Ticket for Tailgating

seamus

rockbeer wrote:

Agreed that it's no excuse... but why was she only doing 70 in a 100 zone? Were visibility or road conditions dangerous? Was she driving a tractor? If not, then she should be driving at or close to the limit, or making every effort to allow faster vehicles behind her to pass.

She thought it was a 60 zone as she didn't feel that the conditions would allow otherwise - she increased her speed to 70 when the guy came up behind her. I know the road very well, and would personally drive at 100km/h for all of the section she was in, but for someone who'd never driven it before it can be daunting. That particular section becomes narrower and has no hard shoulder and a solid white line, but the limit remains at 100km/h. If someone wasn't used to driving on country roads, then 100 or even 80km/h may seem excessive on that stretch.

While I would agree that people should make an effort to drive with the rest of the traffic flow, I would prefer that someone drove at the speed they were comfortable with instead of 10km/h above it, even if it was slowing me down. I regularly encounter (Dublin) people doing 70-80km/h at the section she describes. Technically though she the mother-in-law, so I wasn't going to launch into a critique of her actions!

is_that_so

Tailgating would be an executable offence in an ideal world.
Top of my all time driving hates.
I think what tailgaters fail to register or don't care about, is the effect on the person being tailgated. My sister in law got quite distressed driving along the N4 at the weekend, when someone tailgated her at the speed limit for the best part of two miles, despite there being a dual carriageway. I had to remind her to slow down to encourage them to pass,which they eventually did. When distressed people can panic and any thing can happen then.

BrianD3

Have I missed something here or has a vital part of the original post been overlooked in the responses
"tailgating while overtaking"

If you mean tailgating another vehicles while both of you are overtaking on a single carriageway road that is one of the most dangerous things you can do while driving. This is far worse than "normal" tailgating.

If you mean closing up to the target vehicle before overtaking then that is a different matter. IIRC the IAM recommends that drivers should close up to 1 second behind the target immediately before overtaking

MrPudding

BrianD3 wrote:

If you mean closing up to the target vehicle before overtaking then that is a different matter. IIRC the IAM recommends that drivers should close up to 1 second behind the target immediately before overtaking

But not to actually start accelerating for overtaking until you are in the offside and are sure the overtake is on. As soon as it is on acceleration should be as hard as your machine can give, up to the speed limit of course.

MrP

Marcus.Aurelius

Wait a sec, I made a mistake. You didnt get penalty points?

Failure to leave appropriate distance between you and the vehicle in front 2 pts on ticket €80
€120 in next 28 day period and 4 pts on conviction

bbbbb

Big fan of the "two second rule" myself.

Was explaining it to my passenger on the way back from cork yesterday. Half an hour later we get near abbeyleix when all of a sudden the traffic somes to a sudden halt. Looked behind me, the merc that had been following me at a safe distance stopped ok, but a nissan primera behind him had to use the hard shoulder as an escape.

Agree with other posters, most tailgaters don't seem to realise the dangers.

DJ_Spider

We have one of those parking sensors fitted. When something is 1mtr from the sensor it bleeps slowly, 1/5mtr it bleeps faster. It's amazing how many times it bleep when we are on the roads, waiting at traffic lights, or waiting to get onto/off the motorway.

PoleStar

rockbeer wrote:

Agreed that it's no excuse... but why was she only doing 70 in a 100 zone? Were visibility or road conditions dangerous? Was she driving a tractor? If not, then she should be driving at or close to the limit, or making every effort to allow faster vehicles behind her to pass.

I was always taught that to drive significantly under the speed limit is as bad as exceeding it. You would fail your test in the UK for driving like that, unless there were good reasons for going so slowly. Being scared of or unable to handle speed isn't a good reason...

These types of statements always make me laugh.

Speed signs are LIMITS, not targets. On many roads while the limit may be 100kph, this may not be the advisable safe speed, which is the speed which will enable you to stop safely within the distance visible in front of you. This is the law. Many people seem to ignore this fact.

Some might reply, well why not have the speed limit reflect this? Well I guess that would mean having about 1 billion speed limit signs around the country for every variation in speed that should be taken encountering a narrow bend etc.

I guess some people never learn.

BostonB

Just get outta the way will ye

Dilbert75

Only a fool breaks the 2 second rule.

Stark

PoleStar wrote:

Well I guess that would mean having about 1 billion speed limit signs around the country for every variation in speed that should be taken encountering a narrow bend etc.

Many countries seem to manage.

New Zealand have "advisory speed limits" before every bend. No more impractical than the ">>", ">>>>", "slow", "very slow", "dead slow" and the like signs that we have over here. I also noticed in Spain that they seem to have them before most bends on country roads.

rockbeer

PoleStar wrote:

These types of statements always make me laugh.

Speed signs are LIMITS, not targets. On many roads while the limit may be 100kph, this may not be the advisable safe speed, which is the speed which will enable you to stop safely within the distance visible in front of you. This is the law. Many people seem to ignore this fact.

Some might reply, well why not have the speed limit reflect this? Well I guess that would mean having about 1 billion speed limit signs around the country for every variation in speed that should be taken encountering a narrow bend etc.

I guess some people never learn.

So what are you saying - that people who trundle along at 70 in a 100 zone when there's no good reason for driving so slowly are driving well?

Did you actually read my post? I said quite clearly *unless road conditions dictate otherwise* - in other words, the speed limit should be regarded as a target unless there are road/weather conditions etc. that dictate otherwise. Experience allows a driver to judge what is a safe speed, and of course it would be ridiculous to say everyone should always be driving at the limit come what may under all conditions. But hey, that wasn't what I said was it?

Not really sure why you take such exception to my comments as I don't really think I'm saying anything different to you.

I don't know how it is here, but in the UK you WILL fail your test for driving too slowly. And you might not like this either, but the standard of driving is way higher over there than it is here.

Glad I gave you a laugh, anyway

Stark

rockbeer wrote:

I don't know how it is here, but in the UK you WILL fail your test for driving too slowly. And you might not like this either, but the standard of driving is way higher over there than it is here.

It's the same situation over here, although people don't really get tested on 100km/hr roads.

J_R

Stark wrote:

It's the same situation over here, although people don't really get tested on 100km/hr roads.

Correct. If the test route does encompass a 100 km/h section you will be marked if you do not drive at the speed limit.

cavanmaniac

Tailgaters I agree are one of my all-time top peeves on the road.

Two years ago I had a guy in an Astra pull right, right, right up to my back bumper when leaving Ashbourne. I mean this guy could not have been any closer without bumping me, unbelieveable. I was observing the speed limit exiting the town but he forced me to speed up, and he duly filled the space again.

I then dabbed the breaks, mildly though as he was so very close, he backed off and then came back again.

I switched on my rear fogs. He turned on his headlights. And stayed in position.

He overtook me before coming to the main roundabout where you turn left for Swords. I came over the hill in his wake to find him buried in the backend of some poor young girl in a Micra and her in floods of tears.

What an absolute idiot.

Guys who come up close behind you with high dips and the fogs blazing get my goat as well. Only once has a turn on of the rear fogs got one of these guys to switch them off, usually they just blaze the headlights even though they know they're in the wrong and that the driver in front wouldn't be doing this unless they were getting dazzled or felt uncomfortable.

Stark

cavanmaniac wrote:

He overtook me before coming to the main roundabout where you turn left for Swords. I came over the hill in his wake to find him buried in the backend of some poor young girl in a Micra and her in floods of tears.

Hope she was okay. (Hope he wasn't).

embraer170

Stark wrote:

New Zealand have "advisory speed limits" before every bend. No more impractical than the ">>", ">>>>", "slow", "very slow", "dead slow" and the like signs that we have over here. I also noticed in Spain that they seem to have them before most bends on country roads.

They have that on some roads in France too. I remember driving the Cote d'Azur Bis route (Grenoble to Sisteron) and they had limits before most bends... I remember 30/40 km/h limits on bends most people people (and I'm not excluding myself) would fly around at 80/90km/h on many Irish roads.

BostonB

J_R wrote:

Correct. If the test route does encompass a 100 km/h section you will be marked if you do not drive at the speed limit.

I always thought that the speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. I also thought that making progress meant. as a general rule, drive at the same speed as traffic around you without going over the speed limit. Do you have links to any official legal info text that says you have to drive at the speed limit.

rockbeer

BostonB wrote:

I always thought that the speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions.

What you say here is true. It would be impossible to put up a speed limit sign that took allowance of transitory factors such as fog and ice, mud on the road, restricted visibility, one-off bends etc. Otherwise limits would have to be set ridiculously low.

Experience allows a driver to judge what is a safe speed. However, the assumption is that an experienced driver should be able to drive safely at or near the limit in good conditions when no such temporary factors are in place to cause them to slow down. Obviously a good driver will make allowance for such factors and adjust their speed accordingly.

A good driver won't drive significantly below the limit in otherwise favourable and safe conditions simply because they don't feel comfortable with speed in general or think that driving significantly below the limit is safer.

BostonB wrote:

I also thought that making progress meant. as a general rule, drive at the same speed as traffic around you without going over the speed limit.

Well obviously you have to adjust your speed according to the speed of the vehicles around you. If you're behind a lorry in your car and it's not safe to pass, you need to slow down, drop back and wait. Some vehicles are limited in speed by their design and you have to take account of that. But that's quite a different thing to deliberately driving well below the limit when conditions don't require it.

BostonB wrote:

Do you have links to any official legal info text that says you have to drive at the speed limit.

You'll quite rightly never find anything official telling you that the limit is anything other than a maximum speed, not a required one. However, from the Rules of the Road:

"you should not drive so slowly that your vehicle unnecessarily blocks other road users. If you drive too slowly, you risk frustrating other drivers, which could lead to dangerous overtaking."

BostonB

rockbeer wrote:

....However, the assumption is that an experienced driver should be able to drive safely at or near the limit in good conditions...

What about inexperienced drivers? They are legal on the road too. I suspect you meant competent driver. But then incompetent learners are legal while they learn.

rockbeer wrote:

...A good driver won't drive significantly below the limit in otherwise favourable and safe conditions simply because they don't feel comfortable with speed in general or think that driving significantly below the limit is safer....

Some drivers are comfortable driving beyond safe limits. Everyone's limits are different. Also you might have any sort of passenger or cargo in the car where it might not be suitable to drive at the speed limit. What then? Many roads the limits are set too high just some are set too low. In one of our cars I could easily maintain a much higher than legal speed most of the time even on small roads. In our other city car its simply not stable at the speed limit on small roads and is geared to cruise at 90-100km/h not 120km/h. Both cars are much more economical at 100km/h not 120km/h.

rockbeer wrote:

You'll quite rightly never find anything official telling you that the limit is anything other than a maximum speed, not a required one. However, from the Rules of the Road:
....

...its not official or a legal requirement, then...

I'm frustrated with generally too low limits. But I don't really have a problem with people who want to drive slower than the limit unless they are driving erratically.

rockbeer

BostonB wrote:

What about inexperienced drivers? They are legal on the road too. I suspect you meant competent driver. But then incompetent learners are legal while they learn.

Well... I suppose I probably meant both. In my view the point of taking lessons and passing a test is to develop a certain degree of experience and confidence before being let loose on the road. Of course under this crazy system where anybody can go and drive about unaccompanied, effectively for as long as they like, without ever taking a lesson or test (I know that's not strictly legal but with zero enforcement it amounts to the same...) there are plenty of drivers out there with no real idea of what's either safe or required.

BostonB wrote:

Some drivers are comfortable driving beyond safe limits. Everyone's limits are different.

I think you miss the point. If a stretch of road has been assessed and a speed limit determined for it, you should generally assume that limit is reasonable under good driving conditions for any driver with the competence to be allowed on the road in the first place. You should of course bring your experience and skill to bear at the same time. It shouldn't really be about the perceived comfort levels of individual drivers, not unless the limit is wildly inappropriate for the particular stretch of road. If you can't handle driving at 100 in a 100 zone in good conditions in a decent vehicle, you should probably be asking yourself whether you have the competence, confidence or experience necessary to be on the road at all.

In that case, back to driving school.

BostonB wrote:

Also you might have any sort of passenger or cargo in the car where it might not be suitable to drive at the speed limit. What then?

Well of course there are always exceptional circumstances but we aren't really talking about those are we? Or do you think every dawdler and crawler out there is carrying a dangerous cargo?

BostonB wrote:

...its not official or a legal requirement, then...

Well, sorry but I wouldn't agree. I take from that rules of the road statement plus all the things my driving instructors ever told me (I passed my test first time by the way) that it is a requirement to drive at or close to the limit under good road and vehicle conditions, assuming the limit is reasonable for the road which is usually the case. Otherwise you would be driving slowly enough to unnecessarily block other road users, which is where we started. Basically I'd interpret it to mean if you aren't driving near the limit you should have a good (and conscious) reason for not doing so, not just a vague feeling of discomfort. I drive a hell of a lot, and know for certain that if you're observing and anticipating properly, the occasions when it's genuinely not safe to drive near the limit outside of towns in reasonable weather are nowhere near as common as drivers dawdling along in the middle of the road for no good reason.

Much, if not most, of learning to drive is learning to judge the conditions, to adapt accordingly, and to have confidence in your ability to do so. Driving too slowly doesn't demonstrate these skills, in fact it demonstrates a lack of them.

I don't really see what's ambiguous about the ROR statement. It doesn't say drive only as fast as you personally feel comfortable. It says don't drive too slowly and make sure you don't unnecessarily hold up other drivers.

IMHO, in good conditions in a modern vehicle, "too slowly" is usually anything much below the limit that has been assessed as appropriate for the road. I think you'll find most decent driving instructors and examiners would agree with that, and you would fail your test for doing otherwise unless there's a very good reason for it.

"I didn't feel safe" isn't a good reason - it just shows a lack of confidence unless you can explain why it wasn't safe.

BostonB

rockbeer wrote:

...
I think you miss the point. If a stretch of road has been assessed and a speed limit determined for it, you should generally assume that limit is reasonable under good driving conditions for any driver with the competence to be allowed on the road in the first place.

Really?. Picture=1000 words. This is not unusual IMO
http://www.irishspeedtraps.com/SpeedLimits.aspx

rockbeer wrote:

.
Well, sorry but I wouldn't agree. I take from that rules of the road statement plus all the things my driving instructors ever told me....

If you have a link where its a legal requirement to drive at the post limit please post it. Otherwise its all just opinion. Is it a legal requirement I honestly don't. I'd like it clarified.

I think it maybe a legal requirement in other countries and perhaps even certain states in the US. But I can't find a good link on it, for anywhere else or UK/IRL. Is there a charge for obstructing traffic? Perhaps the Guards whip out their favourite one of dangerous driving.

J_R

Hi,

BostonB Do you have links to any official legal info text that says you have to drive at the speed limit.

No, but had a chat regarding speed limits with a person who would know the requirements of the driving test and was advised you MUST do the posted speed limits.

But note, I was replying to the posts regarding speed on the driving test.
There is no onus on a person to then drive at the maximum speed. Just that in the test a person must prove that they are capable of doing, maintaining the posted speed confidently and safely.

Another snippet from the new Rules

Signed speed limits set the maximum speed at which vehicles may legally travel on a section of road between speed limit signs, assuming the vehicles are not restricted in any way.

The signs indicate the maximum speed at which your vehicle may travel on a particular road or stretch of road, not the required speed for the road.

I added the bold.

Seth Brundle

J_R wrote:

No, but had a chat regarding speed limits with a person who would know the requirements of the driving test and was advised you MUST do the posted speed limits.

they are badly misinformed sources!

daedalus2097

BostonB wrote:

I think it maybe a legal requirement in other countries and perhaps even certain states in the US. But I can't find a good link on it, for anywhere else or UK/IRL. Is there a charge for obstructing traffic? Perhaps the Guards whip out their favourite one of dangerous driving.

Myself and a friend were in his car driving up a country road probably a year or two ago. It's a windy road with a silly 80km/h speed limit, there are precious few parts where you can reach anything near that speed. Going up it we were going fairly fast, though nowhere near 80km/h, and we were pulled over by a squad car that came up the road behind us. He gave my friend a lecture about driving too fast on the road and let him off with a warning for driving without due care or something...

On the way back down the road later on, we were taking it a little bit easier along the same stretch when an unmarked car came right up the back of us, tailgating for a while(!), before eventually revealing itself as a Garda car by putting on the flashers and siren. Pulled us over, and gave my friend a lecture about driving too slow on the road and how it causes accidents, before jumping back in and speeding off down the road again.

What the hell are we supposed to take from that then??

Stark

daedalus2097 wrote:

What the hell are we supposed to take from that then??

That later in the day, they're heading home for their tea?

daedalus2097

Stark wrote:

That later in the day, they're heading home for their tea?

Surely then though, they'd have the sirens on the whole way down the road?

rockbeer

daedalus2097 wrote:

What the hell are we supposed to take from that then??

That they make it up as they go along?

See just about every other thread in motors for confirmation of this in one way or another.

J_R

kbannon wrote:

they are badly misinformed sources!

Nope, absolutely not.

So again. On a dual carriageway in a driving test, unless a person drives at 100 Km/h they will get marked for progress. (Give or take a few Km/h's)

However, source did concede there could be extenuating circumstances when a person might not get marked if they only did 80 - 85 km/h.

But ordinary situation less than 100 Km/h = Grade 2 fault.

Should be no need to add if conditions permit and safe to do so ???

Seth Brundle

J_R wrote:

Nope, absolutely not.

You said they "MUST do the posted speed limits". As test centres are usually located within residential areas the posted speed limit will quite frequently not be safe (depending on time of day etc.) especially given that the drivers will be nervious.