Slow drivers. Hogging the road

Fey!

mullingar wrote:

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

It may not be illegal, but yes, they can, and generally are, obstructing the flow of traffic.

Anan1 and the other maths geni; consider the following. Taking car length to be 5 metres. All other distances are approximations.

cars 1&2 are doing 50kph and, following the 2 second rule, have a 20 metre gap between them.

cars 3&4 are doin 100kph and, following the 2 second rule, have a 40 metre gap between them.

On a 1km stretch of road, car 1&2s line of traffic has 40 cars on the road, and it takes each car 1 minute 12 seconds to drive the 1km; all 40 cars take 48 minutes to complete the 1km.

On a 1km stretch of road, car 3&4s line of traffic has 22 cars on the road, and it takes each car 36 seconds to drive the 1km; all 22 cars take 13 minutes and 12 seconds to complete the 1km.

Lowest common denominator for 40:22 is 440.

At 50kph, it will take 440 cars 8 hours, 48 minutes and 0 seconds to drive 1km of road.

At 100kph, it will take 440 cars 4 hours, 24 minutes and 0 seconds to drive 1 km of road.

Summation: even with a speed related distance (2 second rule) between cars, the figures being spouted by all sides in this argument can be forced to agree or disagree with whatever the poster has to say. :rolleyes:

Anan1

Fey - Your figures are correct, and support what I have been saying all along. If you double both speed and separation, traffic flow remains the same. If you double speed and more than double separation, however (as you must do to preserve the same safety margin), traffic flow falls. Is this really so complicated, I ask myself..

Zulu

It's not a matter of it being complicated, it's OT. And personally I'm getting sick of hearing about it. Is there a mod here?
Would you mind taking it to another thread folks?

sesswhat

Fey! wrote:

It may not be illegal, but yes, they can, and generally are, obstructing the flow of traffic.

Anan1 and the other maths geni; consider the following. Taking car length to be 5 metres. All other distances are approximations.

cars 1&2 are doing 50kph and, following the 2 second rule, have a 20 metre gap between them.

cars 3&4 are doin 100kph and, following the 2 second rule, have a 40 metre gap between them.

On a 1km stretch of road, car 1&2s line of traffic has 40 cars on the road, and it takes each car 1 minute 12 seconds to drive the 1km; all 40 cars take 48 minutes to complete the 1km.

On a 1km stretch of road, car 3&4s line of traffic has 22 cars on the road, and it takes each car 36 seconds to drive the 1km; all 22 cars take 13 minutes and 12 seconds to complete the 1km.

Lowest common denominator for 40:22 is 440.

At 50kph, it will take 440 cars 8 hours, 48 minutes and 0 seconds to drive 1km of road.

At 100kph, it will take 440 cars 4 hours, 24 minutes and 0 seconds to drive 1 km of road.

Summation: even with a speed related distance (2 second rule) between cars, the figures being spouted by all sides in this argument can be forced to agree or disagree with whatever the poster has to say. :rolleyes:

It's all getting needlessly complicated.

To know how many cars you can get down a road in a fixed time you only need to know:

1. The time it takes for the car to pass a fixed point

plus

2. The time of the gap between that and the next car

If you double the speed and leave the time gap the same you will get slightly more cars past as Part 1 will be halved.

If you increase the gap by one car length at the faster speed, then the numbers will be the same.

If you increase the gap by more than one car length at the higher speed then you will get more cars past at the lower speed.

Anan1

Zulu wrote:

It's not a matter of it being complicated, it's OT. And personally I'm getting sick of hearing about it. Is there a mod here?
Would you mind taking it to another thread folks?

So don't read it. There was a mod here, but I think he's off getting his calculator fixed.;)

Zulu

Excuse me? You've hijacked a thread which I have an actual interest in. (The origional topic that is - lost as it may be)
It's a little inconsiderate to the op to continue draging this off topic, and your suggestion "don't read it" is, frankly, ignorant.

About as ignorant as the driver that refuses to pull over for the faster driver

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Zulu wrote:

About as ignorant as the driver that refuses to pull over for the faster driver

A vehicle is traveling 10kmh below the speed limit (for whatever reason), how do you propose they pull over when there is no hard shoulder - as is the case on 70% of the roads I drive on. Do we get lorries, tractors, combines, etc pulling in to people's driveways to let traffic past. Slow and all as they are, they would never get anywhere at that rate.

Wertz

Kaelyn Whispering Storyteller wrote:

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.

Fair enough, I was pretty sure the stretch from just outside carrick, near the turn for killany was 100kmph. It was a moot point that morning anyhow since it was a virtual 50kmph zone the whole way.
Yeah there's very little overtaking opportunity, save on one straight stretch that for some reason always seems to have traffic on both sides...I notice too a lot of immovable objects adjacant to the road as well, the kind of things that if you hit at the speed limit, would likely kill you and yyour passengers; low walls at corners, bridges, several points where there is a ditch about 3' to the side of the main road...
Any sign of anything ever being done with that road? (doubt it myself)

Zulu

Kaelyn Whispering Storyteller wrote:

A vehicle is traveling 10kmh below the speed limit (for whatever reason), how do you propose they pull over when there is no hard shoulder - as is the case on 70% of the roads I drive on.

I taught I had already covered this with you Kaelyn Whispering Storyteller:

Zulu wrote:

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.

Zulu wrote:

Not at all so long as you have the good manners to pull in (where possible) and let someone past.

My gripe is with cretins who refuse to pull over where possible, or actively hamper people overtaking. And to answer your question, I would expect them to pull in closer to the curb when someone is over taking - not hug the central broken line.

Do we get lorries, tractors, combines, etc pulling in to people's driveways to let traffic past. Slow and all as they are, they would never get anywhere at that rate.

Yea, that's exactly what we should do :rolleyes:

Do you not agree that it is ignorant for a driver not to pull over, where possible, and safe to do so, to let faster traffic by?
Straight question- can you give me a straight answer?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Zulu wrote:

I taught I had already covered this with you Srameen:

Do you not agree that it is ignorant for a driver not to pull over, where possible, and safe to do so, to let faster traffic by?
Straight question- can you give me a straight answer?

I don't recall you addressing me directly before but anyway that doesn't matter.

You have qualified the question nicely. Make the question straighter. Is the faster car trying to proceed at or below the speedlimit or is he exceeding the limit.
If the faster driver is driving within the limit then certainly a slower vehicle should make way but they should not have to pull off the road in to a private driveway to do it. Many of our roads don't lend themselves to pulling over. Don't get me wrong, I try to drive to the limit and get as frustrated by slower traffic as anyone else but I accept that the roads do not always permit a driver room to pull over and that other vehicles have as much right to the road & can't always travel at the speed we may wish. There's no point me getting all hot and bothered about it.
You at least added the condition regarding safety and possibility of letting traffic past, many others here did not. I thank you for you clarity.

Zulu

Kaelyn Whispering Storyteller wrote:

I don't recall you addressing me directly before but anyway that doesn't matter.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54052104&postcount=32
It's good debating skills to listen to what others are saying. Good debating skills, and good manners.

You have qualified the question nicely. Make the question straighter.

No problem. That's been my stance all along.

Is the faster car trying to proceed at or below the speedlimit or is he exceeding the limit.

It doesn't matter. It is still ignorance and bad manners on behalf of the slower driver not to let them past.

If the faster driver is driving within the limit then certainly a slower vehicle should make way but they should not have to pull off the road in to a private driveway to do it.

No one suggested they should. In fact the only other reference is in your last post. I'll take it you are attempting to build a "straw-man" at this point? ...or else I'm missing some joke??

Many of our roads don't lend themselves to pulling over.

True, but there are also alot of wide roads, where a driver can aid another driver in overtaking by pulling in slightly. Unfortunately, drivers here are don't.

I thank you for you clarity.

No problem, but I might suggest that in some cases (my posts for example) the clarity has been there all along, and that you could revise your strategy of "skim-reading"?

I also notice you haven't managed to give me a straight answer, as requested. I'll take it that this has been another unfortunate casualty of your "skim-reading" and ask you again:

Do you not agree that it is ignorant for a driver not to pull over, where possible, and safe to do so, to let faster traffic by?

nice1franko

I used to cruise down the fast lane at the speed limit all the time. Nay a bother. I preferred the fast lane cos you'd a bit of a buffer then for cars coming off the filter roads. So I read this thread and sussed all those drivers weren't flashing me for being on the motorway with L-plates after all but they were flashing me to get the feck outta the way. I figured they'd a bit of a cheek to flash me for being on the motorway when they were trying to breaking the speed limit (a greater crime IMO).

Anyhoo, there's one less fast lane hogger on the road now.

sesswhat

nice1franko wrote:

I used to cruise down the fast lane at the speed limit all the time. Nay a bother. I preferred the fast lane cos you'd a bit of a buffer then for cars coming off the filter roads. So I read this thread and sussed all those drivers weren't flashing me for being on the motorway with L-plates after all but they were flashing me to get the feck outta the way. I figured they'd a bit of a cheek to flash me for being on the motorway when they were trying to breaking the speed limit (a greater crime IMO).

Anyhoo, there's one less fast lane hogger on the road now.

Excellent! It's good to know some good has come from this thread:D

_Kaiser_

nice1franko wrote:

I used to cruise down the fast lane at the speed limit all the time. Nay a bother. I preferred the fast lane cos you'd a bit of a buffer then for cars coming off the filter roads. So I read this thread and sussed all those drivers weren't flashing me for being on the motorway with L-plates after all but they were flashing me to get the feck outta the way. I figured they'd a bit of a cheek to flash me for being on the motorway when they were trying to breaking the speed limit (a greater crime IMO).

Anyhoo, there's one less fast lane hogger on the road now.

With all due respect though, that's precisely why L-plate drivers aren't allowed on motorways. This is covered in the Rules Of the Road which they test you on when you apply for your full license.

(Yes I know that drivers will full licenses do it too and that doesn't make it right, but really you shouldn't be on the motorway in the first place is my point).

Zulu

Well as your name states: nice 1 franko! Good man.
The over taking lane is just for that!

nice1franko

Kaiser2000 wrote:

With all due respect though, that's precisely why L-plate drivers aren't allowed on motorways. This is covered in the Rules Of the Road which they test you on when you apply for your full license.

(Yes I know that drivers will full licenses do it too and that doesn't make it right, but really you shouldn't be on the motorway in the first place is my point).

L drivers aren't allowed on the motorway because they hog the fast lane (edit: or should I say the "overtaking" lane) ???

Yeah, I know the rules of the road alright. You need to do a test on them to get your provisional licence now.

TBH, I never went on the motorway when I was a "learner" (i.e. a learner in the true sense of the word - actually learning) but I'm driving a year now and would honestly consider myself a better driver than most (ha.. don't we all)

Just seems a waste to be taking backroads when I can drive perfectly well and safely... just because the waiting list is a fukcing year long to sit the test. Mine should be up soon enough actually.

Steve

The question posed by the OP many pages ago was WHY do people insist on driving at 80kph on a road where it is perfectly SAFE and LEGAL to do 100kph. This has nothing to do with allowing someone to overtake or pulling into driveways;)

So far no-one has offered an explanation, (apart form misguided attempts to say it increases traffic flow).

Please do not say "because it's safer to drive at that speed" - drive on any arterial route at 20kph below the limit and before long you will have a tailback of 10 or 20 increasingly frustrated motorists.

As the powers that be have decided to progressively eliminate overtaking oportunities from our roads (in the name of safety), this eventually leads to the motorists behind going hell for leather when eventually there is a place to overtake - worse still, they will overtake where it is not appropriate to do so.

To offer an answer, these people are either:

a- inexperienced - go learn how to drive properly before clogging up arterial routes.

b- senile - please get a buss pass and turn in your license.

c - blissfully unaware of what they are doing - :mad: :mad: :mad:

d - capaple experienced drivers who are perfectly aware of the dangerous situation they are creating yet choose not to do anything about it.

unkel

Anan1 wrote:

I think he's off getting his calculator fixed.;)

Nope

Anan1 wrote:

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

I'll try one more time:

Convoy 1 consists of 5 cars that are 5m long with 20m between the cars doing 60km/h. Total length of this convoy is (5 * 5) + (4 * 20) = 105m

Convoy 2 consists of 5 cars that are 5m long with 2000m between the cars doing 120km/h. Total length of this convoy is (5 * 5) + (4 * 2,000) = 8,025m

Both convoys cover a 10km strectch of road. For convoy 1 to drive the 10,000m head to toe, it needs to cover a total of 10,000 plus its own length, so 10,000 + 105 = 10,105m in total. Convoy 2 needs to cover 10,000 + 8,025 = 18,025m in total

Convoy 1 will take about 10 minutes, convoy 2 will only take about 9 minutes*. So convoy 2 is quicker / uses less capacity. QED

* 18.025km @ 120km/h takes about .15 hour (about 9 minutes)
10.105km @ 60km/h takes about .17 hour (about 10 minutes)

Zulu

stevec wrote:

d - capaple experienced drivers who are perfectly aware of the dangerous situation they are creating yet choose not to do anything about it.

It's type "d" that "grind my gears!"

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Zulu wrote:

...ask you again:

Do you not agree that it is ignorant for a driver not to pull over, where possible, and safe to do so, to let faster traffic by?

As you employ the debating skills of ignoring what others are trying to say and seem to expect everything to be black or white, then my straight answer to your question has to be a reluctant NO.

(I take exception to your refering to me personally as having bad manners and being ignorant. You don't know me from Adam and couldn't be more wrong in your slight.)

Ends.

xabi

unkel wrote:

Convoy 2 consists of 5 cars that are 5m long with 2000m between the cars doing 120km/h. Total length of this convoy is (5 * 5) + (4 * 2,000) = 8,025m

2K between cars, how is that a convoy?

X.

Anan1

Unkel - try doing that sum with 10 cars, then try doing it with 100. Finally, do it with 1,000 cars.:)

sesswhat

unkel wrote:

Nope



I'll try one more time:

Convoy 1 consists of 5 cars that are 5m long with 20m between the cars doing 60km/h. Total length of this convoy is (5 * 5) + (4 * 20) = 105m

Convoy 2 consists of 5 cars that are 5m long with 2000m between the cars doing 120km/h. Total length of this convoy is (5 * 5) + (4 * 2,000) = 8,025m

Both convoys cover a 10km strectch of road. For convoy 1 to drive the 10,000m head to toe, it needs to cover a total of 10,000 plus its own length, so 10,000 + 105 = 10,105m in total. Convoy 2 needs to cover 10,000 + 8,025 = 18,025m in total

Convoy 1 will take about 10 minutes, convoy 2 will only take about 9 minutes*. So convoy 2 is quicker / uses less capacity. QED

* 18.025km @ 120km/h takes about .15 hour (about 9 minutes)
10.105km @ 60km/h takes about .17 hour (about 10 minutes)

If you were standing along the side of the road counting cars, Convoy 1 cars would be passing you at a rate of one every 1.5 seconds. Convoy 2 cars one every minute. Which set-up lets most cars past?

You are just taking five cars and putting a gap of 10 kilometres between them and the next five cars, and not allowing for a continuous flow.

unkel

Anan1 wrote:

Unkel - try doing that sum with 10 cars, then try doing it with 100. Finally, do it with 1,000 cars.:)

Take 2,000 cars, speeds of 60km/h and 120km/h and gaps of 20 and 50m between the cars as per my example and the fast convoy is still quicker - uses less road capacity

Or a million cars, and gaps of 20 and 41m. Does any road anywhere in the world take a million cars per lane per day? I wouldn't have thought so

I picked the 2,000m gap as an extreme case within my example. I thought that was obvious?

Anan1

unkel wrote:

Take 2,000 cars, speeds of 60km/h and 120km/h and gaps of 20 and 50m between the cars as per my example and the fast convoy is still quicker - uses less road capacity

It's not, sesswhat is correct. Put yourself by the side of the road, counting cars. You're fulfilling the same function as a flow meter on a pipe. As long as you keep speed and separation in the same ratio, the frequency of cars passing you will not change. Cars doing 10km/h with a 10m separation will pass you exactly as often as cars doing 150km/h with a 150m separation. Honestly.:)

cyclopath2001

stevec wrote:

The question posed by the OP many pages ago was WHY do people insist on driving at 80kph on a road where it is perfectly SAFE and LEGAL to do 100kph.

I don't buy the lame excuse that slow drivers cause danger because they stir up deep primeval anger and frustration in others. This is like rapists saying that women in short dresses are 'asking for it'.

Elderly drivers are probably the safest on the road. It's mostly under 25's that are being dragged out of ditches.

Slower speeds reduce allow for longer reaction time and reduce the severity of impacts.

The maximum speed limit is only advisable only in perfect driving conditions, something we rarely have. Reasons to reduce speed would include, poor visibility, darkness, wet roads, presence of pedestrians, cyclists, exits, other vehicles manoeuvring, unfamiliarity with the area etc.

unkel

Anan1 wrote:

Put yourself by the side of the road, counting cars

Alright. One 5m car plus 20m of space at 60km/h comes past me every 1.5s. One 5m car plus 41m of space at 120km/h comes past every 1.38s. Honestly!

Steve

cyclopath2001 wrote:

I don't buy the lame excuse that slow drivers cause danger because they stir up deep primeval anger and frustration in others..

Yet you hear about "road rage" incidents every week. I'm not trying to excuse this behavior - far from it - I'm merely describing what I see on our roads.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Slower speeds reduce allow for longer reaction time and reduce the severity of impacts..

Slower speeds cause tailbacks and tailgating and rob road users of reaction time. Again - I'm not saying it's right, it's what happens every day.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

The maximum speed limit is only advisable only in perfect driving conditions., something we rarely have. Reasons to reduce speed would include, poor visibility, darkness, wet roads, presence of pedestrians, cyclists, exits, other vehicles manoeuvring, unfamiliarity with the area etc.

Given "perfect conditions", they still do it. In my experience, the same drivers then ignore the posted limits when they reach a town. I don't think they are doing this for "safety" reasons.

It BeeMee

unkel wrote:

Alright. One 5m car plus 20m of space at 60km/h comes past me every 1.5s. One 5m car plus 41m of space at 120km/h comes past every 1.38s. Honestly!

Yes but you've jumped from a gap of 50m to 41m at 120km/h

If the gap is 50m, then one 5m car + 50m space comes past every 1.65s
A gap of 45m gives 1.5s

If "the two second rule" is applied, the gaps should be (approx) 28.4m @ 60km/h; 39.5m @ 80km/h and 62m @ 120km/h


However, as the gaps are smaller, the lower speed will allow more cars onto the same stretch of carriageway at the one time.
On a 1km stretch of road, you can accomodate:

30 cars travelling at 60 km/h
22 cars travelling at 80 km/h
14 cars tracelling at 120km/h

This is the bit that is probably causing the confusion?

Anan1

Also bear in mind that the two second rule, although helpful, is essentially an easy-to-remember jingle. It provides less and less safety as speeds increase.