Tailgating and Road Rage

Muir

jessiejam wrote: »

Ya probably:p

In all seriousness though if you re-read my post you will see this-
Saying that I see an awful lot of women on the road driving cars that they can't drive properly practically sitting on the steering wheel their noses almost touching the windscreen. It takes all types really I suppose


If you can drive properly the nose touching off the windscreen doesn't matter!

You either can or can't drive properly. Someone's nose practically touching off the windscreen isn't really relevant to their driving ability.
Are you referring to specific types of cars?

A Dub in Glasgo

Fuinseog wrote: »

if you are driving at 100km per hour on the 100km per hour M50 surely the lane is not that important.

although on the motorways driving at 120km I get out of the way for those who want to overtake me.

Lane is always important irrespective of your speed. If the left hand lane is clear you drive in it. Only gob****es think they should drive in any lane irrespective of how busy the motorway is.

Go back to your driving lessons

TheChizler

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

rogieop wrote: »

you are an idiot.

Hand in your driving license. please.

you make commuting to work a nightmare for people.

You stay in the lane as far to the left as possible untill you need to overtake. once you have over taken you return to the lane closest to the left as possible.

As long as you watch yuor own speed you need not worry about others.

You're right about the 2nd part but no need to call him an idiot. Its his driving instructor's fault and the fault of the system in the republic.

In fairness in an ideal world it wouldn't matter what lane he was in while driving at the limit because there would be no one catching up to him! Bar emergency vehicles etc... That said drive on the left.

dukedalton

TheChizler wrote: »

That's a bit of a general statement. Its widely agreed that many of the speed limits are excessive of what would be considered safe. And there are many reasons why you would have reason to drive considerably below the limit.

As I said, I clock up a fairly high mileage and can't honestly say there are many roads with an excessive speed limit. (The Ring of Kerry being the obvious exception).

What "many reasons" are these? I said in normal driving conditions. Obviously you're not going to be doing 120km/h during a monsoon, but other than that, why would you drive considerably below the limit?

Topper Harley

Fuinseog wrote: »

if you are driving at 100km per hour on the 100km per hour M50 surely the lane is not that important.

This is exactly the kind of wrong thinking which causes the M50 to go from three lanes to two lanes with an empty lane on the left.

Always drive left, overtake on the right. That's the correct way to drive on any motorway and the speed of other drivers isn't your concern.

Fuinseog wrote: »

although on the motorways driving at 120km I get out of the way for those who want to overtake me.

If you are driving correctly, you usually won't need to get out of the way, you'll already be out of the way except when you are briefly overtaking, when you're entitled to use the right lane.

TheChizler

dukedalton wrote: »

TheChizler wrote: »

That's a bit of a general statement. Its widely agreed that many of the speed limits are excessive of what would be considered safe. And there are many reasons why you would have reason to drive considerably below the limit.

As I said, I clock up a fairly high mileage and can't honestly say there are many roads with an excessive speed limit. (The Ring of Kerry being the obvious exception).

What "many reasons" are these? I said in normal driving conditions. Obviously you're not going to be doing 120km/h during a monsoon, but other than that, why would you drive considerably below the limit?

Trucks, caravans, trailers, fully laden vehicles on country roads. Country roads in general, many of which are 80 and single laned. There are corners on 80 roads just outside cork that you shouldn't do more than 20 going round due to lack of visibility, and my personal favourite, hills labelled 80 that are so steep you can't physically reach 80 even in a reasonably powerful car.

dukedalton

TheChizler wrote: »

Trucks, caravans, trailers, fully laden vehicles on country roads. Country roads in general, many of which are 80 and single laned. There are corners on 80 roads just outside cork that you shouldn't do more than 20 going round due to lack of visibility, and my personal favourite, hills labelled 80 that are so steep you can't physically reach 80 even in a reasonably powerful car.

As you should see from my first post, my complaint is about people choosing to drive well below the speed limit and I'm saying if they don't have the ability to drive to that, they shouldn't be on the road.

Nowhere did I complain about motorists not being able to go beyond the performance limitations of their vehicle.

TheChizler

dukedalton wrote: »

TheChizler wrote: »

Trucks, caravans, trailers, fully laden vehicles on country roads. Country roads in general, many of which are 80 and single laned. There are corners on 80 roads just outside cork that you shouldn't do more than 20 going round due to lack of visibility, and my personal favourite, hills labelled 80 that are so steep you can't physically reach 80 even in a reasonably powerful car.

As you should see from my first post, my complaint is about people choosing to drive well below the speed limit and I'm saying if they don't have the ability to drive to that, they shouldn't be on the road.

Nowhere did I complain about motorists not being able to go beyond the performance limitations of their vehicle.

Actually your first post said that if they don't have the ABILITY, which would include the car's ability, to drive at the limit they shouldn't be on the road.

But performance issues aside, I think it's perfectly reasonable to drive slower than the limit if for example you're on a bendy road with a fully loaded car, or just a narrow bendy road in general. For me, someone driving at 80 in a 100 zone is ok, any slower and you run the risk of running in to them around a corner. If you're able to overtake just hang back and do it.

dukedalton

TheChizler wrote: »

Actually your first post said that if they don't have the ABILITY, which would include the car's ability, to drive at the limit they shouldn't be on the road.

Em, no. When I said people I meant people.

TheChizler

dukedalton wrote: »

TheChizler wrote: »

Actually your first post said that if they don't have the ABILITY, which would include the car's ability, to drive at the limit they shouldn't be on the road.

Em, no. When I said people I meant people.

Ok, but when you see someone driving slow you don't know if it's them or the car restricting them. What about the other situations I proposed, unrelated to car performance?

dukedalton

TheChizler wrote: »

Ok, but when you see someone driving slow you don't know if it's them or the car restricting them. What about the other situations I proposed, unrelated to car performance?

Why would the car be restricting them? A one litre Fiat Panda is as capable of reaching the speed limit as a 7 series BMW. If there's a mechanical fault with the car restricting the driver, it should not be on the road.

My point has been that if you can't go to the limit, you should not be on the road. As for the other situations, no sane person is going to expect a driver to go around tight bends at the posted speed limit of 100k/h. Obviously a long or high sided vehicle might have to go a bit under the limit out of necessity, and any considerate driver (and I consider myself to be in that category) will accept this as one of the conditions of driving on a public road. (May I respectfully suggest, however, that drivers of such vehicles push in a little to let the traffic safely past, conditions permitting).

N17er

Fuinseog wrote: »

I was driving a country road the speed limit was 100km and I was driving at 70km.

A country road with a speed limit of 100kph ? Im afraid that was a major national road... Which was deemed safe to travel up to 100kph.


Where are all the people causing this road rage heartache? 99% of posters are victims of course.

Iwannahurl

dukedalton wrote: »

The speed limit is there for a reason. If you can't handle that, get off the road.

The speed limit on any given stretch of road is a target?

Fuinseog wrote: »

I was driving a country road at night which was unfamiliar to me. there were plenty of curves and dangerous bends so I was taking it handy. the speed limit was 100km and I was driving at 70km and a car was tailgating me with his full lights on

N17er wrote: »

A country road with a speed limit of 100kph ? Im afraid that was a major national road... Which was deemed safe to travel up to 100kph.

A "major national" road, like the N17 perhaps? I'm familiar with that one, including this stretch near Carrownurlaur (though TBH I don't know what the posted limit is at this particular spot).

.

Iwannahurl

Fuinseog wrote: »

if you are driving at 100km per hour on the 100km per hour M50 surely the lane is not that important.

rogieop wrote: »

you are an idiot.

Hand in your driving license. please.

you make commuting to work a nightmare for people.

I understand the frustration caused by motorists who drive slowly in the wrong lane.

But just as a matter of interest, where in the RoTR or elsewhere does it say that driving at the speed limit in the wrong lane is an offence greater than driving too fast in the correct lane?

In other words, what law supports the view that wrong-lane at-speed-limit drivers should lose their licence whereas correct-lane over-the-speed-limit drivers can happily keep theirs?


.

Shenshen

dukedalton wrote: »

If he/she doesn't have the ability to drive to the speed limit then he/she should not be on the road. Simple as that.

I do a fair bit of mileage and the most infuriating thing is to see someone plodding along at half the limit in normal driving conditions. This to me is as dangerous as someone speeding, because it can get the person behind frustrated into attempting an overtaking maneuver they shouldn't carry out.

The speed limit is there for a reason. If you can't handle that, get off the road.

I drive a road every morning and evening with a speed limit of 80km/h.
There are 2 very tight turns on this road, one around 100degrees and one 160degrees, I would estimate. The second one turns you from going straight east to near enough straight west once you're around it.
I, and I'm happy to say most people on this road, will slow down to around 50-60 on both those turns.
Most, not all though. A good few people got killed on either of these bends in the past.

The speed limit is an upper limit. It is not, and I repeat NOT any indication what might be a safe speed for the road you are traveling on.
On many Irish road, it's more of a dare than anything else, really.

Shenshen

dukedalton wrote: »

As I said, I clock up a fairly high mileage and can't honestly say there are many roads with an excessive speed limit. (The Ring of Kerry being the obvious exception).

What "many reasons" are these? I said in normal driving conditions. Obviously you're not going to be doing 120km/h during a monsoon, but other than that, why would you drive considerably below the limit?

Becasue you're not familiar with the road?
I agree that this wouldn't obviously be a reason on a motorway, but if someone from Galway is driving down a country lane in East Cork, chances are the person is not familiar with the twists and turns, and so is likely not to do the speed limit, especially if that limit is above 60.
They could also well be lost and/or looking for somewhere (a turnoff they need to take but don't know when to exptect, an address, somewhere safe to turn around if they need to?)

summerskin

Had some clown in a Yaris driving 60 in the 100 zone from Gort to Galway this morning. Queue of traffic about 50 cars long behind them and not having a care in the world, never pulling over for anyone, and also driving so far into the middle of the road that many cars were afraid to overtake.

Yes, I overtook about 11 cars on one straight stretch, 4 on the next, and then overtook the middle aged man with hairy cheeks driving the Yaris and beeped my horn at him, gave him the universal hand gesture for "wánker" and felt much better for it. It's nigh on impossible to not tailgate a car driving that slowly. The cars behind it we all tailgating each other, hence the need for me to pass them all at once. The man was a dangerous driver.

Ah, road rage. never had it in any other country but the driving in Ireland is pathetic. The older drivers are the most selfish, and most incompetent, I have ever seen.

And no, i won't "set off earlier to allow for slow drivers", or slow down and allow for their craptitude. They do not belong on the road, they are invariably the same people who have to take up two parking spaces in any car park. They are a plague on the roads.

summerskin

Shenshen wrote: »

Becasue you're not familiar with the road?
I agree that this wouldn't obviously be a reason on a motorway, but if someone from Galway is driving down a country lane in East Cork, chances are the person is not familiar with the twists and turns, and so is likely not to do the speed limit, especially if that limit is above 60.
They could also well be lost and/or looking for somewhere (a turnoff they need to take but don't know when to exptect, an address, somewhere safe to turn around if they need to?)

Ok, so they should pull over to let other cars pass. That's what I do when I'm driving slower than usual in a strange place. Respect the other cars on the road, don't expect them all to respect you just because you are lost and slowing them down.

dukedalton

Shenshen wrote: »

I drive a road every morning and evening with a speed limit of 80km/h.
There are 2 very tight turns on this road, one around 100degrees and one 160degrees, I would estimate. The second one turns you from going straight east to near enough straight west once you're around it.
I, and I'm happy to say most people on this road, will slow down to around 50-60 on both those turns.
Most, not all though. A good few people got killed on either of these bends in the past.

The speed limit is an upper limit. It is not, and I repeat NOT any indication what might be a safe speed for the road you are traveling on.
On many Irish road, it's more of a dare than anything else, really.

I've said this about three times already on this thread, but I'll say it again:

It's blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that you should slow down around corners!!! I'm not coming on here to vent my fury about people who drive at a reasonable speed then slow down to go around a bend! You know why? Because I do it too! I slow down when I come to a corner! Believe it or not, I don't want to end up in a ditch!

Now, hopefully that has cleared that up for everyone.

Right, next point: you say that the speed limit on a road is "an upper limit...not an indication of what might be a safe speed for the road you are travelling on". Well, we'll have to disagree on that. Why do the RSA put a speed limit on a road? To indicate to the driver the maximum speed at which it is safe to travel. So, if the RSA judge it to be a safe speed, I fail to see why some drivers (in normal driving conditions) take it upon themselves to slow up everyone behind them by going at some arbritary speed.

Think back to your driving test. Remember the category "making good progress"? Why is that on the test? To get people to drive at the indicated road speed, not some speed you judge yourself.

Shenshen

summerskin wrote: »

Ok, so they should pull over to let other cars pass. That's what I do when I'm driving slower than usual in a strange place. Respect the other cars on the road, don't expect them all to respect you just because you are lost and slowing them down.

Again, you assume that's possible.
The roads I drive each morning and evening were not originally designed with cars in mind, and there simply is nowhere to pull over in a 20 km stretch. But to make up for that, the roads are more bendy and twisting than a Fianna Fail minister.

Iwannahurl

summerskin wrote: »

The older drivers are the most selfish, and most incompetent, I have ever seen.

Road hogs are annoying, that's for sure.

What age qualifies as an "older" driver?

Are you suggesting those older drivers are more dangerous on Irish roads, and if so can you point to some hard stats to support that view?

summerskin

Shenshen wrote: »

Again, you assume that's possible.
The roads I drive each morning and evening were not originally designed with cars in mind, and there simply is nowhere to pull over in a 20 km stretch. But to make up for that, the roads are more bendy and twisting than a Fianna Fail minister.

So there are no turn-offs, no driveways, no lay-bys, no stretch of road wide enough for two cars in a 20km stretch? Where are, you, Narnia?

Utter nonsense.

dukedalton

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Road hogs are annoying, that's for sure.

What age qualifies as an "older" driver?

Are you suggesting those older drivers are more dangerous on Irish roads, and if so can you point to some hard stats to support that view?

He's talking about his own personal experience, "what I have seen". He's not talking in statistics.

I would have to agree with him, based on what I've seen. I've seen at least as many older drivers driving dangerously slowly as I have other drivers driving too fast.

Shenshen

dukedalton wrote: »

I've said this about three times already on this thread, but I'll say it again:

It's blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that you should slow down around corners!!! I'm not coming on here to vent my fury about people who drive at a reasonable speed then slow down to go around a bend! You know why? Because I do it too! I slow down when I come to a corner! Believe it or not, I don't want to end up in a ditch!

Now, hopefully that has cleared that up for everyone.

Right, next point: you say that the speed limit on a road is "an upper limit...not an indication of what might be a safe speed for the road you are travelling on". Well, we'll have to disagree on that. Why do the RSA put a speed limit on a road? To indicate to the driver the maximum speed at which it is safe to travel. So, if the RSA judge it to be a safe speed, I fail to see why some drivers (in normal driving conditions) take it upon themselves to slow up everyone behind them by going at some arbritary speed.

Think back to your driving test. Remember the category "making good progress"? Why is that on the test? To get people to drive at the indicated road speed, not some speed you judge yourself.

It may surprise you, but I know someone here who nearly failed their test for trying to do the speed limit. The tester gave out to them afterwards, as the road was in no condition for the indicated speed limit, the surface was in a terrible state.
So, good progress by all means, but I would advise people to use their own judgement which speed they feel they can safely do on any given stretch of road. Just because the RSA decided some 20 years ago to put up a speed sign, before the hedges grew to 2 meters and before half the surface was washed away doesn't mean that that speed is safe now.

And as for speed signs, there is one road in near Dingle with two speed signs, standing right next to each other, one saying 50 the other 80.

Shenshen

summerskin wrote: »

So there are no turn-offs, no driveways, no lay-bys, no stretch of road wide enough for two cars in a 20km stretch? Where are, you, Narnia?

Utter nonsense.

There are plenty of turn-offs. But tell you what, if I'm looking to find a route I've been given as instructions to find a place, I will not take a turn-off and get lost entirely just because someone behind me wants to go 10kph faster.
And no, there are no driveways. I don't know how familiar you are with the roads around Cobh and Fota island, but for the most part they have hedges/walls on one side and the bay/river on the other.

Iwannahurl

dukedalton wrote: »

Why do the RSA put a speed limit on a road? To indicate to the driver the maximum speed at which it is safe to travel.

Really? I thought it was a general upper limit set out in law, but subject to other criteria.

In this country at least, speed limit signs are not placed before every bend, negative camber, uneven surface or other potentially adverse feature of every road, and the posted limit may apply to a long stretch of road with parts that merit slowing down a bit. Does that mean that the posted speed limit is "safe" at every point along the way in all situations (not just at bends)?

"A speed limit is defined as the maximum that you may travel on any road, when conditions are perfect. It is not a target. When you are faced with adverse weather, road or traffic conditions, the most effective way to keep safe is to slow down and give yourself more time to adapt to all that is happening around you."

~Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan, July 2012.

summerskin

Shenshen wrote: »

There are plenty of turn-offs. But tell you what, if I'm looking to find a route I've been given as instructions to find a place, I will not take a turn-off and get lost entirely just because someone behind me wants to go 10kph faster.
And no, there are no driveways. I don't know how familiar you are with the roads around Cobh and Fota island, but for the most part they have hedges/walls on one side and the bay/river on the other.

So you couldn't just pull in where there's a turn-off and let someone pass? Also if you drive these roads every day, how the hell are you going to get lost???? Do you not know the area where you live/commute daily?

Iwannahurl

dukedalton wrote: »

He's talking about his own personal experience, "what I have seen". He's not talking in statistics.

I would have to agree with him, based on what I've seen. I've seen at least as many older drivers driving dangerously slowly as I have other drivers driving too fast.

What I've seen are the statistics, and the news reports, and that information tells a different story.

The hardest facts of all are the road death statistics. If you think that what you've seen is a more reliable indicator, then you have a very different approach to statistics than me.

dukedalton

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Really? I thought it was a general upper limit set out in law, but subject to other criteria.

In this country at least, speed limit signs are not placed before every bend, negative camber, uneven surface or other potentially adverse feature of every road, and the posted limit may apply to a long stretch of road with parts that merit slowing down a bit. Does that mean that the posted speed limit is "safe" at every point along the way in all situations (not just at bends)?

"A speed limit is defined as the maximum that you may travel on any road, when conditions are perfect. It is not a target. When you are faced with adverse weather, road or traffic conditions, the most effective way to keep safe is to slow down and give yourself more time to adapt to all that is happening around you."

~Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan, July 2012.

Do you read through the thread, or just pick out one post and start tapping away from there? I've said this three times already- and just for you, I'll say it a fourth time:

I don't have a problem with people slowing down to take a bend.

Now, is that clear?

While I'm at it, I might as well say I don't have a problem with people slowing if there's three foot pot holes, a hurricane, tornado or monsoon. I'll even make an exception for someone dipping under the speed limit it there's a body lying on the road in front of them.

But the speed limit is there for a reason. If conditions are good, and none of the above is present, then drive to the limit!

Comprende?

Shenshen

summerskin wrote: »

So you couldn't just pull in where there's a turn-off and let someone pass? Also if you drive these roads every day, how the hell are you going to get lost???? Do you not know the area where you live/commute daily?

Good grief, try reading my posts before starting to foam at the mouth, would you!
I never said I was lost on them. I said that one reason people may not do the speed limit on a road could be down to the fact that they are lost or looking for somewhere specific without knowing the area!

Also, do you really think it's good advise to tell people to "pull in" right across a joining road, when they don't know the area and most likely wouldn't be able to see if a car was coming down that road? Would you be happy to have someone block the road you're on like that?

Iwannahurl

dukedalton wrote: »

Do you read through the thread, or just pick out one post and start tapping away from there? I've said this three times already- and just for you, I'll say it a fourth time:

I don't have a problem with people slowing down to take a bend.

Now, is that clear?

While I'm at it, I might as well say I don't have a problem with people slowing if there's three foot pot holes, a hurricane, tornado or monsoon. I'll even make an exception for someone dipping under the speed limit it there's a body lying on the road in front of them.

But the speed limit is there for a reason. If conditions are good, and none of the above is present, then drive to the limit!

Comprende?

Read my post: not just at bends, is what I said. There are many and varied circumstances in which driving at a speed lower than the posted limit is advisable.

You have attempted to define the posted speed limit as the "maximum speed at which it is safe to travel".

Can you point to an authoritative source for that definition?

dukedalton

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Read my post: not just at bends, is what I said.

You have attempted to define the posted speed limit as the "maximum speed at which it is safe to travel".

Can you point to an authoritative source for that definition?

Why would the Road Safety Authority advertise a speed limit that is unsafe?

As I've repeatedly said, I can't see any reason why people would drive under the limit in normal driving conditions.

And yes, of course you would need to slow down around bends, potholes etc (I've explained this to you and others many times :rolleyes:)

Iwannahurl

dukedalton wrote: »

Why would the Road Safety Authority advertise a speed limit that is unsafe?

Are you working on assumption and personal interpretation then?

Has the RSA or AGS stated anywhere officially that the posted speed limit is "safe" in any given location or circumstance?

What you said was "maximum speed at which it is safe to travel". Have you got a definitive, independent source for that?

EDIT: By the way, I don't believe the RSA set the speed limits. AFAIK that is done by the appropriate "competent authority", which includes Councils.

dukedalton

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Are you working on assumption and personal interpretation then?

Has the RSA or AGS stated anywhere officially that the posted speed limit is "safe" in any given location or circumstance?

What you said was "maximum speed at which it is safe to travel". Have you got a definitive, independent source for that?

Deary me.

How do you think the RSA come to decide a speed limit for a road? Presumably they do testing of some sort to decide what is safe/unsafe? (Otherwise, there would be no need for an RSA, presumably.)

What I'm saying, and have said many many times, is that under normal conditions there is no reason to be holding up other road users by driving inordinantly slowly.

Now, it's not hard to follow that logic.

Iwannahurl

dukedalton wrote: »

Deary me.

How do you think the RSA come to decide a speed limit for a road? Presumably they do testing of some sort to decide what is safe/unsafe? (Otherwise, there would be no need for an RSA, presumably.)

Deary deary me, you seem to be doing a lot of presuming.

What you said was "safe".

I'm still waiting for an explicit, definitive, authoritative source for that claim.

You can presume that presumption is not sufficient. Evidence please.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/roads_and_safety/road_traffic_speed_limits_in_ireland.html

Fuinseog

rogieop wrote: »

you are an idiot.

Hand in your driving license. please.

you make commuting to work a nightmare for people.

You stay in the lane as far to the left as possible untill you need to overtake. once you have over taken you return to the lane closest to the left as possible.

As long as you watch yuor own speed you need not worry about others.

lets not get personal. so you advocate breaking the speed limit?

dukedalton

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Deary deary me, you seem to be doing a lot of presuming.

What you said was "safe".

I'm still waiting for an explicit, definitive, authoritative source for that claim.

You can presume that presumption is not sufficient. Evidence please.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/roads_and_safety/road_traffic_speed_limits_in_ireland.html

Common sense, you see. It's how most of us get through life.

If/when you did your test, do you remember that section called "Reasonable Progress". Look it up and come back to us and tell us what you found

By the way, remember this conversation next time you're on a straight stretch of road and the person in front of you is doing 40k/h below the speed limit.

Iwannahurl

dukedalton wrote: »

Common sense, you see. It's how most of us get through life.

If/when you did your test, do you remember that section called "Reasonable Progress". Look it up and come back to us and tell us what you found

By the way, remember this conversation next time you're on a straight stretch of road and the person in front of you is doing 40k/h below the speed limit.

So, no authoritative source for your "safe" claim then.

No surprise there. It's what I presumed...

Shenshen

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Deary deary me, you seem to be doing a lot of presuming.

What you said was "safe".

I'm still waiting for an explicit, definitive, authoritative source for that claim.

You can presume that presumption is not sufficient. Evidence please.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/roads_and_safety/road_traffic_speed_limits_in_ireland.html

If I'm reading this correctly, a non-national road outside of built-up areas would have a blanket standard speed limit of 80 kph, no matter the state of the road (width, bend, surface condition, visibility, etc.), and only if the local council makes a conscious decision will that limit be lowered on any stretch of road?

That would explain a good few insane speed limits in this country all right.

Shenshen

dukedalton wrote: »

Common sense, you see. It's how most of us get through life.

If/when you did your test, do you remember that section called "Reasonable Progress". Look it up and come back to us and tell us what you found

By the way, remember this conversation next time you're on a straight stretch of road and the person in front of you is doing 40k/h below the speed limit.

You know what? I just did.

An applicant should make reasonable progress moving off, on the straight, overtaking, at cross-junctions, at roundabouts, turning right, turning left, changing lanes, and at traffic lights, or a fault may be recorded for 'Progress' as appropriate

Examples of 'Progress' faults include:

When an applicant intends to turn right and waits at a stop line when traffic lights are on green, and it is feasible to go forward towards the centre of the junction.
Where an applicant waits at a stop line for a green arrow to come on when a full green light is showing.
Where an applicant waits at a stop line for a full green light to come on when a green Arrow or flashing amber arrow is showing for the direction to be taken.
Where an applicant does not avail of an acceptable gap in traffic to proceed.
Where an applicant stays too far back from the vehicle in front while driving along.
Where an applicant stops too far back from the vehicle in front.
Where an applicant makes slow progress on the approach to a left or right turn, having been given a direction by the tester to make the turn.
Where an applicant intends to go directly ahead at a Cross Junction which is controlled by traffic lights, a fault may be recorded for 'Progress at Traffic Lights' where the applicant does not proceed on a green light.
Stopping 'short' at a junction for no good reason.

http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/progress.html

Interestingly, no mention of having to do the speed limit.
The RSA does not provide any further clarification of "reasonable progress", but I did notice that they never talk about just "reasonable progress". They talk about "legal and safe reasonable progress". If I don't feel safe doing the speed limit on a road that only has the speed limit due to its status, not its state, I won't.

Iwannahurl

Shenshen wrote: »

If I'm reading this correctly, a non-national road outside of built-up areas would have a blanket standard speed limit of 80 kph, no matter the state of the road (width, bend, surface condition, visibility, etc.), and only if the local council makes a conscious decision will that limit be lowered on any stretch of road?

That would explain a good few insane speed limits in this country all right.

I was told by a Local Authority roads engineer that those 80 km/h speed limits were set for "administrative simplicity".

80 km/h was lower than the previous limit in mph, IIRC, but is clearly too high in many instances.

A national review of speed limits is currently under way, and I would expect those discredited 80 km/h limits will be revised downwards. Or maybe the boreens will be reclassified in some way?

Still, under the legislation (2004, I think) local authorities can apply their own limits as they see fit, according to due process. The fact that they didn't takes us back to the administrative simplicity criterion, I guess.

summerskin

Fuinseog wrote: »

lets not get personal. so you advocate breaking the speed limit?

I know I do. There are stretches of road where an 80 limit is way too low(Ennis bypass is one example, as is the N18 near Shannon Airport). 100 or 120 all the way for me.

--Kaiser--

If you cannot drive at a reasonable speed you should not be driving at all.
End of

TheChizler

summerskin wrote: »

Yes, I overtook about 11 cars on one straight stretch, 4 on the next, and then overtook the middle aged man with hairy cheeks driving the Yaris and beeped my horn at him, gave him the universal hand gesture for "wánker" and felt much better for it. It's nigh on impossible to not tailgate a car driving that slowly. The cars behind it we all tailgating each other, hence the need for me to pass them all at once. The man was a dangerous driver.

He says after tailgating and overtaking 11 cars...

Iwannahurl

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

If you cannot drive at a reasonable speed you should not be driving at all.
End of

To quote another "dinosaur windbag"*:

Show me someone who drives slowly and I’ll show you a catastrophic bore. Someone whose life is empty, shallow and pointless. But there’s more to it than that.

They are also deeply unpleasant. Like bell ringers, they wish to impose their beliefs and their way of life on everyone else. They are people with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in amoral behavior without empathy or remorse. And that’s the dictionary-definition of a psychopath.

* Jeremy Clarkson.


.

Topper Harley

Fuinseog wrote: »

so you advocate breaking the speed limit?

Other people speeding is not your concern. It's not your job to police the roads.

Familiarise yourself with this: Rules of the Road - On the Motorway

Using lanes properly

It is very important that you understand the purpose of each lane on a motorway. To help explain how and when to move from one lane to another, each lane is given a number. Lane 1 is the lane nearest the hard shoulder. This is also known as the inside lane. On a two-lane motorway, the lane nearest the central median is lane 2 (also called the outside lane). On a three-lane motorway, this lane is lane 3.

Lane 1

The normal 'keep left' rule applies. Stay in this lane unless you are overtaking.

Lane 2

On a two-lane motorway, use this for overtaking only and move back into lane 1 when you have finished. You may also use this lane to accommodate traffic merging from the left.

On a three-lane motorway, you may stay in this centre lane while there is slower moving traffic in lane 1.

Lane 3

If you are travelling on a three-lane motorway, you must use this lane only if traffic in lanes 1 and 2 is moving in queues and you need to overtake or accommodate merging traffic. Once you've finished overtaking, move back to your left and allow faster traffic coming from behind to pass by.

Iwannahurl

Topper Harley wrote: »

Other people speeding is not your concern. It's not your job to police the roads.

Familiarise yourself with this: Rules of the Road - On the Motorway

Topper Harley wrote: »

This is exactly the kind of wrong thinking which causes the M50 to go from three lanes to two lanes with an empty lane on the left.

Always drive left, overtake on the right. That's the correct way to drive on any motorway and the speed of other drivers isn't your concern.

If you are driving correctly, you usually won't need to get out of the way, you'll already be out of the way except when you are briefly overtaking, when you're entitled to use the right lane.

By the same token other people breaking any of the road rules is not your concern.

Presumably.

dukedalton

Iwannahurl wrote: »

By the same token other people breaking any of the road rules is not your concern.

Presumably.

Now now, don't be presuming things.

doolox

We are reaching the situation in this country when a pile up will happen because of overzealous enforcement of unduly low speed limits on what I call Revenue Roads; Busy, wide dual carriageways with ridiculously low speed limits of 60 or 80 kph where a majority of the users persistently go 10 to 20 kph faster than the posted speed limit and to go at the speed limit causes hold ups and weaving traffic and aggravation to other road users.

We are being told until we are sick in the face being told that excessive speed is dangerous but it is also true that untypically slow speeds in an inappropriate place is also hazardous to other road users.

While trucks and other speed-limited vehicles are forbidden from using the outer lane of most multilane roads a lot of them do so at 100kph, much to the frustration of faster cars and bikes coming up behind them.

Some car drivers insist on driving in the outer lane at 20kph below the speed limit forcing traffic to undertake or otherwise endanger themselves and others by their thoughtless behaviour.

Somewhat analagous to formation flying of bombers in WW2, close formation driving, forced on other road users by slow drivers in the outside lane is dangerous, requires a lot of concentration at long distances and should be avoided at all costs.

I usually try and get by them but undertaking is illegal in most jurisdictions and inadvisable.

The other alternative is to slow down and drift back out of the pile of cars until such time as the slow driver in the overtakeing lane move back to the slower lanes, usually to exit the motorway and then you can be on your merry way.

If any mistake is made in such a pile of slow moving cars it can result in a multicar pile up. Slow drivers should minimise their use of the outer lane and keep and eye on their rear view mirror, many do not do this.

Iwannahurl

doolox wrote: »

Overzealous enforcement of limits causes pile-ups.

Multi-car crashes with several fatalities sort of thing?