They never learn...

DonJose

After what happened yesterday you'd think the idiots out there would cop on, but no.

"It is understood one car clipped several vehicles coming in the opposite direction when it tried to overtake."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0328/rta.html

Stark

Saw that. Retard. I hope he's screwed insurance wise for a few years.

galah

but you know what's bound to happen now, right? Every idiot will now use the fog lights all the time...

seriously, when will the government introduce compulsory driving lessons, where this stuff is covered????

PoleStar

Never mind the insurance, I hope when he bends over in prison to pick up his soap that he gets whats coming!

I think there should be some legal mechanism that if someone drives dangerously and injures you in a crash that you can press criminal charges against that individual, eg reckless endangerment or criminal negligence, and that the legal system should facilitate not hinder this. Usually its just fought out between insurance companies.

I know, if anyone ever rear-ends me, which is never excusable, I am gonna have them and take them to the cleaners. Its so irritating that you can be driving safely and some guy (or girl) can be driving so close behind you that they can see what way you combed your hair in the morning.

Perhaps and name and shame campaign too would help?

rockbeer

PoleStar wrote:

I think there should be some legal mechanism that if someone drives dangerously and injures you in a crash that you can press criminal charges against that individual, eg reckless endangerment or criminal negligence, and that the legal system should facilitate not hinder this. Usually its just fought out between insurance companies.

Couldn't agree more PoleStar.

My g/f was quietly minding her own business one Saturday morning, stationary at a red light at Kill on the Naas Rd - this was before they got rid of all the junctions. Anyway, some prat drives into the back of her at 60mph, and freely admitted afterwards that she was fiddling with her radio at the time and "didn't notice the lights were red".

I stupidly expected the guards to pull her in for dangerous driving, but they didn't give a sh*t - as far as they were concerned it was an insurance matter, end of story.

What sort of incentive is there for people to drive safely when their insurance totally protects them from having to take responsiblity for their actions?

galwaytt

you don't need a change in the law to start a civil suit, afaik...........

Stark

rockbeer wrote:

My g/f was quietly minding her own business one Saturday morning, stationary at a red light at Kill on the Naas Rd - this was before they got rid of all the junctions. Anyway, some prat drives into the back of her at 60mph, and freely admitted afterwards that she was fiddling with her radio at the time and "didn't notice the lights were red".

I stupidly expected the guards to pull her in for dangerous driving, but they didn't give a sh*t - as far as they were concerned it was an insurance matter, end of story.

I remember one day I was out driving with my dad when this elderly woman pulled out in front of us without looking and did the usual thing of continuing at snail's pace on a 100kph road. As we approached a little town, my dad said "Be very careful following behind her, she's liable to do anything". And he was right. Passing through the busy town centre, she not only continued to do the same speed as she was doing on the main road, but I noticed her driving had become extremely erratic. I peered into her car to find the reason: The silly cow was hunting for something under the passenger seat! This in a busy town centre with pedestrians walking around everywhere.

OldmanMondeo

PoleStar wrote:

I know, if anyone ever rear-ends me, which is never excusable, I am gonna have them and take them to the cleaners. Its so irritating that you can be driving safely and some guy (or girl) can be driving so close behind you that they can see what way you combed your hair in the morning.

What a load of crap. I have rear-ended someone and it was a total accident. I wasn't changing radio station or looking for something under a seat. I was slowing down, as was the car in front and as I let the clutch out when dropping the gears, my foot slipped off the brake and onto the accelator, this happened because my runner was wet. It also didn't help that the person in front decided to slam on her brakes for no reason.

Back on topic though, Dangerous overtaking happens ever where, not just in poor conditions.

Jnealon

OldmanMondeo wrote:

What a load of crap. I have rear-ended someone and it was a total accident. I wasn't changing radio station or looking for something under a seat. I was slowing down, as was the car in front and as I let the clutch out when dropping the gears, my foot slipped off the brake and onto the accelator, this happened because my runner was wet. It also didn't help that the person in front decided to slam on her brakes for no reason.

Back on topic though, Dangerous overtaking happens ever where, not just in poor conditions.

I will be going on an advanced driving course soon but from talking to people that did it before me they were told that you should not be using your gears for stopping. I will have to double check this but you are meant to brake and then at the last minute clutch in and stop

OldmanMondeo

Jnealon wrote:

I will be going on an advanced driving course soon but from talking to people that did it before me they were told that you should not be using your gears for stopping. I will have to double check this but you are meant to brake and then at the last minute clutch in and stop

Then you will be told to use your gears to SLOW the car, this reduces the chances of the car skidding, This is what I was doing. This is also how you should slow a car in snow/icey conditions. It saves wear on the braking system and is the quickest and safest way to slow a car down. What you describes is the normal proceedure for stopping a car.

jayok

When you go on the advanced driving course you will be told to always use your brakes to slow the car. Never the drive train. This makes sense, why would you want to wear out the drivetrain instead of the brakes? Far cheaper to replace the brakes.

As for better stability when using the gears to slow the car instead of the brakes this is not the case. Unless you are blipping the accelerator, dropping the gears will mean a different drive and possible "jerk" or imbalance on the car. The brakes will always deliver a consistent force (when applied correctly).

I have mentioned this before, the key to controlling a car is to maintain balance at all times. It is far easier to do this using the brakes than the drive train.

Slowing on the gears, etc, are no longer applicable with todays cars as the braking system is more than capable of stopping the car without the drive train.

..use your gears to SLOW the car...quickest and safest way to slow a car down.

Eh, no. Your brakes will stop the car quicker than anything else. Systems such as ABS, EBD, EBA are there to ensure this process is as safe as possible.

Mitch Connor

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Then you will be told to use your gears to SLOW the car, this reduces the chances of the car skidding, This is what I was doing. This is also how you should slow a car in snow/icey conditions. It saves wear on the braking system and is the quickest and safest way to slow a car down. What you describes is the normal proceedure for stopping a car.

unless you are sitting a driving test, where you will get done for not going down through the gears like two of my friends did!

jayok

unless you are sitting a driving test, where you will get done for not going down through the gears like two of my friends did!

You do not need to go "through" the gears. More than likely they were in the wrong gear for the speed of the car. Why would you go from 4,3,2 stop when you are approach a stop sign? Leave it in 4th and just brake. This is the correct way to drive.

Mitch Connor

jayok wrote:

You do not need to go "through" the gears. More than likely they were in the wrong gear for the speed of the car. Why would you go from 4,3,2 stop when you are approach a stop sign? Leave it in 4th and just brake. This is the correct way to drive.

with one of them, they were driving along the road, a pedistrian stepped out infront of them from between two parked trucks (she says there is no way she could have seen them coming) so she hit the brakes and then the clutch, so she would not cut out, and got done for not coming down through the gears.

Similar situation for the other, but she was a mate of my gf's, so i don't know the story too well.

jayok

with one of them, they were driving along the road, a pedistrian stepped out infront of them from between two parked trucks (she says there is no way she could have seen them coming) so she hit the brakes and then the clutch, so she would not cut out, and got done for not coming down through the gears.

Sorry but you are not been given the complete picture here. What he performed is an emergency stop. By its very nature the vehicle must be stopped as quickly as possible going through the gears will do nothing here.

If it wasn't an emergency stop but hard-braking then you don't clutch until the car is about to stop OR until you move into a lower gear. (e.g. 4th to 2nd)

Mitch Connor

jayok wrote:

Sorry but you are not been given the complete picture here. What he performed is an emergency stop. By its very nature the vehicle must be stopped as quickly as possible going through the gears will do nothing here.

If it wasn't an emergency stop but hard-braking then you don't clutch until the car is about to stop OR until you move into a lower gear. (e.g. 4th to 2nd)

i asked my driving instructor about it, and my mate (a differnt mate) asked a different one and they both said that as long as you press teh clutch after you press the brake it is still an acceptable way of doing it, and that the girl in question should not have been done for it.

Anyway, your first sentence still indicates my friend did nothing wrong.

jayok

Anyway, your first sentence still indicates my friend did nothing wrong.

Correct, IF she was performing an emergency stop. Since she "got done" for this it wasn't an emergency stop. It was hard-braking.

What I find about people and their driving test is that they believe that the instructor is out to get them. Not at all ,they failed simply because they done something wrong. Few people will accept this. Your friend failed because she didn't clutch at the correct time and didn't (if necessary) declutch in the correct gear. This is my point. Its not because she didn't go though the gears.

OldmanMondeo

Ok, Let me explain my braking technique, I apply the brakes, via the foot brake peddal, while also using going down the gears. I have always used this method to stop/slow my car, even during my driving test. This is the same theroy as ABS, to have hte engine control the slowing of the car.
I wouldn't just drop the gear and not apply the brakes, that would be silly. I don't just apply the brakes and wait to stop, infact I find doing this or being in a car where someone does this to be unnerving as I keep expecting the car to skid.

anyway, lets start a thread of "Braking technique and the differences between emergency braking and slowing a car" before we get in trouble for going off topic..

Mitch Connor

jayok wrote:

Correct, IF she was performing an emergency stop. Since she "got done" for this it wasn't an emergency stop. It was hard-braking.

What I find about people and their driving test is that they believe that the instructor is out to get them. Not at all ,they failed simply because they done something wrong. Few people will accept this. Your friend failed because she didn't clutch at the correct time and didn't (if necessary) declutch in the correct gear. This is my point. Its not because she didn't go though the gears.

surely someone stepping out in front of you, and thus forcing you to come to a quick stop to avoid hitting them, is an emergency stop.

jayok

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Ok, Let me explain my braking technique, I apply the brakes, via the foot brake peddal, while also using going down the gears.

That is an incorrect braking technique. Going down the gears adds nothing to the stopping motion. You are introducing wear to the drivetrain for no reason.

The correct braking motion is (say in 4th gear) car at 60km/hr. Press the brakes, car slows down, finish braking at say 10km/hr, clutch, into 2nd and move off again.

Just because you do it though the gears doesn't make it right.

I have always used this method to stop/slow my car, even during my driving test. This is the same theroy as ABS, to have hte engine control the slowing of the car.

ABS is not the same as engine braking and thus you cannot compare. Engine braking will not adjust itself to maintain a consistent braking stability across the whole car. Why do you think so much emphasis is placed on the braking systems in cars?

jayok

Tauren wrote:

surely someone stepping out in front of you, and thus forcing you to come to a quick stop to avoid hitting them, is an emergency stop.

Yes is it. But there is no way your friend was penalized here for no going through the gears. My suggestion here is that she wasn't actually performing an emergency stop but braking hard. Without actually seeing the situation I can only speculate. However, if she was braking hard and clutched then she should have been penalized.

Stark

If I need to do a sudden stop, I find leaving the car in gear to be much more effective. Last time I tried moving down through the gears, the car felt like it was "sliding" (not correct terminology I know) when I had the clutch pushed to the floor.

For a slow gradual stop like when you see traffic lights ahead, I usually stop in third gear, or second if I have a very long run-up. This is when I start braking early and I have to downshift so the car isn't shuddering half way through the approach to the lights.

It is perfectly acceptable to stop in third gear for the purposes of your driving test. I personally found it better as it was smoother and there was less chance of me putting the car into second but having to stop before I had my foot fully off the clutch. I don't know what the definitive answer for stopping in 4th is, but I've done it during the driving test and wasn't penalised.

OldmanMondeo

jayok wrote:

ABS is not the same as engine braking and thus you cannot compare. Engine braking will not adjust itself to maintain a consistent braking stability across the whole car. Why do you think so much emphasis is placed on the braking systems in cars?

ABS will only work when you do not Clutch, this is to allow the engine to control the wheels and stop them locking up. As I have said I have always drop down gears to slow the car, I learnt to drive this way and passed my test driving this way. Ii have never done any advance driving courses, but I have read as much as I could about driving and how to improve, and 1 thing I always remember is that a car is more lightly to skid if you put the brakes on fully, as this locks the wheels. I am driving 15 years and have never had any problems with my cars because of my driving style. As for dropping down and missing 2 or 3 gears, this will cause a jerking action in the car and can also result in unnesscary pressure on you clutch.

Stark

OldmanMondeo wrote:

ABS will only work when you do not Clutch, this is to allow the engine to control the wheels and stop them locking up.

But if you're changing down through the gears then you're clutching.

OldmanMondeo wrote:

and 1 thing I always remember is that a car is more lightly to skid if you put the brakes on fully, as this locks the wheels

Which shouldn't be a problem if you've ABS.

OldmanMondeo wrote:

As for dropping down and missing 2 or 3 gears, this will cause a jerking action in the car and can also result in unnesscary pressure on you clutch.

Only if you're not doing it properly.

ambro25

In the UK and here, driving instructors apparently tell you to brake and clutch in at the last moment, and not to retrograde (that's what 4>3>2 is called, by the way).

On the Continent (FR, DE, BNL, IT), driving instructors tell you to retrograde to 2nd (optional light braking permissible), then to brake firmly for complete stop and clutch in. Moreover, they teach you to drive on a multi-lane carriageway/motorway, and one of the golden rules is you always adjust your speed without braking (inasmuch as circumstances permit, of course - i.e. in case of emergency braking required).

Exact reverse! So, what do you make of that?

For what it's worth, I haven't ever had to change a brake pad in less than 30,000 miles, and not had to change/repair a gearbox/tranny/anything to do with powertrain ever. We're actually in the process of changing our car right this moment - with the previous one bought at 60,000 miles on clock, no new pads, no new tyres, no nothing: only ever petrol, and regular oil and filters changes in 3 years / 30,000 miles. It's a 2.0 Impreza btw, and I don't exactly drive it like a granny either.

I think you'll find that teaching people to retrograde (as opposed to just press the middle pedal) actually forces people to concentrate on what they're doing (i.e.anticipate).

As for advanced driving techniques (erm... I'm on about offensive/defensive bodyguard-type affairs, not so much AA/RAC-type affairs), one of the first things that gets drummed into you is that you use the brakes as little as possible, and accomodate all road conditions with revs only (to keep instant-on power ready at hand...well, foot ).

EDIT - as for people who 'slide' or 'wobble' or whatnot with retrograding, it sounds as if either their speed is not appropriate at the time slowing is required, or their car is not roadworthy, or both. Oh, and ABS works regardless of whether you press the clutch or not (for most cars I'm aware of. it's usually tranny-independent).

Stark

ambro25 wrote:

Moreover, they teach you to drive on a multi-lane carriageway/motorway, and one of the golden rules is you always adjust your speed without braking (inasmuch as circumstances permit, of course - i.e. in case of emergency braking required).

This advice holds true everywhere. If you're having to brake to adjust your speed during the normal course of motorway driving, then you're driving too close to the car in front. Also even a little tap of the brakes is going to trigger a cascade reaction behind you as cars behind you see your brake lights and press harder on their brakes. This results in a lot of "phantom traffic jams" on motorways.

ambro25 wrote:

Exact reverse! So, what do you make of that?

Hardly surprising really. The most frustrating thing I found about learning to drive in Ireland was that one instructor would often tell me to do the exact opposite of what another instructor told me to do.

jayok

OldmanMondeo wrote:

ABS will only work when you do not Clutch

You need to learn how ABS actually works. Google it, it has nothing to do with the clutch at all.

Just because you passed still doesn't make it right. That's the problem with the Irish test, it allow people with incorrect or insufficient knowledge can pass. Do your Advanced driving test and see if your technique gets you through that assessment.

jayok

ambro25 wrote:

Moreover, they teach you to drive on a multi-lane carriageway/motorway, and one of the golden rules is you always adjust your speed without braking (inasmuch as circumstances permit, of course - i.e. in case of emergency braking required).

Exact reverse! So, what do you make of that?

Funny that I thought the point of braking was not only to stop the car but also to turn on your brake lights to show other drivers that you speed is changing. I find it strange that on high-speed carriageways it's elected not to pass this information along. Maybe that why so many pile-ups occur.

As for advanced driving techniques (erm... I'm on about offensive/defensive bodyguard-type affairs, not so much AA/RAC-type affairs), one of the first things that gets drummed into you is that you use the brakes as little as possible, and accomodate all road conditions with revs only (to keep instant-on power ready at hand...well, foot ).

The first thing they teach you is to maintain control of the car at all times. Then the three step rule. Take information, process information, pass the information along.

i.e. 1. Corner ahead, 2. Slow car by braking 3. Brake lights pass information to other users.

Yes, they teach you to minimise braking and have the car at the correct speed, but never to compromise safety.

Keith C

PoleStar wrote:

Never mind the insurance, I hope when he bends over in prison to pick up his soap that he gets whats coming!

I think there should be some legal mechanism that if someone drives dangerously and injures you in a crash that you can press criminal charges against that individual, eg reckless endangerment or criminal negligence, and that the legal system should facilitate not hinder this. Usually its just fought out between insurance companies.

I know, if anyone ever rear-ends me, which is never excusable, I am gonna have them and take them to the cleaners. Its so irritating that you can be driving safely and some guy (or girl) can be driving so close behind you that they can see what way you combed your hair in the morning.

Perhaps and name and shame campaign too would help?

As you just pointed out the insurance covers all this, thats why you pay for it. If you imagine it now, lets take a guess 5 write offs €10k each & €100k damage done to all cars, 20 Personal injuries whiplash etc €20k each. Thats a rough figure of approx €550,000 that insurance companies will pay out, it'll prob be closer to €1m with fire brigade charges on top of that.
Its us that will have to pay higher insurance now to cover the losses :mad:

OldmanMondeo

With regard to the braking, we're probably all right and wrong. I am driving 15 years and have only been in 1 accident, that I am responsible for and have never had any problems with a car due to my driving style. I will continue to drive as I have been because it works.

ambro25

jayok wrote:

Funny that I thought the point of braking was not only to stop the car but also to turn on your brake lights to show other drivers that you speed is changing. I find it strange that on high-speed carriageways it's elected not to pass this information along. Maybe that why so many pile-ups occur.

:rolleyes:

Maybe also it's because so many people don't bother learning what a safe travelling distance and interval is.

Maybe also it's because so many people don't bother paying attention as to whether the car/bike/lorry in front is slowing down unless they see any brake lights.

etc.

When you drive your car, you have a duty of care to the people you are following, because your actions (not breaking) will adversely affect them. You do not have a duty of care to the people who follow you: they have the same duty of care to you, as you have to the car in front of you.

The only exception to this principle is if you are being overtaken.

jayok wrote:

The first thing they teach you is to maintain control of the car at all times.

Never said different. I said : one of the first things (...).

jayok wrote:

Then the three step rule. Take information, process information, pass the information along.

I take it that you have 'sat' Advanced Motoring as dispensed by a certain Insurance group?

That last (emboldened) one must be the Insurers' own addendum. I can fully understand why they'd slot it in, mind

Oh - I'd have thought the 3rd step should read: ACT (before bothering to pass information )

(just to clarify - my advanced driving training was not civilian)