Lane hogging

Pov06

mudstack wrote: »

A lot of people would absolutely care that the person who crashed into their family member/friend was speeding.

Nobody is saying they wouldn't. I would also care if they were not following the ROTR in any way, not just speeding.

That's the difference between drivers. One thinks he is great because he sticks to speed limits even though he is a complete hazard to other drivers.

Another who speeds but follows all the other rules. By the way have you considered what percentage of drivers speed on the motorway? I can bet it's more than 50%.

CiniO

mudstack wrote: »

Yes you would have time more time to react and thats the reason for speed limits, I'm glad you finally see the point of speed limits.

I see the point of driving at safe speed.
For me though, safe speed is just a speed I consider to be the one where I'm in full control of a vehicle and allows me to react in nearly every circumstance which might occur (I said nearly as it's impossible to account for absolutely everything).
This speed depends on type of road I drive, of weather and road conditions, amount of traffic, vehicle I drive and it's conditions, and my own state (f.e. if I'm tired, annoyed, or happy and rested).
Very often my safe speed is above speed limit. Other times it's below.
So far over last 15 years, this technique worked for me very good.

A lot of people would absolutely care that the person who crashed into their family member/friend was speeding.

Would you?
Would it really make any difference for you if person who caused an accident in which your child was killed, was speeding or not?
If it would, what kind of diffference would it be?

mudstack

Pov06 wrote: »

Nobody is saying they wouldn't. I would also care if they were not following the ROTR in any way, not just speeding.

That's the difference between drivers. One thinks he is great because he sticks to speed limits even though he is a complete hazard to other drivers.

Another who speeds but follows all the other rules. By the way have you considered what percentage of drivers speed on the motorway? I can bet it's more than 50%.

You keep speeding and I'll follow the rules of the road. I hope your speeding doesn't cause an accident that kills another one of my family members.

Jesus.

Mudstack, if you went around the corner of a boreen at 50mph and ploughed into a pair of kids would you consider yourself to be speeding? According to the speed limit you wouldn't

mudstack

Jesus. wrote: »

Mudstack, if you went around the corner of a boreen at 50mph and ploughed into a pair of kids would you consider yourself to be speeding? According to the speed limit you wouldn't

That would not be an accident caused by speeding, my point is speeding does cause some accidents hence the reason for speed limits.

Pov06

mudstack wrote: »

That would not be an accident caused by speeding, my point is speeding does cause some accidents hence the reason for speed limits.

Speeding is not the cause of any accident. Like I said, you keep contradicting yourself.

Jesus.

mudstack wrote: »

That would not be an accident caused by speeding.

What would have caused it so?

mudstack

Pov06 wrote: »

Speeding is not the cause of any accident. Like I said, you keep contradicting yourself.

It is of course and I have not contradicted myself once. I will not argue with you anymore.

A saying that you put me in mind of is "You can talk to a man with a wooden head but not a wooden leg".

mudstack

Jesus. wrote: »

What would have caused it so?

In this case not speeding, accidents happen. Some accidents cannot be avoided. Some accidents that are caused by people speeding can be avoided.

See above post regarding wooden head.

Jesus.

mudstack wrote: »

In this case not speeding, accidents happen. Some accidents cannot be avoided. Some accidents that are caused by people speeding can be avoided.

So going around a corner on a boreen at 50mph isn't speeding in your view but doing 63 on the M50 is?

And you're saying that such an accident at 50mph on a Boreen cannot be avoided? How about driving at 15mph instead!

Pov06

mudstack wrote: »

In this case not speeding, accidents happen. Some accidents cannot be avoided. Some accidents that are caused by people speeding can be avoided.

See above post regarding wooden head.

Great excuse! Accidents happen.

My tyres are completely bald, but I wasn't speeding, shuuure accidents happen!

Great, absolutely great.

GTE

Topic is lane hogging on a motorway, everyone.

Feckers, the lot of em.

mudstack

Jesus. wrote: »

So going around a corner on a boreen at 50mph isn't speeding in your view but doing 63 on the M50 is?

And you're saying that such an accident at 50mph on a Boreen cannot be avoided!

Where did I say going around a corner on a boreen isn't speeding? This is all circumstantial. It would depend on the corner and the speed limit on the road and common sense.

What has doing 63 on the M50 got to do with 2 kids being killed on a corner?
Some accidents can not be avoided hence the need for the word accident.
Accidents caused by speed can be avoided by not speeding.

You say it as if I condone someone going around a corner at a certain speed and killing 2 children. Like I said I follow the rules of the road and use common sense.

I'm glad you see that speeding can kill though.

Also see above post regarding wooden head.

9935452

CiniO wrote: »

I see the point of driving at safe speed.
For me though, safe speed is just a speed I consider to be the one where I'm in full control of a vehicle and allows me to react in nearly every circumstance which might occur (I said nearly as it's impossible to account for absolutely everything).
This speed depends on type of road I drive, of weather and road conditions, amount of traffic, vehicle I drive and it's conditions, and my own state (f.e. if I'm tired, annoyed, or happy and rested).
Very often my safe speed is above speed limit. Other times it's below.
So far over last 15 years, this technique worked for me very good.



Would you?
Would it really make any difference for you if person who caused an accident in which your child was killed, was speeding or not?
If it would, what kind of diffference would it be?

Im one who has no problem in driving the car on above the speed limit but one problem with doing this is others are following you at this speed , They tail gate you, when you need to stop quick , they will hit you.
one of these situations is passing a speed van, you see it and brake hard , there is a chance of the car behind hitting you.
Its amazing how close a person will drive up your rear end at 90mph

mudstack

Pov06 wrote: »

Great excuse! Accidents happen.

My tyres are completely bald, but I wasn't speeding, shuuure accidents happen!

Great, absolutely great.

Driving with bald tyres is also breaking the rules of the road, the same as speeding.

Accidents caused by breaking the rules of the road can be avoided but accidents will always happen.

Your arguments get worse with every post because your original argument is a stupid one.

Pov06

mudstack wrote: »

Driving with bald tyres is also breaking the rules of the road, the same as speeding.

Accidents caused by breaking the rules of the road can be avoided but accidents will always happen.

Your arguments get worse with every post because your original argument is a stupid one.

Yeah middle lane hogging is also breaking the rules of the road. Why do you make it out to be less wrong than speeding?

mudstack

Pov06 wrote: »

Yeah middle lane hogging is also breaking the rules of the road. Why do you make it out to be less wrong than speeding?

I didn't you idiot.

Jesus.

mudstack wrote: »

Where did I say going around a corner on a boreen isn't speeding? This is all circumstantial. It would depend on the corner and the speed limit on the road and common sense. What has doing 63 on the M50 got to do with 2 kids being killed on a corner?
Some accidents can not be avoided hence the need for the word accident.
Accidents caused by speed can be avoided by not speeding.You say it as if I condone someone going around a corner at a certain speed and killing 2 children. Like I said I follow the rules of the road and use common sense.I'm glad you see that speeding can kill though. Also see above post regarding wooden head.

You never used the common sense bit until now, you just used the rules of the road (which you admitted you break with your first post).

The problem is, you believe a speed limit dreamt up by someone in Government is infallible. Driving at 50 around a corner on a boreen is technically breaking no law so you say its unavoidable because accidents happen. You actually don't consider it to be speeding because the law says it isn't.

Conversely you believe someone to be doing 63mph on the M50 to be speeding and more dangerous because someone in an office in Dublin tells you it is.

Are you insane?

CiniO

mudstack wrote: »

Where did I say going around a corner on a boreen isn't speeding? This is all circumstantial. It would depend on the corner and the speed limit on the road and common sense.

While speeding is driving above posted speed limit, then driving at 50mph (80km/h) on country borren is not speeding. That's a fact.

What has doing 63 on the M50 got to do with 2 kids being killed on a corner?
Some accidents can not be avoided hence the need for the word accident.
Accidents caused by speed can be avoided by not speeding.

So which accidents can not be avoided?
Every accident is caused by something - in vast majority by driver error, and in vast minority by mechanical failure. In tiny amount of cases by something else, like big boulder falling on a car off the mountain or something like that. But that's negligible really.

If all drivers drove correctly, there would be nearly no accidents.

CiniO

mudstack wrote: »

Driving with bald tyres is also breaking the rules of the road, the same as speeding.

Accidents caused by breaking the rules of the road can be avoided but accidents will always happen.

Can you give few examples of accident which will always happen and can not be avoided by obeying the rules of the road and appropriate driving technique?
Because I can hardly think of any

CiniO

Jesus. wrote: »

You never used the common sense bit until now, you just used the rules of the road (which you admitted you break with your first post).

The problem is, you believe a speed limit dreamt up by someone in Government is infallible. Driving at 50 around a corner on a boreen is technically breaking no law so you say its unavoidable because accidents happen. You actually don't consider it to be speeding because the law says it isn't.

Conversely you believe someone to be doing 63mph on the M50 to be speeding and more dangerous because someone in an office in Dublin tells you it is.

Are you insane?

That's the essence.
Speed limits are average chosen by someone by the desk in the office.
Real driving is way more complicated than obeying some number on the speedometer.
Obeying it does not guarantee you won't crash, as well as not obeying it won't guarantee you will crash.
In general drivers have to learn to drive with safe speed, and be able to judge it yourself.
Speed limits are not even close to telling drivers what speed will be safe.

mudstack

Jesus. wrote: »

You never used the common sense bit until now, you just used the rules of the road (which you admitted you break with your first post).

The problem is, you believe a speed limit dreamt up by someone in Government is infallible. Driving at 50 around a corner on a boreen is technically breaking no law so you say its unavoidable because accidents happen. You actually don't consider it to be speeding because the law says it isn't.

Conversely you believe someone to be doing 63mph on the M50 to be speeding and more dangerous because someone in an office in Dublin tells you it is.

Are you insane?

I did not say that driving around every corner at 50 is not dangerous and I do not. I never said that your made up scenario of driving around a dangerous bend at 50kph is an unavoidable accident. Some accidents are unavoidable.

I do not believe that driving 63mph on the M50 is more dangerous than driving around a corner at 50kph is more dangerous, nor did I say it was. It is more dangerous than driving at the speed limit though which is lower than that.

I did not admit I break the rules of the road in my first post. You are allowed drive in the overtaking lane to overtake slower moving traffic which is what I said.

Do everyone a favour and adhere to the rules of the road and use some common sense. Of course you don't have to drive at the speed limit around a dangerous bend just because it's the speed limit.

Stop making things up to suit your augment.

The only thing that would make me question my sanity is the fact I am arguing with a idiot like yourself.

Jesus.

mudstack wrote: »

I did not say that driving around every corner at 50 is not dangerous and I do not. I never said that your made up scenario of driving around a dangerous bend at 50kph is an unavoidable accident. Some accidents are unavoidable. I do not believe that driving 63mph on the M50 is more dangerous than driving around a corner at 50kph is more dangerous, nor did I say it was. It is more dangerous than driving at the speed limit though which is lower than that.I did not admit I break the rules of the road in my first post. You are allowed drive in the overtaking lane to overtake slower moving traffic which is what I said.Do everyone a favour and adhere to the rules of the road and use some common sense. Of course you don't have to drive at the speed limit around a dangerous bend just because it's the speed limit.Stop making things up to suit your augment.The only thing that would make me question my sanity is the fact I am arguing with a idiot like yourself.

I said 50mph

Do you think going around a corner on a little boreen at 50mph is speeding?

mudstack

Pov06 wrote: »

Remember, I'm not the tool hogging the middle lane. If you like hogging the middle lane you should realise you are an accident waiting to happen.

Not my problem. Any time I undertake I am ready to shoot into the hard shoulder.

You should not be undertaking or have any need to shoot into the hard shoulder.

There could be someone sitting in the hard shoulder broken down and you could plough into them. It is not there for you to drive into when you are not in control of a situation because you are undertaking.

mudstack

Jesus. wrote: »

I said 50mph

Do you think going around a corner on a little boreen at 50mph is speeding?

By law it would depend on the speed limit. Only an idiot would drive around a corner at 50mph if it were not safe to do so.

Would you like separate speed limits for corners to stop idiots like yourself from speeding around them?

You don't have to drive at the speed limit but you are law bound to stay under it.

degsie

mudstack wrote: »

I didn't you idiot.

mudstack

degsie wrote: »

Vic and Bob are funny. The arguments for speeding here are still idiotic.

Jesus.

mudstack wrote: »

By law it would depend on the speed limit.

There's a speed limit of 50mph on a narrow twisty boreen. If you drove down that little road at 50mph do you think it is speeding?

mudstack

Jesus. wrote: »

There's a speed limit of 50mph on a narrow twisty boreen. If you drove down that little road at 50mph do you think it is speeding?

I've provided you with a link, I can't be explaining the rules of the road to you all night or when to use common sense, or spend anymore time answering your stupid questions. Speeding is dangerous, driving too slowly is also dangerous. Adhere to the roads and I hope I, or anyone I know doesn't become a victim of your idiocy in the future.


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

Pov06

mudstack wrote: »

You should not be undertaking or have any need to shoot into the hard shoulder.

There could be someone sitting in the hard shoulder broken down and you could plough into them. It is not there for you to drive into when you are not in control of a situation because you are undertaking.

I'm not a middle lane hogger so I am aware of my surroundings.

Jesus.

mudstack wrote: »

I've provided you with a link, I can't be explaining the rules of the road to you all night or when to use common sense, or spend anymore time answering your stupid questions. Speeding is dangerous, driving too slowly is also dangerous. Adhere to the roads and I hope I, or anyone I know doesn't become a victim of your idiocy in the future.

Answer the question please, would you consider doing 50mph on a little windy boreen speeding?

Also, you said that driving at 62 on the M50 was safer than driving at 63. Why don't you then drive at 40 and never exceed that? That'd be much safer no?

mudstack

Jesus. wrote: »

Answer the question please, would you consider doing 50mph on a little windy boreen speeding?

Also, you said that driving at 62 on the M50 was safer than driving at 63. Why don't you then drive at 40 and never exceed that? That'd be much safer no?

The answers are all in the link, it's all explained for you there in easy to understand language. Have a little read and sleep on it;)

Jesus.

So you won't answer.

Funny that you started this whole thing by admitting you break the law in your very first post!

You Sir are a danger to everyone on the road

Pov06

Typical response from the "speed kills" brigade. I guess these are the same people who drive at 60 km/h on slip roads and then begin accelerating when they get onto the motorway...

dr.fuzzenstein

Pov06 wrote: »

Typical response from the "speed kills" brigade. I guess these are the same people who drive at 60 km/h on slip roads and then begin accelerating when they get onto the motorway...

The argument is usually "Babies Will Die!" and if you argue against, you are a baby murderer. Inescapable logic. :rolleyes:

Dr Turk Turkelton

After reading sixteen pages of this thread I still can't believe the amount of idiots I have to share a road with.

JillyQ

From reading this thread I am glad to see that it is not just me that stupidity and general bad driving on motorways annoys the hell out of most of us.

marno21

Can't remember the last time there was an incident on any of Ireland's motorways caused by speed. However, there are daily accidents on the M50, N7 and N40 due to this disease that is lane ignorance in Ireland. If I'm doing 140km/h in the overtaking lane and I then come upon someone dawdling in the overtaking lane it's a recipe for disaster.

In addition to that this lane indiscipline is severely limiting the capacity of Ireland's motorways & dual carriageways, and many of said accidents above are caused by brainless people using these roads.

JillyQ

marno21 wrote: »

Can't remember the last time there was an incident on any of Ireland's motorways caused by speed. However, there are daily accidents on the M50, N7 and N40 due to this disease that is lane ignorance in Ireland. If I'm doing 140km/h in the overtaking lane and I then come upon someone dawdling in the overtaking lane it's a recipe for disaster.

In addition to that this lane indiscipline is severely limiting the capacity of Ireland's motorways & dual carriageways, and many of said accidents above are caused by brainless people using these roads.

Try using the M6 & M4 they have more than there fair share of clowns on them

marno21

JillyQ wrote: »

Try using the M6 & M4 they have more than there fair share of clowns on them

The M1/2/3/4/6/7/8/9/11/18/20 are bad enough but the 3 lanes (N7, N40 & M50) are just abysmal

K.Flyer

marno21 wrote: »

[...]If I'm doing 140km/h in the overtaking lane and I then come upon someone dawdling in the overtaking lane it's a recipe for disaster.
[...]

100kph could be considered "dawdling" compared to 140kph. However if the same car is in the overtaking lane travelling at 100 kph in a 100kph zone and IS overtaking traffic at the same time, and you come upon them travelling at 140kph then the potential recipe for disaster is you.

ironclaw

K.Flyer wrote: »

100kph could be considered "dawdling" compared to 140kph. However if the same car is in the overtaking lane travelling at 100 kph in a 100kph zone and IS overtaking traffic at the same time, and you come upon them travelling at 140kph then the potential recipe for disaster is you.

This I agree with. I speed, no point denying it, but if someone is respecting the limit and overtaking, its not my place to force them out of the way or ride up there backside. They are entitled to be there for the duration of their maneuver. The issue only is if they try to pull out sans indication at the last minute or maintain their position in the overtaking lane for longer than necessary.

JillyQ

marno21 wrote: »

The M1/2/3/4/6/7/8/9/11/18/20 are bad enough but the 3 lanes (N7, N40 & M50) are just abysmal

Couldnt agree more maybe there should be a national lane discipline day :rolleyes:

dr.fuzzenstein

JillyQ wrote: »

Couldnt agree more maybe there should be a national lane discipline day :rolleyes:

Wouldn't that be nice. The RSA should hang up posters "Sure as long as you're not speeding, we don't give a sh*t"

H3llR4iser

Jesus. wrote: »

No point in doing that Cinio. Just keep on driving in lane one

I agree it is useless to try and teach maths to a donkey; However, I would only undertake in an absolutely farcical situation - e.g. driver going 50km/h on the overtaking lane.

As stupid/pointless as it sounds, if I am driving left and come up a middle lane hogger I go the trouble of checking mirrors and move 2 lanes back and forth. Why? I am not sure if it's a Cork thing, but drivers around fancy themselves vigilantes - especially the ones you see doing 80 in the overtaking lane. One in two WILL squeeze you towards the armco if you attempt an undertake, in a way that would cause a collision if you didn't back out.

kbannon wrote: »

It's only in recent years that drivers are being taught properly so it's not surprising that standards on the whole are poor.
However, there is a small cohort of arrogant or selfish drivers who deliberately block drivers for some fecked up reason or another.

I would say they still aren't - a while ago I posted about seeing not one but two driving school cars, clearly engaged in driving lessons in that very moment, entering a three-lane dual carriageway and jutting directly in the middle lane as soon as the dotted line appeared on the slip road. I am "happy" to report they keep doing that nearly on a daily basis - and for all the learners in these cars to do exactly the same maneuver, it means it's the way they're told to do by their "instructors". Way to properly educate future drivers.

mudstack wrote: »

Is it considered lane-hogging if someone is driving at the speed limit or slightly over and driving faster than the majority of cars in the slow lane and waiting to pull in behind a car travelling at roughly the same speed as themselves or faster?

Should they have to pull in and slow down to allow someone driving at an excessive speed to overtake them then try to pull back into the overtaking lane?

Honest question.

Certainly not - you have nowhere to go and can't be expected to disappear.

thomur wrote: »

Ok, maybe my lack of knowledge but I always thought it was for people who were exiting at the next exit

And here we go, I think we have the silver bullet. I would guess a lot of people think the leftmost lane is for exiting only.

ironclaw wrote: »

This I agree with. I speed, no point denying it, but if someone is respecting the limit and overtaking, its not my place to force them out of the way or ride up there backside. They are entitled to be there for the duration of their maneuver. The issue only is if they try to pull out sans indication at the last minute or maintain their position in the overtaking lane for longer than necessary.

Exactly. One small addition - people also need to get out of the mentality that "I indicate, therefore I can move across whenever I like". Check the mirrors and possibly your blind spot - over the shoulder, half a second glance will tell you if something you can't see in the mirror is there, like a motorbike.

marno21

In the case of the M50, the leftmost lane IS for exiting only, the auxiliary lane.

More education needs to be included too as to the different markings for the auxilliary lane, as there is already signage about it before the exit.

xabi

marno21 wrote: »

In the case of the M50, the leftmost lane IS for exiting only, the auxiliary lane.

More education needs to be included too as to the different markings for the auxilliary lane, as there is already signage about it before the exit.

The auxillary lane is only in parts of the M50 though, and its clearly marked so there should be no excuses.

DakarVert

Most people simply just can't drive.

Witnessed someone REVERSING up the M7 on the hard shoulder because they missed the Cork M8 exit.

degsie

No such thing as slow or fast lanes, come on ppl! How can someone who thinks this be allowed to drive at all :mad:

JillyQ

DakarVert wrote: »

Most people simply just can't drive.

Witnessed someone REVERSING up the M7 on the hard shoulder because they missed the Cork M8 exit.

That doesn't surprise me