Slow drivers. Hogging the road

Mena

The 2 second rule is generally based on speeds of 100Kph. It needs to increase exponentially at higher speeds/wet conditions etc, but then, you'd think people would realise that...

Anan1

Mena wrote:

The 2 second rule is generally based on speeds of 100Kph. It needs to increase exponentially at higher speeds/wet conditions etc, but then, you'd think people would realise that...

I was shocked at how many people here take it as gospel.

unkel

It BeeMee wrote:

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

Still more than twice the distance at twice the speed, creating a bigger capacity. The only thing I set out to establish here

Anan1 wrote:

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

I think it is safe to assume most people here agree with that

Zulu

Kaelyn Whispering Storyteller wrote:

As you employ the debating skills of ignoring what others are trying to say

Thats quite sad Kaelyn Whispering Storyteller; care to back that up? ...I've clearly pointed out where you've chosen to ignore me - I challenge you to do the same.

and seem to expect everything to be black or white, then my straight answer to your question has to be a reluctant NO.

No Kaelyn Whispering Storyteller, I was making a simple point that it's ignorant to ignore other drivers, and that in general people in Ireland leave there manners behind them once they sit into their cars. Manners, and lack there of is very simple and straight, and in essence "black and white" - you are either courteous or you aren't; considerate or not. You have chosen to ignore this as it flies in the face of your first stance.

Which takes me nicely to:

(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.)

Frankly I couldn't care less what "slight" has offended your sensibilities.

Let me remind you that it was you that initially called me ignorant, and got personal. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54051286&postcount=21#

gyppo

Anan1 wrote:

I was shocked at how many people here take it as gospel.

So was I. I thought all the drivers on this forum were experts, and never got anything wrong.:rolleyes:

Pherekydes

It BeeMee wrote:

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?

And 200 cars at 0 km/h.


Road capacity refers to traffic flow. Higher average speeds will give higher capacity.

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..

You may not, however, the road safety authority does recognise it.
To quote Rules of the road 2007 page 89

Avoid driving too slowly
In normal road and traffic conditions, keep up with the pace of the traffic flow while obeying the speed limit. While you must keep a safe distance away from the vehicle in front, 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.

They also report "being on the wrong side of the road" as the prime cause of fatalities - not speed.

Anan1

unkel wrote:

Still more than twice the distance at twice the speed, creating a bigger capacity. The only thing I set out to establish here

I think that effect is caused by the length of the car. It does mean that you are correct if we stick to the two-second-rule, but it's still not enough to disprove my original assertion that road capacity will be lower at 100km/h than at 80. Let's start by using the two-second-rule in both cases. At 80km/h, the gap will be 44.4m + 5m = 49.4m, ie a car passes every 2.23 seconds. At 100km/h, the gap will be 55.5m + 5m = 60.5m, ie a car passes every 2.18 seconds. We've already agreed that the two-second-rule allows less safety at 100km/h than at 80km/h. How much should we increase the gap at 100km/h by to compensate for this? Would 0.05 sec suffice? That's about 1.4 metres. Well it'll have to - any more and road capacity starts falling.;)

gyppo

I see what you're saying Stevec.

However, I think the point mentioned in the ROTR

If you drive too slowly, you risk frustrating other drivers, which could lead to dangerous overtaking.

while true, is also a bit stupid. Anyone who engages in a dangerous overtaking manouvre does so on their own volition, and the person who is driving slowly in front of them is not responsible for this.

astraboy

gyppo wrote:

I see what you're saying Stevec.

However, I think the point mentioned in the ROTR

If you drive too slowly, you risk frustrating other drivers, which could lead to dangerous overtaking.

while true, is also a bit stupid. Anyone who engages in a dangerous overtaking manouvre does so on their own volition, and the person who is driving slowly in front of them is not responsible for this.

Gotta disagree here. A slow driver causes fustration to everyone stuck behind them. By not displaying good manners and courtesy to others by pulling in (when the opportunity arrises) it increases the fustration, leaving the driver behind with the option of being stuck behind a slow crawler or overtaking when they get the chance, increasing the risk they take. Believe me, I have no problem with slow drivers(learners or unconfident drivers) or slow vehicles(tractors in my case I'm in the country). People can drive as slow as they like once they don't hold up others. Also, a side point is if you can't make decent progress on the road when possible you should not be driving.

spockety

Being stuck behind a slow driver is a head wrecker alright. But they're not to blame really. You should question why in one of the richest countries in Europe, when driving between 2 of the countries biggest cities, you find yourself on a single carriageway road where overtaking a car involves risking your life. Then you have to ask who is to blame for this? Hint: It's not the 80kph driver.

gyppo

astraboy wrote:

Gotta disagree here. A slow driver causes fustration to everyone stuck behind them. By not displaying good manners and courtesy to others by pulling in (when the opportunity arrises) it increases the fustration, leaving the driver behind with the option of being stuck behind a slow crawler or overtaking when they get the chance, increasing the risk they take. Believe me, I have no problem with slow drivers(learners or unconfident drivers) or slow vehicles(tractors in my case I'm in the country). People can drive as slow as they like once they don't hold up others. Also, a side point is if you can't make decent progress on the road when possible you should not be driving.

A slow driver will cause frustration - absolutely agree. However....

You've answered this yourself. Option = choice = conscious decision.

Steve

astraboy wrote:

Also, a side point is if you can't make decent progress on the road when possible you should not be driving.

And you'll also fail a driving test for this.

Edit: Or maybe they've just failed a test - been deemed incompetent to drive - and are driving home after it.
High likelihood given that 5 or 10% of drivers on our roads have not passed a test.

spockety

"Decent progress" is pretty subjective. 80kph on a 100kph stretch could probably be termed 'decent progress'.

(Though it is annoying all the same)

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

spockety wrote:

Being stuck behind a slow driver is a head wrecker alright. But they're not to blame really. You should question why in one of the richest countries in Europe, when driving between 2 of the countries biggest cities, you find yourself on a single carriageway road where overtaking a car involves risking your life. Then you have to ask who is to blame for this? Hint: It's not the 80kph driver.

At last, a bit of sense has been written!

Zulu

gyppo wrote:

Option = choice = conscious decision.

While I agree it's stupid to take risks, and I personally don't. The same can be said of the reverse:
Option (to drive slow for whatever reason) = choice (driving slow) = conscious decision (will infuriate other impatient drivers who will take a stupid risk and endanger lives).

I just can't understand the mentality of some drivers (those driving well below the limit on a wide road and refusing to pull over/ driving in the overtaking lane)... These people are the cause of (granted foolish) drivers taking dangerous risks and ultimatly putting lives at risk. HOW can anyone rationalise that?
I would never take an action, if I taught it might be the cause - or be part of a chain of events - that would cause someone to die for something so trivial. Why would I? It's insane.

MrPudding

Zulu wrote:

While I agree it's stupid to take risks, and I personally don't. The same can be said of the reverse:
Option (to drive slow for whatever reason) = choice (driving slow) = conscious decision (will infuriate other impatient drivers who will take a stupid risk and endanger lives).

I just can't understand the mentality of some drivers (those driving well below the limit on a wide road and refusing to pull over/ driving in the overtaking lane)... These people are the cause of (granted foolish) drivers taking dangerous risks and ultimatly putting lives at risk. HOW can anyone rationalise that?
I would never take an action, if I taught it might be the cause - or be part of a chain of events - that would cause someone to die for something so trivial. Why would I? It's insane.

Whilst I think some might make a concious decision to drive slowly and be an obstruction, some may simply not be capable of driving faster. I am still trying to work out which group scares me more...

MrP

gyppo

Zulu wrote:

While I agree it's stupid to take risks, and I personally don't. The same can be said of the reverse:
Option (to drive slow for whatever reason) = choice (driving slow) = conscious decision (will infuriate other impatient drivers who will take a stupid risk and endanger lives).

I just can't understand the mentality of some drivers (those driving well below the limit on a wide road and refusing to pull over/ driving in the overtaking lane)... These people are the cause of (granted foolish) drivers taking dangerous risks and ultimatly putting lives at risk. HOW can anyone rationalise that?
I would never take an action, if I taught it might be the cause - or be part of a chain of events - that would cause someone to die for something so trivial. Why would I? It's insane.

Im not disagreeing with anything you say - on the contrary. It is just my opinion that the quote from the ROTR handbook appears to put the emphasis on dangerous overtaking down to not driving fast enough. Ultimately, the decision and blame for dangerous overtaking lies solely with the overtaker (regardless of how frustrated he/she is), no-one else.

Zulu

MrPudding wrote:

Whilst I think some might make a concious decision to drive slowly and be an obstruction, some may simply not be capable of driving faster. I am still trying to work out which group scares me more...

MrP

Well there's always going to be the combine/heavy load tractor but by and large they pull in where applicable, and I've no problem with them or the "silver-tops" that are careful. It's the level of ignorance and/or arrogance of the "I'm driving at this speed and to hell with everyone else" what baffles me. Or driving in the overtaking lane at the limit. Why? Why do these people think it's their civic duty to provoke the lunatics??? It's madness.

Zulu

gyppo wrote:

Im not disagreeing with anything you say - on the contrary. It is just my opinion that the quote from the ROTR handbook appears to put the emphasis on dangerous overtaking down to not driving fast enough. Ultimately, the decision and blame for dangerous overtaking lies solely with the overtaker (regardless of how frustrated he/she is), no-one else.

We're on the same side of the fence so I'm not going to drag this out, and it's really semantics...
You're right: Ultimately we are responsible for our own actions. So if I drive dangerously, I'm responsible.
But if my driving is going to cause or some how be an active part in a chain of events, is there not some level of responsibility? I mean - I COULD have prevented it but I chose not to. What does that say about me???

mukki

i have to say, i flicked through this thread, and its the same old same old

this thread is ideal for making people with different opinons get annoyed with each other
and in the end it will get too long for anyone to bother posting to it adn drift off until a new one starts the next day, and nothing will ever be resoloved by complining on an internet forum

no you will not convince the go slow brigade that going slow is dangerous no matter what way you explian it you will just annoy them, and vice versa


op... seriously, just get a new job, christ, thats no life driving on irish road, unless your super patient

mukki

mukki wrote:

i have to say, i flicked through this thread, and its the same old same old

this thread is ideal for making people with different opinons get annoyed with each other
and in the end it will get too long for anyone to bother posting to it adn drift off until a new one starts the next day, and nothing will ever be resoloved by complining on an internet forum

no you will not convince the go slow brigade that going slow is dangerous no matter what way you explian it you will just annoy them, and vice versa


op... seriously, just get a new job, christ, thats no life driving on irish road, unless your super patient

i totally disagree with this post

mukki

mukki wrote:

i totally disagree with this post

Fu(k you , you ba$tard




heheheh, see what i did there



right sorry for interupting, get back to your crap lads!

gyppo

Hearing voices in your head, Mukki??

OldmanMondeo

milmo wrote:

Hi,
I do high mileage and regularly drive in Connaught, particularly the Galway-Dublin road.

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

Small Print

(Before some of you start, I am not advocating speeding, I am not a boy racer, and have had my NCD for 9 years. I am also aware that there is a problem with inappropriate signage, but all 100kmph zones on this route are appropriate.)

I am of the opinion that given the number of cars on the roads these days that people have a moral obligation, for the sake of all road users, to use roads as efficiently as possible. i.e keep it feckin moving!!!

This means (so long as it is safe to do so) driving at the speed limit for a given road.

There are relatively few places to overtake on this route, and given the numbers of vehicles coming against you, it is often impossible to overtake for the duration of the journey.

If you are incapable, or unwilling to drive at 100kmph on a main arterial road then you should hand back your license.


Roll on the Galway-Athlone dualcarriageway.

Can't answer for everyone, but when I drive well under the limit it is usually because I don't know the area / road to well. I might be looking for a turn and don't want to miss it. I could be driving to the conditions, not just road conditions, but my own condition. Maybe I am low on fuel and am trying to conserve until I get to a petrol station. I drive a lot of miles as well and tend to stick within the speed limits, any time I come across a car moving slower than me, they usually keep to left lane and I find it quite easy to pass. If another car come behind me looking to pass, I let them.

TBH if all you have to worry about is being held up a few minutes by a slower driver, lets face it, they are not going 30kph in a 100kph zone, then you must have a happy life.

spockety

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Can't answer for everyone, but when I drive well under the limit it is usually because I don't know the area / road to well. I might be looking for a turn and don't want to miss it. I could be driving to the conditions, not just road conditions, but my own condition. Maybe I am low on fuel and am trying to conserve until I get to a petrol station. I drive a lot of miles as well and tend to stick within the speed limits, any time I come across a car moving slower than me, they usually keep to left lane and I find it quite easy to pass. If another car come behind me looking to pass, I let them.

TBH if all you have to worry about is being held up a few minutes by a slower driver, lets face it, they are not going 30kph in a 100kph zone, then you must have a happy life.

I would also hazard a guess that being stuck behind someone driving at 80kph for part of your journey from Dublin city to Galway city would not actually drop your average speed all that much over the course of the entire journey. I'd say you could be talking a difference in arrival times of less than 15/20 minutes*



* note; all hearsay and conjecture

Steve

spockety wrote:

I would also hazard a ... would not actually drop your average speed all that much .

Could be the difference of missing rush hour M50. 10 minutes in the middle could well equal an hour at rthe end.

spockety

haha, come on, there is no "rush hour" on the M50 any more. Anytime I've been on it in the last few weeks it has made no difference whether it's 8am on a weekday, or 8pm on a weekend.

Steve

spockety wrote:

haha, come on, there is no "rush hour" on the M50 any more. Anytime I've been on it in the last few weeks it has made no difference whether it's 8am on a weekday, or 8pm on a weekend.

Yeah - true for the middle bit all right.
Say you're driving Wexford-Dublin and wanting to go to Tallaght - at around 17:00 the queue for the toll bridge grows very rapidly form starting at Tallaght/Ballymount to starting at Sandyford/Ballinteer (maybe 4 or 5km difference). This is where the lost 10mins would gain you a lot.
Not the only example - it's the same around Limerick. If you want to go from Shannon / Bunratty side to Dublin, 10mins could mean an extra 40 getting through the city.

BostonB

If people are that frustrated by 10mins, or someone driving at 80% of the speed limit. Then they need to leave earlier and allow for unexpected delays. Thats just common sense.

Its not practical to take the ROTR literally that everyone has to drive at the limit. For many reasons. Many vehicles can't always do the limit. Scooters, bues, trucks, vehicles with trailers, loads, the list is endless.

What is practical is that you shouldn't impede faster traffic. That doesn't mean driving in the layby which is often dangerous. But leaving space in front, NOT speeding up on suitable overtaking stretches and perhaps even slowing down so its easy for that pimped up Corsa to get by.

Very few here believe that the speed limits are 100% appropriate, or that being 10% over the limit is always dangerous, or that most people obey the speed limits even 90% of the time. So equally the same would apply to those driving slower than the speed limit. As long as they are not doing 30 in a 100 etc. Of course it depends on the road and the context.