54 in a 50 Zone

causal

Boggle wrote:

Different debate but Michael was a passenger... All I mentioned was the driver having responsibility for himself.

Ok it's a different debate. But I think the driver has a responsiblity to himself, and to his passengers, and to all other road users, and to his family and friends who are the ones left to pick up the pieces.

And from watching Trauma on Discovery channel over a period of months the trauma surgeons (orthopedic, maxillofacial, etc.), doctors, EMTs etc. concensus is: do wear your seatbelt - don't speed.

causal

Victor

Speed guns are systematicly calibrated.

Ficus wrote:

what i want to know is where does it mention anything about allowing for a 10% callibration error from the speed guns under EU law, links, webpages, anything??

It's not law. It's practice.

Anyone doing over the speed limit can be prosecuted. However, there is some discretion involved and it a Garda knows a particular type of gun has an error of +x% and you are doing

• speed limit
• speed limit + 1X
• speed limit + 2X
• speed limit + 5X
• speed limit + 10X

Who will get

• ignored
• ticket in the post
• pulled, inspected, prosectued and lectured to

?

commited

I went past a guard today on the rock road, on his own with either a tripod or a hand held gun..
It was a 60kph road, i was doing 65-67, following 2 other cars doing the same speed (celica and big 4x4 yoke)..
After I passed he glanced around for a second...
So I'm now worrying about whether or not I was caught.
I'm not an hibitual speeder, plus i had my little sister in the car with me and the last thing I would do is drive like an eejit with her in the car.

I thought they had to pull you over with mobile devices... Plus - 3 people drive the car I was driving - how will they prove who it was?

causal

commited wrote:

... had my little sister in the car with me and the last thing I would do is drive like an eejit with her in the car. ... It was a 60kph road, i was doing 65-67 ...

^^^^^^^^^ Let's play "Spot The Contradiction" ^^^^^^^^^

As others have said previously some of the tripod mounted devices are wired back to the car and recorded there.

Were you close enough behind the other two cars that he couldn't see your front number plate? - hence he turned around?

[food for thought- take it or leave it]
If yes then:
Could you (and your little sister) have stopped in time if either of the other two cars suddenly came to a halt?

Did your forward observation of the Garda not provide you with enough time to get your speed down to the max speed you should have been doing in the first place; or did you see him too late?
[/food for thought- take it or leave it]

causal

commited

causal wrote:

^^^^^^^^^ Let's play "Spot The Contradiction" ^^^^^^^^^

As others have said previously some of the tripod mounted devices are wired back to the car and recorded there.

Were you close enough behind the other two cars that he couldn't see your front number plate? - hence he turned around?

[food for thought- take it or leave it]
If yes then:
Could you (and your little sister) have stopped in time if either of the other two cars suddenly came to a halt?

Did your forward observation of the Garda not provide you with enough time to get your speed down to the max speed you should have been doing in the first place; or did you see him too late?
[/food for thought- take it or leave it]

causal

First of all - there was no car beside him - he was on his own as stated.

Secondly, I wasn't unreasonably close to the car in front (i.e. I could stop in time if needs be). I know this for two reasons - the yoke in front of me was a large 4x4 with a longer stopping distance then myself, and even if thiswasnt the case I always leave my self enough room for a reaction time.

thirdly, He was around a bend, and i was actually watching what the car to my left was doing as he was being a complete a**e and driving very close to me. When I sawthe guard, I didnt even brake as I thought that considering the fact that I was probably going a bit slower then the traffic around me I was fine. i dont look at my speedo every 5 seconds - there are more important things to think about sometimes.

Also - You think driving like an eejit is 10% over the speed limit? That's really really silly. In fact, you're just nitpicking.

So you've never done 33mph in a 30mph area? Lord no - you'd kill 1000's of children instantly.

Just to clarify - I'm not moaning about being caught. I got caught and I shall pay the price - that's the law. What I am debating is this theory where 30mph is fine in a 30mph zone, but 31mph you are killing kids and baby seals and puppies etc. It's ridiculous. The fact that (reaction times aside) cars stop in almost half the distance that they did when the speed limits were originally imposed says alot about car safety. I think that alot of the speed limits need to be revised - lower in residential roads ( i can do 30mph up my road if i want - it's all houses and kids playing - It's terrible) and higher on dual carriageways, motorways and national roads. Also - why the hell are speed cameras on national roads - they should be in towns and villages where the little boy racers and the rep boy blast up and down.

Food for thought - 65kph is roughly 40mph, the speed limit on that road BEFORE the change to kph, which then made it 37mph. Surely if every speed limit was the absolute maximum that could ever be considered driving safely on that road, then we wouldnt have such a small selection of speed limits? So if this was the case, surely the road should have been 37mph before, or 65kph after the change-over? Sounds like more of a "convenient" speed limit to me.

So if doing 3mph over the speed limit is driving like an eejit - then I'm the biggest eejit around, as are my mother, grandmother, neighbours, my driving instructor for advising me to try and do 33mph during my test in 30mph zones where I could be done for lack of progress otherwise.

Just some food for thought there

edit: Some more food for thought - http://www.safespeed.org.uk/thatad.html
and another http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/176.htm

causal

Curious, you posted a long and mainly misinformed rant defending your actions; but you never stated that you should stick to the speed limit with your niece in the car; and far worse it seems that you either don't acknowledge or are oblivious to the danger to which you exposed her.

commited wrote:

I wasn't unreasonably close to the car in front (i.e. I could stop in time if needs be). I know this for two reasons - the yoke in front of me was a large 4x4 with a longer stopping distance then myself, and even if thiswasnt the case I always leave my self enough room for a reaction time.

Assumption 1: 4x4 has a longer stopping distance. Maybe, maybe not. Large mass, high centre of gravity, but big discs and huge rubber footprint.
Assumption 2: Reaction time is sufficient. What if the 4x4 stops dead - e.g. hits a stopped car, tree, pole, then his total stopping distance is about 1 metre (crumple zone(s)). So is your reaction time now sufficient for you to react and then stop from 66kmh? No, I don't think so. By the time your foot touches your brake pedal your front bumper is hitting his rear bumper, and you and your niece are about to decelerate from 66 to 0 kmh in about 1 metre (your cars frontal crumple and his rear crumple).

Why do you think pile-ups happen? One reason is because people tailgate thinking, like you do, that if they leave enough room in front for reaction time that all will be ok. Their wrong assumption is that the car in front will only use it's brakes to slow down. But in pile ups you're slowed down by smacking into a large mass of stationary cars. I.e. stopping distance = 0 metres (same with a tree or pole). This is why you're supposed to leave a gap for 'reaction distance PLUS stopping distance'. Do you get it now?

and i was actually watching what the car to my left was doing as he was being a complete a**e and driving very close to me.

Another hazard right beside you!! Why did you decide not to slow down, maybe to the speed limit of 60, and let the offending vehicle in the other lane move away from you; this would also have increased the distance between you and the 4x4 too?

He was around a bend, <snip> When I sawthe guard, I didnt even brake as I thought that considering the fact that I was probably going a bit slower then the traffic around me I was fine. i dont look at my speedo every 5 seconds - there are more important things to think about sometimes.

There can be, but from what you've posted it seems you don't know what they are.

Also - You think driving like an eejit is 10% over the speed limit?

Do you think you were acting responsibly exposing your niece to those dangers: A car too close beside you, a 4x4 too close in front, a bend in the road around which you couldn't see the Garda (or what he was holding), and all this above the speed limit.

That's really really silly. In fact, you're just nitpicking.

Some day you might find that the Gardai and the DPP are a lot more skilled at picking nits than I am.

Just to clarify - I'm not moaning about being caught. I got caught and I shall pay the price - that's the law. What I am debating is this theory where 30mph is fine in a 30mph zone, but 31mph you are killing kids and baby seals and puppies etc. It's ridiculous.

If you really want to change the limit on the Rock Road take it up with the Roads Department of Dun Laoghaire - Rathdown County Counicl. fwiw I'd be surprised if anything will come of it; but it's interesting that the Garda was sufficiently interested in the three of you that he turned to have a further look.

Surely if every speed limit was the absolute maximum that could ever be considered driving safely on that road

That's not what the speed limit is.

Just some food for thought there

CHOMP CHOMP.


causal

commited

causal wrote:

Curious, you posted a long and mainly misinformed rant defending your actions; but you never stated that you should stick to the speed limit with your niece in the car; and far worse it seems that you either don't acknowledge or are oblivious to the danger to which you exposed her.

My niece? Did you read or just decide to go off on your torrent instantly?
And I wasnt so much defending my actions as clarifying that everything isnt as black and white as idealists like yourself seem to stick to.
Out of interest - how many years have you had your license? Did you drive on your own before you passed your test? Have you ever sped?

Assumption 1: 4x4 has a longer stopping distance. Maybe, maybe not. Large mass, high centre of gravity, but big discs and huge rubber footprint.

No big rubber footprint here - it was one of those silly excuse for a 4x4's.

Assumption 2: Reaction time is sufficient. What if the 4x4 stops dead - e.g. hits a stopped car, tree, pole, then his total stopping distance is about 1 metre (crumple zone(s)). So is your reaction time now sufficient for you to react and then stop from 66kmh? No, I don't think so. By the time your foot touches your brake pedal your front bumper is hitting his rear bumper, and you and your niece are about to decelerate from 66 to 0 kmh in about 1 metre (your cars frontal crumple and his rear crumple).

I wasnt right up his rear bumper. It was a gradual left hander, dual carriageway, I was on the outside lane, so as I went around the corner I could see the car in front of the car in front of me and the road ahead of him. The guard was tucked into the very left (behind a tree and there were hedges ahead of him), perfect guard placement

Why do you think pile-ups happen? One reason is because people tailgate thinking, like you do, that if they leave enough room in front for reaction time that all will be ok. Their wrong assumption is that the car in front will only use it's brakes to slow down. But in pile ups you're slowed down by smacking into a large mass of stationary cars. I.e. stopping distance = 0 metres (same with a tree or pole). This is why you're supposed to leave a gap for 'reaction distance PLUS stopping distance'. Do you get it now?

Dont act so superior - it's not a good way to cast a message across. I know all about reaction distances and stopping distances - I've avoided enough accidents at this stage to know how terrible drivers in Ireland are. As I said above, I had seen the road in front of the 4x4 yoke and new that there were no dangers except the stupid corolla or whatever it was beside me.

Another hazard right beside you!! Why did you decide not to slow down, maybe to the speed limit of 60, and let the offending vehicle in the other lane move away from you; this would also have increased the distance between you and the 4x4 too?

I had my foot off the accelerator, covering the brake - braking harshly may have caused an accident as there was someone behind me and there was no need for it as I had space to move to the right (no one coming towards me)

There can be, but from what you've posted it seems you don't know what they are.

And from what you've said so far, you think that if everyone stuck to the speed limit there would be no accidents at all. You're a victim of propaganda.

Do you think you were acting responsibly exposing your niece to those dangers: A car too close beside you, a 4x4 too close in front, a bend in the road around which you couldn't see the Garda (or what he was holding), and all this above the speed limit.

I think I have adressed everything stated here. 1 - not my niece. 2 - Car beside me I had little control over as he came up the inside quicker then I was travelling and didnt seem to like the gradual corner. 3 - It was not too close to me. 4 - the bend was gradual, the guard was behind a tree in the shade, dressed in black, with a black camera, on a bright day, 5 - all this 3mph over the speed limit, actually travelling at the previous speed limit.

If you really want to change the limit on the Rock Road take it up with the Roads Department of Dun Laoghaire - Rathdown County Counicl. fwiw I'd be surprised if anything will come of it; but it's interesting that the Garda was sufficiently interested in the three of you that he turned to have a further look.

For all I know he had something in his eye. He was also missing all the cars behind me, some of which travelling quicker than myself.

CHOMP CHOMP.

No thoughts on that? Surprising.


So I dont think I was driving unreasonably. I was driving as I was taught how to drive, and how I passed my driving test. As I said before, I was not MOANING about being caught, my original post was myself clarifying what was the story with radar guns as I have never been over the speed limit going through one before.

Then again - what do I care what you think I only care what the camera says at the end of the day - you arent going to change the way anyone drives.

causal

So it was your little sister, not your niece. It changes nothing.

And I wasnt so much defending my actions as clarifying that everything isnt as black and white as idealists like yourself seem to stick to.

I didn't mention black and white, or idealism? You made all that up by yourself, and this too...

the yoke in front of me was a large 4x4 with a longer stopping distance then myself
[snip]
No big rubber footprint here - it was one of those silly excuse for a 4x4's.

Like a lot of stories, your one changes to suit the occasion.

Dont act so superior - it's not a good way to cast a message across.

Superior-Inferior - that's all in your head. I explained something and asked if you understood. Perfectly valid, since your actions don't reflect those of someone acting responsibly in possession of that knowledge (not allowing for braking distance to the 4x4 in front etc.).

I know all about reaction distances and stopping distances - I've avoided enough accidents at this stage to know how terrible drivers in Ireland are.

Did it ever occur to you that you might be one of them. Or are you all seeing and all knowing, and it's just the rest of us that are terrible drivers? Ask an advanced driving instructor how you should have a)'avoided', or b)'handled' the situation you described. Or do you know already, but you chose to act differently.

As I said above, I had seen the road in front of the 4x4 yoke and new that there were no dangers except the stupid corolla or whatever it was beside me.

Celica. You 'knew there were no dangers' - you seem to think you saw everything - just like so many others that can't believe they didn't see X, Y or Z until it was too late. X = Garda with speed gun

I had my foot off the accelerator, covering the brake - braking harshly may have caused an accident as there was someone behind me and there was no need for it as I had space to move to the right (no one coming towards me)

Jokers to the front of you, jokers to the left of you, jokers behind you. And your escape route was into the overtaking lane on the wrong side of a dual carriageway on a bend. Is this your non-terrible demonstration of perfect driving.

And from what you've said so far, you think that if everyone stuck to the speed limit there would be no accidents at all. You're a victim of propaganda.

I never said anything of the sort, that's all in your head. The driving you described has a lot of room for improvement. But of course you "know how terrible drivers in Ireland are".

the guard was behind a tree in the shade, dressed in black, with a black camera, on a bright day

The Garda was "dressed in black"? Are you sure you aren't embellishing your story again.

So I dont think I was driving unreasonably.

Let's picture it: you were in the overtaking lane, on a slight bend, over the speed limit, car too close in front, car too close in the nearside lane, your foot hovering over the brake, but with a car too close behind, and with escape route into the overtaking lane on the wrong side of a dual cariageway - all under the watchful eye of a Garda with a speed-gun. Yup - that's perfectly reasonable, now can I have change of a dustbin lid.

I was driving as I was taught how to drive, and how I passed my driving test.

Then why not get some advanced driving lessons from a qualified advanced driving instructor, and learn how to drive at an advanced level.

I only care what the camera says at the end of the day - you arent going to change the way anyone drives.

That's the spirt, and beware because you "know how terrible drivers in Ireland are".



causal

Boggle

From what I read here comited seems to have been driving fine and as usual causal appears to be fromtin the holier than thou, smellin of roses brigade who lose touch with reality the minute their fingers touch the keyboard.

Did it ever occur to you that you might be one of them. Or are you all seeing and all knowing, and it's just the rest of us that are terrible drivers? Ask an advanced driving instructor how you should have a)'avoided', or b)'handled' the situation you described. Or do you know already, but you chose to act differently.

From his statements I can tell you that the poster was: a) aware of potential risks around him (car on left), b) had sufficient distance from the car in front, c) had decent view of oncoming traffic situation(thus enforcing b), d) could see the road in front of him and so was aware of potential hazards. I would go on to say that he showed good cop on as he didn't brake when he saw a gard, which could have caused problems for traffic behind him, but was ready to do so should the car in front of him have done.

So what else would you do causal? Curl up in a ball every time there's traffic around you??? Would you have watched the speedometer more closely? Driven at a lower speed? Did you even read the links he provided or just hop back up on your horse?

causal wrote:

Let's picture it: you were in the overtaking lane, on a slight bend, over the speed limit, car too close in front, car too close in the nearside lane, your foot hovering over the brake, but with a car too close behind, and with escape route into the overtaking lane on the wrong side of a dual cariageway - all under the watchful eye of a Garda with a speed-gun. Yup - that's perfectly reasonable, now can I have change of a dustbin lid.

The drama!!! The twisting of things to suit your position that comitted is officially a dangerous driver...!!

comitted wrote:

After I passed he glanced around for a second...

Doesn't matter. If the camera didn't get the number then no point him getting it. More likely he was lookin at the car beside you...

commited

Boggle wrote:

From what I read here commited seems to have been driving fine and as usual causal appears to be fromtin the holier than thou, smellin of roses brigade who lose touch with reality the minute their fingers touch the keyboard.

Cheers dude

Boggle wrote:

Doesn't matter. If the camera didn't get the number then no point him getting it. More likely he was lookin at the car beside you...

Cheers for the useful reply Boggle. Much appreciated

AS I said before, i wasnt defending my speed in my original post, just wondering if I'd been caught as I have never ben in this situation before

Casual - I really cant be bothered to address your post, as you clearly live in a little bubble. The funny thing is you're the one making all the assumptions - not me

2 pieces of your nit picking I must address though:
Re the garda - oooooh no he was in navy - sorry that changes everything - everyone knows that navy has the luminosity of lime green, especially in the shade :rolleyes:
There are plenty of large 4x4's that are poor excuses for 4x4's, but then again - this isnt the issue, and you used this to cast doubt on the whole scenario.

causal

Boggle wrote:

<snip snip>

Boggle you're just bitter and twisted because I highlighted the fact you were misinformed in this post of yours, by giving this reply , and as of last Tuesday you still haven't acknowledged your error.
You may also note the friendly advice I gave to 30-6shooter in that post, just like I did with commited in my first post to him

If ye think that me questioning someone elses actions or giving alternatives is being 'holier than thou' that's your judgement but not my intention, but like I said to commited in the first place it's 'food for thought- take it or leave it'.

causal

commited

causal wrote:

take it or leave it'.

Force fed more like.

causal

commited wrote:

Cheers for the useful reply Boggle. Much appreciated

I hope you two find true love

2 pieces of your nit picking I must address though:
Re the garda - oooooh no he was in navy - sorry that changes everything - everyone knows that navy has the luminosity of lime green, especially in the shade :rolleyes:
There are plenty of large 4x4's that are poor excuses for 4x4's, but then again - this isnt the issue, and you used this to cast doubt on the whole scenario.

The Gardai, but particularly detectives and the DPP will do the exact same thing. Inconsistencies in your story detract from your credibility and thefore the credibility of your story. Ask anyone in the law department in UCD.

In any event, why not get those advanced lessons. I bet you'll be pleasantly surprised.

causal

Boggle

Boggle you're just bitter and twisted because I highlighted the fact you were misinformed in this post of yours, by giving this reply , and as of last Tuesday you still haven't acknowledged your error.
You may also note the friendly advice I gave to 30-6shooter in that post, just like I did with commited in my first post to him

Your so sweet!! I'm assuming your referencing the overtaking debate... unfortunately I haven't been blessed with alot of free time over the past few weeks but dont worry I will come back to this. Like I said - if I'm wrong I'll retract.

I hope you two find true love

Thats kind of petty - dont you think??

If ye think that me questioning someone elses actions or giving alternatives is being 'holier than thou' that's your judgement but not my intention, but like I said to commited in the first place it's 'food for thought- take it or leave it'.

No you were accusing the lad of dangerous driving with no basis for doing so. Maybe its not your intention, but your phrasing is blatantly insulting in an "I know better than you" kind of way. Plus the fact that you barely seem to acknowledge other peoples posts, instead reading what you want to read out of them so that you can preach. (for example: where did the last poster say he was close to the car in front? Didn't stop you from making that assumption though!)

causal

Boggle wrote:

[In an earlier post] The drama!!! The twisting of things to suit your position that comitted is officially a dangerous driver...!!
[In your last post] No you were accusing the lad of dangerous driving with no basis for doing so.

Not true. I never accused him of dangerous driving. This is the second time you've said I accused of him of dangerous driving, when I did no such thing.

you barely seem to acknowledge other peoples posts, instead reading what you want to read out of them so that you can preach<snip>
Didn't stop you from making that assumption though!)

Ironcically, you then go on to accuse me of reading what I like out of other peoples posts and then making assumptions, when that's exactly what you just did.

Maybe its not your intention, but your phrasing is blatantly insulting in an "I know better than you" kind of way.

You can choose to interpret it however you like, but the facts and the law remain. Most people know very little about the rules of the road let alone Road Traffic law, but they seem to have themselves convinced they do know, and they don't like being questioned, they get all defensive and uppity.

where did the last poster say he was close to the car in front? Didn't stop you from making that assumption though!)

Here:

comitted wrote:

I wasn't unreasonably close to the car in front (i.e. I could stop in time if needs be). I know this for two reasons - the yoke in front of me was a large 4x4 with a longer stopping distance then myself, and even if thiswasnt the case I always leave my self enough room for a reaction time.

As I already pointed out leaving enough room for reaction distance will only help you if your braking distance is less than or equal to the cars in front; But if your braking distance is greater than other vehicles, or they hit e.g. stopped car, lamp-post etc. then you're too close.



causal

Boggle

Do you think you were acting responsibly exposing your niece to those dangers: A car too close beside you, a 4x4 too close in front, a bend in the road around which you couldn't see the Garda (or what he was holding), and all this above the speed limit.

Okay so you inferred on multiple occasions that he was a dangerous driver. Or at the very least you decided to question his skills/knowledge - this in my book amounts to accusing someone of being a dangerous driver.

Most people know very little about the rules of the road let alone Road Traffic law, but they seem to have themselves convinced they do know, and they don't like being questioned, they get all defensive and uppity.

I will agree with you here - however, as I have always maintain driving to the rules of the road alone will get you killed as they can never account for every situation you will be placed in. Common sense, an understanding of whats going on around you coupled with a good knowledge of the rules of the road are what keep you alive. (I think this is where you and I disagree as you appear interested only in the rulebook and not on your environmet at the time)

Originally Posted by comitted
I wasn't unreasonably close to the car in front (i.e. I could stop in time if needs be). I know this for two reasons - the yoke in front of me was a large 4x4 with a longer stopping distance then myself, and even if thiswasnt the case I always leave my self enough room for a reaction time.

To causal: What would you consider reaction time? I would consider it as enough time to get youself out of trouble safely under 96% of possible circumstances. The other 4% cannot always be accounted for and in these circumstances it can often come down to luck or pure skill - more often luck - that you survive.

You were asking him what would happen if the car in front would come to a complete halt(collision): thereby you are suggesting that he drive at approx 9 car lengths away from the car in front (stopping distance at 40mph). This is unfeasable in the real world as you will always get someone popping in to fill the gap you leave open.

causal

Boggle wrote:

Okay so you inferred on multiple occasions that he was a dangerous driver. Or at the very least you decided to question his skills/knowledge - this in my book amounts to accusing someone of being a dangerous driver.

Now you're having a laugh, you can't have it both ways: On the one hand you say I infer things, and on the other hand you say I read things into what others wrote.

On the other point, yes I questioned his knowledge and his judgement - that doesn't mean I accused him of anything, and in fact I accused him of nothing.

I will agree with you here - however, as I have always maintain driving to the rules of the road alone will get you killed as they can never account for every situation you will be placed in. Common sense, an understanding of whats going on around you coupled with a good knowledge of the rules of the road are what keep you alive. (I think this is where you and I disagree as you appear interested only in the rulebook and not on your environmet at the time)

I'm interested in both. The rule book is for passing your test, roadcraft is for surviving on the road, so we agree on this point. And if comitted does get any advanced lessons one of the first things he'll be told is to forget how he drove for the driving test.
Experience is a harsh teacher - she gives the test first, the lesson comes later.

To causal: What would you consider reaction time?

Time between an event happening and your vehcle beginning to accelerate (in the physics sense of the word i.e. change of velocity (speed and/or direction)). E.g. time starting when the car in front begins braking to the time you observe it and get your foot onto the brake pedal. (in fairness to comitted he had his foot over the brake pedal in anticipation - thus greatly reducing his reaction time)

I would consider it as enough time to get youself out of trouble safely under 96% of possible circumstances. The other 4% cannot always be accounted for and in these circumstances it can often come down to luck or pure skill - more often luck - that you survive.

Luck is always a useful ally; the more you practice the luckier you get; and chance favours the prepared mind.

You were asking him what would happen if the car in front would come to a complete halt(collision): thereby you are suggesting that he drive at approx 9 car lengths away from the car in front (stopping distance at 40mph).

I asked him the question so that he could think about it himself. If I wanted to tell him to drive 9 car lengths away then I would explicitly tell him so, I didn't. If you read back over my posts to comitted (and you) in this thread you'll find that I asked a lot of questions; but you'll find very little, or naught, of me telling him or you what to do.

This is unfeasable in the real world as you will always get someone popping in to fill the gap you leave open.

Agreed, it's a total pain in the ass, but I generally just ease back and let the gap open up again. Often they'll pop right out again because the next car in front is fast enough for them either.

causal

commited

First of all - I know the rules of the road

I know there is a difference between the driving test and day to day driving - but forgetting how I drove on my test - that's silly.

And who says I need to go on an advanced course. Did you? You enver answered my question about how long you've been driving/ passed your test...

I really dont care to see any more references to my post or myself from you at all on these forums, as you have no right to and I find you incredibly narrow minded.

causal

commited wrote:

First of all - I know the rules of the road

Fair play to you if that's true, but you'd be in the minority.

I know there is a difference between the driving test and day to day driving - but forgetting how I drove on my test - that's silly.

I'll quote Boggle: "have always maintain driving to the rules of the road alone will get you killed as they can never account for every situation you will be placed in." I agree with Boggle on that point.
And it seems you don't drive like you did in your test, I doubt your instructor told you to be in the overtaking lane (unless you're planning on taking a right turn ahead) and doing 67 in a 60 zone.

And who says I need to go on an advanced course.

I don't know. Who says you need to go on an advanced course? Not me. I asked you twice why not get advanced lessons:

causal wrote:

"Then why not get some advanced driving lessons from a qualified advanced driving instructor, and learn how to drive at an advanced level."
...
In any event, why not get those advanced lessons. I bet you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Did you? You enver answered my question about how long you've been driving/ passed your test...

Because it's irrelevant. I asked you lot's of questions so you can think about the answers yourself. But you seem to think I'm being holier than thou and preaching to you, telling you what you should do, and you want to know how qualified I am to lecture you. Well I'm not lecturing, preaching or telling you. One reason I asked you questions is because you might learn something yourself in thinking about the answers.
But it seems you didn't like being questioned - perhaps because you didn't like the answers.

I really dont care to see any more references to my post or myself from you at all on these forums, as you have no right to

It's a public forum. It's probably not a good idea to post things on the internet if you're only willing to accept what you consider favourable responses. You also have the choice not to read and/or not to respond.

and I find you incredibly narrow minded.

Classic Freudian projection. You earlier said that I "live in a bubble" and I think that was projection too. You seem to have yourself convinced that what you did was fine, and maybe it bursts your bubble when someone asks questions that have answers you don't like.

Now, you can write me off whatever way you like, but you can't write off the laws of the road, and you certainly can't write off the laws of physics. And if those laws come calling, you might realise who was narrow minded and who was in the bubble.

causal

commited

causal wrote:

Fair play to you if that's true, but you'd be in the minority.

I agree. I am in the minority.

And it seems you don't drive like you did in your test, I doubt your instructor told you to be in the overtaking lane (unless you're planning on taking a right turn ahead) and doing 67 in a 60 zone.

I was planning on going right at the next lights, or the lights after that (depending on traffic).

Because it's irrelevant. I asked you lot's of questions so you can think about the answers yourself. But you seem to think I'm being holier than thou and preaching to you, telling you what you should do, and you want to know how qualified I am to lecture you. Well I'm not lecturing, preaching or telling you. One reason I asked you questions is because you might learn something yourself in thinking about the answers.
But it seems you didn't like being questioned - perhaps because you didn't like the answers.

It's not irrelevant at all. I have no problem being questions - it appears it's you who doesnt seem to want to answer

causal

Ok, here's 3 trivia to keep your knowledge honed; What does the rules of the road say about the following:
1) Name the three people in authority that you must yield to.
2) When a towing device is longer than 1.5 metres, what extra precaution(s) must you take?
3) What does a flashing orange arrow mean, at a set of traffic lights?

Comitted, for the benefit of everyone else who drives the rock road - do you mind telling us where the Garda had set up his 'observation point'?

fwiw I've seen them a few times:
- setup halfway down Newtownpark Avenue just at the turn into Hollypark, they were looking up toward Whites Cross (N11).
- setup at the entrance to Leopardstown Racecourse, looking along Leopardstown road back toward the N11.
- setup at the entrance to the Beacon Clinic (in Leopardstown Ind Est.) looking down past Mircrosfot, towards Eircom.

causal

Victor

causal wrote:

1) Name the three people in authority that you must yield to.
2) When a towing device is longer than 1.5 metres, what extra precaution(s) must you take?
3) What does a flashing orange arrow mean, at a set of traffic lights?

1 A garda, a crossing warden or a banksman.
2 um ..... drive even slower / more carefully? So as to avoid jack-knifing?
3 Proceed with caution, in that direction only.