Why do so many drivers overtake on the inside

Anan1

swingking wrote:

I've learned a good deal from posting this thread. Thanks to everyone for pointing out my mistake which I will correct in future.

Can't say fairer than that!:)

ballooba

nialler wrote:

1800 kilos, 5.2m in length, good brakes though, and not sure but have you ever tried to drive with cruise control in this country, it's a pain in the a*se to disengage then reengage.

Maths may very well explain in detail when dealing with distance/velocity and kinetic energy (I presume that would encompass weight). Unfortunately what it doesn't factor in is Judgement, what is judged or perceived to be a safe distance or not, so unfortunately science will not win through here.

?

What's all that about?

nialler

my thoughts exactly about your previous post. When have people time to do those calculations in any situation on the motorway. Call it ignorance if you want, but I put it down to experience and judgement and with experience comes better judgement. Some people may think at those speeds that 200m gap is perfectly acceptable and safe, some others may not and some again would think half that was safe.

You I presume answered my query about approaching an oncoming truck and whether I was out of line by not letting or rather feeling it not safe to pull into the left lane after indicating my intention seeing the Land Rover approaching me at a speed far in excess of 120kph and flooring it to get by the truck and get in then.

DrChoda

I'm actually sick of people driving slow in the passing lane. I'm tired of them causing massive backups simply because they have no clue how to drive on the motorway.
A simple rule to follow is, if you're not passing someone then get out of the passing lane for someone that might want to pass you.

To the OP, 3 lanes and you were in the middle and you give it all away when you say that 2 cars had to pass on the inside lane. This is easily because:
-you should have been on the inside lane
-the car in the outside lane should have been in the middle
-the 2 cars could continue their journey without 'offending' people by passing on the inside lane.

IMO I really feel that people driving too slow, or holding the passing lane well below the speed limit should be pulled over. If you are driving that slow, get off the motorway.

MAYPOP

has anyone actually read the OP's posts regarding the situation

ballooba

nialler wrote:

my thoughts exactly about your previous post. When have people time to do those calculations in any situation on the motorway. Call it ignorance if you want, but I put it down to experience and judgement and with experience comes better judgement. Some people may think at those speeds that 200m gap is perfectly acceptable and safe, some others may not and some again would think half that was safe.

You don't need to do those calculations every time. It's fairly standard that a truck with a speed limiter will be travelling at 80kmph on a motorway. It's also safe to assume that if the lane in front of you is empty that you will be travelling at the maximum allowed speed i.e. 120kmph. Therefore anything greater than 200 metres is more than adequate to let a faster moving vehicle behind you pass.

nialler wrote:

You I presume answered my query about approaching an oncoming truck and whether I was out of line by not letting or rather feeling it not safe to pull into the left lane after indicating my intention seeing the Land Rover approaching me at a speed far in excess of 120kph and flooring it to get by the truck and get in then.

I should hope there are no oncoming trucks on a motorway. Otherwise you are in a whole other world of trouble.

A car travelling at 130kmph gains 3ms over a car travelling 120kmph. So if the LR is travelling a fast as you say then he will be long gone in half the time it would take you to pass the truck.

commited

I DETEST middle lane hoggers. Use the inside lane, it's not just for trucks.

I think Boards.ie should run some simple ads like this. It's not like the government will, all their ads show are not to drink and drive (common sense and generally socially unacceptable these days) and not to hit vtec y0!

The overtaking ads that they ran are similar to what should be run - if people are going to be allowed to drive around without a full license, then educate them from the TV as they arent going to bother educating themselved.

/rant over.

mobpd

commited wrote:

I DETEST middle lane hoggers. Use the inside lane, it's not just for trucks.

I think Boards.ie should run some simple ads like this. It's not like the government will, all their ads show are not to drink and drive (common sense and generally socially unacceptable these days) and not to hit vtec y0!

The overtaking ads that they ran are similar to what should be run - if people are going to be allowed to drive around without a full license, then educate them from the TV as they arent going to bother educating themselved.

/rant over.

I requested action on tackling Middle Lane Hoggers from the authorities who supposedly have this capacity:
1. ROAD SAFETY AUTHORITY - First response was a "well it is OK to undertake on the inside if slower traffic in middle lane" - DOH. 2nd response was this is an issue for enforcement (garda) or signage (NRA)
2. NATIONAL ROADS AUTHORITY - Accepted that there was an issue with MLH and would see if the gantry signs could be used to display a "drive in left hand lane unless overtaking" message - but, surprise, never actioned
3. GARDA - seeing as it is a pointable offence for driving in the wrong lane - no response

goz83

swingking wrote:

I'm fed up of people overtaking me on the inside. This is a common occurance on the Naas road; a 3 lane dual carrigeway.

I was driving 100 km/h in the middle lane and suddenly 2 cars overtook me on the inside travelling about 120 km/h. I've no problem with them overtaking me on the outside lane. I do it myself to slower cars, but never do I overtake on the inside.

It's against the law

Except for 3 reasons:

1. When turning left
2. When the outside lane is stopped
3. When car on the inside lane is turning right.

Why do people get away with this

I was testing out the new beamer. making sure it could overtake in the inside lane.

Gatster

I was testing out the new beamer. making sure it could overtake in the inside lane.

Troll feeding abounds...but hopefully not.

nialler

ballooba wrote:

You don't need to do those calculations every time. It's fairly standard that a truck with a speed limiter will be travelling at 80kmph on a motorway. It's also safe to assume that if the lane in front of you is empty that you will be travelling at the maximum allowed speed i.e. 120kmph. Therefore anything greater than 200 metres is more than adequate to let a faster moving vehicle behind you pass.

I should hope there are no oncoming trucks on a motorway. Otherwise you are in a whole other world of trouble.

A car travelling at 130kmph gains 3ms over a car travelling 120kmph. So if the LR is travelling a fast as you say then he will be long gone in half the time it would take you to pass the truck.

oh ffs I knew the oncoming (it was heading towards me) was going to haunt me, stop being a pedantic bitch please quoting science as a means to make you seem intelligent, YOU knew what I mean (I was 40kph faster than nearside lane vehicle). So it was heading towards me meaning it was oncoming, and please do not quote thesauras.com or whatever next you've got up your sleeve to give some veil of competence.

and again as a final point you use the words "safe to assume" and going by your maths, no thanks, I'd rather not assume (because assuming gets you killed) and judge what I feel and have experienced as correct and safe a time to move into the driving lane.

Maths/Physics count for nowt, judgement/experience/knowledge count moreso. And to err is human.


And balloba my argument/views do not involve you, lets agree to differ please. Lest you want to comment on the missing apostrophe.

John R

mobpd wrote:

I requested action on tackling Middle Lane Hoggers from the authorities who supposedly have this capacity:


2. NATIONAL ROADS AUTHORITY - Accepted that there was an issue with MLH and would see if the gantry signs could be used to display a "drive in left hand lane unless overtaking" message - but, surprise, never actioned

That would be the same NRA that installed gantry signs on the M50 that tell people to use the overtaking lane to remain on the M50 while the driving lane is signed only for the next exit.

AndrewMc

John R wrote:

That would be the same NRA that installed gantry signs on the M50 that tell people to use the overtaking lane to remain on the M50 while the driving lane is signed only for the next exit.

And the same NRA that put up gantry signs on the Naas Road telling (or very strongly suggesting) people to use the middle or right lane unless taking the next exit.

fletch

AndrewMc wrote:

And the same NRA that put up gantry signs on the Naas Road telling (or very strongly suggesting) people to use the middle or right lane unless taking the next exit.

Yes I was going down the N7 for the first time last week and I felt like a drunk having to constantly change lane (It was dark, raining and visibility was very poor so I was scared if I didn't obey the signs I might plow into a ditch/edge of road/bollard). How in Gods name were these signs approved?!?!

Hagar

Beady wrote:

I'll presume your car is equipped with brakes, an accelerator, mirrors, indicators and probably a steering wheel! Through skillful manipulation of these controls it should be perfectly possible, for a competent driver, to...

That is the best post I've seen in a long time.

Nialler wrote:

going slightly over the 123kmh that I had set on cruise

Why in the name of all that's holy would someone deliberately set a cruise control to exceed the speed limit by 3kmh?

Nialler wrote:

have you ever tried to drive with cruise control in this country, it's a pain in the a*se to disengage then reengage.

Doesn't touching the brakes dis-engage cruise control? Then just touch the cruise control button again to re-engage at previous speed. Not much of a hassle really. But you did know that's how it worked didn't you? I mean you weren't really unsetting and resetting a speed via the cruise control switch each time each time? You haven't read the instructions yet, have you? Dear oh dear.

Donald Fagen

Hagar wrote:

Why in the name of all that's holy would someone deliberately set a cruise control to exceed the speed limit by 3kmh?

Because you're allowed a tolerance of 10% of your speed.

Seth Brundle

swingking wrote:

But can all of us say we are brilliant drivers with no mistakes made

No-one admits they are wrong when it comes to drivers

I can honestly put my hands up and say that Im a brilliant driver!
I don't think Im wrong but I could be mistaken!

Hagar wrote:

Why in the name of all that's holy would someone deliberately set a cruise control to exceed the speed limit by 3kmh?

Maybe their sat nav pointed out their true speed @ 120km/h to be displayed on the speedo to be 123km/h

Seth Brundle

Donald Fagen wrote:

Because you're allowed a tolerance of 10% of your speed.

You are not allowed a tolerance of 10%! Your speedo may however be out and sometimes the gardai account for this.

prospect

I regularly travel on the inside lane of the N7 with my cruise control set to 100Km/h (approx 98Km/h on my Sat nav).

The number of cars in the middle lane I pass is amazing. I don't care really, I don't consider it 'overtakeing' as such, I am travelling at a constant legal speed in the correct position on the road. If other morans want to travel slower in a lane they should not be in, thats their business.

Anan1

prospect wrote:

If other morans want to travel slower in a lane they should not be in, thats their business.

It can quickly become your business if they decide to change lanes without looking/signalling. Always make liberal use of the horn when 'undertaking'.

Seth Brundle

@Prospect - Thats true but as you will stand out to a garda sitting at the side of the road, you could find yourself getting done despite intending to drive legally.

prospect

kbannon wrote:

@Prospect - Thats true but as you will stand out to a garda sitting at the side of the road, you could find yourself getting done despite intending to drive legally.

Probably right...


I often wondered why they can put signs on the over passes on the 3 lane carriage ways, directly over each lane:

Inside Lane: Driving Lane
Middle Lane: Overtaking Lane
Outside lane: Overtaking Lane - No Trucks.

Or every so often have a sign that has the first and most basic rule of the road:
Drive on the Left.

Stark

nialler wrote:

TBH there should have been an insert into the ROTR specifically dealing with this issue, we do not have that many triple carriageway roads in this country

There is a section in the new RotR dealing specifically with 3 lane motorways.

prospect wrote:

Or every so often have a sign that has the first and most basic rule of the road:
Drive on the Left.

I've seen something to that effect on some dual carriageways in the UK. We've yet to master something as simple as gantries that don't give the impression of needing to be in the overtaking lane in order to continue on in the motorway in Ireland though.

NeMiSiS

N7 is a nightmare for this. You may be in the inside lane, approaching a truck, the middle lane there is a car driving the same speed as the truck, but hanging back. So to over take both you must move to the outside lane, where the car in the middle lane should be in the inside lane...

I don't find the road to be marked badly, I do not see what is misleading about the signs, the big huge straight painted arrows are the give away.. the signs simply tell you where the next exit is.. this seems to be less of a problem heading North, but that's probably because there are less exits, but once you hit Citywest you get the same middle lane hogging, and outside lane hogging up to Newlands Cross.

Coming from Newlands Cross the driving is generally pathetic, and dangerous by the time you get to Citywest, cars in the outside lane generally bunch up tailgate, and travel and high speeds.

Heading South the service stations should have much longer acceleration lanes, trucks tend to just get to about 60 km/h and pull out, and the people in the inside lane - fast approaching the same truck, will move to the middle lane without indication.. also I have met a fair few tractors on same road.

As others have said though, the quickest route traveling nrth or sth on this road is almost always the inside lane, because no one uses it, even more so now I see trucks using the middle lane, and cars using the outside lane, huge amounts of road space are wasted because people simply can not comprehend how to drive left. I would sound my horn undertaking anyone though.

I could go on, and on. There have been a good few threads lately asking how people would improve the safety on the roads etc.. what's wrong with Irish drivers etc. There is only one real answer I think to that, and it's simply a huge amount of people driving simply can not drive. They have received little or no education, any training they have had is in most cases no to teach them not how to drive safely and in a predictable way, it's to past a 30 min test.

Nothing will change, unless signs with huge neons lights are put at roundabouts, on dual carraige ways, motorways, traffic lights etc are put in saying stuff like "Drive left" "please indicate on roundabout" "please prepare to accelerate for green" "Overtaking lane only", I mean start treating drivers like idiots because that's what they seem to be...

Il do a big rant some day.. but sure.. what good will it do..

TK

Stark

NeMiSiS wrote:

I don't find the road to be marked badly, I do not see what is misleading about the signs, the big huge straight painted arrows are the give away.. the signs simply tell you where the next exit is.. this seems to be less of a problem heading North, but that's probably because there are less exits, but once you hit Citywest you get the same middle lane hogging, and outside lane hogging up to Newlands Cross.

Look at the signs for the exit one before the M7 and then the M7. The signs are pretty much identical in both cases, but in one case the left lane continues on as a mainline lane, with a slip lane appearing, in the other case, the left lane disappears off, leaving just two mainline lanes.

According to international convention, all the signs indicate that the left lane is the slip lane, disappearing off leaving two mainline lanes. In order to keep with international convention, there should be a fourth sign with a diagonal pointing arrow, indicating that a sliproad for the exit is coming up. It's not a big deal if you *know* the road, know it has 3 lanes most of the way through until you see the blue signs for M7, but for someone used to driving in a country where the road alternates between 2 lanes and 3 lanes, the signing is inadequate.

That said, I'm not making excuses for the MLMs; most of them would be familiar with the road at this stage and are only hogging the middle lane out of stubbornness.

ballooba

nialler wrote:

oh ffs I knew the oncoming (it was heading towards me) was going to haunt me, stop being a pedantic bitch please quoting science as a means to make you seem intelligent, YOU knew what I mean (I was 40kph faster than nearside lane vehicle). So it was heading towards me meaning it was oncoming, and please do not quote thesauras.com or whatever next you've got up your sleeve to give some veil of competence.

The truck is not oncoming no matter what way you cut it. I'm sorry the maths/science scares you. My (basic btw) maths showed why there is so many overtaking lane trains on relatively free moving motorways. Because people like you don't realise that when there is a safe gap to move in to that the faster moving following vehicle will be long gone by the time you need to make your manouveur, thereby making everyone's lives easier.

nialler wrote:

and again as a final point you use the words "safe to assume" and going by your maths, no thanks, I'd rather not assume (because assuming gets you killed) and judge what I feel and have experienced as correct and safe a time to move into the driving lane.

If you can't safely judge the speed of other vehicles around you relative to your own then you shouldn't be on the road.

nialler wrote:

Maths/Physics count for nowt, judgement/experience/knowledge count moreso. And to err is human.

If the maths/science scare you so much then I can see why you wouldn't trust it. It's natural not to trust things you don't understand.

nialler wrote:

And balloba my argument/views do not involve you, lets agree to differ please. Lest you want to comment on the missing apostrophe.

I'm sorry if I offended you. I hope that maybe knowing the difference between an oncoming truck and one going in the same direction will save your life some day. Every little helps.

nialler

Hagar wrote:

That is the best post I've seen in a long time.


Why in the name of all that's holy would someone deliberately set a cruise control to exceed the speed limit by 3kmh?


Doesn't touching the brakes dis-engage cruise control? Then just touch the cruise control button again to re-engage at previous speed. Not much of a hassle really. But you did know that's how it worked didn't you? I mean you weren't really unsetting and resetting a speed via the cruise control switch each time each time? You haven't read the instructions yet, have you? Dear oh dear.

Sorry Hagar let me clear things up. Car speedo/cruise is in MPH so 76-77ish gets it close to 120-123kph not an exact science you understand, and no I didn't read the manual (it's 600 pages long) but I do understand how to use the cruise control.

You are correct in the fact that hitting the brake disengages cruise control and moving the stalk towards the window reengages it, you can even increase and decrease by moving the stalk up and down respectively, if you press the stalk down it engages the limiter, its wonderful what they can do with cars nowadays. My point was in fact having to hit the brakes in the first place thereby disengaging "cruise" which by it's very nature you're not "cruising" when you constantly engaging/disengaging.

I will be sure when I get my next S that it will be in Kilometres and nail it at 120kph but unfortunately it's get it as close as possible.

nialler

Balooba you're completely correct, anybody wanna buy a 00 W220 Merc?

ballooba

nialler wrote:

Balooba you're completely correct, anybody wanna buy a 00 W220 Merc?

Might be for the best. At least you'll save the stress of trying to figure out which trucks are oncoming and which aren't.

nialler

the words "couldn't be arsed" and "to badly hungover" come to mind.