New penalty points

[Murt10]

Years ago a friend of mine was driving his motor cycle in town to work at about 8.30 am. He was just dawdling along minding his own business and not speeding excessively.

Some prat was driving very slowly down the opposite way down the road (no Lplates displayed, I don't even know if he was an L driver. The driver behind the slow car became impatient, lost the rag, pulled out to overtake and accelerated. He didn't notice the bike and BANG.

The friend suffered serious injuries to his arm and leg. He was the totally innocent party but IMO the slow party must take a large share of the blame for the accident.


Murt

 

[Bamhan]

Speaking of motor cycles and not seeing them did anyone see the new ad on TV featuring same, nearly frightened the life out of em the first time I saw it.

 

[Humpback]

Years ago a friend of mine was driving his motor cycle in town to work at about 8.30 am. He was just dawdling along minding his own business and not speeding excessively.

Some prat was driving very slowly down the opposite way down the road (no Lplates displayed, I don't even know if he was an L driver. The driver behind the slow car became impatient, lost the rag, pulled out to overtake and accelerated. He didn't notice the bike and BANG.

The friend suffered serious injuries to his arm and leg. He was the totally innocent party but IMO the slow party must take a large share of the blame for the accident.


Murt

Murt, your comment above is just absolutely nuts.

The "prat" who you say was driving slowly didn't hit your mate. It was the "prat" who pulled a dangerous manouvre when overtaking - you said it yourself, he "didn't notice the bike".

How can you blame a 3rd party for that? You even also say that he was driving "in town". Was he driving at the speed limit (which in case some people don't realise, is slower than on country roads, though not always followed)?

Whether or not someone is going slow in front of you, and no matter how annoying that might be, it's doesn't give someone licence to pull dangerous driving manouvres just because they might need to save 5mins getting somewhere.

 

[Bamhan]

I think you would save a lot more than five minutes on most journeys if you drive at the speed limit rather than driving at half the speed limit.
Not advocating dangerous over-taking but as someone who commutes for over two hours daily someone driving at half the legal spped limit is in my opinion contributing as much to accidents as the people who become frustrated and try to overtake.

 

[Murt10]

Murt, your comment above is just absolutely nuts.

The "prat" who you say was driving slowly didn't hit your mate. It was the "prat" who pulled a dangerous manouvre when overtaking - you said it yourself, he "didn't notice the bike".

How can you blame a 3rd party for that? You even also say that he was driving "in town". Was he driving at the speed limit (which in case some people don't realise, is slower than on country roads, though not always followed)?

Whether or not someone is going slow in front of you, and no matter how annoying that might be, it's doesn't give someone licence to pull dangerous driving manouvres just because they might need to save 5mins getting somewhere.

I think we had just better agree to differ there. (You wouldn't be trolling by any chance.)

If someone is causing an obstruction by driving unreasonably slow and there is an accident because another driver is driving dangerously trying to overtake them, the driver causing the obstruction is of course partially to blame.

In fact, prior to the introduction of the penalty points, I remember hearing of people failing the driving test for not keeping up with the flow of traffic, even though they were keeping bat or below the speed limit.

Using your logic, I am within my rights to drive out the Navan Road (M3 a major artery), which is single lane most of the way out of the city at 4mph, if I wanted. I'd like to try explaining that to a guard.

Any gardai care to comment



Murt

 

[Humpback]

(You wouldn't be trolling by any chance.)

Have no idea what that is.

If someone is causing an obstruction by driving unreasonably slow and there is an accident because another driver is driving dangerously trying to overtake them, the driver causing the obstruction is of course partially to blame.

Why? Because the slow drive "made" them overtake them? We're all 100% responsible for our own actions, and if someone overtakes anyone, for whatever reason, and causes an accident, it's 100% their own fault. No one is making them over take, it's their own choice to do so.

Using your logic, I am within my rights to drive out the Navan Road (M3 a major artery), which is single lane most of the way out of the city at 4mph, if I wanted. I'd like to try explaining that to a guard.

I think you'll find that I haven't defended slow driving. I've said that there might be mitigating factors for it, and have acknowledged the frustration it's caused.

However, you're arguement is approaching two wrongs making a right.

 

[Joe1234]

In my opinion it should be against the law to be drive on a main road when you are not competent to do so.

The speed at which someone chooses to drive at may have nothing to do with their comptancy to drive. Many minor roads have limits of 80kph, but if someone feels that they are safer driving on such roads at 50 or 60kph, then why can drivers behind them not accept this. They have the right to overtake the slower driver when it is safe to do so.

 

[shnaek]

Many of these minor roads of which you speak do not have many places to pass. If we implemented a system like the Australians or our more thoughtful Nordic neighbours we would have overtaking/slow lanes at intervals on all our roads.

People can protest all they like that you have the right to drive at half the speed limit. We are all human beings, prone to frustration every now and again - be that due to a neighbours noise or someone holding up Friday evenings commuting traffic. Let's be socially conscious and decent. If you have a trail of traffic behind you be considerate and pull in. Do the decent thing. All these penalty points and tall words aren't worth a damn if we don't have simple courtesy on our roads, making it more pleasant for all of us to drive.

 

[Leo]

In fact, prior to the introduction of the penalty points, I remember hearing of people failing the driving test for not keeping up with the flow of traffic, even though they were keeping bat or below the speed limit.

I failed mine for doing 30mph in a 30 zone on a nice wide raod approaching a school. Tester said I should have been going faster and gave me an automatic fail for "failing to make progress"... But I'm not bitter

 

[Bamhan]

In my opinion it should be against the law to be drive on a main road when you are not competent to do so.
If you are liable to panic when driving close to the legal speed limit then you should not be on a main road.
The only exception is learner drivers who unfortunately do not have anywhere to practice or gain experience before driving on main roads. These should clearly display an L plate.

In my opinion there is something wrong with driving at half the legal speed limit on a main road.
Most people have lives to lead and should not have to factor an extra hour or two into their journey times to allow for incompetent drivers who cannot drive and are liable to panic at a moment's notice.

Joe if you care to read the full message I stated that driving at half the legal speed limit because you are liable to panic if driving faster, makes you an incompetant driver in my book.
If you have to drive at a snail's pace then you are not a competant driver.

 

[Joe1234]

Bamhan,

You are missing my point. I stated in my previous post (if you care to read it), that the speed that someone chooses to drive at (irrespective of whether they are competent enough to drive faster) is their business. There are many minor roads in this country where it would be crazy driving at 80kph, due to the quality of the road. As a previous poster pointed out, the speed limit is a limit, not a target.

 

[Bamhan]

Well obviously I don't expect people to drive at 80KPH just because they are legally allowed to on roads which are unsuitable, but I do expect people to drive at or close to the legal speed limit on roads which are suitable.
Causing a tailback just becasue you have the 'right' to drive at 50kph on a major road is downright silly and irresponsible.

 

[Ash]

In my opinion penalty points should be mandatory for the following offences:

1. Driving without dipped headlights on, including daylight hours, in all seasons, on all road categories.
2 Driving while wearing any kind of hat or head covering (usual exceptions apply for emergency services type personnel on duty as per necessary)
Invariably I find hat wearing drivers will perform at least one dangerous move. Follow with extreme caution.