Overtaking against traffic in the dark

astraboy

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It is possible for someone to lack confidence but to still be a safe driver. It may be frustrating for strong, fit, advanced drivers like yourself, whose cars are the epitome of modern motor engineering, but a just society is judged on its tolerance and sympathy for the weakness of others.

You've justified the stupid waste of road space in our cities as being caused by public transport not being of an acceptable standard for drivers. Is it not also true that in rural areas, these slow, frustrating drivers that you want to banish from your sight, have no public transport at all and rely on their cars?

Perhaps you only want to share the road with people like yourself?

O For ****s sake. You must really be a troll? I agree with most of your point and you nit pick. I drive in the country and the city in equal measure. You are making driving out to be a right. It is not. You need to display a certain level of competence to be able to get a license. I have no issue with those going slowly ONCE they show consideration to others. That is also the measure of a tolerant society?

If you lack confidence on the road then you obviously require more practice. Fine, no problem. Just be a courteous and aware driver while doing it.

Quit standing up for those drivers dawdaling along too ignorant to move over to allow others to pass, or not paying enough attention to others on the road. I have no issue sharing the roads, and frankly your comments appear to be more at an attempt to rise me and take a jab then in the flow of the debate.

Comments like "It may be frustrating for strong, fit, advanced drivers like yourself, whose cars are the epitome of modern motor engineering," are clearly just there to take my point out of context.

Then again, how am I supposed to argue with a man that believes you are not insured on the hard shoulder of a road?:rolleyes:

And yes, my car is the epitome of modern engineering, and I am a qualified advanced driver. So drive as slow as you like sir, just show me and others the same consideration we show you.

Haz33

javaboy wrote: »

You might have contradicted yourself a couple of times there.

Eh no. I've read it again and The point I'm making is that when people crash after a stupid move it is automatically blamed on speed because they happen to be going too fast. Some of the stupid things people do will still lead them to crash if they are going slow. Hence it is not about the speed but instead stupidity. Is this clearer?

ART6

Sundy wrote: »

How would u lose control of a car on bumpy road markings, i mean there rarely more than 3/4 mm high.. Actually what made u think he was out of control?

May be easier than it sounds! The road markings might not be very high, but they are a different texture to the road surface and often have a much lower slip resistance particularly when wet. I have seen a number of cars nearly lose it on small roundabouts with those endless yellow boxes painted all over them, and that without any indication of excessive speed. That doesn't excuse some plonker for driving over the ones you describe of course, but neither does it excuse the highway authorities who seem to think that a few thousand gallons of paint will fulfill their responsibilities.

ART6

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I'd be one of those who thinks the less time spent on the opposite side of the road the better as well.

With regards to slow drivers, I commute on the N3 daily and I've found that people seem to have less trouble driving at the limit (if safe/appropriate to do so etc etc) when coming from the Dublin side, but dawdle along at 60-80 if coming from the opposite direction - maybe it's just me, but it's something I've noticed in the past month or so.

Then you have the clowns like the black 4x4/SUV driver (complete with limo black windows) towing one of those mini-diggers on a trailer outside Navan yesterday evening (rush hour) who held a whole queue of traffic behind him while he plodded along at 60 km/h. Think he'd move into that nice lane-sized hard shoulder with plenty of visibility every so often so a few cars could get by? Nope! :mad:
Eventually - several miles later - I got my chance and managed to get past him and the other 3 dawdling idiots behind him (and yes, I admit.. I did lean on the horn rather hard as I passed him ), but as others noted, it's inconsiderate, slow drivers like this that cause half the problems on the roads.

Personally I'd be in favor of all HGV's (and especially all these tractors towing heavy equipment I see lately) being banned from major roads during rush hour, but of course if there was more enforcement on the roads (beyond the cynical revenue-gathering of course) that'd be a good start.

I think it's illegal to drive on the hard shoulder, isn't it?

Haz33

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It is possible for someone to lack confidence but to still be a safe driver. It may be frustrating for strong, fit, advanced drivers like yourself, whose cars are the epitome of modern motor engineering, but a just society is judged on its tolerance and sympathy for the weakness of others.

You've justified the stupid waste of road space in our cities as being caused by public transport not being of an acceptable standard for drivers. Is it not also true that in rural areas, these slow, frustrating drivers that you want to banish from your sight, have no public transport at all and rely on their cars?

Perhaps you only want to share the road with people like yourself?

If a person has no confidence or is terrified to drive when they see snow or heavy rain and arrive at their destination a nervous wreck, then these people need more practise and should get lessons and do whatever it takes before they kill someone. Just because these people may never be in an accident doesn't mean they dont directly or indirectly cause accidents. I would say if you cant drive, dont drive because its only a matter of time before you kill someone.
The road deaths in this country are (believe it or not ) a hell of a lot better than they were. In the seventies when there was 30 or 40 % of vehicles on the road in comparison to today, there were 500 - 600 people a year being killed. now its down to just over 300. Thats half the deaths for more than twice the traffic. Some of this is down to safer cars and I believe most of it is down to Younger generations learning to drive and having to past the test. Older generations got into a car because they could so easily, not because they could drive and this shows on our roads so I think it will be a good few more years before these people are off the roads.

golfpaul

ART6 wrote: »

I think it's illegal to drive on the hard shoulder, isn't it?

On a motorway.

Mr. Presentable

Haz33 wrote: »

I was on dual carriageway the other day doing 110kph ( yes Iknow its a 100kph limit but it's a dual carriageway ) on the inside lane when I was over taken by an artic. Now to be overtaken meant he had to be doing more than 110kph. This is happening more often and its a disgrace. By law this vehicle should be restricted to 80kph, and before you ask it was irish reg. I dont have statistics but from what I can see half the truck drivers in the country are breaking the law. I do agree 80kph is too slow on a motorway for a truck but the law is the law.
Also too much gets blamed on speed. A guy stoned out of his head hits a wall and its blamed on speed because he was doing 120kph.
A guy hits a car and kills someone. It was speed cause he was doing 120kph. Was it F**k. He was overtaking coming into a bend. He was a moron. If you overtake coming into a bend and hit something its stupitidty not speed. Try it at 50kph and you may still kill someone. You can quite hapily drive around this country at 120kph if you are a good driver and are careful not stupid. As for slow drivers I know a Garda who got chastised in court for bringing up someone for doing 40kph on the motorway and the case was thrown out. So I think we a flogging a dead horse!

Don't you see the irony in this?

Mr. Presentable

Haz33 wrote: »

Also too much gets blamed on speed. A guy stoned out of his head hits a wall and its blamed on speed because he was doing 120kph.

Funny how people persistently miss the point here. The cause of the accident was drink/drugs/bad driving or whatever. The cause of the death/serious injury was the speed.
If he hit the wall at 60kph he'd probably walk away.

Mr. Presentable

Haz33 wrote: »

If a person has no confidence or is terrified to drive when they see snow or heavy rain and arrive at their destination a nervous wreck, then these people need more practise and should get lessons and do whatever it takes before they kill someone.

Yeah, the trouble is the only way to get experience of adverse conditions is to be out in them. Catch 22 really, how often do we drive in snow in this country?

javaboy

Haz33 wrote: »

Eh no. I've read it again and The point I'm making is that when people crash after a stupid move it is automatically blamed on speed because they happen to be going too fast. Some of the stupid things people do will still lead them to crash if they are going slow. Hence it is not about the speed but instead stupidity. Is this clearer?

nipplenuts wrote: »

Don't you see the irony in this?

Thanks for saving me the bother nipplenuts.

_Kaiser_

ART6 wrote: »

I think it's illegal to drive on the hard shoulder, isn't it?

golfpaul wrote: »

On a motorway.

Not having a go at you in particular ART6, but this is an example of one of the biggest problems on the roads (including this particular topic) - people are out driving around but don't even know the basic rules of the road!!

There's no excuse for that - after all, didn't everyone get a copy through the door last year? What's even worse about this is that most of the rules are simply common sense and courtesy - what does THAT say about Irish drivers in general then?

Back on topic: If someone isn't capable/comfortable driving at higher speeds on R/N/M-roads where appropriate to do so, then they shouldn't be on that road in the first place or at the very least, they shouldn't impede the progress of those who are.

astraboy

nipplenuts wrote: »

Funny how people persistently miss the point here. The cause of the accident was drink/drugs/bad driving or whatever. The cause of the death/serious injury was the speed.
If he hit the wall at 60kph he'd probably walk away.

Do we all limit ourselves to 60 so? Yes speed makes accidents worse. But I'm a fan of prevention rather then cure, so its best to avoid accidents in the first place! How, through Education of the driving population, Enforcement of all traffic laws(that does not mean shooting fish in a barrel poilcing, I'm talking enforcement of people hogging the overtaking lane, bad driving in general) and Engineering of our roads to be safer. The fact is all driving is a risk. If I'm on a dual carriage way thats safe to do 120Kph, I will do so. You say I'm not qualified to choose the speed limit, well the guys that make the limit are not either! Speed limits are a blanket enforced on all roads of a certain type, IE all national primary routes are 100 except where built up, even on safer stretches the limit remains at a max of 100. If a person chooses to make a risk assessment and speed up to 120, thats none of your business as long as it effects no one else. If it is likely to cause an accident, that is another matter, which brings me nicely back to the use of common sense and courtesy on our roads!

Del2005

Del2005 wrote: »

People who drive slowly on major roads then to go really slow on bends then speed up on straights so people can't overtake safely. If they maintained the slow speed they would be safer but since they floor it on the straights they fustrate drivers who are capable of maintaining progess around bends. I've had several occasions of where someone going slowly accelerates when I start to overtake them, I'm commited to doing the overtake and the gobsh!te I'm overtaking decides now is the time to speed up when I'm on the opposite side of the road. That's how they cause accidents

People driving on major roads should be able to drive at a reasonable pace, if they can't drive at or near the limit on dry roads in daylight then they should pull out of the way and stop obstructing traffic that can. And if they aren't confident enough to drive at or near the limit on major roads at night they should stay off them.

All this only applies to major roads not the sh!tty back roads where people tend to fly along at 80km/h regardless of how safe it is.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The speed limits that you want everyone to drive at, are only safe under ideal conditions. Many wise drivers might choose, as required by law, to drive at a lower speed compatible with their level of confidence, the road conditions or the capability of their vehicle.

I've had to highlight the section where I said on dry roads as you obviously missed it from your high horse or bike.

And again if you aren't confident to drive at or near the limit pull over so that people who are can, and people who can't but think they are can hit the next ditch. It's not Joe Public's job to slow down traffic thats the job of the Gardai.

If you want to want to insist that drivers should be reasonable and considerate and not hold others up, then, let's also tackle the gross waste of space posed by single-occupant cars travelling at 6kph in city traffic or parked on valuable street-space.

Do you not see the buses, trams and trains at rush hour? They are all packed solid with people, some of then are dangerously overcrowded. How are people supposed to get out of their cars to get onto public transport that barely copes now?

astraboy

Del2005 wrote: »

I've had to highlight the section where I said on dry roads as you obviously missed it from your high horse or bike.

And again if you aren't confident to drive at or near the limit pull over so that people who are can, and people who can't but think they are can hit the next ditch. It's not Joe Public's job to slow down traffic thats the job of the Gardai.

Don't worry about him Del, he reckons its ok for slow and ignorant drivers to hold everyone up, but damn you to hell if you have the nerve to speed up to 110Kph on a decent road! How dare you.:p

I agree with you, if you can't make a decent pace, get off the road. You fail the driving test if you don't make decent progress.

E92

And quite rightly too. Nothing worse than people travelling well under the speed limit when conditions permit a higher driving speed. Not only is it highly annoying, but highly dangerous too as it results in people making all sorts of stupid overtaking manoeuvres. The driver going ridiculously slow is not causing any danger himself/herself but he/she is frustrating a lot of other people which can cause loads of accidents.

Don't forget all our Dual Carriageways built to Motorway standard and actual Motorways have a design speed of 160 km/h(and NOT 120 as is often said).

Because of the fact that these roads are built for 160 I see no safety issue with a speed limit of 160(I would be against anything higher, but I see no problem with 160, as that's what these very expensive roads are built for), and I make no apologies for saying that I have the utmost sympathy for people caught speeding on Motorways/Dual Carriageways built to Motorway standard as long as they were under 160 km/h.

Sundy

ART6 wrote: »

May be easier than it sounds! The road markings might not be very high, but they are a different texture to the road surface and often have a much lower slip resistance particularly when wet. I have seen a number of cars nearly lose it on small roundabouts with those endless yellow boxes painted all over them, and that without any indication of excessive speed. That doesn't excuse some plonker for driving over the ones you describe of course, but neither does it excuse the highway authorities who seem to think that a few thousand gallons of paint will fulfill their responsibilities.

Cars lose control on roundabouts because of understeer and not because of road markings

Wertz

On the point of slow drivers, especialy in more rural parts, the problem lies as much with the first one or two cars tailing that slow driver that will not either attempt to get past when safe to do so, or else to fall back, match the speed and let someone behind have a go....when it gets to 5 or more cars it all seems to bunch up and nothing from any further back can even safely "leapfrog" up the queue...all the while traffic is building from behind and you end p with this long string, until idiots at the front either pass or leave room.

This thread would put you off driving at night...if what the OP says is true then we're probably looking at one of the main killers on the roads, overtakers forcing their way into oncoming traffic...

cyclopath2001

Del2005 wrote: »

Do you not see the buses, trams and trains at rush hour? They are all packed solid with people, some of then are dangerously overcrowded. How are people supposed to get out of their cars to get onto public transport that barely copes now?

You're missing the point. I am highlighting the inconsistentcy of the argument where people, such as our dear AstroBoy, believe it is OK for solitary, fit and healthy drivers in empty cars to massively waste road space and obstruct buses, cyclists and motorcyclists in cities but not OK for cautious, elderly people to cause delay on main roads outside of the city.

_Kaiser_

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You're missing the point. I am highlighting the inconsistentcy of the argument where people, such as our dear AstroBoy, believe it is OK for solitary, fit and healthy drivers in empty cars to massively waste road space and obstruct buses, cyclists and motorcyclists in cities but not OK for cautious, elderly people to cause delay on main roads outside of the city.

Again, if you're not comfortable driving at the posted limit when safe to do so, or keeping up with the flow of traffic on a major road then you shouldn't be there in the first place!

As for the whole "wasting roadspace in cities" argument. As I've pointed out on the Commuting/Transport forum, unfortunately we in Ireland DON'T all live in a public transport utopia. Here it's unreliable, overcrowded, dirty, staffed by too many ignorant jobsworths, and run for the benefit of the company/staff/unions - not the customer.

I'll use the same example again. If I want to get from Blanchardstown to Coolock, using public transport means at least 2 bus journeys (each way) with a completely unnecessary detour via "An Lar" (because of Dublin Bus and it's obsession with the O'Connell Street area) and will take a minimum of 90mins.

In a car, via the M50 (off-peak) - 20 mins or so.
Via Finglas and Ballymun - about 40 mins.

Plus I'll be guaranteed a seat, be dry and warm/cool, NOT have to put up with scumbags smoking, roaring and fighting down the back, AND I can leave when I want to - not 25 minutes earlier because it'd very possible that bus (or the one after it) won't even show up.

Then there's the fact that if you live outside the major cities, public transport (as a viable alternative) becomes non-existant.

These are reasons why people put up with the commute and the traffic. You surely don't honestly think that they enjoy sitting in gridlock, or paying ridiculous parking charges do you? When CIE and the rest sort out the above then come back to me about switching to public transport.

ART6

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Not having a go at you in particular ART6, but this is an example of one of the biggest problems on the roads (including this particular topic) - people are out driving around but don't even know the basic rules of the road!!

There's no excuse for that - after all, didn't everyone get a copy through the door last year? What's even worse about this is that most of the rules are simply common sense and courtesy - what does THAT say about Irish drivers in general then?

Back on topic: If someone isn't capable/comfortable driving at higher speeds on R/N/M-roads where appropriate to do so, then they shouldn't be on that road in the first place or at the very least, they shouldn't impede the progress of those who are.

No worries Kaiser. I'm not a sensitive individual and didn't take your post personally. The reason I made the point about the hard shoulder is that a few years ago I knew a truck driver who had been pulled by the Gards for running on the hard shoulder of an "N" road (not a motorway) when he was simply letting traffic past. However, I still do it when someone behind me is in more of a hurry than I am. I do agree entirely with your point about speed, though there is also the question of someone who is quite capable of driving at high speed but is not in any hurry. Should he then drive faster than he wants or needs to simply because someone else is impatient?

_Kaiser_

ART6 wrote: »

No worries Kaiser. I'm not a sensitive individual and didn't take your post personally. The reason I made the point about the hard shoulder is that a few years ago I knew a truck driver who had been pulled by the Gards for running on the hard shoulder of an "N" road (not a motorway) when he was simply letting traffic past. However, I still do it when someone behind me is in more of a hurry than I am. I do agree entirely with your point about speed, though there is also the question of someone who is quite capable of driving at high speed but is not in any hurry. Should he then drive faster than he wants or needs to simply because someone else is impatient?

Not at all. If he wants to cruise along at 80 (for example) then he's perfectly entitled to do so so long as he doesn't impede faster moving traffic behind him

I take your point about the hard shoulder. Part of the problem is the Gardai themselves don't always know the rules, hence the situation we have where "it depends who you get on the day". This lack of consistency certainly doesn't help matters, however given there is a traffic corps member on this board though (GTC) who seems to agree with/encourage the (brief) use of the hard shoulder to allow faster traffic to pass you, I'd say your truck driving mate was entirely correct regardless of what that individual Garda said.

EDIT: To those PC eco-friendly bus huggers that frequent this forum and who'll no doubt ask what my hurry is, a few minutes stuck behind one of these slow-moving convoys can result in 20 minutes stuck at the next town - for example, go through Kells on a weekday morning around 8:20. Then go through it again the next morning 15 minutes later. Then come back and tell me that being held up previously doesn't make any difference in the end!

astraboy

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You're missing the point. I am highlighting the inconsistentcy of the argument where people, such as our dear AstroBoy, believe it is OK for solitary, fit and healthy drivers in empty cars to massively waste road space and obstruct buses, cyclists and motorcyclists in cities but not OK for cautious, elderly people to cause delay on main roads outside of the city.

So by driving an otherwise empty car I am obstructing busses etc?! What if I have no decent public transport alternative(AKA in Cork!). You are not only a selfish driver, you are also clearly anti-car. What is the point in you coming onto a MOTORS forum, where us other posters are really into our cars, and you are just trolling. And no its not ok for people to cause delay to others when it can be avoided(this applies in the city and the country), simply by pulling over momentarily. They are the selfish ones on the road, and in my experience the slow drivers are rarely "cautious", they are in their own little world and completely unaware of anyone or anything else on the road. Get off your high horse, you are clearly in the wrong.

ART6

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Not at all. If he wants to cruise along at 80 (for example) then he's perfectly entitled to do so so long as he doesn't impede faster moving traffic behind him

I take your point about the hard shoulder. Part of the problem is the Gardai themselves don't always know the rules, hence the situation we have where "it depends who you get on the day". This lack of consistency certainly doesn't help matters, however given there is a traffic corps member on this board though (GTC) who seems to agree with/encourage the (brief) use of the hard shoulder to allow faster traffic to pass you, I'd say your truck driving mate was entirely correct regardless of what that individual Garda said.

EDIT: To those PC eco-friendly bus huggers that frequent this forum and who'll no doubt ask what my hurry is, a few minutes stuck behind one of these slow-moving convoys can result in 20 minutes stuck at the next town - for example, go through Kells on a weekday morning around 8:20. Then go through it again the next morning 15 minutes later. Then come back and tell me that being held up previously doesn't make any difference in the end!

OK, I accept your comment about cruising at 80 but not impeding traffic behind him. However, a lot of the so called major roads in Ireland don't have anywhere to pull over to allow other traffic past, and the "hard" shoulder is often so ragged an potholed that only a tank driver would risk it. In such cases I always pull over when I can, unless it's me that's in a hurry, but not if I'm going to risk my car or myself! Otherwise it's a case of speeding up faster than one wants to go.

And incidentally, I have been driving for over 40 years in Europe, the UK, and the US. I have driven a wide range of cars and other vehicles, including race tuned tourers and formula cars, and have never received even a parking ticket. I ain't noted for slow driving, but I ain't always in a hurry either.:)

astraboy

ART6 wrote: »

I ain't noted for slow driving, but I ain't always in a hurry either.:)

Thats grand, the road I take home from College each Friday I can reach speeds of about 110Kph, but I'm happy enough at anywhere between 90-100Kph when the road is straight and conditions good, if the driver in front is making that pace. I don't think you sound like the guy doing 60/70Kph when conditions allow 100, holding people up and completely unaware of all those stuck behind them, ripping the piss by driving so slow! They are the drivers we have issue with, not with anyone making what can be described as a reasonable pace.

_Kaiser_

ART6 wrote: »

OK, I accept your comment about cruising at 80 but not impeding traffic behind him. However, a lot of the so called major roads in Ireland don't have anywhere to pull over to allow other traffic past, and the "hard" shoulder is often so ragged an potholed that only a tank driver would risk it. In such cases I always pull over when I can, unless it's me that's in a hurry, but not if I'm going to risk my car or myself! Otherwise it's a case of speeding up faster than one wants to go.

And incidentally, I have been driving for over 40 years in Europe, the UK, and the US. I have driven a wide range of cars and other vehicles, including race tuned tourers and formula cars, and have never received even a parking ticket. I ain't noted for slow driving, but I ain't always in a hurry either.:)

Ah I wasn't suggesting you take your car "off road" as moving into some hard shoulders can be like - naturally "when safe and appropriate do to so" applies

I drive a lot in my job and cover a fairly big area so usually I've places to be, but there are times when I like to take it a bit easier as well - especially at night. In these cases I'll watch the traffic behind me and if someone is looking to get by I'll move in (when possible and if safe to do so), but I won't let myself be "bullied" into speeding up either. That said though I generally drive at or within 5-10 km/h of the limit anyway if it's appropriate to do so and rarely have someone up my ass.

As an aside, I've noticed that the type of car you drive makes the difference, as does whether you have L-plates or not.
When I was starting off in my Mitsubishi Mirage/Colt hatchback I was regularly subjected to clowns trying to get into my back seat (or so it seemed they were that close), and this continued until I passed the test and the L-plates went down. Even then though it'd still happen occasionally.

Since I changed to a Passat though it's very rare. I tell myself it's because she's big, black, shiney and solid looking and thus expensive to fix and anyone that runs into the back of it is likely to be worse off - hey I may be wrong but I know that if I'm behind a 07/08 Merc or a BMW I'll instintively give it a bit more space than I normally might (especially if there's a woman in the driving seat peering over the wheel and/or holding onto it for dear life - oops, did I just say that? )