Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Speeding and law making in Ireland

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Zube
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,502 ✭✭✭Zube


    If her instructor told her she has to drive at the limit all the time he should be discredited and sacked.

    Her instructor did not tell her to drive at the limit, he told her to break the limit or she would fail again. My own instructor told me the same thing: do not hold up traffic by driving strictly at the limit.


  • Options
    #63
    jimbling
    Registered Users Posts: 4,053 ✭✭✭jimbling


    nipplenuts wrote: »
    Zube baby, the only way they'd fail her for that is if she was doing 49kmh on a road with a limit of 80/100kmh during her test. If her instructor told her she has to drive at the limit all the time he should be discredited and sacked.


    not true at all. A friend of mine failed for keeping his speed below 70kmh (and not by much) in a 80kmh zone.
    It was on a dual carriageway. He was so concerned with speeding that he decided to keep it 10kmh+ below. Fail.


  • Options
    #64
    ArphaRima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭ArphaRima


    Legal refs please?
    I think its apparent you do not hold a full driving livence..

    http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/progress.html
    http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/image/report2.jpg

    No mention of it here, and to be honest there doesnt need to be. If you are on an open road, limit is 50, if you are driving below 45, a mark will be against you in the failure to make progress section. Similarly if you leave too large a gap with the car in front, or drive too fast in the given conditions or surroundings, despite the posted limit.
    Instructors teach the 10% rule. When I was doing the test, the tolerance quoted to me in a 30mph area were 27-33mph. Either side of that and you'll be marked down on open road.
    This is common knowledge, (as you can tell from the number of posters saying that) and we dont need to "quote" it from the internet.


  • Options
    #65
    E92
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,147 ✭✭✭E92


    From the ROTR P89:

    As a driver you must always be aware of your speed and judge the appropriate speed for you vehicle taking into account:

    - driving conditions
    - other uses of the road
    - current weather conditions
    - all possible hazards and
    - speed limits

    P91:

    Avoid driving too slowly

    In normal road and traffic conditions, keep up with the pace of traffic flow while obeying the speed limit
    .....
    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.


  • Options
    #66
    javaboy
    Registered Users Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    Zube wrote: »
    But it's the same thing: if you drive about at 49 kph, you fail. My sister failed, and that was the reason given. She went for a couple of lessons afterwards to prepare for a retest, and that's what the instructor told her: stop driving below the limit or you'll fail.

    I don't believe that for a second.
    nipplenuts wrote: »
    Zube baby, the only way they'd fail her for that is if she was doing 49kmh on a road with a limit of 80/100kmh during her test. If her instructor told her she has to drive at the limit all the time he should be discredited and sacked.

    +1. If you demonstrate that your incapable of driving at a reasonable speed, you'll get faulted repeatedly for not making progress. 49km/h on a 50km/h road wouldn't fall into that category.
    Zube wrote: »
    Her instructor did not tell her to drive at the limit, he told her to break the limit or she would fail again. My own instructor told me the same thing: do not hold up traffic by driving strictly at the limit.

    You have had bad driving instructors then. The idea that you should break the limit or rish failing your test is just nonsense.
    jimbling wrote: »
    not true at all. A friend of mine failed for keeping his speed below 70kmh (and not by much) in a 80kmh zone.
    It was on a dual carriageway. He was so concerned with speeding that he decided to keep it 10kmh+ below. Fail.

    I would say that's a bit slow if the conditions allowed him to go faster. Something like 5k below (on the speedo) would probably be acceptable. Anything less than that and you're likely to get faulted imo.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Zube
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,502 ✭✭✭Zube


    javaboy wrote: »
    I don't believe that for a second.

    Jeez, look, reality changed, just because javaboy didn't believe it!

    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #68
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    To put your quotation into context, this quote may be helpful:
    This book uses ....must and must not to draw attention to behaviour the law clearly demands or forbids.
    It uses terms such as should and should not to tell you how best to act in
    a situation where no legal rule is in place.

    So, if we consider this:
    E92 wrote: »
    you should not drive so slowly that your vehicle unnecessarily blocks other road users. .....

    This is advice, not law. If a driver drives slower than others, it may be frustrating for others, but it's not illegal.

    Here's a further example:
    You must not break the speed limit, even when overtaking.
    This is not advice. It's law.

    Fair enough, complain about people whose behaviour annoys you. Criticise the law if you must, but, let's be clear on what is law and what is not.


  • Options
    #69
    galwaytt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,776 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    This is advice, not law. If a driver drives slower than others, it may be frustrating for others, but it's not illegal........

    ....that's true, but doesn't address the question. If, in a clear 100kph situation, where the body of traffic is travelling in/around that - say 95kph - then to wantonly drive at, say 85kph, is to risk breaking some other law. That then gives rise to a fail in the case of a test, or a prosecution in the case a motoring offence, generally. Driving with 'undue care and attention' being just one.

    Religiously following one law to the letter, whilst exposing yourself to another, is of little benefit.

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • Options
    #70
    ArphaRima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭ArphaRima


    The driving test is not a test of whether or not you can drive without breaking laws. It is to prove that you can drive competently.


  • Options
    #71
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    galwaytt wrote: »
    ....that's true, but doesn't address the question. If, in a clear 100kph situation, where the body of traffic is travelling in/around that - say 95kph
    - then to wantonly drive at, say 85kph, is to risk breaking some other law. That then gives rise to a fail in the case of a test, or a prosecution in the case a motoring offence, generally. Driving with 'undue care and attention' being just one.
    Driving more slowly than others is not, in itself wanton. It merely conflicts with the advice given in the RoTR. It is quite possible to drive at a lower speed than others and still be driving with both the care and attention required by law.

    If it's to be an offence to drive more slowly than others, than surely, using your logic, it must also be an offence to park on a roadway?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    gyppo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,648 ✭✭✭gyppo


    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    Driving more slowly than others is not, in itself wanton. It merely conflicts with the advice given in the RoTR. It is quite possible to drive at a lower speed than others and still be driving with both the care and attention required by law.

    +1. Driving at a lower speed than others could also mean that the faster drivers are not driving with the care and attention needed for the prevailing conditions.

    Last year, where the new N6 intersects the athlone bypass, there was a speed restriction placed at the site of the construction works. This was done in the interests of safety of the workers, and for the passing traffic, as some of the road surface was covered in mud at times due to the construction traffic.

    I would estimate about 5% of motorists heeded this limit, despite the significant hazards involved. Obviously they were wrong to do so because they were in the minority group, and a danger to the rest.:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #73
    javaboy
    Registered Users Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    Zube wrote: »
    Jeez, look, reality changed, just because javaboy didn't believe it!

    :rolleyes:

    Be sarcastic if you like but I still really don't believe that someone was failed in their driving test for driving at 49km/h in a 50km/h limit area.

    I'm not calling anyone a liar but there are so many rumours and urban legends surrounding the driving test. An awful lot of them come from people who failed and needed an excuse.


  • Options
    #74
    TheNog
    Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog


    javaboy wrote: »
    +1. If you demonstrate that your incapable of driving at a reasonable speed, you'll get faulted repeatedly for not making progress. 49km/h on a 50km/h road wouldn't fall into that category.

    For a person to be failed or marked down for not making progess due to driving at 1kmph less than the posted speed is very harsh and could be grounds for an appeal.
    javaboy wrote: »
    You have had bad driving instructors then. The idea that you should break the limit or rish failing your test is just nonsense.

    My driving instructor told me 15 yrs ago to drive at just above the posted limit and keep with the flow of traffic. When driving within a 30mph zone I drove at 35mph. Its all about keeping up with the flow of traffic but at a reasonable and sensible speed.
    javaboy wrote: »
    I would say that's a bit slow if the conditions allowed him to go faster. Something like 5k below (on the speedo) would probably be acceptable. Anything less than that and you're likely to get faulted imo.

    +1. Never go below the limit unless traffic in front of you is or if you need to stop or slow down for a potential hazard.
    galwaytt wrote: »
    ....that's true, but doesn't address the question. If, in a clear 100kph situation, where the body of traffic is travelling in/around that - say 95kph - then to wantonly drive at, say 85kph, is to risk breaking some other law. That then gives rise to a fail in the case of a test, or a prosecution in the case a motoring offence, generally. Driving with 'undue care and attention' being just one.

    Driving at 85kph in a 100kph where traffic is travelling at 95kph would not be breaking any law. If you were travelling at say 30kph then a driver could be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention.
    galwaytt wrote: »
    Religiously following one law to the letter, whilst exposing yourself to another, is of little benefit.

    The traffic laws are not designed that way nor intended to conflict another law. For example we all know that driving while using a mobile phone is illegal but if you were driving along and noticed a car in front was weaving al over the road. It is not illegal for you to make a call when driving to ring the guards or to make any other call to an emergency service.
    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    Driving more slowly than others is not, in itself wanton. It merely conflicts with the advice given in the RoTR. It is quite possible to drive at a lower speed than others and still be driving with both the care and attention required by law.

    If it's to be an offence to drive more slowly than others, than surely, using your logic, it must also be an offence to park on a roadway?

    It is an offence to drive slower than others but common sense must prevail in that the driver must be causing a severe obstacle to the progress of traffic.
    gyppo wrote: »
    +1. Driving at a lower speed than others could also mean that the faster drivers are not driving with the care and attention needed for the prevailing conditions.

    It could but not necessarily so. If a person was speeding excessively then the offence would move up the scale from driving without due care and attention to one of reckless driving or even dangerous driving.


  • Options
    #75
    blackbox
    Registered Users Posts: 4,334 ✭✭✭blackbox


    bazz26 wrote: »
    If we drive at 110kph in a 100kph zone then chances are if the limit is raised to 130kph we will drive above that limit too.

    Unfortunately speed limits are genrally seen as minimum not maximum targets.


    I dont agree with you on this.

    When I drive at 100 (106 on my speedo) on a 100 kph limit dual-carriageway, lots of cars overtake me.

    When I drive at 120 (128 on my speedo) on a 120 kph motorway only a few cars overtake me.

    As for driving at 60 on a 60 kph section of motorway road works, almost every car overtakes me.

    Raising the limit (or better still, removing it) on motorways should also improve lane discipline as the d*ckheads that drive in the overtaking lane will know that there are people entitled to drive faster than their 110.


  • Options
    #76
    Zube
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,502 ✭✭✭Zube


    TheNog wrote: »
    My driving instructor told me 15 yrs ago to drive at just above the posted limit and keep with the flow of traffic. When driving within a 30mph zone I drove at 35mph. Its all about keeping up with the flow of traffic but at a reasonable and sensible speed.

    Thanks, TheNog, this confirms what I was taught, which met with some disbelief earlier in the thread.


  • Options
    #77
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    TheNog wrote: »
    It is an offence to drive slower than others
    Legal ref please?


  • Options
    #78
    TheNog
    Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog


    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    Legal ref please?

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1968/en/act/pub/0025/sec0049.html

    link above shows that a person cannot operate a MPV without reasonable consideration for others which could include driving at a speed with all reasonable apprehension to severely obstruct the flow of traffic. An example where this could be used would be a tractor being driven on a national route with hard shoulders but not giving way to traffic to overtake.

    The actual chances of this offence being enforced is minimal tbh but it is there.


  • Options
    #79
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    TheNog wrote: »
    link above shows that a person cannot operate a MPV without reasonable consideration for others which could include driving at a speed with all reasonable apprehension to severely obstruct the flow of traffic. An example where this could be used would be a tractor being driven on a national route with hard shoulders but not giving way to traffic to overtake.

    What it actually says is
    Driving without reasonable consideration.
    51A. (1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place without reasonable consideration for other persons using the place.
    This law is some considerable distance, in concept, from the original assertion by E92 that driving at the speed limit was practically obligatory and your statement that 'it is an offence to drive slower than others'.

    Whether or not reasonable consideration has been given is a matter of opinion and it would seem, based on the rarity of prosecutions, that the severity of the lack of consideration must be very high before an offense is prosecuted.

    A more aggressive interpretation in relation to making progress might please the speed-hungry but would also open up many other interesting situations where other kinds of inconsiderate behaviours would also be prosecuted.


  • Options
    #80
    TheNog
    Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog


    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    This law is some considerable distance, in concept, from the original assertion by E92 that driving at the speed limit was practically obligatory and your statement that 'it is an offence to drive slower than others'.

    no it could not be intepretated that it is obligatory to drive at the speed limit but, in this example, is designed to prosecute for preventing the flow of traffic
    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    Whether or not reasonable consideration has been given is a matter of opinion and it would seem, based on the rarity of prosecutions, that the severity of the lack of consideration must be very high before an offense is prosecuted.

    The obstruction must be severe and that is reflected in the example I gave with the tractor. All considerations must be taken into account as well such as the approximate number of vehicles being held up and the availability of the hard shoulder.
    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    A more aggressive interpretation in relation to making progress might please the speed-hungry but would also open up many other interesting situations where other kinds of inconsiderate behaviours would also be prosecuted.

    An aggressive interpretation could not and should not be taken which could prevent or risk the safety of others. Common sense or reasonable consideration (used in the section) must be taken into account.

    Another example for driving without reasonable consideration would be driving into a puddle of water to splash a pedistrian. I posted this on another thread and I do remember a driver being prosecuted for it. Of course and again common sense you would have to come into it i.e. the driver crossed the road in order to drive into the puddle to splash the pedistrian thus proving intent.


  • Options
    #81
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    TheNog wrote: »
    An aggressive interpretation could not and should not be taken which could prevent or risk the safety of others.
    Agreed. It's effectively a catch-all law which could be used to promote greater courtesy on the road in situations where no explicit law has been broken.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    TheNog
    Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog


    yes its pretty much to aid the flow of traffic without causing a risk to other road users


Advertisement