Slow drivers. Hogging the road

Zulu

You couldn't just apologise could you...
Ok, fine take it personal. Really mature.

Kaelyn Whispering Storyteller wrote:

You are the very one who referred to anybody driving at below the speed limit as ignorant if they don't get out of your way.

Nope, that's what you interpreted. You can drive any speed you like, so long as you make an effort to let others by. Ignorance is driving at any speed you like and having total disregard for the people around you - ie not pulling over where possible. Like the tractor who won't pull onto the hard shoulder, or the driver that thinks it's his god given right to slow traffic down because he can.

You are the one showing total ignorance of what others may have been dealt.

Dealt?!? Get over yourself will you.

It may well be a nervious disposition

no reason not to let faster traffic by. In fact, all the more reason - it takes pressure off you.

it may be because the car can't go any further

what, like there's a wall in the way? I'll take it you mean faster, again - no reason not to let faster traffic by.

it may be that they know the road is unsafe at greater speed despite what your opinion is,

the type of person that determines whether or not the road is "unsafe" at greater speed and refuses to pull over (in an attempt to keep the road safe?!?) is ignorant.

there could be a fragile cargo on the back seat, it could be many things.

again - no reason not to let faster traffic by.

You have failed to provide ONE SINGLE reason, as to why it's not ignorant to let faster traffic through when possible - so I'll stand by my original statement: it's ignorant. It's all about basic manners.

Read your own post before getting on your high horse.

I don't need to, I posted what I meant, although you seemed to gallop off on your horse quickly enough.

jebuz

I agree with the OP to a certain extent. They have every right in the world to be on the road but for crying out loud, if you're going to drive slower, at least have the decency and common sense to allow faster drivers to pass.

Nothing annoys me more than driving in the faster lane (i.e the limit, 120) on a dual carraigeway and there's some fool who has no right being in that lane, maybe going around 100 or so. He or she hasn't a clue that there's cars behind trying to get by when all it takes is a quick glance in the rear mirror and get back into the other lane. I don't understand the complete lack of awareness with some folk. Not trying to be funny now but it's usually women and thats speaking from personal experience.

_Kaiser_

If you're not comfortable/capable of driving at the posted limit (when safe and appropriate to do so), then really you shouldn't be on that road in my opinion.

At the very least you should not cause your car to be an obstruction to cars behind you that wish to overtake by moving over/in - again when safe/appropriate to do so.

jhegarty

If someone wants to speed I have no problem keeping left to let them by... don't see why the 80k crowd keep in the middle of the road....


and to the people who say they are just safe drivers...ever notice how they always break the 60kph limit when you get to town....

transylman

Yeah, I hate it when people drive slowly on the major routes. Dublin-Galway can be especially bad. Once spent an unpleasant half an hour stuck behind a learner driver who decided half four on friday evening would be a good time to do some 80km/h driving practice. End result, at least a 1/2 mile tailback and a lot of frustrated drivers.

Didnt even pull over onto the hard shoulder when they had the chance.

smemon

slow drivers are the enemy..

whatever about tractors/lorries on the road, car drivers with new cars doing well below the limit don't have any excuses...

if in doubt, pass them out.

these guys are the type who'll constantly brake for no real reason and are slow to accelerate out of built up areas.

Stuck behind 2 tractors today, plus a car doing 80 in a 100 zone. Car annoyed me the most.

minimum limits FTW..

Steve

R.O.R wrote:

It would appear he can do higher level maths, and more importantly stevec - English (as in reading the whole thread with the explanation - try it, might save you looking like a tool).

That was a bit harsh - nothing I said was incorrect. Simple maths says that more cars per hour will travel on any road at 100kph than at 80kph.
If you are referring to this explanation:

If you double the speed of the cars, you have to more than double the distance between them.

While it's nearly accurate, it's irrelevant. Twice the distance between cars at twice the speed equals the same time interval between them.
According to the NRA and other road safety sources, the recommended safe following distance is a 2 second interval between you and the vehicle in front.
At 100kph this is 55 metres, at 80kph this is 44m, 50kph is 27m.
The average car takes 0.18s to travel it's own length at 100kph and 0.22s at 80kph therefore at 100kph a car passes every 2.18s and at 80kph a car passes every 2.22s.
I hope this isn't too difficult for you.
If you still think I'm wrong then please feel free to provide figures to back up what you are saying otherwise you too run the risk of "looking like a tool".
It now seems that there are a$$h0les that toddle along at 20kmh below the speed of everyone else with the misguided notion that they're actually helping the flow of traffic.:mad:

Anan1

stevec wrote:

According to the NRA and other road safety sources, the recommended safe following distance is a 2 second interval between you and the vehicle in front.

I think you may be going a little heavy on the calculator and a little light on the common sense there, steve. Can a car stop from any speed in the same amount of time?

Steve

@anan1 - no it can't - I only wanted to correct your earlier statement because it was misleading. I don't want people to incorrectly believe that by driving slower that they are somehow helping traffic flow.
I was labelled a "tool" by another poster and justifiably felt the need to exhonerate myself. Sorry to have bored you with the maths.
If we are all honest, few drivers comply with the recommended safety gap "lest we be robbed of our place" - so the "gap" is, in reality, less - therefore more traffic per hour.
It was not my intention to offend you - I just wanted to explain that what you said was errant.

Anan1

Don't worry steve, i'm not offended. Given that a car takes more time to stop from a higher speed, it follows that the 'two second rule' provides less safety as speed rises. This is why if you double the speed of the cars, you have to more than double the time and therefore distance between them. The result is that you can fit more cars per hour down a given stretch of road at 80km/h than at 100. Are you with me now?:)

smemon

slow drivers = more danger

thats my opinion/experience... people must then overtake - something most people aren't comfortable with.

given our weather and poor roads, visibility is poor ahead most of the time so tail backs build up, everyone gets frustrated nd you'll have the odd eejit who tries to overtake 3/4 cars at a time and ends up forcing other drivers to reduce speed/change road position etc..

that's all cause by the guy doing 80 in 100 zone imo.

it's much safer doing 100km/hr in the flow of traffic, than doing 100km/hr on the wrong side of the road.

for sake of other road users, speed limits should be viewed as requirements, not maximum speeds.

Stark

Dwilly wrote:

Jees man, you think folk shouldn't be allowed do 80kmph in a 100kmph zone? There are plenty of nervous and timid drivers out there with just as much right to be on the road as you. Cut them some slack, what are you going to lose, 10 minutes?

Nervous and timid is no reason to hug the centre line.
They're not being nervous and timid when they slam on the accelerator every time someone does try to get past them.
They're not being nervous and timid when they speed off into the distance in front of you as you slow down coming into a village.

I'm perfectly fine with cutting nervous drivers some slack. Not so fine with cutting the 80kph gob****e brigade some slack.

stevec wrote:

@anan1 - no it can't - I only wanted to correct your earlier statement because it was misleading. I don't want people to incorrectly believe that by driving slower that they are somehow helping traffic flow.
I was labelled a "tool" by another poster and justifiably felt the need to exhonerate myself. Sorry to have bored you with the maths.

Actually in some countries, the police will impose a reduced speed limit to help traffic flow during times of heavy congestion and it works. It's more effective on roads with junctions though.

Steve

Anan1 wrote:

Are you with me now?:)

Lets just agree to disagree - by your reasoning, reducing the speed of traffic to 10kph should alleviate all traffic jams

Anan1

With all due respect, steve, you began by dismissing my point as 'utter crap', asking me whether I even thought about what I posted and whether I can 'do basic maths'. I have not only responded to your posts with courtesy and patience but have explained myself in terms that could easily be understood by a ten-year-old. What part exactly are you having problems with?

BostonB

milmo wrote:

...
Can anybody tell me why people here drive at 80kmph???...

Because they can, and its not against the law to do so.

All the other stuff about people not pulling over, and hogging a lane are completely different issues. If someone drives at 80 and lets you by that ok. So the 80kph isn't the issue.

Zulu

Anan1 wrote:

I think you may be going a little heavy on the calculator and a little light on the common sense there, steve.

To be fair Anan1, common sense dictates that people in this country don't follow the spacing rules, and drive the same distance behind the car in front pretty much regardless of the speed (80, 100, 120Kmph). So the point is moot.

Given that a car takes more time to stop from a higher speed, it follows that the 'two second rule' provides less safety as speed rises.

The rule is two seconds to the car in front. I think you are forgetting that this car is travelling at an equal speed, therefore will take a similar breaking time (say x seconds therefore the actual breaking time you now have is x+2 seconds)

This is why if you double the speed of the cars, you have to more than double the time and therefore distance between them.

Sorry I don't understand this, why now exactly do you need to double the distance? I think we are confusing two issues here 1) safe distance between moving cars and 2) stopping distances

Anan1

Zulu - my original point assumed the same level of safety - of course road capacity will be higher again if cars can do 250km/h bumper-to-bumper!

The safe distance between moving cars is the distance taken to react plus the stopping distance. A safe distance will allow you to stop without hitting the car in front, even if it stops more suddenly than it could under its own braking - for example if it were to broadside a truck coming from a side road.

Who me?

I agree , it's very annoying to be stuck behind someone driving 20 km below a speed limit when there is no reason to do so. Driving slowly can create just as many problems on the roads as speeding.

Zulu

Anan1 wrote:

Zulu - my original point assumed the same level of safety - of course road capacity will be higher again if cars can do 250km/h bumper-to-bumper!

Fair enough, but we're talking about Irish roads, not ideal roads.

The safe distance between moving cars is the distance taken to react plus the stopping distance. A safe distance will allow you to stop without hitting the car in front, even if it stops more suddenly than it could under its own braking - for example if it were to broadside a truck coming from a side road.

The example of a truck crossing the road, is fair enough; the same could be said if a plane fell out of the sky and landed on the road in front. But thats stopping distance. While driving would indeed be far safer, it's unrealistic to expect drivers to drive with the stopping distance between them.

Nice attempt at building a straw man though.

Anan1

I give up.:)

Stark

Zulu wrote:

The example of a truck crossing the road, is fair enough; the same could be said if a plane fell out of the sky and landed on the road in front. But thats stopping distance. While driving would indeed be far safer, it's unrealistic to expect drivers to drive with the stopping distance between them.

Nice attempt at building a straw man though.

Or perhaps the car in front could be a new car with ABS, disc brakes, wide tyres etc. and the car behind a 10 year old car with drum brakes.

BostonB

Who me? wrote:

I agree , it's very annoying to be stuck behind someone driving 20 km below a speed limit when there is no reason to do so. Driving slowly can create just as many problems on the roads as speeding.

Only if you are impatient. Wait your chance and overtake. If you can't, then its not safe to do so.

MrPudding

Stark wrote:

Or perhaps the car in front could be a new car with ABS, disc brakes, wide tyres etc. and the car behind a 10 year old car with drum brakes.

Or driven by a fcuking tard that is not paying attention? Or someone that is just sh1t. We are talking about ireland here, we do not need planes dropping out of the sky to find someone in a position where they have neither the skill nor the machine capable of stopping in the distance they have allowed themselves in an emergency.

MrP

BostonB

Of course everyone here is a perfect driver.

sesswhat

Zulu wrote:

While driving would indeed be far safer, it's unrealistic to expect drivers to drive with the stopping distance between them.

Which is why we get motorway pile-ups. Even if you assume equal stopping distances for everything from a Porsche to a Transit, if you are behind the Transit, and the car 2 seconds in front of him brakes, you are depending on him reacting within his 2 seconds. If he's on the mobile (not as likely as a plane falling out of the sky but I'm told it does happen), and takes a full 3 seconds before he brakes, he is into the back of the car in front and he has only left you with one second to react before you join him.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

BostonB wrote:

Of course everyone here is a perfect driver.

Seems that way BB. :rolleyes: They know the road conditions on every stretch of roadway in the country, can decide on a safe speed limit that should apply to us all, are well aware of their expertise and will not allow others to pollute any discussions with thoughts other than their perfect vision and opinion. They also seem to have been granted permission to dictate who shall use our roads based on age, vehicle type, disposition, or any other category which takes their fancy on any given day.

Zulu

Stark wrote:

Or perhaps the car in front could be a new car with ABS, disc brakes, wide tyres etc. and the car behind a 10 year old car with drum brakes.

I'm not claiming the two second rule is a perfect science. But it should provide a road worthy car a safe stopping time. And it's more practical. People in this country are never going to drive the "stopping" distance behind the driver in front.

MrPuding wrote:

Or driven by a fcuking tard that is not paying attention? Or someone that is just sh1t. We are talking about ireland here, we do not need planes dropping out of the sky to find someone in a position where they have neither the skill nor the machine capable of stopping in the distance they have allowed themselves in an emergency.

This is all very true MrPudding, but what exactly is your point? That accidents can happen? That Irish drivers are crap??

seeswhat wrote:

Which is why we get motorway pile-ups. Even if you assume equal stopping distances for everything from a Porsche to a Transit, if you are behind the Transit, and the car 2 seconds in front of him brakes, you are depending on him reacting within his 2 seconds. If he's on the mobile (not as likely as a plane falling out of the sky but I'm told it does happen), and takes a full 3 seconds before he brakes, he is into the back of the car in front and he has only left you with one second to react before you join him.

Again - you've pointed out an example of a bad driver and a collision. If you want to go down the science of it - the initial collision wouldn't be stationary unless it was a big pile up, and you should be aware of what going on on the road beyond the "back of the car in front" (if you are any good a driver), so you should have reacted regardless.

You can keep firing examples of accidents, but let me save you the hassle.
A car crosses over from the other side travelling 100Kmph, it doesn't matter how close or far you are from the car in front - it curtains, safe distance/stopping distance - it doesn't matter. Unless you prevent people from driving, you can't stop road accidents, so you need to compromise. The 2 second gap is a compromise.

Pherekydes

Anan1 wrote:

Don't worry steve, i'm not offended. Given that a car takes more time to stop from a higher speed, it follows that the 'two second rule' provides less safety as speed rises. This is why if you double the speed of the cars, you have to more than double the time and therefore distance between them. The result is that you can fit more cars per hour down a given stretch of road at 80km/h than at 100. Are you with me now?:)

Of course! In your idealized world.

When the speed doubles, the time doubles and the distance between them, what, doubles? It quadruples. This doesn't happen. I think this is what you're missing. As someone mentioned, the distance between traffic stays pretty much constant, or nearly so, and thus, gets CLOSER together in time as they get faster. Stand at the side of the road and watch it happen.

Every country gets M-way pile-ups. But M-ways are much safer than ordinary roads for driving on.

Anan1

Slow coach wrote:

Of course! In your idealized world.

When the speed doubles, the time doubles and the distance between them, what, doubles? It quadruples. This doesn't happen. I think this is what you're missing. As someone mentioned, the distance between traffic stays pretty much constant, or nearly so, and thus, gets CLOSER together in time as they get faster. Stand at the side of the road and watch it happen.

Would you not read the thread before posting?:)

btkm8unsl0w5r4

siralfalot wrote:

for some strange reason they are nearly always driving either a Silver Passat or A4 with TDi badges...........

Thats so true...why is that?