fool?
If someone does 100kmh on a 80km/h road then by your logic they are a fool. If the speed limit of that stretch was raised are they still a fool for driving at that speed?
When a national Primary Route road is 'replaced' by a motorway and downgraded to an 'R' road (and thereby a lower limit), does it suddenly become less safe?

I'm inferring from your post then that you think it's okay to drive at whatever speed you feel is appropriate at the time, without regard to whatever limit might apply on that particular stretch of road?

I'm not saying all speed limits are correct (too high or too low) for whatever piece of road they apply to, but last I checked it was supposedly a legal obligation to obey the limits, not that that bothers a lot of people.

Seth Brundle

I never said that and im not sure how you managed to infer that.
I took your line:

99 times out of a 100 that you see someone obviously exceeding the speed limit, it's because they're a fool, not a doctor.

I never said anything about conditions, whether it was appropriate, etc.
I questioned your comment on how 99% of speeders are fools and whether if the limit was changed would they still be a fool.
Just because it is a legal obligation to stay under it does not make someone who breaches that limit a fool.


Also can you tell me what percentage of accidents are caused by being over the speed limit (excluding drink, drugs, inappropriate driving, etc.)

TwoShedsJackson

kbannon wrote:

I never said that and im not sure how you managed to infer that.
I took your line:
I never said anything about conditions, whether it was appropriate, etc.
I questioned your comment on how 99% of speeders are fools and whether if the limit was changed would they still be a fool.
Just because it is a legal obligation to stay under it does not make someone who breaches that limit a fool.


Also can you tell me what percentage of accidents are caused by being over the speed limit (excluding drink, drugs, inappropriate driving, etc.)

Well I guess I'm not sure what you're asking me then.

OK we know it's a supposed legal obligation to stay at or under the limit. So how would you describe someone who routinely exceeds the limit, despite being aware of it and quite capable of driving within it and still arriving at their destination in good time?

Whether the limit is changed on a particular road at some point in the future has nothing to do with it - a limit exsists on a road as they drive down it, they are supposed to obey that limit.

If a person has a legitimate reason to exceed it, e.g. the aforementioned doctor, or someone carrying a pregnant woman or accident victim etc. then that is an obvious exception. But you see people ignoring the limit every day on the roads just so they can either get home about two minutes quicker, or so they can get to the next bottleneck, roundabout, traffic jam etc. five seconds faster.

I'm new to driving anyway so maybe I just have the attitude of not wanting to speed right now, no doubt a few years exposure to driving in Ireland may change that. I have of course exceeded the limit e.g. on the Cookstown road where it's nice and easy to accidentally go over 50km/h because the road is straight, relatively well lit, and frequently clear of traffic.

But so far I have never consciously thought 'right, the limit is 50 but the road is straight and clear of traffic, I will do 70 up here so I get home twenty seconds early'. And I think that is what is going throught the heads of a lot of people who decide to speed.

Also can you tell me what percentage of accidents are caused by being over the speed limit (excluding drink, drugs, inappropriate driving, etc.)

No.

MercMad

Check out the accident stats. You are less likely to be involved in a fatal collision on the M-Way, not more. This is because the traffic is going in the same direction.

And you never did tell us how you deal with oncoming traffic on ordinary roads...

........I wasn't challenging the statistics, I am aware of them. I was challenging the rationale of entering into a manouvre that COULD be dangerous, for the sake of saving a few seconds !

Its like.........why bother !

I deal with regular traffic the way most people should, and at the risk of repeating myself, I usually assume that everyone else is an idiot, they havent seen me at all, and I pluck my way merrily through !

Simple..........no stress.........no panic !!

Whats the problem ?

Vikings

MercMad wrote:

I was challenging the rationale of entering into a manouvre that COULD be dangerous, for the sake of saving a few seconds !

Its like.........why bother !

I deal with regular traffic the way most people should, and at the risk of repeating myself, I usually assume that everyone else is an idiot, they havent seen me at all, and I pluck my way merrily through !

Simple..........no stress.........no panic !!

Whats the problem ?

Wow. I would be surprised if many people thought like this, especially people who get behind the wheel of a car everyday.

If you assume everyone is an idiot who doesnt see you do also assume that everyone who is behind you is going to plough into your back bumper? Do you stop at red lights in that case?

If you can not assume that another driver is a competent driver then how can you as a competent driver yourself follow the rules of the road without stress or panic? If I assume that every car could hit me at any given second (which it could but I assume it wont as they are in the hands of competent drivers) then I wouldnt put myself at risk by driving at all.

Every manouvre you enter in a vehicle could be dangerous, this situation is no different from taking a simple left turn on a left only green light using your rationale.

MercMad

So you are telling me that everyone out there driving on our roads assumes they have been seen, and assumes that others no their intentions ??

Yeah right !

Look I am not saying that I am freaky about it, just that I try to expect the unexpected. If I am at a junction trying to get out and a car approaches, I DONT assume he has seen me blah blah......and I dont assume lots of things but I'm not living in an insular world like you guys seem to be making out!

Of course I have to drive............with the rest of you on the roads !

hi5

Is it not legal to undertake if the car you are undertaking is driving below the legal speed limit and you keep to it also,I remember this rule applied when I did my test in the UK back about 12 years ago,has it changed or is this rule different in Ireland?

littlejukka

hi5 wrote:

Is it not legal to undertake if the car you are undertaking is driving below the legal speed limit and you keep to it also,I remember this rule applied when I did my test in the UK back about 12 years ago,has it changed or is this rule different in Ireland?

you're completely wrong.

Gurgle

hi5 wrote:

Is it not legal to undertake if the car you are undertaking is driving below the legal speed limit and you keep to it also,I remember this rule applied when I did my test in the UK back about 12 years ago,has it changed or is this rule different in Ireland?

You can pass a car on the left if the traffic on the right is moving slower than the traffic on the left or if the car is turning right.

Hotblack Desiato

Gurgle wrote:

You can pass a car on the left if the traffic on the right is moving slower than the traffic on the left

Only if there are queues (unfortunately what constitutes a queue and how fast it can be going isn't defined.)
If the traffic is moving freely but just happens to be going slower than you'd like, it's not legal to pass on the left.

Hogging the passing lane is illegal, but so is passing them in the left lane, so to be 100% legal you'd have to hang back in the left lane (if you stay behind the lane hogger in the passing lane then you're hogging it too!)

This is clearly a farce, which is why we need a lot more education/enforcement to get the passing lane hoggers to break their bad habits