Flashing to overtake; acceptable?

Boggle

And to really piss em off - put a hole in it to blind the grassrole behind you

Borzoi

SouperComputer wrote:

christ you're full of $hit!
!

No need for that SC, consider this a warning

AMurphy

galactus wrote:

People! People!

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Rear Fog Lamps.

.....

I have seen a magnetic mountable search light (55 or 100W bulb) with a remote steerable lens/base, so you could rotate and elevate.
Attach to rear trunk or roof and away we go. Think it would work?.

Other one I had in mind as equally annoying was a discarded photo flash/strobe.

edmund_f

highlight

edmund_f wrote:

try convincing a Garda, .... Do that and come back on here with their response before relpying to this message

cormie

I wouldn't go with a photo flash... you don't want to cause a death now :rolleyes:

on an episode of "Pimp My Ride" They were doing a VW Hippie Van, you could press a button and a little "Chill" sign popped out at the side.

I've always thought it would be good to have a little text scroller on your rear window and you could have preset templates for such circumstances

AMurphy

cormie wrote:

......

I've always thought it would be good to have a little text scroller on your rear window and you could have preset templates for such circumstances

or connected to your voice recognition Palm/phone. However, most of those scrolling text bars I have seen for an affordable price have little text, so your man would be really up your sas trying to read the text telling him to "Phuck oof".
probably need 6" high letters... and then you have to hope the idiot can read..... Back to the drawing board....
Paintballs with a remote launcher?.

mackerski

cormie wrote:

I've always thought it would be good to have a little text scroller on your rear window and you could have preset templates for such circumstances

The cops use these in Germany. The message will typically read something like "Police, please follow". They then lead you to a layby to take your medicine.

Dermot

8bi1ctzegfouva

edmund_f wrote:

I am politely going to bow out of this argument.

i will stand by what i said earlier. With the accepted levels of tailgating in Ireland and then a number of people admitting standing on the brakes as being a good idea to achieve what i do not want to even contimplate. Irrespective of how it is done, or why, or when, or to who, i do not believe in my opinion that you have the brains between you to figure out that the risks you are taking, the danger to the lives of everybody, is worth you proving a point. If you are in any doubt to this fact try convincing a Garda, explain to him how you were driving along, and due to someone coming too close to your car you locked up the wheels. Do that and come back on here with their response before relpying to this message. In fact i think i will copy this thread and forward it to my local Garda station myself.
I wonder if someone on here freely admitted to attacking someone with a hammer would it be so readly accepted?

At least there is now a face to the totally wreckless driving in Ireland.

oh my god, what a little cry baby!
not getting your own way so you are going to run to the guards.
and tell me this, what do you think they will do when you turn up in the station with this thread printed off? i'm thinking they will most likely laugh in your face, and tell you to kindly remove yourself from the station.

ambro25

FX Meister wrote:

I think hitting the brakes is dangerous, why not just slow to a crawl instead? Same point except it's safer and lasts longer.

What I do. Works a treat. No danger whatsoever. 5th, 4th, 3rd... rarely 2nd (only when the eejit is particularly dense, to the point where light bends around him). Added bonus points when the road clears by then, and I can floor it and leave him standing there like a c**t.

SouperComputer

Borzoi wrote:

No need for that SC, consider this a warning

not quite sure what the fuss is about. usage of an alternative word for poo?

fair enough

cormie

Just one point regarding "Safe Overtaking" I read in a previous post someone complaining about people who wait till the safest time to overtake and will have cars overtaking both them and the vehicle in front because of impatiance.

I myself am guilty of this, the reason being that I drive a 1L car and it just doesn't have the power to safely overtake a car at opportunities at which other vehicles would be able to. Just something to take into consideration.

edmund_f

raise an interesting point,

is it actually safer to force drivers (not going to mention gender or age here, sure you can make your own assumptions) into small sub 1.4l cars, basically city runarounds as opposed to larger plus 1.4l cars, which not only can overtake more safely, but can corner more safely, brake, take an impact better etc etc.. totally hijacking this but this thread in influenced by a number of aspects.

ambro25

Neither, nor, edmund_f. It's up to the driver to adapt his/her driving 'style' to the capacities of the vehicle he/she drives.

I learned to drive on a Citroen C25 (=FIAT Ducato) van, my first 'car' for 4 months. Trust me, the learning curve is vertical for a young driver with something the size of a Trannie: you learn about size, parking, mirrors and anticipation, which is really what you are in about here.

And you also learn to work harder and earn more to get a bigger/better/faster car and less need to anticipate as much when you want to overtake, get onto a motorway, etc.

edmund_f

good point Ambro, but accepting that the person has already learned how to drive to a reasonable standard. i.e. generally which would be safer (thinking this is completly off the topic of this thread...)

ambro25

Well, it is and it isn't (on the thread's target). Way I see it, if
(1) flashing is accepted as meaning "Please sir, would you mind moving over as I'm in kinda hurry" and
(2) treated courteously as such (by the driver of the 1.0L micra), then your point is moot, since everybody's nice to their neighbour and 5.7L V8 or 995cc 3 cylinders makes not one blind bit of difference to road behaviour.

Conversely, if
(1) flashing is accepted as meaning "Please sir, would you mind moving over as I'm in kinda hurry" OR
(2) flashing is accepted as meaning "Shift! you dim-witted slowpoke!"
and
(3) irrespectively, totally ignored by the driver of the 1.0L micra, or worse (I'm not shifting to let your tank past, you snobbish mutha! You'll never get past me, you posh muppet, etc.) then your point is also moot, since everybody's a b*st*rd to their neighbour and 5.7L V8 or 995cc 3 cylinders again makes not one blind bit of difference to road behaviour.

edmund_f

from the point of the driver in front..

ambro25 wrote:

"Please sir, would you mind moving over as I'm in kinda hurry"

means that they accept that there are other drivers on the road..

ambro25 wrote:

"Shift! you dim-witted slowpoke!"

means that they think they own the road and everyone is out to get them

specifically though... gun to the head time
which is safer

big car

little car

accepting all other factors being equal

(think Ambro should have been a politician?)

ambro25

Big car, then. More mass x more speed = little car's in a hell of a lot of bother if a crash happens.

Doesn't detract from the fact that a little car should be allowed to flash a slow-moving big car without provoking the instant ire of the big car driver, though.

And no, that's not a politician's answer, but the voice of experience - I still remember Beemer drivers being p*ssed at me flashing them in my brave little AX (but then that unassuming little thing used to climb up trees )

Seth Brundle

edmund_f wrote:

specifically though... gun to the head time
which is safer

big car

little car

accepting all other factors being equal

Largely irrelevant. Cars don't cause many accidents - drivers do.
However, larger cars tend to have more safety features and therefore provide more safety in the event of an impact.

galactus

kbannon wrote:

Largely irrelevant. Cars don't cause many accidents - drivers do.
However, larger cars tend to have more safety features and therefore provide more safety in the event of an impact.

'mkay but I once head a report that stated the larger CC a car you're driving, the safer you feel and thus the faster you drive.

AMurphy

cormie wrote:

.........

I myself am guilty of this, the reason being that I drive a 1L car and it just doesn't have the power to safely overtake a car at opportunities at which other vehicles would be able to. Just something to take into consideration.

that's fine, the problem that I occurring over and over is a herd of these little cars will gather in a tailgating train, putter along at 45 in the straight and 35 in the turns, ad infinatum.
This makes it next to impossible for any vehicle, save for a few select Porsches and Farraris to pass.

If you are not in the mood for passing yourself, leave enough space between you and whatever is ahead for cars to nip in and out.

However, someone might provide an explaination for the following;

Lets say a large artic with the traditional 40' containers/cattletruck and trailer is ahead. Impossible to see through, under, over, around kind of object.

Yet someome, eager to pass will ride right up their tail, thus depriving themselves of the opportunity to see anything that may be coming, or not coming from the oposite direction and also making it pretty impossible to accelerate out from behind them to pass (with a normal <2L vehicle).

AMurphy

galactus wrote:

'mkay but I once head a report that stated the larger CC a car you're driving, the safer you feel and thus the faster you drive.

Larger/heavier cars are certainly more comfortable on ROI roads. they do tend to hold/grip the road better, thus it is possible to travel faster all the time. (For proof of this observe any TD on his way back from the holiday trip to SW Kerry.)

However, does that provide an explaination for most of the accidents, I doubt it. Utter stupidity, arrogance, damaged cars due to poor roads, poor roads, signs goes further.... Those are not qualities one could attribute to a car, large or small.

Compare the wheel base of a 740 to that of a Micra and you will quickly determine that there are some potholes that could swollow up 1/2 a Micra.
One thing I learned, it is pretty much impossibe to drink from a cup/coffee container while driving in an average car on ROI roads, and/or you are in danger of loosing a few teeth if it has a hard rim, so use foam cups if you must.

mackerski

AMurphy wrote:

One thing I learned, it is pretty much impossibe to drink from a cup/coffee container while driving in an average car on ROI roads, and/or you are in danger of loosing a few teeth if it has a hard rim, so use foam cups if you must.

I learnt a similar lesson about shaving in the car. First pothole I hit and the basin of water went all over the place...

Dermot

AMurphy

With that, I'll take it there is not much opportunity to entertain oneself, watching the ladies applying makeup in the morning commute.

And, hey, your a man, built for abuse, ..... shave dry. Those triple blades just glide through skin, you'll not feel a thing and if anyone comments, bite their head off....
Or simply apply the soap direct, stick hand out the window to gather some rain and you set for the day.....

edmund_f

right.. (this is like pulling teeth)

acepted all other factrors being equal, if you find your self in a 'situation' you would probably have a better chance in a larger car (larger tyers etc etc) agreed? ('chance' meaning 'chance of survival')

Granted driver training, road conditions, car conditions, caffine/makeup conditions...

would put the argument forward ....that perhaps if you are involved in a serious collision (+60Kph) that the injuries suffered are augmented by the fact that you do not have as much protection, as many air bags, your car did not slow as quickly etc. in a 'small' car as opposed to a 'large' car. note accepted all other factors being equal, not having a go at small car drivers, nothing inferred by the type of car you drive, just exploring an theory here...

galactus

edmund_f wrote:

right.. (this is like pulling teeth)

acepted all other factrors being equal, if you find your self in a 'situation' you would probably have a better chance in a larger car (larger tyers etc etc) agreed? ('chance' meaning 'chance of survival')

Granted driver training, road conditions, car conditions, caffine/makeup conditions...

would put the argument forward ....that perhaps if you are involved in a serious collision (+60Kph) that the injuries suffered are augmented by the fact that you do not have as much protection, as many air bags, your car did not slow as quickly etc. in a 'small' car as opposed to a 'large' car. note accepted all other factors being equal, not having a go at small car drivers, nothing inferred by the type of car you drive, just exploring an theory here...

OK, but its a bit of an arms race...

Define a "large car".

Not so long ago a "large car" was something like a Merc. Now with the off-roader craze, the definition of a "large car" has changed.

I've even seen a Humvee driving around Cork city.

edmund_f

personally i would define a 'small' car as anything with a 1.4 or below, or less than about 3m long, thinking of city cars, super minis, basically anything that you would rent under group 'economy'/'compact' from a hire company

ambro25

They (used to) do Ventos/Renault 19s/etc. as 1.4 (well, large-ish cars for the engine size)

and also (e.g.) Minis as 1.6 or 1.8, or (e.g.) my old AX as a 1.4 (which could run rings around Beemers or Mercs, with nearly 90bhp for under 800 kgs)

So, 'bit of a definitional problem, edmund_f. I think you'd be better advised to opt for:

"weighing more than (kg) for bhp less than (bhp)" (if comparing in a get-out-of-trouble-quick situation)

or stick to a size-only argument (if comparing a crash situation)

edmund_f

how about anything less than 20K (new). the hire group definition is pretty accurate for this discussion.. there is always an exception to prove the rule, this is the real world afterall.

accepted that your definition of 'small' V's 'large' may be different from mine, but going for the hire company definition...

and..


acepted all other factrors being equal, if you find your self in a 'situation' you would probably have a better chance in a larger car (larger tyers etc etc) agreed? ('chance' meaning 'chance of survival')


and...


Granted driver training, road conditions, car conditions, caffine/makeup conditions...

would put the argument forward ....that perhaps if you are involved in a serious collision (+60Kph) that the injuries suffered are augmented by the fact that you do not have as much protection, as many air bags, your car did not slow as quickly etc. in a 'small' car as opposed to a 'large' car. note accepted all other factors being equal, not having a go at small car drivers, nothing inferred by the type of car you drive, just exploring an theory here...

Seth Brundle

edmund_f wrote:

would put the argument forward ....that perhaps if you are involved in a serious collision (+60Kph) that the injuries suffered are augmented by the fact that you do not have as much protection, as many air bags, your car did not slow as quickly etc. in a 'small' car as opposed to a 'large' car. note accepted all other factors being equal, not having a go at small car drivers, nothing inferred by the type of car you drive, just exploring an theory here...

airbags and other safety equipment along with other extras add to the pre VRT price of the car and are often avoided by manufacturers selling in Ireland as it subsequently reduces their profit margins as they need to remain competitive. However, thats not really part of your point.
With regard to braking, small cars tend to have front disc and rear drum brake setups. Larger cars tend to have discs all round. However, even though discs are better devices for stopping as they dissipate heat more quickly, drum brakes work fine for these cars. I am not aware of any significant difference in braking distances between 'small cars' and 'large cars'

cormie

on the topic of "Flashing" well I'm just back from the worst drive ever. I took the provisional ignition in a 04 Opel Corsa (Power steering, R in top left instead of bottom right and a few more "excuses"). I wasn't my usual driving self at all, took a terrible turn, wayyy too fast I knew when I was doing it I was wrong, but I just kept doing it

So anyway, flashing, I flashed 2 guys to let them out and I was told that you cannot do that. You're supposed to stop, handbreak, keep hands on the wheels, if THEY choose to come out its up to them. Which is fair enough, but dang, everyone flashes to let people out. It's what's done in this country, or at least where I have been driving. Well, I understand why so I wont be doing it again... or try not to.

My gear changing in the car was terrible, I think I was a bit nervous. Also, I didn't know this but when you pull the handbreak, you are supposed to push in the button. I have always just reefed it up. Woops.

So I'm predicting a fail. One of the points in the Test Tips was get an early night and don't go out. That didn't happen, I went out and got to bed at 4.30

Well at least it's not the full test and I can resit it in a week or so, just as well really, better than waiting another 12 months for the test!!