If your car broke down on the motorway...

CalamariFritti

Very tragic for everyone concerned, poor girl. I feel sorry for the truck driver too. Its easy to say he should have seen it but at motorway speeds and poor visibility and maybe other cars weaving in and out...an object standing still can come up to you awfully fast.

Easy to say its stupid to stay in the car, great when you know it. I blame the still poor driver education in Ireland.

Cerco

minikin wrote: »

Sympathies are with the truck driver here.

Can’t understand how someone would choose to remain in a stopped vehicle in a driving or overtaking lane of a motorway... can’t fathom how they could not make it into the hard shoulder at the very least... even if you entirely lost power you would still have forward momentum for a few hundred metres.

50[/SIZE]

Three reasons and I’m sure there are more.

1. Your in overtaking lane and traffic in driving lane prevents you moving over, before your momentum is lost.

2. First reaction to power fail is disbelief. Need very quick reaction to clutch before gear box stalls you.....preventing you from coasting.

3. Some power fails are instant electrical fails.

Guy:Incognito

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Easy to say its stupid to stay in the car, great when you know it. I blame the still poor driver education in Ireland.

You shouldn't need to be told not to sit in a stationary car in the middle of a motorway.

How many people would stand in the middle of the motorway and not move if they suddenly found themselves there?

RustyNut

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

C'mon man. In torrential rain on the outer lane of a Motorway? Its difficult for artic lorry drivers at the best of times. One can easily see how this could happen.

I've been one of these artic drivers for over 30 years and I can totally understand how this happened.

While my heart goes out to the truck driver and I know he didn't get out of bed and decide to plough into someone, he still fcuked up.

If the conditions are sh1t then you adjust your driving to suit the conditions. The basic rule always applies be able to stop safely with in the distance you can see to be clear.

It's just like wearing your seat belt, you don't expect to crash but you wear it just in case. You don't expect to have to do an emergency stop on the motorway but you allow for it just in case.

Anyway RIP to the lady involved and I hope the truck driver gets over it as best he can and moves on with his life.

CalamariFritti

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You shouldn't need to be told not to sit in a stationary car in the middle of a motorway.

How many people would stand in the middle of the motorway and not love if they suddenly found themselves there?

Oh I agree and it would never occur to me (or you obviously) but clearly there are people who are just not that aware and don't know any better. I'd bet my house the poor girl was simply never told and just didn't know what to do. I'd say she was sh1t scared sitting in her car, panicking. I'm not saying this poor girl was ditzy not to know, but there are ditzy people out there and nearly all of them are driving too. They need to be told these things.

kirving

Isambard wrote: »

the merge thing: It's up to the merging driver to adjust his position by either slowing or accelerating.

It is, but some cars genuinely have difficulty in doing this even when redlined. Until you go back to an underpowered car you really tend to forget.

I'll always make sure to take my right of way. Unexpectedly braking to let someone out a junction for example can be dangerous. On the other hand, I'll do my level best to help people join a motorway rather than risk a dangerous situation just because the law is on my side.

Not suggesting that you do that, but we all have to account for one another on the road too.

tcawley29

Isambard wrote: »

the merge thing: It's up to the merging driver to adjust his position by either slowing or accelerating.

It is but its also common courtesy for the driver in lane 1 to move over and allow the driver to merge easier if it is safe to do so, something a lot of morons out there don't seem to realize

kippy

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You shouldn't need to be told not to sit in a stationary car in the middle of a motorway.

How many people would stand in the middle of the motorway and not move if they suddenly found themselves there?

To be frank about it, its not stated on any documentation I've ever seen (passed my test twenty years ago) and one could make the argent that the person carried out a mini risk assessment and based on the factors at the time decided it was safer to remain inside the protection of a metal shell rather than try run across a number of lanes of live traffic.
All in all an awful tragedy.

TeaBagMania

freddyuk wrote: »

Stunning! If you cannot stop within the distance you can see ahead then you are effectively driving blind. In fog it happens all the time hence pile ups in fog. Driving when you cannot safely stop before hitting anything "unexpected" is driving without due care and attention. Having 40 ton trucks with this attitude is very scary.

It is terrifying that so many drivers drive beyond their capabilities and endanger others on the road but we are all the best drivers in the world in our heads so blame others for our own incompetence.

Wrong again, you're taking the human factor out of the equation because none of us have ever glanced at our phone when it rings or a text arrives, or took our eyes off the road to change the station on the radio or load a CD, or looked up to admire a beautiful day.
We aren't robots

in a neighborhood, school zone, or busy city street we might pay closer attention to stopped vehicles or pedestrians but not on a "motorway"

TeaBagMania

Isambard wrote: »

and if a wheel falls off?

and the transmission could fall out, the engine could throw a piston thru the hood, or the prop shaft could break and poll vault the car onto its roof, yeah, lets keep coming up with one in a million excuses

Little Less Conversation

I may sound stupid but why is the hard shoulder dangerous? I thought no cars, no danger.

punisher5112

Little Less Conversation wrote: »

I may sound stupid but why is the hard shoulder dangerous? I thought no cars, no danger.

Because vehicles can drift into it at speed, lose control, crash out, tyres blow out, fall asleep, texting or on social media and so much more.

No point in been right and dead.


The safest place is off the dual carriageway or motorway if possible.

jay48

Little Less Conversation wrote: »

I may sound stupid but why is the hard shoulder dangerous? I thought no cars, no danger.

How often do you see cars/trucks drifting out of Lane on a motorway? It may not be as common on the m50 but on longer motorways I see it regularly. Also target fixation, you see a danger, focus on it and subconsciously head towards it, especially when you're tired.

AndrewJRenko

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

One recommendation that should have come out of it is the need to have a Hi Viz vest in every car when travelling on a motorway, not saying it would have saved her if she exitted the vehicle but it would have made her much more visible if she had to. I know they are mandatory in France.

You can't really be faffing around in the boot while stuck on the overtaking lane. All drivers should be wearing hi-vis all the time, and all cars should have hi-vis stripes on all sides, just in case. That would be a big help for the idiots I see every day with no back lights at all because they don't know how their DRLs work.

OldMrBrennan83

tcawley29 wrote: »

It is but its also common courtesy for the driver in lane 1 to move over and allow the driver to merge easier if it is safe to do so, something a lot of morons out there don't seem to realize

They don't have to though.

tcawley29

Patww79 wrote: »

They don't have to though.

Thats why I said it was a matter of common courtesy

OldMrBrennan83

tcawley29 wrote: »

Thats why I said it was a matter of common courtesy

Following things as they should be done leaves no gray areas and leads to more efficiency. Up to the merger to merge.

freddyuk

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Wrong again, you're taking the human factor out of the equation because none of us have ever glanced at our phone when it rings or a text arrives, or took our eyes off the road to change the station on the radio or load a CD, or looked up to admire a beautiful day.
We aren't robots

in a neighborhood, school zone, or busy city street we might pay closer attention to stopped vehicles or pedestrians but not on a "motorway"

How can you condone not paying attention while driving? It is people who are "distracted" and not paying attention that cause 90% of avoidable accidents and resultant deaths. There is no excuse. If you do hit someone while fiddling with the radio then it is entirely your fault so accept that. Here we are mostly defending a professional driver who was driving too fast to be able to stop because he could not see clear enough ahead for his speed. That speaks volumes for the attitude of driving by 90% of the drivers on the road who think it is OK to assume the road ahead is all clear no matter what the conditions. These are not accidents they are avoidable driver error.

kirving

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You can't really be faffing around in the boot while stuck on the overtaking lane. All drivers should be wearing hi-vis all the time, and all cars should have hi-vis stripes on all sides, just in case. That would be a big help for the idiots I see every day with no back lights at all because they don't know how their DRLs work.

Atlantic Dawn stated "not saying it would have saved her" - fully understanding that it's by no means a panacea for road deaths.

I get it, you've your own agenda to push re: "hi-vis", but do you really need to take the piss on a thread about a woman unfortunately being killed?

Anyway, my REFLECTIVE jacket is in the pocket at the base of my seat. A glovebox works well too, not in the boot.

The Gards wear reflective clothing for a tried and tested reason. It's not an invincibility cloak, but it's a hell of lot better than wearing black if you're walking around on a motorway. It's up there with anti-vaxxers to suggest otherwise.
Yes, we know, there was some study done somewhere that said hi-vis wasn't effective, but we also know that that particular study didn't account for the myriad of other factors related to cycling culture and transport infrastructure. And no, I don't think they should be mandatory for cyclists (I'm a cyclist as well as a driver).

But if we were sitting in a broken down car tomorrow morning, on say the M50 at 5am, I'll take my hi-vis jacket and offer you one. Would you take it, or talk about some study showing that you're more likely to be part of a French riot while wearing one?

By the way, the Volvo that the woman was driving had rear lights that you can't turn off, and each back light had a two bulbs in case one blew. It was reported to have hazards flashing too.

Also, all cars are required by law to have retro-reflectors - and they work, most of the time. You see lights on cars for the past 10 years, half of the reason they're swept back is because they're required by law to be visible from the side too, it's not just for styling.

Even with all of this, there will still be unfortunate outcomes, and driver training is still the no. 1 factor. In the meantime, it's disingenuous to suggest that in specific circumstances as this case was, that safety equipment is of no value.

Guy:Incognito

tcawley29 wrote: »

It is but its also common courtesy for the driver in lane 1 to move over and allow the driver to merge easier if it is safe to do so, something a lot of morons out there don't seem to realize

Leave a proper gap when driving and theres no need to move anywhere.

OldMrBrennan83

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Leave a proper gap when driving and theres no need to move anywhere.

I would try leave a gap but it's so common now for idiots to slow down too or need a gap you'd get two artics into and a handwritten invitation before they'll merge. Near better to just maintain speed and let them look after getting out.

Poll Dubh

What I’ve learned from this thread is that driving in the fast lane of a three lane motorway is a game of Russian Roulette for you and your passengers. Any vehicle can suffer a sudden power loss due to component failure turning a quick trip to IKEA into a life and death situation. I’ll be sticking closer to the hard shoulder from now on.

AndrewJRenko

Poll Dubh wrote: »

What I’ve learned from this thread is that driving in the fast lane of a three lane motorway is a game of Russian Roulette for you and your passengers. Any vehicle can suffer a sudden power loss due to component failure turning a quick trip to IKEA into a life and death situation. I’ll be sticking closer to the hard shoulder from now on.

The inside lane is usually the quietest and clearest lane anyway, but that's a discussion for another thread.

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Wrong again, you're taking the human factor out of the equation because none of us have ever glanced at our phone when it rings or a text arrives, or took our eyes off the road to change the station on the radio or load a CD, or looked up to admire a beautiful day.
We aren't robots

in a neighborhood, school zone, or busy city street we might pay closer attention to stopped vehicles or pedestrians but not on a "motorway"

Indeed, robot drivers would probably be better than most of the crap and careless drivers we see on Irish roads. You've explained a good part of the reason for this above.


Do you really think it's a good idea to justify using the phone while driving? Why would you keep the phone in a position where you CAN glance at it or see or a text? Just switch it off, or at least put it away out of sight. I've seen a small, but growing trend of drivers playing videos on their phones while driving - Netflix stuff or the morning sports news or whatever - with the phone either dashmounted or sitting on the speedo (wouldn't want to be distracted by any silly stuff like the speed of travel, right)?


Put the damn phone away, and don't play around with CDs when you travelling at motorway speed either.

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Atlantic Dawn stated "not saying it would have saved her" - fully understanding that it's by no means a panacea for road deaths.

I get it, you've your own agenda to push re: "hi-vis", but do you really need to take the piss on a thread about a woman unfortunately being killed?

Anyway, my REFLECTIVE jacket is in the pocket at the base of my seat. A glovebox works well too, not in the boot.

The Gards wear reflective clothing for a tried and tested reason. It's not an invincibility cloak, but it's a hell of lot better than wearing black if you're walking around on a motorway. It's up there with anti-vaxxers to suggest otherwise.
Yes, we know, there was some study done somewhere that said hi-vis wasn't effective, but we also know that that particular study didn't account for the myriad of other factors related to cycling culture and transport infrastructure. And no, I don't think they should be mandatory for cyclists (I'm a cyclist as well as a driver).

But if we were sitting in a broken down car tomorrow morning, on say the M50 at 5am, I'll take my hi-vis jacket and offer you one. Would you take it, or talk about some study showing that you're more likely to be part of a French riot while wearing one?

By the way, the Volvo that the woman was driving had rear lights that you can't turn off, and each back light had a two bulbs in case one blew. It was reported to have hazards flashing too.

Also, all cars are required by law to have retro-reflectors - and they work, most of the time. You see lights on cars for the past 10 years, half of the reason they're swept back is because they're required by law to be visible from the side too, it's not just for styling.

Even with all of this, there will still be unfortunate outcomes, and driver training is still the no. 1 factor. In the meantime, it's disingenuous to suggest that in specific circumstances as this case was, that safety equipment is of no value.

Of course, I'd take your hi-vis on the M50 and I'd say thank you very much. But wouldn't it be much safer if drivers and passengers were actually wearing hi-vis all the time, so there's no faffing round in glove boxes, or no waving of arms trying to get something on while sitting in the car, and no delays looking for it (and realising that you took it out last time it went for service and never put it back in)? Wouldn't mandatory hi-vis for all drivers and passengers recognise the inherent risks of driving demonstrated on this thread and provide a small level of protection for one risk?


As for the reflectors on the rear of cars, they're only on one side (the rear). So if the car spins or skids, they're not going to help approaching traffic. They're also largely ineffective. This idiot in a 161D Polo passed me with no back lights on Friday evening. You can see the barest glint from the left reflector in the second frame. I have good front lights, and I'd often see a very obvious reflection of my flashing light off any reflective surface - a road sign or someone in hi-vis in front. But very little here.



Surely thick hi-vis stripes all round all cars would compensate for thick drivers?

EdgeCase

If your car suffers a sudden component failure (very rare) that the stops the engine you need to immediately indicate and coast into the hard shoulder. Don't slam on and stop in the fast lane.

You should have enough forward momentum to take you in.

On a road like the M50 or N40 in heavy traffic you're a at less, not more risk. At least the traffic is usually able to see you and isn't moving at huge speed.

The huge risk is being stopped on a relatively quiet fast moving motorway and Ireland's motorways outside the cities are mostly like that.

Get out of the car and behind the barrier.

It's also why you should have rain coats in the car always.

Bear in mind it's not just on motorways this happens. Being broken down on an N Road can be as bad or worse as you'll get morons actually driving in the hard shoulder.

If you're stopped in any position where you're likely to be a surprise to other traffic, hazards on and get out of the car.

flazio

Slightly related,where do you go if you break down on the M50 Liffey bridge? Probably The scariest place to break down.

punisher5112

flazio wrote: »

Slightly related,where do you go if you break down on the M50 Liffey bridge? Probably The scariest place to break down.

Run

AndrewJRenko

Graphic example of the dangers of stopping on a motorway in the first clip - not for the feint hearted

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCNCbCMBow0

Atlantic Dawn

EdgeCase wrote: »

Don't slam on and stop in the fast lane.

Use of the term 'fast lane' should automatically result in a 3 month driving ban, lol. And anyone in the media using it should get a 2 year ban.

EdgeCase

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Use of the term 'fast lane' should automatically result in a 3 month driving ban, lol. And anyone in the media using it should get a 2 year ban.

It's still common parlance here. I find if you say overtaking lane most people don't know what you're on about. If you say lane 1 and 2 they start looking for lane numbering.

I'd prefer the term emergency lane for hard shoulder as you still occasionally make weird use of it.

We were cycling in Sligo and this guy drove down the hard shoulder, slower than the traffic on the road which he wasn't competent enough to keep up with, and then beeped and flashed at us!?!

I've actually heard someone in Donegal tell me it was where "local traffic" drives.

Guy:Incognito

EdgeCase wrote: »

It's still common parlance here. I find if you say overtaking lane most people don't know what you're on about. If you say lane 1 and 2 they start looking for lane numbering.
.

So , despite all the calls for driver education, what we should do is just join the ill informed and /or stupid and just dumb ourselves down?