Lane hogging

Michael8000

Pov06 wrote: »

Check mirrors, indicate, move into lane 2. Check mirrors, indicate, move into lane 3, overtake. Check mirrors, indicate, move into lane 2. Check mirrors, indicate, move into lane 1.

That's what I do but it is just so unnecessary!

Pov06

Michael8000 wrote: »

That's what I do but it is just so unnecessary!

The other option is to undertake but if the hogger pulls into lane 1 without checking their mirrors it will be your fault

biko

Michael8000 wrote: »

That's what I do but it is just so unnecessary!

It's necessary. You can only move into a lane when it's safe to do so.
If you move into a lane where someone else is, you are obstructing them or could cause a collision.

Please use your mirrors and indicate properly, and stay safe - for my sake more than yours. I don't want you causing a collision with me.

Michael8000

biko wrote: »

It's necessary. You can only move into a lane when it's safe to do so.
If you move into a lane where someone else is, you are obstructing them or could cause a collision.

Please use your mirrors and indicate properly, and stay safe - for my sake more than yours. I don't want you causing a collision with me.

It wouldn't be necessary if the other driver was driving in the correct lane but I'm sure you knew that already.

ironclaw

Michael8000 wrote: »

It wouldn't be necessary if the other driver was driving in the correct lane but I'm sure you knew that already.

Either way you have to overtake, but instead of one move, its two. Either way you have to overtake. People seem to think there is a fee for lane changing and avoid at all costs

Michael8000

ironclaw wrote: »

Either way you have to overtake, but instead of one move, its two. Either way you have to overtake. People seem to think there is a fee for lane changing and avoid at all costs

But surely from a safety point of view there is more risk when you make more maneuvers? In my example I have to carry out double the maneuvers than I would if the other car was in the correct lane.

Isn't this riskier?

You seem to be of the opinion that "Ah sure you would have to overtake them any way, what's the problem?"

CiniO

MrMaki wrote: »

Disagree
For some reason unexperienced young drivers are cause of more accidents than any other group.
.

Have you got any reliable source of data to confirm that fact?

ironclaw

Michael8000 wrote: »

But surely from a safety point of view there is more risk when you make more maneuvers? In my example I have to carry out double the maneuvers than I would if the other car was in the correct lane.

Isn't this riskier?

You seem to be of the opinion that "Ah sure you would have to overtake them any way, what's the problem?"

A driver can reasonably expect traffic to be coming from behind, from over their right shoulder. They are not going to expect someone coming from their left, potentially sitting in their blind spot and undertaking them. A bad driver will panic or not understand whats going on and that causes accidents.

Expect the unexpected, but don't also do the unexpected. We pass on the right in this country as per the Rules of the Road and Statues, it easier if we all sing from the same sheet. Driving is dangerous, there is no need to increase the danger by doing what suits us and what is unlawful in the first place.

Michael8000

ironclaw wrote: »

A driver can reasonably expect traffic to be coming from behind, from over their right shoulder. They are not going to expect someone coming from their left, potentially sitting in their blind spot and undertaking them. A bad driver will panic or not understand whats going on and that causes accidents.

Expect the unexpected, but don't also do the unexpected. We pass on the right in this country as per the Rules of the Road and Statues, it easier if we all sing from the same sheet. Driving is dangerous, there is no need to increase the danger by doing what suits us and what is unlawful in the first place.

Just to be clear I've never advocated passing on the left nor do I practice it. That's not the point that I'm trying to make here.

I'm making the point that it's riskier for a driver to navigate two lanes across and back than one lane across then back.
A maneuver that wouldn't be necessary if drivers practiced correct lane discipline.

Jesus.

Pov06 wrote: »

Check mirrors, indicate, move into lane 2. Check mirrors, indicate, move into lane 3, overtake. Check mirrors, indicate, move into lane 2. Check mirrors, indicate, move into lane 1.

Madness. Just keep on driving in lane one. Its safer and makes more sense

Pov06

Jesus. wrote: »

Madness. Just keep on driving in lane one. Its safer and makes more sense

http://rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf Page 143

"Lane 1 - The normal ‘keep left’ rule applies. Stay in this lane unless you are overtaking"

How exactly is it madness? You must be another "I've been driving for 50 years, these L-plate slow pokes don't know what they are doing, huff puff herr herr"

JillyQ

Jesus. wrote: »

Madness. Just keep on driving in lane one. Its safer and makes more sense

Use the left lane for driving right lane(s) for overtaking

dr.fuzzenstein

Jesus. wrote: »

Madness. Just keep on driving in lane one. Its safer and makes more sense

You see, there's where you're going wrong!
You are applying logic to other drivers and the rule of the law. We can't be having that, I'm afraid.
You need to look at this from two perspectives. Strictly speaking, when you're on a 3 lane motorway and Biddy is in the 3rd lane going 80 km/h in her Micra, you have to move from lane one to lane 3, sit behind here and wait for her to move over. You may flash her once or twice and use your indicator to signal you intend to overtake. You cannot start beeping or flashing excessively, or tailgate, if Biddy is not in the mood to move over, the only legally available option is to sit behind her at 80 km/h for the next 126 km. If you are asking for the official answer, that is it.

Of course the practical answer is that you won't be sitting behind Biddy, because she has no clue what goes on and wouldn't even notice if her car was struck by a medium sized meteorite and all your beeping and flashing is useless. She is deaf and blind and has her mirrors folded in anyway.
So the only way to get by is to overtake on the "wrong" side and hope there are no cops out in the mood to fcuk people over for the fun of it. Or that Biddy is in fact one of them. because if you are caught by a cop out to do you, you are in the wrong plain and simple. There are people who argue differently, but verdicts that will support what they spout are very hard to find.

edit:
The good news is that the Gardai have started to pull auld Biddy over and explained to her by way of a ticket and points that she is not to do that, but will this really help? She will just call up Joe and complain about being harassed.

mudstack

Pov06 wrote: »

http://rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf Page 143

"Lane 1 - The normal ‘keep left’ rule applies. Stay in this lane unless you are overtaking"

How exactly is it madness? You must be another "I've been driving for 50 years, these L-plate slow pokes don't know what they are doing, huff puff herr herr"

Nice to see Pov06 taking the moral high ground on undertaking. His previous post...

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.

More Povo6 logic...

That can be argued.

For instance:
Car A is travelling at 80 km/h
Car B is travelling at 120 km/h

What happens during a side-swipe? A big collision.

Now:
Car A is travelling at 120 km/h
Car B is travelling at 120 km/h

What happens during a side-swipe? A small tap. If both drivers steer away from each other everything should be fine.

more still...

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

He was in Germany once though and seen the autobahn so he knows what he is talking about.

He's a young petrol head who enjoys speeding and wants to dictate to everyone else how to drive.

He doesn't believe two cars colliding at 120kph will result in any major incident.

This is what you are up against on the roads.

He got one thing right though, not all young drivers are idiots just some.

Jesus.

Pov06 wrote: »

How exactly is it madness? You must be another "I've been driving for 50 years, these L-plate slow pokes don't know what they are doing, huff puff herr herr"

You can carry on doing it mate its no skin off my nose. But hell would have to freeze over first for me to drive like that across the M50 every day. I'd have gone insane by Wednesday

Pov06

mudstack wrote: »

Nice to see Pov06 taking the moral high ground on undertaking. His previous post...

More Povo6 logic...

more still...

He was in Germany once though and seen the autobahn so he knows what he is talking about.

He's a young petrol head who enjoys speeding and wants to dictate to everyone else how to drive.

He doesn't believe two cars colliding at 120kph will result in any major incident.

This is what you are up against on the roads.

He got one thing right though, not all young drivers are idiots just some.

A poster asked what's the most legal and safest way to overtake, I told him/her.

Clearly I know more than you since you're the person who told us that you drive in the middle lane and get overtaken and undertaken. Clearly I'm the problem!

You also seem like an expert in crashes. I've been in 2 crashes in my life and I'm speaking from experience. What's your experience? Driving like an idiot for 28 years and still being alive? I think people around you are just safer and are avoiding you.

Jesus. wrote: »

You can carry on doing it mate its no skin off my nose. But hell would have to freeze over first for me to drive like that across the M50 every day. I'd have gone insane by Wednesday

Obviously it's not practical, but if you want to be 100% legal on your doings then that's your only choice I guess.

mudstack

Pov06 wrote: »

A poster asked what's the most legal and safest way to overtake, I told him/her.

Clearly I know more than you since you're the person who told us that you drive in the middle lane and get overtaken and undertaken. Clearly I'm the problem!



Obviously it's not practical, but if you want to be 100% legal on your doings then that's your only choice I guess.

There you go again with the I know everything.

I said some people (probably such as yourself) try and undertake me sometimes while I am overtaking.
There's no point arguing with you. Hopefully you will learn with time.

dr.fuzzenstein

mudstack wrote: »

He doesn't believe two cars colliding at 120kph will result in any major incident.

This is what you are up against on the roads.

He got one thing right though, not all young drivers are idiots just some.

If two cars are driving 120 km/h side by side and touch laterally, no greater force is transferred than at any other speed.
Math question: If two cars are traveling side by side at the same speed, what is their speed relative to each other?

edit:
Of course it depends, if one car just yanks the wheel and manages to pit the other car, there will be a spin. Anyone changing lanes like that should not be on the road

mudstack

Pov06 wrote: »

A poster asked what's the most legal and safest way to overtake, I told him/her.

Clearly I know more than you since you're the person who told us that you drive in the middle lane and get overtaken and undertaken. Clearly I'm the problem!

You also seem like an expert in crashes. I've been in 2 crashes in my life and I'm speaking from experience. What's your experience? Driving like an idiot for 28 years and still being alive? I think people around you are just safer and are avoiding you.



Obviously it's not practical, but if you want to be 100% legal on your doings then that's your only choice I guess.

You're confusing me with another poster. I not surprised you've been in a few crashes though, let's hope you don't cause any more.

Jesus.

Pov06 wrote: »

Obviously it's not practical, but if you want to be 100% legal on your doings then that's your only choice I guess.

I would say its also safer doing it my way as opposed to crossing 4 lanes of traffic every few hundred yards.

Meh legal shmegal. Its impossible to drive 100% legal all the time. It really is

*Kol*

Some of the quotes in this thread are gold and should be made into a book to read while you're on the jacks. I have been in two accidents in my life so I'm speaking from experience is my favourite so far.

mudstack

*Kol* wrote: »

Some of the quotes in this thread are gold and should be made into a book to read while you're on the jacks. I have been in two accidents in my life so I'm speaking from experience is my favourite so far.

Pure gold, you couldn't make it up, he's only had his license a year, been in two crashes and thinks high speed collisions are minor.

Not all that funny though I suppose considering you may at some point meet this person on the road.

ironclaw

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

If two cars are driving 120 km/h side by side and touch laterally, no greater force is transferred than at any other speed.
Math question: If two cars are traveling side by side at the same speed, what is their speed relative to each other?

Its not the speed, its the energy. You're talking huge amount of kinetic energy. That has to go somewhere. That somewhere is either into the brakes or the surrounding environment. Throw off the balance with a nudge and you'll skip like a stone of the surrounding cars / wall. The difference in energy between 50km/h and 120km/h is orders of magnitude given the squared relationship.

Pov06

mudstack wrote: »

You're confusing me with another poster. I not surprised you've been in a few crashes though, let's hope you don't cause any more.

Both crashes weren't me driving :rolleyes: I like how you jump to assumptions, shows how well concluded your arguments are :P

ironclaw wrote: »

Its not the speed, its the energy. You're talking huge amount of kinetic energy. That has to go somewhere. That somewhere is either into the brakes or the surrounding environment. Throw off the balance with a nudge and you'll skip like a stone of the surrounding cars / wall. The difference in energy between 50km/h and 120km/h is orders of magnitude given the squared relationship.

Chances are if 2 cars touch side by side (not a full on bang) the kinetic energy will remain kinetic i.e. car going forwards. That's the kind of collision I was involved with and the damage to both cars was minimal.

mudstack

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

If two cars are driving 120 km/h side by side and touch laterally, no greater force is transferred than at any other speed.
Math question: If two cars are traveling side by side at the same speed, what is their speed relative to each other?

edit:
Of course it depends, if one car just yanks the wheel and manages to pit the other car, there will be a spin. Anyone changing lanes like that should not be on the road

Hahaha, I've a degree in Maths and Physics, I've also got common sense though.

TheQuietFella

Heading south this morning on the M50. Checked my mirrors to move in to
the central lane to over take and all of a sudden a brown car (didn't get the make) pulled across me from the third lane as I was moving across without sight nor sound of an indicator to go in to lane one. I flashed my lights and there was quite an amount of hand waving. I'm sorry but I'm not psysic!

Pov06

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Heading south this morning on the M50. Checked my mirrors to move in to
the central lane to over take and all of a sudden a brown car (didn't get the make) pulled across me from the third lane as I was moving across without sight nor sound of an indicator to go in to lane one. I flashed my lights and there was quite an amount of hand waving. I'm sorry but I'm not psysic!

As discussed in this thread earlier, flashing never works

DublinWriter

Driving 20+ years, never been in a crash.

The standard of motorway driving in around Dublin in the past year is the most appalling I've ever seen. On each of the past three days I've driven past an accident each day on either the M50 or M1.

Today's smack on the M1 (J1) around 10.30am looked particularly knarly.

It's either people going too slow, or people speeding and tailgating and in both cases, people caring f*ck all for lane discipline.

I couldn't even pin this behaviour down to a single demographic either, it appears that most people once they get on a motorway around Dublin decide to express the inner numpty.

degsie

Wow, everybody must be taking heed from this thread! I was on the M50 this morning and without exception all traffic overtook legally and well within the speed limits. Again, when the overtaking was completed all traffic moved into the leftmost lane leaving a safe distance for the car behind. I put it all down to the sound advise of the expert opinions given by the equally expert drivers who posted on this thread. THANK YOU ALL!






My doctor also said the pills are working a treat for me....

TheQuietFella

Pov06 wrote: »

As discussed in this thread earlier, flashing never works

I'm sure it doesn't but what was I to do to make them aware?
We all have places to go!

K4t

CiniO wrote: »

Wrong understaning on your side.
Speed limit, actual speed, etc doesn't matter.
If you pass another vehicle which is going the same direction as you, becuase you are going quicker that means you are overtaking.

It's not about philosophy.
Law doesn't permit you to do it, so what you are doing is illegal.
Your philosophy is of very little relevance here.

I'd be willing to bet there is some room for maneuver in that law, whereby if a car in the overtaking lane is doing a speed well below the limit, a car passing by at a safe speed in the left hand lane would not be pulled for dangerous driving or for breaking the law.

DublinWriter wrote: »

It's either people going too slow, or people speeding and tailgating.

Bolded what I believe to be the biggest problem on Irish roads.

MrMaki

CiniO wrote: »

Have you got any reliable source of data to confirm that fact?

I do- google young drivers accidents stats compared to older drivers. First results will be from Uk but you can find Irish stats too. Unfortunately I'm too young on this forum to paste links.

dr.fuzzenstein

ironclaw wrote: »

Its not the speed, its the energy. You're talking huge amount of kinetic energy. That has to go somewhere. That somewhere is either into the brakes or the surrounding environment. Throw off the balance with a nudge and you'll skip like a stone of the surrounding cars / wall. The difference in energy between 50km/h and 120km/h is orders of magnitude given the squared relationship.

It's about speed relative to each other. Also, the speed vectors are important.
If two cars are driving side by side at 120 km/h, their speed relative to each other is 0. Now the important speed is closing speed. If one car moves to the side, it will happen at a very low speed, though the forward momentum is 120, the sideways momentum is very little.
Two cars crashing head long into each other is something very different to two cars driving side by side at that speed and touching laterally.
In the first scenario all energy is converted, resulting in a major crash.
In the second scenario it is very possible for both cars to touch when changing lane slowly and...nothing.
Otherwise two people touching each other on a moving train would be thrown out the window, since they also move at 120 km/h each on a fast train.
Kinetic energy in itself means nothing, a boulder resting on the ground has kinetic energy.

An aside, the old "two cars crashing will double the damage" is also a fallacy. There is more energy, but that energy is also tied to more mass to absorb the energy, so hitting a car at 120 is the same as hitting a wall at 120. The wall could even be worse, because it has no give.
But that is just an aside.

And the last thing, traveling at 120 km/h does not equate having an accident at 120. One could see the obstruction and slow down significantly before hitting. So many factors that 10 accidents at 120 could have 10 different outcomes.

edit:

I all depends of course. Two cars could touch and nothing happens, or one of the driver uses the tried and tested method of wildly yanking the steering wheel and then there's going to be a big splat.

mudstack

Depends what the wall is made from

In reality, things are rarely that simple.
We're not talking perfectly set up laboratory conditions here.

First off, the cars will more than likely not be of equal mass e.g. a Range Rover and a Micra.

A car pulling into the left lane unaware of a car undertaking it on it's blind spot could very easily put that other car into the rail at the side of the road. It wouldn't necessarily take a Dukes of Hazard style ditching. If the car in the inside lane is travelling at speed, it will be harder for the driver to regain control of the car.

It would also depend on where the car was hit. In reality the cars probably won't be exactly side by side.
The car moving into the inside lane in this case may be clipped at the rear causing a spin.

Same goes for a side hit to a car in the overtaking lane.

So no, if two cars driving side by side of equal mass collide, the result may not be a catastrophic crash but in reality things are rarely this simple.

We're not dealing with robots here and ideal conditions.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Pov06 wrote: »

That's exactly the kind of drivers we don't need on the motorways. "I've been driving for 28 years, I never crashed therefore I'm right"

Look at yourself, you're pathetic. It doesn't matter how many years you drove, you're still learning each time you drive, so don't come here and dare to say you're a perfect driver. You don't need to drive for 50 years to learn lane usage, it's a simple concept I grasped in a few minutes.

You must be great if it only took you your 10 years experience to learn that.

Where did I say I was a perfect driver, only a fool would think that they can be perfect in a few minutes.
Anyhow we should all bow to your superior road skills and knowledge as you have been driving for ten whole months on your own,on the roads without your mammy holding your hand.

Pov06

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

you have been driving for ten whole months on your own,on the roads without your mammy holding your hand.

Provisional licence since 2012 sir. Add that to experience driving vans while I was working at a van repair centre at the age of 16.

You have minimal information and maximum insults.

There is no need to say X is a bad driver because they are a learner driver or whatever. Your ego will only kill you to be honest. By saying "oh you haven't had a full licence for a year" you are implying you're a better driver when in fact there are so many factors to being a good driver, such as good reactions which an older person may start losing.

So go on, tell my why do I have to tell you my "qualifications" to be able to express my opinion on this forum?

Dr Turk Turkelton

Pov06 wrote: »

Provisional licence since 2012 sir. Add that to experience driving vans while I was working at a van repair centre at the age of 16.

You have minimal information and maximum insults.

There is no need to say X is a bad driver because they are a learner driver or whatever. Your ego will only kill you to be honest. By saying "oh you haven't had a full licence for a year" you are implying you're a better driver when in fact there are so many factors to being a good driver, such as good reactions which an older person may start losing.

So go on, tell my why do I have to tell you my "qualifications" to be able to express my opinion on this forum?

Where did I ask for your qualifications, sure it's obvious that you have only been driving for ten months unaccompanied and a couple of years before that when you could get a licenced driver to accompany you.
Not sure where your getting that I have an ego tbh, maybe have a look closer to home.

Pov06

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

Where did I ask for your qualifications, sure it's obvious that you have only been driving for ten months unaccompanied and a couple of years before that when you could get a licenced driver to accompany you.
Not sure where your getting that I have an ego tbh, maybe have a look closer to home.

Yet again making judgements I see :pac: Who told you I have driven unaccompanied?

Anyway lads & lasses, I will be out of this thread because I'm being denied access here by this experienced driver who knows everything about anything.

Feel free to PM me when I am experienced enough to drive on my own, thanks.