Cullen tells Gardai to take speed checks off good roads????

MrPudding

dubred wrote:

sorry to disappoint you guys, but there was a speed check southbound on the N7 about 2 miles before Kill this morning at one of the new garda ramps

No one has said there will *never* be checks on better roads. You cannot claim that the direction from Cullen is being ignored simply because you see one check on a road.

MrP

dubred

I wasn't trying to claim that the directive was being ignored, rather that it was not a carte blanche to drive at whatever speed you like on major roads. Sorry if that was the impression I gave:o

PS On re-reading the thread it appears that my comment was unfair to the majority of posters in suggesting that they were ignoring the limits, apologies if I offended anyone

IrishRover

Victor wrote:

If we break one law, why don't we break the next one.

I mentioned in another post recently about it still being a law that a Welshman within the city of Chester after nightfall can legally be killed with a crossbow (BTW I think I actually said Cheshire last time so apologies if anyone got into trouble over that). The obvious point though is that some laws aren't very sane and I think it's silly to rigorously adhere to every law with no room for common sense.

But also some engineer has gone off and designed a road to be safe at a particular speed. Whatever about curves, camber, junctions, etc. How do you fancy slowing down from 140km/h (or 170km/h or 200km/h) on a wet night for a cow that has strayed onto the motorway? But the surface is designed for 120km/h and you can't grip it?

Are you involved in the design of roads? How are the surfaces designed for certain speeds?

Victor

IrishRover wrote:

I mentioned in another post recently about it still being a law that a Welshman within the city of Chester after nightfall can legally be killed with a crossbow (BTW I think I actually said Cheshire last time so apologies if anyone got into trouble over that). The obvious point though is that some laws aren't very sane and I think it's silly to rigorously adhere to every law with no room for common sense.

Then change the law, not break the law.

Are you involved in the design of roads? How are the surfaces designed for certain speeds?

No, I'm not, but I understand the basic principles. Different road surfaces have different characteristics, e.g. I understand tarmacadam is only suitable for low speeds.

IrishRover

I can't just "change the law". I think that's simplistic to say adhere to all laws and if there are any that shouldn't be adhered to because they're nonsensical that you should just obey them anyway until such time as you can get them changed.

You were saying that if I was doing 140km/hr I wouldn't be able to grip the road but if I was doing 120km/hr I would be able to. Are road surfaces really designed to such exact tolerances?

BTW I understand tarmacadam is probably a brand name, but we all call the type of surface we have on our roads here "tarmac". If this is a low speed surface, what are most of our road surfaces made out of if it's not called tarmac?

Victor

Asphalt or variants thereof. Or concrete.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarmacadam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt_concrete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitumen

IrishRover

I read those threads, and yeah it did say strictly speaking tarmac is a name that applies to material patented by E. Purnell Hooley in 1901, but that in general any road surface with "mineral aggregate stuck together with a binder" is often referred to as tarmac.

Anyway, I didn't see it mentioned that some surfaces are good for say 120km/hr but not above. It just said that the tarmac (in the strict sense of the word) was prone to erosion. So are they really designed to these strict tolerances of speed and grip?