The new 50mph instead of 60mph Regional roads are gonna create way more accidents.

AMurphy

Boggle wrote:

......

You are talking about tailgating - not erratic driving. What I am referring to (and ye all know it:) is the auld bitch driving home in front of you at 50 mph who jumps on the brakes at every hint of a corner or oncoming light slowin to 30 before racin back to 50 - all the while sitting on the white line so you cant overtake... The kind of person who is afraid to drive a car but because you dont have to prove you can drive to get a license is still permitted on the roads...

.......

This sort of driving behaviour sounds like someone returning from the pub at 2am. And were I a cop that's how I would read it, even at 2pm.

AMurphy

stratos wrote:

......The same people who would probably hold open a door for you, turn into intolerant terminators behind the wheel. Why is this ? ... Hey I'm gettin' older. It still amazes me to this day meeting an overtaking car on the wrong side of the road, he puts the boot down when an abort was so easy. .....

.

Beats me too, but you are correct, hence I figure all driver re-education is better than points and tickets...

However, I am of the opinion that irish drivers tailgate as a practice.... and I know why. If you leave a reasonable gap the muppet behind you will pass and fill that gap, and if you increase the gap again....the next muppet will do the same, so after avout 30 min, you will find yourself last in a 10 car train being led by one overloaded, slurry spewing cattle truck and trailer.
The other reason drivers tailgate, is if they hold back, the power and acceleration of the average 1100cc Escort/Corolla is about ..... nil, so teh possibility of holding back, accelerating and getting past before the next turn is... also nil, thus, hang on the tailgait and "nip and tuck", in the process insuring that oncoming traffic is brought to a halt to save your skin.\

If the VAT/Road Tax/Ins charges were reasonable, people could afford cars suitable for the task and travel in peace and comfort .. just like the ministers in their free MB.

Type 17

AMurphy wrote:

If the VAT/Road Tax/Ins charges were reasonable, people could afford cars suitable for the task and travel in peace and comfort .. just like the ministers in their free MB.

This is a huge issue in Ireland, and is the indirect cause of many deaths, in my IMO. People use cars like Micras, and 106's as family cars, and drive on fast M & N roads in them on a daily basis, where they have no power for error-correction or collision-avoidance, and relatively little crash protection at the typical speeds involved. These type of cars are fine for city driving (which is almost exclusively where you see them in other countries), but were never designed or intended by their manufacturers for regular inter-city driving.

Another issue with all the above taxes is that they are a tax on the ownership, not the use of a car, so when people have spent all that money on owning a car, there is a feeling that "they damn-well better use it", to get their money's worth, which is why all of our cities are jammed with single-occupant cars whose owners will not even consider public transport, because of their huge investment...

PS: AM, would j'ever do that Cambelt!!!!

AMurphy

Type 17 wrote:

........

PS: AM, would j'ever do that Cambelt!!!!

Aha, that name spells familiar.

Yeah, I keep meaning to get to it... when the days get warmer/longer/drier.
Van will roll over the 100K mls mark this weekend I'm sure.

unkel

Type 17 wrote:

issue with all the above taxes is that they are a tax on the ownership, not the use of a car

So true and so unfair. How can we get this into the thick heads of our ministers?

Abolish motortax, increase fuel duty to European average. It's only fair...

MickFarr

Stark wrote:

The point is, there's no call for blaming slow/erratic drivers for pile-ups, you always have to allow safe distance between yourself and the car in front for any eventuality. In fact the driver in front of you may even be driving erratically to piss you off for driving so close to him, I know loads of people who do this.

The problem there is that even at 60mph a lot of drivers would drive to close to the car in front forming rolling road blocks. Now that the speed has been drop to 50mph (80kph) I have noticed that these drivers drive even closer to the car in front because of the lower speed!

Not a day goes by where I don't seen this!

Loco

HerrLipp wrote:

What are you doing driving a tractor at 60mph on a regional road in the first place???

I mean really, it's all moan moan moan with you farmers.

new :rolleyes:

mackerski

stratos wrote:

it's up to us the people who drive a lot, to watch out and and make allowances for the the people who potter around a bit.

I see it differently - I reckon it's the duty of everybody who plans to be in control of a tonne of fast-moving metal to pilot it in a safe and intelligent manner. I have no time for the "I don't drive much, so I can't be arsed doing it well" brigade.

Dermot

stratos

Mack, I know I am on to hiding to nowhere here. But again you say " they can't be a r se d" You see it as a personal thing, i.e. they can't be bothered to drive carefully. These people just lack practise or skills ( I know not all of them). The thing is not to get wound up. I know it's hard. It took me ages. When someone does something really stoopid in front of you, congratulate yourself you anticipated it and avoided all that chaos. It's incredible I did a 40 mile journey tonite. Unbeleivably 2 people pulled out in front of me and did 3 point turns on back roads ( I had to stop dead both times). Finally a guy pulled out of a side road in front of me and then jammed on. I lit it up and smoked him out, I,m not proud. So what do I know.

mackerski

stratos wrote:

Mack, I know I am on to hiding to nowhere here. But again you say " they can't be a r se d" You see it as a personal thing, i.e. they can't be bothered to drive carefully. These people just lack practise or skills ( I know not all of them). The thing is not to get wound up.

I think I may have picked you up wrongly - if, by "make allowances", you mean that we should remember that there will be poor driving out there, then yes, totally, part of all good driving is anticipating problems. However, I don't think we should excuse laziness. And yes, a cool head is your best weapon on the road.

Dermot

Stark

I don't really mind the new 80kph (50mph) limit, it takes a bit for my car to accelerate to 62mph (100kph) anyway. The new 60kph(37mph) in place of 40mph limit is a joke though, it's not much of a difference from the 50kph limit. 70kph (43mph) would have been more appropiate.

rander00

I don't really mind the new 80kph (50mph) limit, it takes a bit for my car to accelerate to 62mph (100kph) anyway.

Yeah,,, well we dont all drive pieces of ****e. When i started this thread, i was aiming at the general public in 1.4`s 1.6`s and 1.9`s,,, ect... Not little city runaround yokes. (Hence, regional roads).

It has already being pointed out that them city cars are best left in inner city Scrublin, (i mean Dublin) and not out on Regional roads holding up us and causing accidients.

Seth Brundle

rander00 wrote:

It has already being pointed out that them city cars are best left in inner city Scrublin, (i mean Dublin) and not out on Regional roads holding up us and causing accidients.

Just to be pedantic, these city cars or indeed any other small car doesn't cause accidents (AFAIK very few cars actually cause accidents). It is usually the impatient driver behind them that causes them!
If you are caught behind a slow driver then you have 3 options as far as I can see:-
1. pass them and increase your risk of an incident.
2. Slow down (or stop) until they have long gone and then continue
3. take a different route.
I dislike slow drivers. However, I do not own the road and am not going to do something stupid to make it look like I do.

Stark

rander00 wrote:

Yeah,,, well we dont all drive pieces of ****e. When i started this thread, i was aiming at the general public in 1.4`s 1.6`s and 1.9`s,,, ect... Not little city runaround yokes. (Hence, regional roads).

Well my car is a 1.4 Renault Megane(hardly a city car) so there

Calibos

Will probably be posted be Rander00

Please don't stick your tongue out at me you ****.

:D

And he's only back from his ban. Don't do it Rander!!

rander00

Lol,,, Must Resist Must Resist

Hey Mods, there trying to lure me into a banning !

Renegade_Archer

Ive also seen this before, yer doing your duty, at the speed limit(even on a N road, doing 60), leaving a reasonable gap, and there is always some knob who feels the need to slot in in front of you. GAH.


Did these people ever stop for a second to wonder *why* the gap is there? For them, personally?

John R

Renegade_Archer wrote:

Ive also seen this before, yer doing your duty, at the speed limit(even on a N road, doing 60), leaving a reasonable gap, and there is always some knob who feels the need to slot in in front of you. GAH.


Did these people ever stop for a second to wonder *why* the gap is there? For them, personally?

What is the problem FFS.

Is nobody supposed to overtake YOU?

Our man in Havana

John R wrote:

What is the problem FFS.

Is nobody supposed to overtake YOU?

If you are doing 100km/h then they have no business overtaking you.

Renegade_Archer

John R wrote:

What is the problem FFS.

Is nobody supposed to overtake YOU?

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer.. Im referring to situations where I have left perhaps 1.5 car lengths in front of me in order to allow myself a chance of survival should the car in front of me come to a sudden halt; standard safe driving, at least I hope so. What annoys me is someone who overtakes me, and squeezes into the "safety space" in front of me, forcing me to pull back, in order to re-establish safe distance.


I have no problems with someone who overtakes me, but I do maintain reasonable progress and do the speed limit(on occasion more) in most cases.



Regards


Ewan

BrianD3

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer.. Im referring to situations where I have left perhaps 1.5 car lengths in front of me in order to allow myself a chance of survival should the car in front of me come to a sudden halt; standard safe driving, at least I hope so.

This issue crops up on this forum every month or so :rolleyes:

Firstly, 1.5 car lengths gap is around 22 feet. If you're travelling 22 feet from the car in front and you're doing more than about 5 mph, then you are tailgating.

Secondly, it's good driving/manners to leave a space in front of your vehicle for an overtaking vehicle to move into. No driver "owns" the braking space in front of his vehicle - I don't know where people get that daft idea from. Other vehicles are perfectly entitled to overtake and move into that space if they do so safely and it is then up to the car behind to re-create the braking space.

In any case, generally the people that complain about people "taking their braking space" are usually tailgating far too close to the car in front anyway. If you're travelling 60 mph, you should literally have enough of a gap in front of your car to fit a few lorries into, is a 15 foot long car moving into that gap really going to cause you such inconvenience - NO.

BrianD3

edmund_f

Well said Brian.

if someone wishes to drive dangerously there is very little you can do about it. It is not a reflection on your driving standard or skill.
just considering....
assume safe distance is 2 seconds
assume average car is 4m long (about the length of my old accord, or about 12')

@50 Km/hr = 27.8m (about 7 car lengths)
@60 Km/hr = 33.3m (about 8)
@80 Km/hr = 44.4m (about 11)
@100 Km/hr = 55.55m (about 14)
@120 Km/hr = 66.66m (about 17)


another way of looking at it is 120Km/hr = 33.3m/s (meters per second)

so if you assume the standard time for a driver to take action against a hazard is about 0.3s (i.e. reaction time + action time, time to realise the hazard and time to act) or about 10m @ 120Km/hr

which means that if you are within about 30 feet of the car in front at 75mph and the driver in front slams on the brakes (white dog syndrome) you will hit it, and it will be your fault.

Or at least that is the way that i look at it when i am driving....

mackerski

edmund_f wrote:

@50 Km/hr = 27.8m (about 7 car lengths)
[etc...]

In Germany they use the motto "Halber-Tacho" - half-the-speedo. So if you're doing 80km/h, you leave 40m. Clearly this one will become more useful when more people have metric dashes.

Dermot

edmund_f

personally just use the lamp post method, i.e. pick a fixed point at the side of the road (for example a lamp post). when the car in front of you is alongside it you should be able to count 1 missisippi.. 2 missisippi.. before your car gets to the same point.

other thing i came across was the course, speed, gear, mirror theory,

course - what type of sufrace you are on, wet/dry/potholes etc where you are on the road, what is coming up next on the road

speed - speed

gear - are you in the right gear for the speed

mirror - what are the other idiots doing on the road, will it affect you?


theory is that you do this everytime you come to a hazard, e.g. entrance/exit, junction, other car, dog whatever. If you cannot complete the course/speed/gear/mirror system you are driving too fast. Drive with speed but without haste.

just a thought

Stark

And while you're calculating all that, bang. oops

On the subject of the 80km/h limit on regional roads, people should probably write to their individual TD if there's a road in their area that they feel can be safely upgraded to 100km/h. It'd be pointless complaining "oh scrap that 80km/h limit and make them all 100km/h" as there are country roads where the new 80km/h limit makes sense.

comanche

edmund_f wrote:

@50 Km/hr = 27.8m (about 7 car lengths)
@60 Km/hr = 33.3m (about 8)
@80 Km/hr = 44.4m (about 11)
@100 Km/hr = 55.55m (about 14)
@120 Km/hr = 66.66m (about 17)

Not saying that these distances are wrong or anything, but how many people can honestly estimate 55.5 meters (esp with so many people having fits with the change over to metric).

Would suggest that people use timing to approximate a safe distance - the 3 second rule.

Good Weather - During daylight with good, dry roads and low traffic volume, you can ensure you're a safe distance from the car ahead of you by following the "three-second rule." The distance changes at different speeds. To determine the right following distance, first select a fixed object on the road ahead such as a sign, tree or overpass. When the vehicle ahead of you passes the object, slowly count "one one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand." If you reach the object before completing the count, you're following too closely. Making sure there are three seconds between you and the car ahead gives you time and distance to respond to problems in the lane ahead of you.

Inclement Weather, Heavy Traffic, or Night-Time Driving - In heavy traffic, at night, or when weather conditions are not ideal (eg. light rain, light fog, light snow), double the three second rule to six seconds, for added safety.

Poor Weather - If the weather conditions are very poor, eg. heavy rain, heavy fog, or heavy snow, start by tripling the three second rule to nine seconds to determine a safe following distance.

http://www.smartmotorist.com/tai/tai.htm

mackerski

comanche wrote:

Not saying that these distances are wrong or anything, but how many people can honestly estimate 55.5 meters (esp with so many people having fits with the change over to metric).

Personally, I can. Maybe the car-length approach is intended to help others to visualise it better. The luddites among us can pretend a metre is the same as a yard and keep their brakes in good order and their senses honed.

Nothing really wrong with the 3-second rule either. Whatever gets you thinking about the consequences of pranging the car in front at speed.

Dermot

edmund_f

Comanche,

perfectly correct, it is almost impossible to judge these distances without practice, but perhaps people should make the point of trying to figure out exatly how far 100' is at 60mph. It seems the more popular method is to drive really close, or tailgate, then on the second or third rear ending accident figure out what the distance should be.

What you are saying about the 3-9 second rule based on weather conditions is very valid.

if anyone wants to experiment, and i am not saying do this, go to a car park or similar empty space, drive the car up to about 30mph, get your passanger to shout stop at a random point, when you come to a stop see for yourself how long it takes to stop, from the random point to where the car ended up, and reaction time, from the random point to the first skid mark. (some clever person is going to come up with the ABS argument, even with ABS, hit the brakes hard enough, you will leave some sort of a small skid mark when you initally hit the brakes.). Bring a tape measure... a long one...

Then consider you were alert and waiting for the emergency braking. Consider this after 2-3 hours of driving, or tired, or with a few pints..

dont take my word for it, find out yourself, safely. Do not use a motorway and the back of another car to figure this out.