Speeding: Your Views!!

I.S.T.

cormie wrote:

No, drivers should be able to determine what speed is safe without the need for signs telling us, if a driver can't do that, then they shouldn't really be on the road in the first place.

I wouldn't agree with this seeing as so many drivers can't even manage to use their indicators correctly, judging an appropiate speed is way beyond them!

cormie wrote:

So take your example, since you mention a 50 zone, the law has predetermined 50 is safe. 50 could be too high, imagine it's 3pm and there is a school on the road and there are children all over the place, I wouldn't thread more than 25-30kmph in this situation. Or 50 could be too low, imagine this same stretch of road with the school on it at 3am, the 50 would be there because of the school, otherwise it's a long, wide visible road, but there aren't going to be children around at 3am, so more than 50 would probably be safe. I say probably because each situation is different and the driver should be able to determine this themselves.

Perhaps there is a need for variable speed limits then. They could use digital speed limit displays similar to the ones in the port tunnel. Outside a school the speed limit is lower during school hours and increases later in the evening whe n there are not many people about.

Leon11

not an advocate of speeding however a few of my aussie guys I brought to rugby were telling me that they have a system of leeway, ie 100km/h speed limit, you can do 110% of speed plus 5km/h. Not too sure whether or not to believe it tho, don't think that would work here because our roads are smaller

Biro

Digital variable speed limits are the way forward for sure. How many times have people been doing the legal limit on the M50 only to round a bend and find that you have half a mile to come to a complete stop while watching to make sure the plonker behind you realises the danger? An electronic limit would work in lots of places.
In general I do approve of the emphasis on catching speeders. I would prefer more emphasis on rural areas and during unsociable hours and in known danger places.
Seperate from speeding I definately think that tyres are probably the most important part of your car and there is next to no emphasis put on them. Thats just wrong.

Stark

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

I bet if they abolished the fine associated with speed cameras, i.e. you just get the penalty points and no fine, we would see a dramatic reduction of cops hiding in bushes on the N11, N4, etc

Probably not as they'd still be there for the purposes of getting numbers up. "x number of people caught speeding this weekend" makes it look like something is being done road safety wise, when it's more akin to covering a haemophiliac with band-aids.

cormie

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

I wouldn't agree with this seeing as so many drivers can't even manage to use their indicators correctly, judging an appropiate speed is way beyond them!


Perhaps there is a need for variable speed limits then. They could use digital speed limit displays similar to the ones in the port tunnel. Outside a school the speed limit is lower during school hours and increases later in the evening whe n there are not many people about.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no way suggesting that we take down the signs and let drivers determine what's safe. I'm saying that would be the ideal, if every driver was capable of being able to determine what's safe, but every driver can't. As you said, people can't even indicate properly, so determining a safe speed would be a far too big a responsibility.

Digital signs would definitely be an improvement!

Mitch Connor

they'd never work, we'd simply end up being told the limit was 88kmh, always.

Biro

Tauren wrote:

they'd never work, we'd simply end up being told the limit was 88kmh, always.

Or 888kph and newspapers reporting on people having cases thrown out of court for getting caught doing 200kph because the sign read 888...
If they worked they'd be the answer, but then again they'd probably get a price for putting them in at somewhere around 2 billion euro.

Wishbone Ash

cormie wrote:

No, drivers should be able to determine what speed is safe without the need for signs telling us, if a driver can't do that, then they shouldn't really be on the road in the first place

That's ridiculous cormie. It would then be based on the driver's opinion and not on the actual prevailing conditions. A mature driver who has learned a lot from years of experience and who may have witnessed/or been involved in several accidents would probably have a totally different concept of what is safe compared to a relatively new inexperienced driver.

Kimbot

OldmanMondeo wrote:

My point is that the speed limit is 60, I was going over it, my fault. It does not matter that it was on the M50, I was speeding end off. What I have learnt is to watch my speed more carefully in future, not just on the M50, but every time I drive. The more people that learnt this message, the less people will die. The M50 is one of the most used roads in the country, as all motorways are, the gaurds will get the speeding message across to more drivers on a motorway than a rural road. It is more efficitive than a billboard saying slow down.

As for catching someone 1kph over the limit, I did say that would be harsh and I would doubt anyone has ever been done for exceeding by 1 kph.

After reading what people said about the speedo being slightly lower, maybee I will be ok, but I will still watch my speed.

More camera and speed checks (not traps) are needed on rural roads. Accident black spots need cameras 24/7. but motorways need to be monitiored to. We have only had motorways in this country for, what 10 years, people still do not know how to use them, driving in the outside lane, etc, so anything that educates drivers should be seen as a good thing.

Exactly... OMM hit the nail on the head. He ggot caught speeding and has learnt to keep his eye on the speed everywhere not just on that specific patch of road!! I too have got caught speeding and it has copped me on, I used to think ah the limits are for fools etc etc but was not one for overly speeding. I got caught and now no matter where I am I stick to the limit all the time!!

Mitch Connor

Biro wrote:

Or 888kph and newspapers reporting on people having cases thrown out of court for getting caught doing 200kph because the sign read 888...
If they worked they'd be the answer, but then again they'd probably get a price for putting them in at somewhere around 2 billion euro.

and, of course, by the time that got round to doing it, we'd all be in cars that drove themselves, like I Robot and Minority Report.

Kimbot

Wishbone Ash wrote:

That's ridiculous cormie. It would then be based on the driver's opinion and not on the actual prevailing conditions. A mature driver who has learned a lot from years of experience and who may have witnessed/or been involved in several accidents would probably have a totally different concept of what is safe compared to a relatively new inexperienced driver.

Also true!!
People are hired to think of these limits for reasons and they specialise in this area!! Its a matter of the signpost being the maximum speed you can do on that road!! Not a target that you have to beat time and time again!!

cormie

jonny24ie wrote:

Wishbone Ash wrote:

That's ridiculous cormie. It would then be based on the driver's opinion and not on the actual prevailing conditions. A mature driver who has learned a lot from years of experience and who may have witnessed/or been involved in several accidents would probably have a totally different concept of what is safe compared to a relatively new inexperienced driver.

Also true!!
People are hired to think of these limits for reasons and they specialise in this area!! Its a matter of the signpost being the maximum speed you can do on that road!! Not a target that you have to beat time and time again!!

I know, I'm not saying we should abolish speed limits tomorrow, just saying it would be the ideal. It could never work!:(

Mitch Connor

jonny24ie wrote:

Also true!!
People are hired to think of these limits for reasons and they specialise in this area!! Its a matter of the signpost being the maximum speed you can do on that road!! Not a target that you have to beat time and time again!!

erm....yeah. not a good point there. How would that explain the ridiculas speed limits given for roads?

People don't actually think about these things, not properly and analytically like they should.

If they did, we wouldn't have 60kmh dual carraigeways for no reason, and 80kmh rural roads.

Kimbot

Tauren wrote:

erm....yeah. not a good point there. How would that explain the ridiculas speed limits given for roads?

People don't actually think about these things, not properly and analytically like they should.

If they did, we wouldn't have 60kmh dual carraigeways for no reason, and 80kmh rural roads.

There has to be a reason behind it!! YOu can't say that the local council etc agreed to underspeed a road just for the hell of it!! Locals could have complained and because of that limits might have to be dropped. Its not all down to the authorities at the end of the day, we all do get an input into it yet refuse to speak up!!

OldmanMondeo

I don't think the digital signs are the way to go. The current sign needs little maintance, where as the digital sign will need power, buggered if there is a power cut, can be easily damaged, could be difficult to see in certain weather conditions and could be open to dispute to what the sign was reading, i.e. "these feckin Guards have control over the sign and are out to catch me". Also changing speed limits will further confuse drivers as to the actuall speed of the road, we're confused enough as it is....

Stark

johnny24ie wrote:

There has to be a reason behind it!! YOu can't say that the local council etc agreed to underspeed a road just for the hell of it!!

When the Fermoy bypass opened, they reduced the speed limit on the old section of the N8 from 100km/hr to 80km/hr for the hell of it. Oh wait, no, there was a reason: the letter before the road name changed from "N" to "R" :rolleyes:

OldmanMondeo

Tauren wrote:

erm....yeah. not a good point there. How would that explain If they did, we wouldn't have 60kmh dual carraigeways for no reason, and 80kmh rural roads.

the faster you drive the louder the noise. Dual carraigeways are usually in built up areas, so the other consideration apart for safety is noise polutation.

Wishbone Ash

Tauren wrote:

How would that explain the ridiculas speed limits given for roads?

Ridiculous in who's opinion?

Mitch Connor

jonny24ie wrote:

There has to be a reason behind it!! YOu can't say that the local council etc agreed to underspeed a road just for the hell of it!! Locals could have complained and because of that limits might have to be dropped. Its not all down to the authorities at the end of the day, we all do get an input into it yet refuse to speak up!!

Again, no.

I know of an area of dual carraigeway that was dropped to 60. the locals complained because it was TOO SLOW, the locals that the speed was dropped for. So, council decided to drop the limit irrespective of what the locals wanted, and the road quality itself.

I can say little thought goes in to it, or that the thought that does go into it is looking at the money aspect as much as anything else, because it certainly doesn't seem to be road safety that was teh priority. Can you give any other reason why a dual carraigeway going through a non-residential area, and being straight and wide, is subjected to a 60kmh speedlimit? I'll admit this road has two other roads merging with it along this section, but at other points along the n11 roads manage to merge without the speeed limit being dropped to 60.

Kimbot

Stark wrote:

When the Fermoy bypass opened, they reduced the speed limit on the old section of the N8 from 100km/hr to 80km/hr for the hell of it. Oh wait, no, there was a reason: the letter before the road name changed from "N" to "R" :rolleyes:

Well then it was brought back to a regional road and not a national so the limit changed which would be correct!! If the road was no longer up to National route standards then it has to be changed!!

jonny24ie

jonny24ie wrote:

There has to be a reason behind it!! YOu can't say that the local council etc agreed to underspeed a road just for the hell of it!! Locals could have complained and because of that limits might have to be dropped. Its not all down to the authorities at the end of the day, we all do get an input into it yet refuse to speak up!!

There are two former main roads in Kildare that used to be 60mph but changed to 50mph(100kph) when they changed metric.

Nothing changed on these roads.. Apart from extra speed checks to catch people out.

I speed occasionally when I think its safe to do so. Emtpy safe roads when there is nobody about. What difference does it make when I'm the only one at risk, apart from stirring up the PC brigade.:rolleyes:

Mitch Connor

Wishbone Ash wrote:

Ridiculous in who's opinion?

mine.

Are you saying 80kmh on a back road, not wide enough for two cars to pass without one going on to the verge, with humps, bumps and blind corners is safe?

Stark

johnny24ie wrote:

Well then it was brought back to a regional road and not a national so the limit changed which would be correct!! If the road was no longer up to National route standards then it has to be changed!!

What changed on the road that it wasn't up to National route standard? Apart from the letter of course.

Wishbone Ash

Stark wrote:

When the Fermoy bypass opened, they reduced the speed limit on the old section of the N8 from 100km/hr to 80km/hr for the hell of it. Oh wait, no, there was a reason: the letter before the road name changed from "N" to "R" :rolleyes:

M and N roads are the responsibility of the NRA. The N8 was dedesignated so that it would come under the remit of the local authority. It's standard practise.

Wishbone Ash

Tauren wrote:

mine.

Are you saying 80kmh on a back road, not wide enough for two cars to pass without one going on to the verge, with humps, bumps and blind corners is safe?

Not necessarily, but I'd be more inclined to go with the opinion of senior engineers than other 'ordinary' motorists.

I.S.T.

OldmanMondeo wrote:

I don't think the digital signs are the way to go. The current sign needs little maintance,

They wouldn't be everywhere, just at locations where it doesn't make sense to have a low speed limit 24 hours a day.

OldmanMondeo wrote:

where as the digital sign will need power, buggered if there is a power cut,

If we thought this way then we would not have traffic lights either.

OldmanMondeo wrote:

can be easily damaged,

as per traffic lights

OldmanMondeo wrote:

could be difficult to see in certain weather conditions and

Have you seen the ones at the port tunnel? If anything, they are more noticeable, especially in poor visibility

OldmanMondeo wrote:

could be open to dispute to what the sign was reading, i.e. "these feckin Guards have control over the sign and are out to catch me".

It wouldn't be difficult for the sign to keep a log internally of the speed at a specific time.

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Also changing speed limits will further confuse drivers as to the actuall speed of the road, we're confused enough as it is....

How confusing can it be to read a sign at the side of the road which tells you the maximum speed you can do?

Stark

Wishbone Ash wrote:

M and N roads are the responsibility of the NRA. The N8 was dedesignated so that it would come under the remit of the local authority. It's standard practise.

Yeah I know about the standard practice of having 80km/hr on regional roads. I was just disagreeing with the sentiment that the reasons for reducing the speed limit are purely safety reasons as opposed to just doing it out of practice. I haven't actually been on that section of road since the bypass opened though, so maybe road conditions have changed with extra roundabouts and the like.

OldmanMondeo

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

They wouldn't be everywhere, just at locations where it doesn't make sense to have a low speed limit 24 hours a day.

- Why? as I mentioned before nosie is a factor to consider, higher speeds higher noise

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

If we thought this way then we would not have traffic lights either.

- Yes, but we all know what to do if a traffic light is out, would you know what max speed you can do if the speed sign is out? not every one would

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

as per traffic lights.

- see above

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

Have you seen the ones at the port tunnel? If anything, they are more noticeable, especially in poor visibility.

-No, but these signs are easy to see at night, but when the sun is low and glaring in your eyes, they become very difficult to see.

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

It wouldn't be difficult for the sign to keep a log internally of the speed at a specific time..

- Agree a log would be easy to keep. But like the breath testers, people will pick to find a reason as to why the shouldn't get a fine and PP for speeding.

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

How confusing can it be to read a sign at the side of the road which tells you the maximum speed you can do?.

- All though that was a joke, if you read through the boards here, you will see people asking "What should I do at such and such junction/roundabout" "Who gives way to who". Irisher driver need educating in driving, not just whne they learn to drive, but trouthout their driving life.

Mitch Connor

Wishbone Ash wrote:

Not necessarily, but I'd be more inclined to go with the opinion of senior engineers than other 'ordinary' motorists.

i would be shocked if a 'senior engineer' looked at these roads and said "Yeah....80kmh would be fine here". It just never happened. Roads between newtown/newcastle/kilkoole/greystones are a shocking disgrace, far too narrow, full of pot-holes, blind corners, rises and drops. No way anyone could look at them and say its safe to do 80kmh there, and then look at the n11 between the old greystones turn off and the merging lane a couple of miles up the road and say,"nope, that needs to drop to 60kmh".

Just becasue someone stuck a sign up, does not mean a proper process was undertaken to see what the speed limit should be for that section of roadway, and it also doesn't mean that anything beyond that speed is unsafe and dangerous.

Our man in Havana

I think the problem is with accountability of the gardai. It is effectively impossible to disprove that ever speed they say you were doing as the law effectively allows them to keep everything a secret. Instruments are persumed to be correct but they won't give anyone access to records about calibration etc.

If everything was more transparent people would trust them more. They should be seen to be acting in a transparent manner.