Bizarre/Illegal things on motorways

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

Why would I read a training document for unqualified drivers when I have a full Irish licence and have passed the UK ADI test?

[...]

"the limit is not a target" is just yet another completely useless buzz phrase, wrong in its entirety.

"Drivers should remember that speed limits are not targets. They are there as a guide for driving in optimum conditions."

Source: UK Institute of Advanced Motorists.

Iwannahurl

Tremelo wrote: »

Driving south to Corkonia this morning on the M8 I spied a cyclist between junctions 17 and 18 southbound. He was in no hurry at all, and looked rather like a hippy. I beeped at him as I drove by and phoned him in to Traffic Watch, for all the good I'm sure it did.

-Corkie- wrote: »

:D

I have seen this guy too. That stretch of the M8 must be the busiest cycle lane in the world..

Ringing that 1890 number is a waste of phone credit I think.

Can someone please post a video (if feasible) of that nutter on YouTube? Maybe embarrassment will achieve what Traffic Watch won't, or can't. This kind of backward nonsense has got to stop.

Amtmann

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Can someone please post a video (if feasible) of that nutter on YouTube? Maybe embarrassment will achieve what Traffic Watch won't, or can't. This kind of backward nonsense has got to stop.

If I had a passenger I would have asked them to film him. Better yet, take a photo and forward it to the Gardaí.

AugustusMinimus

Drive northbound on the M8 from the Dunkettle Interchange at 9 on a Saturday morning and you are guaranteed to pass a cyclist. He's there every single saturday morning.

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

"They are there as a guide for driving in optimum conditions."

This is what I've been saying repeatedly. When roads are clear, drive at the limit. They ARE a target for proper driving conditions. "speed limits are not a target" is lazy and incorrect, and generally indicative of a poor driver.

SerialComplaint

Tremelo wrote: »

Driving south to Corkonia this morning on the M8 I spied a cyclist between junctions 17 and 18 southbound. He was in no hurry at all, and looked rather like a hippy. I beeped at him as I drove by and phoned him in to Traffic Watch, for all the good I'm sure it did.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Can someone please post a video (if feasible) of that nutter on YouTube? Maybe embarrassment will achieve what Traffic Watch won't, or can't. This kind of backward nonsense has got to stop.

In fairness, I don't think that's what TrafficWatch is for. If you report a driver giving a reg number, they can follow up afterwards. If you report a bike, they can't really do anything afterwards. Ring the local station.

L1011

SerialComplaint wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think that's what TrafficWatch is for. If you report a driver giving a reg number, they can follow up afterwards. If you report a bike, they can't really do anything afterwards. Ring the local station.

TW contact the local station for time pressing matters. Random driver from out of the area won't have the number for Glanmire station.

SerialComplaint

MYOB wrote: »

Random driver from out of the area won't have the number for Glanmire station.

No, but the regular travellers who see this same cyclist on the same spot should put the station number into their phone tonight.

AugustusMinimus

SerialComplaint wrote: »

No, but the regular travellers who see this same cyclist on the same spot should put the station number into their phone tonight.

I'll report it next time. I feel it may be a waste of 30c though. It will also involve me leaving at the next exit for no reason other than to make the phonecall.

L1011

phoned in a cyclist on the toll section of the m4 there. Toll operator must have let him through!

veryangryman

MYOB wrote: »

phoned in a cyclist on the toll section of the m4 there. Toll operator must have let him through!

Thats a long old bike trip. No exit for about 20 miles on that road (assuming he wasnt doing Kilcock-Enfield)

L1011

was just out of the plaza so only a few km to the next exit. Not a safe place at all for a cyclist there due to the acceleration.

MYOB

MYOB wrote: »

was just out of the plaza so only a few km to the next exit. Not a safe place at all for a cyclist there due to the acceleration.

What's the toll charge for a cyclist! :rolleyes:

mayo23

MYOB wrote: »

Not a safe place at all for a cyclist there due to the acceleration.

As everyone should know, that cyclist was breaking the law by cycling on a motorway in the first place! Technically, he could have been given penalty points and a fine, as cyclists are classed as drivers, but theres no specific penalty for it.

mayo23

mayo23 wrote: »

As everyone should know, that cyclist was breaking the law by cycling on a motorway in the first place! Technically, he could have been given penalty points and a fine, as cyclists are classed as drivers, but theres no specific penalty for it.

A license is not required to use a bicycle, therefore penalty points can't be issued.

All road users have to comply with the rules of the road of course, but not all road users require licenses!

corktina

MYOB wrote: »

This is what I've been saying repeatedly. When roads are clear, drive at the limit. They ARE a target for proper driving conditions. "speed limits are not a target" is lazy and incorrect, and generally indicative of a poor driver.

No Im sorry that wont do.
Some drivers are simply not able to drive at 100k for various reasons but are perfectly safe to drive at a lower speed.

kiwipower

corktina wrote: »

No Im sorry that wont do.
Some drivers are simply not able to drive at 100k for various reasons but are perfectly safe to drive at a lower speed.

On what grounds?

Othere than HGVs and those towing trailers. (HGVs as they have maximum speed limits set at 80km/h. When towing Trailers - I am presuming here based off NZ law - are also not alowed to excede 80Km/h)

antoobrien

Deleted User wrote: »

A license is not required to use a bicycle, therefore penalty points can't be issued.

All road users have to comply with the rules of the road of course, but not all road users require licenses!

AFAIK if the cyclist has a driving license the points can be applied to it as they are breaking a traffic law (trying to find a link to an article where a cyclist appealed conviction for dangerous behaviour on the road - Contravention of requirements at junctions I think - and judge give him points as well).

corktina

kiwipower wrote: »

On what grounds?

Othere than HGVs and those towing trailers. (HGVs as they have maximum speed limits set at 80km/h. When towing Trailers - I am presuming here based off NZ law - are also not alowed to excede 80Km/h)

SOme people are old, some people are ill, some people are inexperianced but they might well be perfectly safe drivers at a lesser speed than the limit. WOuld you deny them the right to use the road?

antoobrien

corktina wrote: »

SOme people are old, some people are ill, some people are inexperianced but they might well be perfectly safe drivers at a lesser speed than the limit. WOuld you deny them the right to use the road?

As long as they follow the rules of the road i.e. keep left and make way when somebody wants to go faster than them sure. If they don't I believe the relevant charge is "Driving without due care and consideration".

kiwipower

corktina wrote: »

SOme people are old, some people are ill, some people are inexperianced but they might well be perfectly safe drivers at a lesser speed than the limit. WOuld you deny them the right to use the road?

To be honest I dont think ANYONE has an automatic RIGHT to drive on the roads.
I would be pro denying a licience to anyone who is not capable or safe.
I actually think that there should be a requiremnt for all drivers to reguarly undertake what is called in most jobs "Continuing Proffessional Development." I think all drivers every five years should have to resit an advanced drivers theory course and exam and every 10years should have to resit there practical driving test.

I would also question if a driver is unable to keep up with the flow of traffic on a road, are they actually safe to be on that road? If they are unable to maintain the speed of traffic flow, how will they cope with the unexpected happening at these higher speeds? - Like cars coming up behind them, passing them out etc.

niloc1951

MYOB wrote: »

This is what I've been saying repeatedly. When roads are clear, drive at the limit. They ARE a target for proper driving conditions. "speed limits are not a target" is lazy and incorrect, and generally indicative of a poor driver.

Beggin' your pardon sir :rolleyes:,

For many reasons I often do not to aim for the speed liming when driving, though I am well capable of driving safely at speeds well in excess of the limits here in Ireland, I can also be quite happy driving at 80/90 KmPH on roads with 100 KmPH limits posted and perhaps 90/100 on roads with 120Kmph limits posted.

One should drive in a manner so as to arrive relaxed, while at all times giving good attention to other road users and on S2 roads, when safe to do so, facilitate those wishing to overtake, what's the point in 'pushing on' and giving yourself stress at times when there is no real need.

As for being a 'poor driver', well I'm going to do the EuroMillions this week because having 'got away' with probably a millions miles of accident free driving in 45 years in all conditions, and driven many times both here and in foreign lands with the steering wheel on the 'wrong' side my luck must be in big time.

corktina

exactly, you arent a poor driver if you are driving at a speed safe for you to do so given the prevailing conditions, and you arent a safe driver if you feel you have to meet the target of the speed limit in all circumstances and you PARTICULARLY arent a good driver if you resent others driving slower than you want to travel. Yes, they can be a nuisance, but they are entitled to drive at whatever speed they wish, hopefully though they would have the good manners to move over for you when safe to do so.

maggy_thatcher

corktina wrote: »

exactly, you arent a poor driver if you are driving at a speed safe for you to do so given the prevailing conditions, and you arent a safe driver if you feel you have to meet the target of the speed limit in all circumstances and you PARTICULARLY arent a good driver if you resent others driving slower than you want to travel. Yes, they can be a nuisance, but they are entitled to drive at whatever speed they wish, hopefully though they would have the good manners to move over for you when safe to do so.

And this is especially true on motorways (which is what this thread is aimed at I believe) where as long as they sit in the left lane, there's absolutely no problem with somebody pottering along at 90-100km/h - particularly in these hard times with the cost of petrol so high. I know several people who drive ~95km/h on long motorway journeys and it saves them a fortune vs driving along at 120km/h.

Chris_5339762

In my car (Toyota Yaris), I get 50mpg at 100kmh. What it amounts to is that if I drive at 100kmh instead of 120kmh, I get my tolls free going Dublin - Cork. And it amounts to about a 20 minute longer drive.

maggy_thatcher

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

And this is especially true on motorways (which is what this thread is aimed at I believe) where as long as they sit in the left lane, there's absolutely no problem with somebody pottering along at 90-100km/h - particularly in these hard times with the cost of petrol so high. I know several people who drive ~95km/h on long motorway journeys and it saves them a fortune vs driving along at 120km/h.

I save quite a bit doing that as well, plus I drive the old road to bypass the tolls save about a fiver a time, it does add up!

-Corkie-

Cyclists on the M8 again after Glanmire exit...:rolleyes:

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

This is what I've been saying repeatedly. When roads are clear, drive at the limit. They ARE a target for proper driving conditions. "speed limits are not a target" is lazy and incorrect, and generally indicative of a poor driver.

What you wrote was: "'the limit is not a target' is just yet another completely useless buzz phrase, wrong in its entirety."

What the UK Institute of Advanced Motorists state on this point is: "Drivers should remember that speed limits are not targets. They are there as a guide for driving in optimum conditions."

BTW, you also claimed some time ago in another thread that the only people who use the phrase are "self-appointed 'road safety experts'".

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What you wrote was: "'the limit is not a target' is just yet another completely useless buzz phrase, wrong in its entirety."

What the UK Institute of Advanced Motorists state on this point is: "Drivers should remember that speed limits are not targets. They are there as a guide for driving in optimum conditions."

BTW, you also claimed some time ago in another thread that the only people who use the phrase are "self-appointed 'road safety experts'".

The IAM, despite me being a fully paid up member, are effectively the DEFINITION of self appointed road safety experts, for there is no regulation or legislation behind their existence.

Them using the phrase does not make it less of a completely incorrect buzz-phrase. At least they couple it with some accuracy - that in the correct conditions the limits ARE the recommended speed. I've never seen you, or the person who originally threw it in as an inaccurate statement provide the second part.

On that thread and this you ignore the rest of my post there. If you drive well below the limit on a clear road you can expect to be done for driving without due consideration. If you do it on a driving test, you will fail. This shows that the buzzphrase is incorrect.

corktina

you will not be gone for driving without fue consideration. Please provide one example if you believe this to be true.

I wouldnt take any notice of the IAM.They are just a home for self appointed experts (perhaps I should join:D