Slow drivers. Hogging the road

TwoShedsJackson

Yes people unnessecarily driving at 80 in a 100 zone when conditions are fine can be annoying and frustrating, but more annoying, frustrating, and dangerous are people who insist on doing 100 or more in the same zone, when it's dark/wet/foggy etc.

A certain class of driver, prevalent on this board from what I can see, feel that they should never do less than the limit, no matter what.

Gegerty

smemon wrote:

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.

People should drive at the speed limit to prevent dangerous drivers from having to overtake dangerously. :rolleyes:

We have rubbish roads....get over it.

Pherekydes

Which part did I not read (do you think)? Here's your earlier input:

Anan1 wrote:

If you double the speed of the cars, you have to more than double the distance between them. The result is fewer cars per hour going down the road. I wouldn't have thought of it myself either.;)

It contradicts this:

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

If you double the distance between cars and double the speed then the time between them remains constant, so more cars can pass along a particular stretch in the same time if the speed is higher.

In the real world, distance or time between cars is irrelevant; more cars pass when the speed is higher. Squeezing as many cars as possible into a section of road slows the traffic down, which burns more fuel, and uses up people's time. And time is money. I think that's why M-ways were invented: to speed up the flow of traffic.

This is a self-evident truth that even a 9 year-old could understand.

MrPudding

Slow coach wrote:

If you double the distance between cars and double the speed then the time between them remains constant, so more cars can pass along a particular stretch in the same time if the speed is higher.

I think the relationship is that where the speed doubles the stopping distance quadruples triples.

EDIT:

Check this out:

http://www.stoppingdistances.org.uk/index.htm

and this:

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/stopping-distances.htm

There is a bit there as well about following distances.

MrP

Anan1

Slow coach wrote:

Which part did I not read (do you think)?.

This part:

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!

Look again at the two statements by me which you quoted. They don't contradict each other, you just haven't read them properly.

mullingar

Is travelling at 80k in a 100k zone illegal? As they are obstructing the flow of traffic?

Wertz

A-f*cking-men

I've only been driving for a year or so, have yet to take my test and prove my worth but I'm so so tired of running into 20 car convoys on B roads (which I use a lot in my work).
Take for instance this morning, Dundalk to Carrickmacross road, get about 1/3 of the ways out and see the convoy....artic at the front doing what artics do, and on that stretch of road which is fairly narrow and windy, he was doing it slooooowly.

Cue the queue of sh*theads gathering behind the lorry, all tailgating, all in a hurry to wherever and no-one leaving a damn space for an overtake :mad:
So along this stretch of 80-100 kmph roads, I end up in 3rd and even 2nd with an increasing line of cars and vans behind me, themselves left with no place to go (even though I always leave a stopping distance plus a car length in front of me to allow someone to overtake).
I was the only one in the line that I could see who had L-plates....but IMHO there were at least 5 drivers in that line that should have had them, because they certainly weren't acting like full license holders.

That's just one incident. I don't blame the truck or the tractor or the combine harvester....they need to be on the road....it's the bloody idiots who don't know, or seemingly care, how to utilise the road behind the slow mover who are solely to blame.
These long lines inevitably lead to the one guy who's really late, sinking the boot in an attempt to pass 10 closely grouped cars and who may end up in a head on with some poor unsuspecting sod around the oncoming corner.

I'm preaching to the choir here at this stage (and will probably be lambasted for having L plates) but the competence of so many drivers on our roads really beggars belief...

Pherekydes

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!

I don't think you understand the term 'road capacity'. It isn't the number of cars you can squeeze into a specific length of road, it's the number of cars you can move along a road in a given time period. Quite clearly, the faster the flow, the higher the road capacity.

BostonB

Wertz wrote:

.....it's the bloody idiots who don't know, or seemingly care, how to utilise the road behind the slow mover who are solely to blame.


...the competence of so many drivers on our roads really beggars belief...

Agreed. Theres nothing wrong with driving slowly if you allow others to pass. The standard of driving, and road use, overall is abysmal in Ireland.

You lose nothing by leaving a gap in front, and slowing down to allow faster traffic to overtake safely. To overtake properly you shouldn't be hanging off someones bumper anyway.

Steve

Slow coach wrote:

I don't think you understand the term 'road capacity'. It isn't the number of cars you can squeeze into a specific length of road, it's the number of cars you can move along a road in a given time period. Quite clearly, the faster the flow, the higher the road capacity.

Thank you, that was the point I tried to make.
Anan1 - the figures don't add up whether you look at it from an "ideal world where everyone follows the ROTR" veiwpoint or from a reality veiwpoint where drivers don't leave enough space in front of them.

As for leaving appropriate distance - unfortunately nobody on irish roads does it. We've only had one notable pile-up in this country and regrettably we haven't learned from it.

Anan1

Slow coach wrote:

I don't think you understand the term 'road capacity'. It isn't the number of cars you can squeeze into a specific length of road, it's the number of cars you can move along a road in a given time period. Quite clearly, the faster the flow, the higher the road capacity.

No. Think, Slow coach. If you double the speed then in order to maintain the same margin of safety you have to more than double the distance between cars. This results in a lower road capacity. Sure you can jam the cars in more tightly, but only at the expense of safety. You are then no longer comparing like with like.

BrianD3

That's just one incident. I don't blame the truck or the tractor or the combine harvester....they need to be on the road....it's the bloody idiots who don't know, or seemingly care, how to utilise the road behind the slow mover who are solely to blame.
These long lines inevitably lead to the one guy who's really late, sinking the boot in an attempt to pass 10 closely grouped cars and who may end up in a head on with some poor unsuspecting sod around the oncoming corner

I agree with you there. Also, Irish drivers seem to have a phobia about "leapfrog" overtaking. They can't/won't pass the slow lorry in front but they don't want anyone from behind slotting in between them and the lorry either. If someone tries to slot in they will speed up to close gaps, flash lights, blow horn etc. The seem think they own the space in front of their car. It's amazing the amount of times i have heard people giving out about someone overtaking into *their* braking space in front of their car.

People need to get into their thick heads that they don't own any part of the road and it's not up to other drivers to preserve their braking space. If you are not willing or don't have the skill to overtake the slow lorry in front for ****s sake let someone else have a go, don't be a stupid begrudging peasant and try to block them. The ROTR even states that you should not speed up while being overtaken - this would cover speeding up to close gaps.

Another thing is I notice that increasingly Irish driver seem incapable of overtaking unless the vehicle ahead moves into the hard shoulder to faciliate them. They will spurn perfect opportunities to pass but as soon as the vehicles in front pulls over they're gone. Another one that bugs me is drivers who put the boot down on straight stretches, dual carriagesway etc. but as soon as they come up behind a slower moving vehicle on a single carriagway road they haven't the balls to overtake and just sit there. Now I can understand people not being in a hurry but if they weren't in a hurry why were they speeding when they had a clear road. Dopes.

Steve

Anan1 wrote:

If you double the speed then in order to maintain the same margin of safety you have to more than double the distance between cars.

Why?
Do you disagree with what essentially every road safety authority in europe and north america tells us is a safe following distance?

Please explain why they're wrong and you're right...

Staying on topic - had the whole cast of the muppet show going N on the M50 from M11 to Sandyford exit at 17:00 today. 80kph in lane 2 with lane 1 practically empty.
I wish I had a set of blue lights:mad:

Edit: sp mistake

Steve

BrianD3 wrote:

I agree with you there. Also, Irish drivers seem to have a phobia about "leapfrog" overtaking.........

Well said - agree 99%.
The remaining 1% is that when a truck pulls into the hard s, I won't overtake him like a lemming until I can see a clear and safe opportunity. There are too many drivers who (sorry to use the same term again) overtake like lemming without a clear view ahead.
I see them every time I go on an (say Dub-Lim) average journey. When an overtaking opportunity arises and I take it, I look in the rear view mirror and witness in disbelief some muppet in a "tdi" with 120bhp less than me blindly trying to follow
But then I'm a Darwinst - let them on.

unkel

Anan1 wrote:

If you double the speed then in order to maintain the same margin of safety you have to more than double the distance between cars

Yep. The higher the speed, the stopping distance will indeed be proportionally higher

Anan1 wrote:

This results in a lower road capacity

No. Think, Anan1

I bet you haven't done the sums properly yet

tech77

It's not so much the slow driving that gets me but the ignorance/obliviousness/sheer bad-manners that invariably accompanies it.
I've slown down a lot but i still like to travel as fast as is safely and legally possible on the roads.

But being held up by ignorant feckers who don't have the decency to allow you pass when perfectly safe to do so really pi$$es me off.
I always do my best to facilitate faster-travelling traffic behind me to offset any possible frustration and ill-judged manouevres by the person behind me - why can't traffic in front of me do the same.

tech77

BrianD3 wrote:

I agree with you there. Also, Irish drivers seem to have a phobia about "leapfrog" overtaking. They can't/won't pass the slow lorry in front but they don't want anyone from behind slotting in between them and the lorry either. If someone tries to slot in they will speed up to close gaps, flash lights, blow horn etc. The seem think they own the space in front of their car. It's amazing the amount of times i have heard people giving out about someone overtaking into *their* braking space in front of their car.

People need to get into their thick heads that they don't own any part of the road and it's not up to other drivers to preserve their braking space. If you are not willing or don't have the skill to overtake the slow lorry in front for ****s sake let someone else have a go, don't be a stupid begrudging peasant and try to block them. The ROTR even states that you should not speed up while being overtaken - this would cover speeding up to close gaps.

Another thing is I notice that increasingly Irish driver seem incapable of overtaking unless the vehicle ahead moves into the hard shoulder to faciliate them. They will spurn perfect opportunities to pass but as soon as the vehicles in front pulls over they're gone. Another one that bugs me is drivers who put the boot down on straight stretches, dual carriagesway etc. but as soon as they come up behind a slower moving vehicle on a single carriagway road they haven't the balls to overtake and just sit there. Now I can understand people not being in a hurry but if they weren't in a hurry why were they speeding when they had a clear road. Dopes.

That 'speeding up while being overtaken' thing fcuks me off as well.
Some dirty fcukers out there have nearly been the end of me because of this (only braking at the last minute to let me pass).

I also hate those guys who on a decent stretch of road overtake you while well exceeding the limit only to hold you up a mile down the road because they're too reluctant to overtake even when it's perfectly safe to do so.

As someone who likes to maintain a fairly constant speed for a given speed limit (and as traffic dictates of course) I despise this undue speeding up/slowing down routine.

equaliser

I was in Oz driving from Cairns to Sydney, most of the roads closer to Cairns were only 2 lanes but at regular intervals the road widened into 2 lanes for a short period to allow faster traffic to pass slow traffic. I meant that even if you got caught behind a slower vehicle you only had to wait a few K to get to the next passing point.
T

Anan1

unkel wrote:

Yep. The higher the speed, the stopping distance will indeed be proportionally higher



No. Think, Anan1

I bet you haven't done the sums properly yet

If you have cars going twice as fast but more than twice as far apart, will you get more or fewer cars down the road?

Anan1

stevec wrote:

Why?
Do you disagree with what essentially every road safety authority in europe and north america tells us is a safe following distance?

Please explain why they're wrong and you're right...

I already have, more than once. More than twice, even.;)

bandit197

micmclo wrote:

Also, I've a 125cc motorcycle and while I can do 80km in 100km/ph zone I sure can't do more 100-105 km/ph in 120km/ph zone.
So does that me a fool if you pass me on the M4 motorway and I'm not doing 120km/ph for instance?

If you are on the motorway you will be in the left lane where people can overtake you anyway.
Its lack of training, lack of understanding of roadcraft, not using mirrors, not understanding the concept of traffic flow and plain old f***ing ignorance that keeps incompetent drivers stuck to the white line at 50kph.
YOU ARE IN A 360deg ENVIRONMENT. LOOK BEHIND YOU FOR F**K SAKE!
SOMEONE IS TRYING TO MAKE PROGRESS!

unkel

Anan1 wrote:

If you have cars going twice as fast but more than twice as far apart, will you get more or fewer cars down the road?

More! Go on, do the sums for yourself

Anan1

unkel wrote:

More! Go on, do the sums for yourself

'Fraid not! If you double the speed but leave the same gap, you get twice as many cars down the road. If you double the gap, you only get half as many cars down the road. If you double both the speed and the gap, you get the same number of cars down the road. If you double the speed and more than double the gap, however, you get fewer, not more, cars down the road.

unkel

Anan1 wrote:

If you double the speed and more than double the gap, however, you get fewer, not more, cars down the road.

Wrong

Do a simple calculation. Let's take a convoy of 5 cars that are 5m long each. In scenario 1, they travel at 60km/h and the gap between the cars is 20m. In scenario 2, they travel at double that speed (120km/h) and the gap between them is more than double that 20m gap, lets say a 50m gap

Guess in which scenario more cars can get down the road?

MrPudding

unkel wrote:

Wrong

Do a simple calculation. Let's take a convoy of 5 cars that are 5m long each. In scenario 1, they travel at 60km/h and the gap between the cars is 20m. In scenario 2, they travel at double that speed (120km/h) and the gap between them is more than double that 20m gap, lets say a 50m gap

Guess in which scenario more cars can get down the road?

I think the difference we are having here in opinions is due to a difference in terms... kind of.

When speed doubles stopping distance triples. When you look at the 2 second rule this does not happen, double the speed and the distance covered in 2 seconds also simply doubles.

If you take a piece of raod and send cars down it at 50 and then 100 kph, if they leave "safe stopping distance" between each car, the distance triples as the speed doubles, if tihnk less cars will get down the road in a given time.

However, if they use the 2 second rule, more cars will get down the road in a given time. I think.......

MrP

unkel

I agree with the issue of the 2 second rule depending on the speed as I said before. My example proves though that "If you double the speed and more than double the gap, however, you get fewer, not more, cars down the road" is false

The figures are quite interesting. In my example, consider a road length of 10km. Now increase the distance between the cars from 20m to 2000m. Even in this extreme case, the convoy travelling at 120km/h is still quicker covering the road length! (which means more cars can get down the road)

Does nobody use a calculator any more these days?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Wertz wrote:

So along this stretch of 80-100 kmph roads,...

Just on a point of order. I live on that road and the maximum on any stretch of it is 80kmh. There is no 100kmh on the R178.

BTW: This is also one of those roads where there is no hard shoulder, so a slower vehicle cannot pull over to allow faster traffic to pass: as many posters have been calling for.

Anan1

unkel wrote:

I agree with the issue of the 2 second rule depending on the speed as I said before. My example proves though that "If you double the speed and more than double the gap, however, you get fewer, not more, cars down the road" is false

The figures are quite interesting. In my example, consider a road length of 10km. Now increase the distance between the cars from 20m to 2000m. Even in this extreme case, the convoy travelling at 120km/h is still quicker covering the road length! (which means more cars can get down the road)

Does nobody use a calculator any more these days?

I'd love to see your figures to support this!:)

sesswhat

unkel wrote:

I agree with the issue of the 2 second rule depending on the speed as I said before. My example proves though that "If you double the speed and more than double the gap, however, you get fewer, not more, cars down the road" is false

The figures are quite interesting. In my example, consider a road length of 10km. Now increase the distance between the cars from 20m to 2000m. Even in this extreme case, the convoy travelling at 120km/h is still quicker covering the road length! (which means more cars can get down the road)

Does nobody use a calculator any more these days?

Better not use your calculator for anything important:D

bman

unkel, your maths are definitely wrong.

Back to the original point, I don't see anything wrong with traveling at 80kph. I travel at the legal limit myself (conditions permitting) but I wouldn't get all worked up if I ended up behind someone doing 80. I'd rather see someone doing 80 rather than fu(kheads doing 120+ on the 100kph and 80kph roads. The person doing 80 is much more unlikely to kill themselves or someone else.