Stopping on motorway hard shoulder?

Deub

Going Forward wrote: »

Wonder why?

Surely the spot the car is stopped in is not being encroached upon every 8 minutes or so if nothing is parked there?

Here is an interview from a Gendarme working on a highway in France where he says the lifespan is 10min:
http://www.charentelibre.fr/2014/08/05/le-chef-des-motards-charentais-regarde-dans-le-retro,1908221.php

But I searched a bit more and I found more articles saying it was between 15 to 20 min. They based their calculs on how long in average the pedestrians killed were on the highway.

Special Circumstances

Going Forward wrote: »

It seems that drivers are drawn like moths to a flame when something is stopped on the hard shoulder.

They don't normally weave all over the road and onto the hard shoulder from what I can see.

Yet when something is parked there bingo!

How is it they do it right at the wong time and also manage to hit something that's just stopped there?

Are all these accidents really as they are reported or are the ones that are hit really driving out under/attempting to rejoin moving traffic half the time?

I just can't fathom how trucks can hit something on a part of the road you normally don't see them driving on to begin with.

Target fixation does exist. For planes, bikes,cars.

Try to ride a bike down some twisty turn lumpy bumpy stuff... look where you want to go, not at what you want to avoid.

In average driving conditions I haven't felt the effects of negative target fixation since about 6 months after I passed my test at latest... but a lot of people's driving seems to be stuck at that level forever judging by evidence out on the road.

I'm sure if I tried driving at a higher level (not on road) I'd notice the same effect until I could hopefully adjust.

Good question about the re-joining the flow. I suspect this is also a significant issue, the majority seem to believe 60-80kph is a good speed to join a 120kph average flow. Simple physics or plain common sense would suggest flooring it and joining at >120kph if possible would be best. The average irish car can scrub speed far far far faster than it can gain it.

But you'd feel a bit vulnerable doing that if you had just spent 10 mins in the hard shoulder talking to limerick traffic corps about the 3 points and a fine and twitter shaming for doing 143kph on the motorway.

jsd1004

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Target fixation does exist. For planes, bikes,cars.

Try to ride a bike down some twisty turn lumpy bumpy stuff... look where you want to go, not at what you want to avoid.

In average driving conditions I haven't felt the effects of negative target fixation since about 6 months after I passed my test at latest... but a lot of people's driving seems to be stuck at that level forever judging by evidence out on the road.

I'm sure if I tried driving at a higher level (not on road) I'd notice the same effect until I could hopefully adjust.

Good question about the re-joining the flow. I suspect this is also a significant issue, the majority seem to believe 60-80kph is a good speed to join a 120kph average flow. Simple physics or plain common sense would suggest flooring it and joining at >120kph if possible would be best. The average irish car can scrub speed far far far faster than it can gain it.

But you'd feel a bit vulnerable doing that if you had just spent 10 mins in the hard shoulder talking to limerick traffic corps about the 3 points and a fine and twitter shaming for doing 143kph on the motorway.

There should be no warning for stopping on a motorway. Minimum 6 points.

Special Circumstances

jsd1004 wrote: »

There should be no warning for stopping on a motorway. Minimum 6 points.

You misunderstand I think... check the garda twitter feed. Gardai stop cars there all the time for very very minor offences. Their preferred motorway "stop and chat and fine and twitter shame" destination is the hard shoulder. Because doing 143kph is "shpeeeed" and is many orders of magnitude more dangerous than shtopping 2 cars in the hard shoulder for a chat, then both of them re-join the flow after one of them being given a dressing down and a punitive insurance penalty for doing what I would consider a safe speed to join a motorway...... but "shpeed kills" ha?

Going Forward

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Target fixation does exist. For planes, bikes,cars.

Try to ride a bike down some twisty turn lumpy bumpy stuff... look where you want to go, not at what you want to avoid.

In average driving conditions I haven't felt the effects of negative target fixation since about 6 months after I passed my test at latest... but a lot of people's driving seems to be stuck at that level forever judging by evidence out on the road.

I'm sure if I tried driving at a higher level (not on road) I'd notice the same effect until I could hopefully adjust.

Good question about the re-joining the flow. I suspect this is also a significant issue, the majority seem to believe 60-80kph is a good speed to join a 120kph average flow. Simple physics or plain common sense would suggest flooring it and joining at >120kph if possible would be best. The average irish car can scrub speed far far far faster than it can gain it.

But you'd feel a bit vulnerable doing that if you had just spent 10 mins in the hard shoulder talking to limerick traffic corps about the 3 points and a fine and twitter shaming for doing 143kph on the motorway.

Thank fcuk someone understands the phenomenon; I've spoken to a few people about it but it didn't really register!

I had no idea it had been identified, but it does answer what I was asking, which is just why vehicles on hard shoulders become "magnets" for being struck:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_fixation


Target fixation is an attentional phenomenon observed in humans in which an individual becomes so focused on an observed object (be it a target or hazard) that they inadvertently increase their risk of colliding with the object. The phenomenon is most commonly associated with scenarios in which the observer is in control of a high-speed vehicle or other mode of transportation, such as race-car drivers,[1] fighter pilots, motorcyclists, mountain bikers, and surfers. In such cases, the observer may fixate so intently on the target that they steer in the direction of their gaze, which is often the ultimate cause of a collision.[1] The term target fixation was used in World War II fighter-bomber pilot training to describe pilots flying into targets during a strafing or bombing run.[2]


https://web.archive.org/web/20140413140554/http://glenedmunds.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=123:the-phenomenon-of-target-fixation-a-how-to-avoid-it&catid=25:driving-articles&Itemid=132

whiskeyman

Going Forward wrote: »

Thank fcuk someone understands the phenomenon; I've spoken to a few people about it but it didn't really register!
[/url]

It's not as convoluted as some may think either.

Basically, wherever you look is where you'll go.
On Youtube etc... you'll often see people on push / motorbikes go flying into trees on 'Fail' movies, and with it being the only tree about you'll wonder how the hell they managed to hit it?
It's simply them overly focusing on trying not to hit it that's the problem! You need to look where you want to go... i.e, either side of the tree and not at it.

Another example can be people texting on the phone while driving. How often do you see people drifting into oncoming lanes? They are likely to have their mobile in their right hand, and their head is looking down/right, thus causing the car to drift right.

Ever have a child run across the road in front of you and force you slam on the breaks? Many have noticed that they actually steer towards the child while breaking, as opposed to away from it because they are looking at the 'target'.


On a side note, has anyone noticed how pretty much none of the media have reported the dangers / legality of stopping on the hard shoulder with that tragic case?
Surely the RSA / Gardai should use it as a point to highlight the message??
Or is it 'too soon', in which case many will simply never learn?

Seth Brundle

CiniO wrote: »

Well, once joining the motorway and already on the slip road, you don't really have a choice anymore. You have to join it.
If traffic is very heavy and it's hard to find a empty slot to move from slip lane to driving lane, you can either force your way through or stop on slip lane.
Both dangerous and illegal, but I would choose the first one as safer.

Of course you have a choice.
If a big truck was coming along in lane 1 and you're on the slip road, you can choose to:

1. speed up and get in front of them if safe to do so
2. slow down and if necessary wait or
3. as someone did recently, keep going onto the motorway and create a disaster!

I join the M50 at the N4 junction daily and quite often have to make a quick decision on whether it will be #1 or #2.

I understand where you're coming from though but don't assume that because it's an inconvenience that it's not an option.
In general (and not looking at you), we don't know how to drive on motorways or dual carriageways in this country. Some people presume that the right of way exists for those joining the motorway and just keep going expecting those on the motorway to get out of their way.

Going Forward

whiskeyman wrote: »

It's not as convoluted as some may think either.

Basically, wherever you look is where you'll go.
On Youtube etc... you'll often see people on push / motorbikes go flying into trees on 'Fail' movies, and with it being the only tree about you'll wonder how the hell they managed to hit it?
It's simply them overly focusing on trying not to hit it that's the problem! You need to look where you want to go... i.e, either side of the tree and not at it.

Another example can be people texting on the phone while driving. How often do you see people drifting into oncoming lanes? They are likely to have their mobile in their right hand, and their head is looking down/right, thus causing the car to drift right.

Ever have a child run across the road in front of you and force you slam on the breaks? Many have noticed that they actually steer towards the child while breaking, as opposed to away from it because they are looking at the 'target'.


On a side note, has anyone noticed how pretty much none of the media have reported the dangers / legality of stopping on the hard shoulder with that tragic case?
Surely the RSA / Gardai should use it as a point to highlight the message??
Or is it 'too soon', in which case many will simply never learn?

All part of it, and I always remember the warnings of not looking at wheels of lorries passing you when cycling when I was younger, "in case you get sucked in to the lorry".

I hadn't known of it being such a defined phenomenon.

On the reporting of the recent case, yes I noticed the lack of detail in reports, but it's probably out of respect/fear of legal issues.

They should, but there's a time and a place I suppose.

I wonder has the "phenomenon" been cited in previous defence cases or inquests?

It's also almost the stuff of conspiracy theories, that immobile objects hypnotise drivers into crashing into them.

Strange things humans.

sheep?

I'm reminded of this episode of Frasier:

CiniO

kbannon wrote: »

Of course you have a choice.
If a big truck was coming along in lane 1 and you're on the slip road, you can choose to:

1. speed up and get in front of them if safe to do so
2. slow down and if necessary wait or
3. as someone did recently, keep going onto the motorway and create a disaster!

I join the M50 at the N4 junction daily and quite often have to make a quick decision on whether it will be #1 or #2.

I understand where you're coming from though but don't assume that because it's an inconvenience that it's not an option.
In general (and not looking at you), we don't know how to drive on motorways or dual carriageways in this country. Some people presume that the right of way exists for those joining the motorway and just keep going expecting those on the motorway to get out of their way.

Problem is drivers not keeping enough distance between each other.
You might be near the truck, and choose an option 1 to accelerate and pull to driving lane in front of the truck, or option 2 to slow down and pull to driving lane behind a truck.
But what actually might happen is that both in front of the truck and behind a truck there will be another vehicle with too small gap for you to join.
In that case, you might have a choice of either 1) forcing yourself into that gap (preferebly behind the truck - not in front of it), or 2) just stopping on slip lane which is about to finish.

If you have a choice between those, I'd choose option 1 as safer.

savagethegoat

whiskeyman wrote: »

It's not as convoluted as some may think either.

Basically, wherever you look is where you'll go.
On Youtube etc... you'll often see people on push / motorbikes go flying into trees on 'Fail' movies, and with it being the only tree about you'll wonder how the hell they managed to hit it?
It's simply them overly focusing on trying not to hit it that's the problem! You need to look where you want to go... i.e, either side of the tree and not at it.

Another example can be people texting on the phone while driving. How often do you see people drifting into oncoming lanes? They are likely to have their mobile in their right hand, and their head is looking down/right, thus causing the car to drift right.

Ever have a child run across the road in front of you and force you slam on the breaks? Many have noticed that they actually steer towards the child while breaking, as opposed to away from it because they are looking at the 'target'.


On a side note, has anyone noticed how pretty much none of the media have reported the dangers / legality of stopping on the hard shoulder with that tragic case?
Surely the RSA / Gardai should use it as a point to highlight the message??
Or is it 'too soon', in which case many will simply never learn?

I hadn't really thought about this before, but it is true that I seem to hit potholes I am studiously trying to avoid. interesting

Esel

I have often seen it said as follows:

Look where you want to go.

PaddyWilliams

Saw an example of this stupidity the other day coming down off junction 4 M50 north bound. Guy pulled in talking on his mobile. I wouldn't mind, but 10 yards behind them there is a recess built into the crash barrier, which, I imagine, is a place you could safely park the car in an emergency. The mind boggles.

Mc Love

People just arent getting it - saw two motorists on the way home yesterday evening, pulled in on the phone

Blazer

Blazer wrote: »

Those people are a menace. Especially when joining a motorway at 50kph.
I now have zero patience for those people and blow the ****e of out of them until they get the message and speed up.

What is the minimum legal speed on a motorway?

TheChizler

Deleted User wrote: »

Blazer wrote: »

Those people are a menace. Especially when joining a motorway at 50kph.
I now have zero patience for those people and blow the ****e of out of them until they get the message and speed up.

What is the minimum legal speed on a motorway?

Anything faster than stopped.

xabi

I recall reading that the average life expectancy while stopped in the HS of a motorway is around 10 mins or less. Has probably been mentioned already with accurate data.

TheChizler

TheChizler wrote: »

Anything faster than stopped.

Pretty much and vehicles must be able to move at a speed of at least 50kmh no?

In which case it is your own responsibility to assume that you may come across someone at that speed.

If you see someone in the hard shoulder you should move to an outside lane to safely pass.
You can do the same for slowly merging traffic.


If the outside lane(s) are full then YOU slow down to safely proceed.

You have no god given right to go 120kmh

PaddyWilliams

TheChizler wrote: »

Anything faster than stopped.

All motorway ahead signs, as far as I'm aware, say that there are no slow vehicles allowed (under 50km/h).

PaddyWilliams

PaddyWilliams wrote: »

All motorway ahead signs, as far as I'm aware, say that there are no slow vehicles allowed (under 50km/h).

That's the minimum achievable speed.
You can be stopped on a motorway, M50 every morning for example

TheChizler

PaddyWilliams wrote: »

TheChizler wrote: »

Anything faster than stopped.

All motorway ahead signs, as far as I'm aware, say that there are no slow vehicles allowed (under 50km/h).

That's only to do with capabilities. Otherwise traffic jams would be illegal.

PaddyWilliams

My apologies, I misread the post. I'm tired and sick. Brain fart!

whereto now

I have a friend who works in maintenance on the M1, he's been rear ended twice in the last year while out on road works. This was while sitting in the hard shoulder in a lorry with flashing lights and flashing arrows alerting traffic to road works ahead !!!! It's like the ad says "always expect the unexpected". I always move over if I see a parked vehicle in the hard shoulder... you never know if a child is going to jump out into traffic....

Mc Love

whereto now wrote: »

I have a friend who works in maintenance on the M1, he's been rear ended twice in the last year while out on road works. This was while sitting in the hard shoulder in a lorry with flashing lights and flashing arrows alerting traffic to road works ahead !!!! It's like the ad says "always expect the unexpected". I always move over if I see a parked vehicle in the hard shoulder... you never know if a child is going to jump out into traffic....

It's not a nice thing to happen but how would you be at fault?

Seth Brundle

Mc Love wrote: »

It's not a nice thing to happen but how would you be at fault?

I guess because you could have forseen the possibility.
Legally though you would be grand - the fault would lie in terms of blaming yourself (IMO).

Voodoomelon

My mother was out for lunch today with neighbors and they were talking about the woman who lost her life whilst on the phone.

One of the neighbors couldn't understand why the lady shouldn't have pulled over to answer the phone. "But it was a call from the hospital?" "How else could she have answered it?" "She pulled out to the side to answer it like you're supposed to".

Obviously no one deserves to loose their life so horribly, but there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of drivers in Ireland who see the hard shoulder as a quick stop spot to answer the phone/find change for the toll/wallop the kids/have a piss etc and not the extremely dangerous emergency lane that it is.

grogi

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

I've never come across a dual carriageway with a 120kmph speed limit. Where did you see it?

I thought the dual carriageways were capped at 100kmph.... like the N7 from Red Cow to Naas

N40 for instance, west from N71 junction.

return guide

Had a puncture a few years ago on the M11- N11 overpass just before the loughlinstown roundabout Dublin bound.

Pulled into the soft verge beyond the hard shoulder, Hi-vis on. Of course the jack sank in the soft ground, which meant I had to move back onto the the "hard" shoulder.

Just then a Garda bike pulled in 30 metres behind the car with the blues on to give a bit of warning to the trucks that were skimming me. Between the two of us the the tyre was changed asap. Scary Sh1t as the trucks could see us but could not move to the outer lane.

Will always be grateful to that man for getting me out of that situation.

Since then will always give as much room as possible to vehicles in the hard shoulder.

fricatus

I saw two women walking down the sliproad onto the M9 at J11 Mullinavat the other day. I called it in to Traffic Watch, because I couldn't have it on my conscience if they'd been killed and I'd done nothing to stop it.

There was no car nearby, and surely if you were going for help, you'd walk back up the sliproad and head down to the village? The mind boggles what was going through their heads - did they mistake it for the feckin' Greenway?

Only time I've ever stopped on the hard shoulder was when the little fella opened his rear door :eek:

I had child-locked the door on the side that we normally put him on, but not the side he was on that day. I stopped on a left-hand curve so the traffic was aiming away from us, then hopped out quick smart, closed his door and then lashed on the central locking as soon as I was back inside. Very scary, even those two minutes! I learned my lesson!

skywanderer

return guide wrote: »

Had a puncture a few years ago on the M11- N11 overpass just before the loughlinstown roundabout Dublin bound.

Pulled into the soft verge beyond the hard shoulder, Hi-vis on. Of course the jack sank in the soft ground, which meant I had to move back onto the the "hard" shoulder.

Just then a Garda bike pulled in 30 metres behind the car with the blues on to give a bit of warning to the trucks that were skimming me. Between the two of us the the tyre was changed asap. Scary Sh1t as the trucks could see us but could not move to the outer lane.

Will always be grateful to that man for getting me out of that situation.

Since then will always give as much room as possible to vehicles in the hard shoulder.

Exact same thing happened me a few years on the M8 in Tipperary I was overtaking in the overtaking lane when I blew a tyre at around 150km/h, I braked once the tyre started disintegrating as it didnt just explode like in the movies, I pulled into the hard shoulder and inside it onto a wide grass median. Exact same story as yourself the jack sank into the ground rather than lift the car. Luckily I had breakdown cover and a repair truck was sent out from Thurles in less than an hour and he changed the tyre. I put myself and two occupants inside the fence into a farmers field for safety after erecting the warning triangle around 100 metres back; having my SatNav I was able to give my exact location also which really helped them find me quickly.

Another time I was driving home from a match and a lad wanted me to stop to let him out to vomit but instead I was just near an exit and turned off and ended up getting stung for the toll twice, although my drunken friend paid it.

Padraig Mor

Voodoomelon wrote: »

My mother was out for lunch today with neighbors and they were talking about the woman who lost her life whilst on the phone.

One of the neighbors couldn't understand why the lady shouldn't have pulled over to answer the phone. "But it was a call from the hospital?" "How else could she have answered it?" "She pulled out to the side to answer it like you're supposed to".

Obviously no one deserves to loose their life so horribly, but there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of drivers in Ireland who see the hard shoulder as a quick stop spot to answer the phone/find change for the toll/wallop the kids/have a piss etc and not the extremely dangerous emergency lane that it is.

Am I right in thinking as well that the woman who took the phone call was actually a passenger in the car - i.e. not driving, or did I take that up wrong?

macplaxton

skywanderer wrote: »

after erecting the warning triangle around 100 metres back

RotR says:
"Do not place any warning device such as a triangle on the motorway as it is too dangerous."
"A warning triangle should not, however, be used on a motorway or in a place where it would be unsafe.

It's down as a "should" rather than a "must" as they kind of contradict themselves by saying:
"When placing a triangle, you should take account of prevailing road conditions, traffic speed and volume. This is particularly important on motorways and dual-carriageways."

skywanderer wrote: »

having my SatNav I was able to give my exact location also which really helped them find me quickly.

Waste of time them putting up all those Location Reference Indicator* (LRI) signs and Location Reference Marking (LRM) signs.



(*called Driver Location Signs in UK)

Anyway, I dozed off by the time this got to 25 seconds

Factual, but hardly attention holding.

Much more memorable:

marno21

grogi wrote: »

N40 for instance, west from N71 junction.

There are several 120km/h dual carraigeways in Ireland which permit motorised traffic at 120km/h along with pedestrians, animals, cyclists etc

N1 north of Dundalk approaching the border
N2 between the M50 and the motorway Ashbourne bypass
N25 Carrigtwohill-Dunkettle in Cork
N22 Ballincollig bypass
N40 Cork South Ring Rd (J1-J2)

Hotblack Desiato

At least in the UK where there are "non-motorway motorways" like the A55, they have the wit to ban cyclists, pedestrians, animals etc.

Dice75

Not motorway per say but I head down to the inlaws a bit and driving on rural roads with a hard shoulder the amount of drivers that drive with 90% of their car in the hard shoulder (generally because they are travelling 20-30km under the speed limit) is insane. The times i have seen someone in front overtaking them in the normal lane as they potter along in the hard shoulder and then they both come around a bend parallel and come face to face with a couple of people walking in the hard shoulder.....

John_Rambo

Dice75 wrote: »

Not motorway per say but I head down to the inlaws a bit and driving on rural roads with a hard shoulder the amount of drivers that drive with 90% of their car in the hard shoulder (generally because they are travelling 20-30km under the speed limit) is insane. The times i have seen someone in front overtaking them in the normal lane as they potter along in the hard shoulder and then they both come around a bend parallel and come face to face with a couple of people walking in the hard shoulder.....

Yeah. I see this a good bit. Seemingly it's uninsured drivers that just "go up the road and back" to check livestock or go to the pub.

Hotblack Desiato

Well if you're going to break the law you might as well break all of them... :eek:

CiniO

macplaxton wrote: »

RotR says:
"Do not place any warning device such as a triangle on the motorway as it is too dangerous."
"A warning triangle should not, however, be used on a motorway or in a place where it would be unsafe.

Only in Ireland (and UK).

Everywhere else (in the EU anyway) it's obligatory to place a warning triangle 100m behind a broken down vehicle.

hi5

It makes no sense at all.
I would have thought it to be less dangerous to hit a triangle as a wake up call and veer back into the driving lane than to plow into the back of someone.

GM228

hi5 wrote: »

It makes no sense at all.
I would have thought it to be less dangerous to hit a triangle as a wake up call and veer back into the driving lane than to plow into the back of someone.

I think the idea is it's a higher chance for the person walking back with the triangle to be hit especially as one could be in dark clothing. If motorists can so often hit vehicles with flashing hazards then I'm sure there's a much greater risk they can hit poorly lit people!

TheChizler

Maybe we have more of a tendency to walk on the road with the triangle rather than behind the barrier.

You regularly get tractors, learner drivers and caravans on the motorways here, all creating dangerous situations. It could be stopped instantly with some camerawork.

punisher5112

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Am I right in thinking as well that the woman who took the phone call was actually a passenger in the car - i.e. not driving, or did I take that up wrong?

Correct she was a rear seat passenger and the truck hit.

There was absolutely no need for them to stop.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

You regularly get tractors, learner drivers and caravans on the motorways here, all creating dangerous situations. It could be stopped instantly with some camerawork.

Modern tractors are capable of more than 50km, as are towed caravans. No issue there, to be honest.

Again the motorway rules do not enforce a target of 120kmh,it's a limit.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Modern tractors are capable of more than 50km, as are towed caravans. No issue there, to be honest.

I hope thats sarcasm.

TheChizler

It's the law.

Sam Kade

Deleted User wrote: »

I hope thats sarcasm.

It's true, sorry for dashing your hopes.

pidgeoneyes

I was on the motorway between Ballinasloe and Athenry last week. There was a guy pulled over, barely over the yellow line. He was shoveling gravel from the motorway verge into his trailer. Madness!

hi5

hi5 wrote: »

It makes no sense at all.
I would have thought it to be less dangerous to hit a triangle as a wake up call and veer back into the driving lane than to plow into the back of someone.

I have seen groups of cones, 6 arranged at intervals, behind broken down vehicles on the Motorways here. Never a triangle, as I would imagine it's liable to blow over from the buffeting of speeding vehicles.

One evening, heading north on the N7, I saw a white van parked, fairly well in on the grass and a man walking a couple of greyhounds along the grass!!!

Esel

[Deleted User] wrote: »

One evening, heading north on the N7, I saw a white van parked, fairly well in on the grass and a man walking a couple of greyhounds along the grass!!!

He was just exercising the dags, I'm sure.