Road issues that irritate me.......

Jayop

Had to do a fair bit of driving yesterday. Was behind two cars that the second one was tailgating the first at one point for a good while. Came to a nice overtaking spot that I know well, waited maybe a hundred meters to see if the second guy was going to pass, not sign of it, no indicators, no moving over to have a wee peek up the road so I say I'll get passed them. Checked my mirrors, signaled that I was pulling out, started the maneuver. When I was about halfway to level with the tailgater he decided to overtake without checking mirrors, blindspot or indicating, any one of which would have prevented a near miss. The absolute whopper almost ran me off the road into the ditch.

KERSPLAT!

Mod

Enough of the cyclist, etc. bashing.

I don't like cyclists = OK
Cyclists all deserve to die a horrible death = Not OK

Use common sense to stay the right side of the line.

JeffKenna

I don't like cyclists

KERSPLAT!

Now you have it!! Me either!

Jayop

I have had more other drivers almost kill me than cyclists so as a driver and at the moment non cyclist I'll say I don't like drivers.

So really foggy here last week, unsurprisingly there was as many people driving around with either their side lights or no lights at all on as you would expect. Absolute morons.

Personally I'd be all for passing a law that all new cars must have their dipped headlights on at all times while the car is on. I'd also make it a requirement for all other drivers of old cars to always have their dips on. That way when you get fog or when it's approaching dusk, or in heavy rain with low visibility these clowns would be able to be seen and pose less of a danger to others.

KERSPLAT!

On my car the dips come on automatically, I love it. They and auto wipers. Best thing since sliced bread.

Beasty

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

On my car the dips come on automatically,

Same with all my cars. Still prefer the automatic gear shifting on the bikes though.....

Jayop

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

On my car the dips come on automatically, I love it. They and auto wipers. Best thing since sliced bread.

Yeah, the problem with some of those day time running lights is that unless you turn the switch they only put on the front beams and not the tail lights I think. I might well be wrong there but that was my impression.

What would be the problem with everyone having their dips on all the time? The cost of fuel for it would be negligible and the safety of having everyone visible when driving conditions are poor would be much improved..

railer201

Regarding cyclists I think the only solution is for Google to extend their self-drive for cars to bicycles as well.

The King of Moo

I... don't like.... motorists who don't know understand that cyclists have the same legal classification as drivers on the road, and that they therefore have to yield the right of way to a cyclist just as they would to a car. I believe there are drivers who genuinely believe they're automatically entitled to the right of way simply because they're in a car.

I see this most often on my cycle to and from work, when a driver is waiting to get onto a main road from a minor one. They'll wait for the cars ahead of me to pass, and as soon as I'm next, they enter the road, regardless of how close I am or how hard I have to brake. It's so stupid. Of course a bike braking hard in traffic is less dangerous than a car doing the same, but it's still dangerous for me, for anyone near me who may not be able to react, or may react in a panic, and for his/her car if I hit it.

The other example, as I've mentioned earlier, is overtaking me on a corner, usually at 8am to get to work 3 seconds less late than if they'd waited. Except of course it doesn't usually work out like that, as often they have to dangerously stop during the turn as they realise they can't make it at their current speed.

In fairness, a lot of drivers treat me with respect as they see I follow the rules and respect other road users. They'll wait for me to pass before entering the road, or see that the line I need to take around the corner means they can't overtake me safely.

But it only takes a few gobsh*tes to ruin everything, especially the idiots during morning rush hour.

foggy_lad

Jayop wrote: »

Yeah, the problem with some of those day time running lights is that unless you turn the switch they only put on the front beams and not the tail lights I think. I might well be wrong there but that was my impression.

What would be the problem with everyone having their dips on all the time? The cost of fuel for it would be negligible and the safety of having everyone visible when driving conditions are poor would be much improved..

Nope, Afaik once the driving lights(Dipped headlights) come on the rear lights must also come on.

I am starting to think that many people do not know where the proper light switches are for their vehicles and turn on the fog lights instead of the headlights.

There are also a number of numpties who think their sh1tbox looks so much cooler with the fog lights on all the time.

The sooner this is penalised with 5 penalty points and a €500 fine the better and safer the roads will become, and there should be no defence of saying that there was fog back the road a short distance or just around the last bend in the road.

Kevwoody

People who drive tight to the centre line and below the speed limit. You could be stuck behind them for miles, then as you go to overtake them, they pull over into the hard shoulder!

I mean like, they could have pulled over miles back to allow you past, why do it when your along side them?!

Jayop

foggy_lad wrote: »

Nope, Afaik once the driving lights(Dipped headlights) come on the rear lights must also come on.

I am starting to think that many people do not know where the proper light switches are for their vehicles and turn on the fog lights instead of the headlights.

There are also a number of numpties who think their sh1tbox looks so much cooler with the fog lights on all the time.

The sooner this is penalised with 5 penalty points and a €500 fine the better and safer the roads will become, and there should be no defence of saying that there was fog back the road a short distance or just around the last bend in the road.

Foglights on without fog - Dickhead
No foglights/dips on in fog - Dickhead

Personally I'd mush prefer to see points dished out for the more dangerous no lights/sidelights on in fog than the foglights on in no-fog myself.

foggy_lad

Jayop wrote: »

Foglights on without fog - Dickhead
No foglights/dips on in fog - Dickhead

Personally I'd mush prefer to see points dished out for the more dangerous no lights/sidelights on in fog than the foglights on in no-fog myself.

Side lights on are better than nothing and other drivers should be able to see you but if you have fogs on when there is no fog you immediately blind most oncoming traffic as well as traffic behind you.

Many cars don't have fog lights and dipped headlights are to be used at all times in fog even when fog lights are available.

Jayop

foggy_lad wrote: »

Side lights on are better than nothing and other drivers should be able to see you but if you have fogs on when there is no fog you immediately blind most oncoming traffic as well as traffic behind you.

Many cars don't have fog lights and dipped headlights are to be used at all times in fog even when fog lights are available.

Side lights are worse than useless in most conditions. Honestly, I'd ban them from cars too and have either no lights on or proper lights. People using sidelights think they've fulfilled the lighting requirement and that's worse imo.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

BeepBeep67

Overtaking routine I see daily
Manoeuvre - Signal - Mirror - Wave

DrumSteve

It's practically impossible to leave a safe breaking distance due to **** pulling in on top of you all the time.

Veloce150

Cars coming from side roads, blocking a bus lane broadside, while waiting to force their way into traffic stopped the outside lane. I've see busloads of people delayed by just one self-entitled driver with zero social awareness.

the_pen_turner

DrumSteve wrote: »

It's practically impossible to leave a safe breaking distance due to **** pulling in on top of you all the time.

espcially on a wet motorway. you leave a gap so the spray is not too bad, then some fool pulls into your safety gap and sprays water everywhere. you then have to overtake them again because they wont stay at a speed after you slow down to get back your gap

Jayop

the_pen_turner wrote: »

espcially on a wet motorway. you leave a gap so the spray is not too bad, then some fool pulls into your safety gap and sprays water everywhere. you then have to overtake them again because they wont stay at a speed after you slow down to get back your gap

Simple solution to that is to just stay in the fast lane.

:pac:

CaptainInsano

Sneaky bus lane drivers that try to get a few cars ahead then force their way back in to traffic.

Veloce150

CaptainInsano wrote: »

Sneaky bus lane drivers that try to get a few cars ahead then force their way back in to traffic.

Or the ones who pretend they're turning left just ahead, but, if there's no cop, they continue straight, keeping up the pretense, and the left indicator on.

Boom_Bap

When there is an accident blocking traffic in both directions and there is room for only 1 car to pass at time.....the people who can't figure out how to make the traffic move or basically lack the common decency to let any other cars through.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

DrumSteve

Boom_Bap wrote: »

When there is an accident blocking traffic in both directions and there is room for only 1 car to pass at time.....the people who can't figure out how to make the traffic move or basically lack the common decency to let any other cars through.

...And rubberneckers.

Rave.ef

Advbrd wrote: »

Would you perhaps have a slight dislike of cyclists?

Just a little

Danjamin1

Rave.ef wrote: »

Just a little

Do you not think it'd be better to condemn the actions rather than the mode of transport? Not all cyclists are morons just like not all drivers, etc. are morons. Poor indicating/signalling for example is an abundantly common road behaviour amongst all road users, as is being poorly lit (there's a serious amount of drivers with dysfunctional headlights about), but animosity towards one group for no particular reason other than you've noticed someone misbehaving on occasion is nonsensical.

Rave.ef

Danjamin1 wrote: »

Do you not think it'd be better to condemn the actions rather than the mode of transport? Not all cyclists are morons just like not all drivers, etc. are morons. Poor indicating/signalling for example is an abundantly common road behaviour amongst all road users, as is being poorly lit (there's a serious amount of drivers with dysfunctional headlights about), but animosity towards one group for no particular reason other than you've noticed someone misbehaving on occasion is nonsensical.

The cyclists commuting too and from work in the most part are well behaved road users. It's the spandex clad group iv a problem whit.

NiallBoo

Genuine question: what are side lights actually supposed to be used for?

Anyway, I think some of the above posters are mixing up three different kinds of lights:

Regular dips - turned on/off manually
DRLs - small front lights that are always on, for a little extra visibility during daytime.
Automatic headlights - dipped headlights, but a sensor in the car turns them on when it gets dark instead of having to turn them on yourself.

NiallBoo

I think the biggest annoyance for me is how poor people seem to be at estimating how long a delay will cost them, and then taking risks for no real reason.

Everything from someone going under the limit, being behind a cyclist, keeping to the limit in 50/60 zones, pulling onto a road without leaving enough room for oncoming traffic, overtaking on the motorway when someone's coming up in the overtaking lane etc.

The amount of time these things actually cost you is usually tens of seconds, rarely more than a minute or two. I really don't understand the mindset of taking risks over such small amounts of time.

If you were 2 minutes late leaving the house then you wouldn't think anything of It but when someone else costs you that time it's mayhem...why?

foggy_lad

Side lights would have more commonly been known as "parking lights".

NiallBoo

foggy_lad wrote: »

Side lights would have more commonly been known as "parking lights".

I've heard them called that alright, can't say I've ever used them even parking...should I? What's the benefit?

Jayop

NiallBoo wrote: »

I've heard them called that alright, can't say I've ever used them even parking...should I? What's the benefit?

None at all. They are a complete waste of time.

Alun

NiallBoo wrote: »

Genuine question: what are side lights actually supposed to be used for?

Way back in the mists of time, i.e. the 70's when I learnt to drive in the UK at least, they were to be used in the town only when street lights were lit. Also the Dutch call them stadslichten, or "town lights" probably for the same reason.

Nowadays, you'll always see them referred to in car manuals as parking lights, which to be honest is the only thing they're useful for, and should be used for.

https://www.powerbulbs.com/blog/2016/09/car-sidelights

Alun

NiallBoo wrote: »

Anyway, I think some of the above posters are mixing up three different kinds of lights:

I tried to explain this all to someone recently who kept on referring to her (!) big lights and little lights. I still don't think she got the message.

CaptainInsano

I avoid anyone on one of those Coca Cola bikes in Dublin like the plague. They're liable to do anything. Too many people heading into the fray of the city without a clue of any of the rules of the road. I met one cycling head on towards me once when I was driving.

StudentDad

Pelican crossings! Not the crossings themselves, the drivers who look at you as you cross as if to ask, 'what do you think you're doing? Crossing the road, forcing me to stop! How dare you!'. Not to mention the idiots who don't bother stopping at all! What made me laugh, again, using a pelican crossing. Was the driver who looked all confused at having to stop, who then proceeded to wave at me as if to say, 'you may now cross.' Lol

SD

NiallBoo

Alun wrote: »

I tried to explain this all to someone recently who kept on referring to her (!) big lights and little lights. I still don't think she got the message.

In fairness if you ignore DRLs (which we kind of should, and it sounds like she does) then you really just need to know when to use your big lights and little lights.

Was she aware of fog lights?

KwackerJack

The King of Moo wrote: »

I... don't like.... motorists who don't know understand that cyclists have the same legal classification as drivers on the road, and that they therefore have to yield the right of way to a cyclist just as they would to a car. I believe there are drivers who genuinely believe they're automatically entitled to the right of way simply because they're in a car.

I see this most often on my cycle to and from work, when a driver is waiting to get onto a main road from a minor one. They'll wait for the cars ahead of me to pass, and as soon as I'm next, they enter the road, regardless of how close I am or how hard I have to brake. It's so stupid. Of course a bike braking hard in traffic is less dangerous than a car doing the same, but it's still dangerous for me, for anyone near me who may not be able to react, or may react in a panic, and for his/her car if I hit it.

The other example, as I've mentioned earlier, is overtaking me on a corner, usually at 8am to get to work 3 seconds less late than if they'd waited. Except of course it doesn't usually work out like that, as often they have to dangerously stop during the turn as they realise they can't make it at their current speed.

In fairness, a lot of drivers treat me with respect as they see I follow the rules and respect other road users. They'll wait for me to pass before entering the road, or see that the line I need to take around the corner means they can't overtake me safely.

But it only takes a few gobsh*tes to ruin everything, especially the idiots during morning rush hour.

I agree.....however the same can be said for cyclists who think they are cycling through an empty field, weaving around cars and ignoring that big red light in the sky

NiallBoo

Alun wrote: »

Way back in the mists of time, i.e. the 70's when I learnt to drive in the UK at least, they were to be used in the town only when street lights were lit. Also the Dutch call them stadslichten, or "town lights" probably for the same reason.

Nowadays, you'll always see them referred to in car manuals as parking lights, which to be honest is the only thing they're useful for, and should be used for.

https://www.powerbulbs.com/blog/2016/09/car-sidelights

From reading that...I still don't see the benefit. The scenarios it lists are really cases where you should be using dipped lights.

Other than that it mentions if you've a bulb out to let people know you're not a motorbike - which I don't really get either because you shouldn't be taking away the road space of an oncoming motorbike anyway.

Liamo08

As someone who walks to work most days the amount of drivers who will turn left through a red light because there is a green arrow to travel straight on and go straight through a pedestrian crossing never ceases to amaze me. Also the amount of people who get furious with other drivers for not doing this is also mental.

AndrewJRenko

Rave.ef wrote: »

The cyclists commuting too and from work in the most part are well behaved road users. It's the spandex clad group iv a problem whit.

Is your problem with everyone encased in spandex? Do you have a problem with joggers who wear spandex? Or yummy-mummies doing the school run and shopping in spandex? What about cyclists who commute in spandex - do they wreck your head too?

TheRiverman

NiallBoo wrote: »

Genuine question: what are side lights actually supposed to be used for?

Anyway, I think some of the above posters are mixing up three different kinds of lights:

Regular dips - turned on/off manually
DRLs - small front lights that are always on, for a little extra visibility during daytime.
Automatic headlights - dipped headlights, but a sensor in the car turns them on when it gets dark instead of having to turn them on yourself.

I'm sure the automatic headlight mode can be turned off on all cars that has it.I have a Peugeot 407 and both small front lights and automatic headlights can be turned on and off in the personal configurations menu.

xabi

Liamo08 wrote: »

As someone who walks to work most days the amount of drivers who will turn left through a red light because there is a green arrow to travel straight on and go straight through a pedestrian crossing never ceases to amaze me. Also the amount of people who get furious with other drivers for not doing this is also mental.

That depends on the junction, unless there is a separate red for turning left they are perfectly entitled to turn left on green. What junction is it?

Liamo08

Liamo08 wrote: »

As someone who walks to work most days the amount of drivers who will turn left through a red light because there is a green arrow to travel straight on and go straight through a pedestrian crossing never ceases to amaze me. Also the amount of people who get furious with other drivers for not doing this is also mental.

xabi wrote: »

That depends on the junction, unless there is a separate red for turning left they are perfectly entitled to turn left on green. What junction is it?

Lots of junctions. I'm pretty sure they're not entitled to turn left through the red light and the 'green man' pedestrian crossing.

NiallBoo

xabi wrote: »

That depends on the junction, unless there is a separate red for turning left they are perfectly entitled to turn left on green. What junction is it?

You're not picking up on them specifying that it's a green arrow

What they're describing is a straight-ahead filter light.

I.e.there will be red light and also a green arrow pointing straight ahead.when left turning is permitted it will display either a left arrow or round green(no red).

One that comes to mind is the junction between rathmines road and the canal, heading north.

xabi

Liamo08 wrote: »

Lots of junctions. I'm pretty sure they're not entitled to turn left through the red light and the 'green man' pedestrian crossing.

Not in that case, no.

Liamo08

NiallBoo wrote: »

What they're describing is a straight-ahead filter light.

I.e.there will be red light and also a green arrow pointing straight ahead.when left turning is permitted it will display either a left arrow or round green(no red).

One that comes to mind is the junction between rathmines road and the canal, heading north.

Exactly, there will be a red light for the left turn but a huge amount of people seem to think you can ignore this when there is a straight ahead green arrow.

MeatTwoVeg

I met another of those '60kph w@nkers' this morning on way out to work

Regardless of the road, the conditions or the traffic they're going to drive at 60kph.

And God forbid they'd pull over slightly into the hard shoulder to allow people overtake.