60KMPH on the M50, what's the point?

Ronanom

ateam wrote: »

I get on at Blanch and go north til the n32 and since January this part of the M50 is undergoing it's upgrade and the speed limit has been reduced.

It's been dreadful ever since. The amount of drivers that think that they can drive in the overtaking lane going 60km. I respect the speed limit but drivers coasting at that pace should be in the LEFT lane, just as they should be if the speed limit was 120km. The amount of undertaking is unreal as ignorant drivers feel their in the right.

With the whole undertaking thing....

I'm guessing its not illegal to be driving along at 120km/hr in the left lane and pass out someone who is stubbornly in the right lane doing 100km/hr... or is it ?

Ronanom

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

I am sorry, I did not spell out every single scenario in order to make myself understood. Kill someone on the road? Go to prison for killing someone. Badly hurt someone on the road? Get locked up for the same as if you jumped a guy at the bar. Slightly hurt someone on the road? Get punished with a lighter sentence. Whatever happens to the other person, get the same punishment as if it happened on foot. Insurance pays for a lot, but in case there are any other damages, the "faulty" party should be charged. Faulty is in quotes because a guard probably needs to determine who is at fault, not the people in the accident. I'm not saying people should go unpunished at all. I'm just saying that putting laws in place to make it seem safer doesn't do the job. Put real punishments in place for real crimes. I can run down a crowded path if I am in a hurry, and walk other times. I don't see why the punishment is different if we are on the road.

Also, I slow down when they are upgrading, and I wouldn't mind a limit saying "60 where workers present," but it doesn't. So the same exact road that's usually 80+ is still down to 60 - even at night, or when there is no one there. The reason the limit is lowered is for the workers (I agree with that). What's the reason for the lower limit if the workers are not there?

The lower limit when workers are not in view can account for any uneven surface that has been created cause of the works..

Ta me anseo

General questions to everyone on this thread who feels they can justify ignoring speed limits when they think they know best:

I know I'm a silly git who thinks he knows best and wishes everyone else would just what they're told. All the same, just answer a few simple questions:

1) If a speed limit is set, can be agreed generally speaking to be ill-advised and set too low, and you think you can justify ignoring it, then does every other limit on every other road not instantly become obselete? Who decides which legal and binding limits need to be adhered to and which ones don't? The individual driver? Can you really not see the problem with your a la carte approach?

2) Will you not accept that a modern society can not survive if we all choose which laws apply to us and which don't? If I think the guy across the road really deserves it can I justify murder in my own head can I then argue that the law doesn't apply to me because I have reasons? And no, that's not an extreme case. Where does your approach to law stop? (Stopping at not obeying silly speed limits is not an answer by the way. You may be able to make an accurate assessment but you can't expect Joe Public to do such a good job.)

3) Have you ever even tried emailing, phoning or writing to your local councilor about the speed limit on the M50? Do you accept that there are recognised ways in a democracy of highlighting your opinions? Can you not see how I might view it as arrogant that you don't agree with a law that applies to everyone, including me and you, will happily ignore it, yet have no interest in having it changed?

4) Finally, do you accept that for the average person and the average journey, if you actually go at 60kph instead of 80kph on the particular stretch of road you are talking about, it will take you no more than seconds or, at a stretch, a minute or two longer to get where you're going? Is impatience really the issue here?

For a 5km stretch, 80kph saves 75 seconds compared to going 60kph. 100kph saves 2 minutes. Can you really justify going two and a half times the legal speed limit to save 2 minutes?

Steve

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

Also, I slow down when they are upgrading, and I wouldn't mind a limit saying "60 where workers present," but it doesn't. So the same exact road that's usually 80+ is still down to 60 - even at night, or when there is no one there. The reason the limit is lowered is for the workers (I agree with that). What's the reason for the lower limit if the workers are not there?

+100

I take it from your posts that you are either in USA or Canada. I've commonly seen signs like that in use over there along with "traffic fines doubled in work zone" and "20mph when children present" (along side a school - with enforcement times displayed on it).

The M50 thing has a couple of issues:

1. For the most part, the road surface on the left lane is consiterably worse than the right lane. There are more potholes and uneven parts due to poorly converted ex hard shoulder - especially where it meets an exit and they seemed to have used a JCB to remove the white hatch marks.
Therefore people like me who respect their cars and alloys are loathe to drive there.

2. While there are parts that are straight and smooth and could safely be used at 80 or 100, they might change the layout overnight and the regular user would be caught out by this.

3. The legal aspect of applying the speed limit has to be taken into consideration. (I'm not 100% but fairly sure this is how it works)
It's not just a matter of workmen plonking up 60kph signs wherever they feel like it. An application must be made too the local council who must then pass a bye law to make the lower limit enforcable.
The application must have precice details on an OS map with the location of the required limits. This can take a fair bit of time so anyone making an application will always make it for the full roadspace required for the works. That's why the seemingly stupid limit can extend km's either side of where the roadworks actually are.

Steve

Ta me anseo wrote: »

General questions to everyone on this thread who feels they can justify ignoring speed limits when they think they know best:

I know I'm a silly git who thinks he knows best and wishes everyone else would just what they're told. All the same, just answer a few simple questions:

I'm a fellow silly git who thinks they know best sometimes:D

Ta me anseo wrote: »

1) If a speed limit is set, can be agreed generally speaking to be ill-advised and set too low, and you think you can justify ignoring it, then does every other limit on every other road not instantly become obselete? Who decides which legal and binding limits need to be adhered to and which ones don't? The individual driver? Can you really not see the problem with your a la carte approach?

Generally the Guards apply common sense to inaproppriate speed limits.
Search for posts by GTC and you'll see some sensible views on the subject.

Ta me anseo wrote: »

2) Will you not accept that a modern society can not survive if we all choose which laws apply to us and which don't? If I think the guy across the road really deserves it can I justify murder in my own head can I then argue that the law doesn't apply to me because I have reasons? And no, that's not an extreme case. Where does your approach to law stop? (Stopping at not obeying silly speed limits is not an answer by the way. You may be able to make an accurate assessment but you can't expect Joe Public to do such a good job.)

I think you answered your own question there.

Ta me anseo wrote: »

3) Have you ever even tried emailing, phoning or writing to your local councilor about the speed limit on the M50? Do you accept that there are recognised ways in a democracy of highlighting your opinions? Can you not see how I might view it as arrogant that you don't agree with a law that applies to everyone, including me and you, will happily ignore it, yet have no interest in having it changed?

I think most people in this country are too happy to bend over and apply lubricant rather than appear non PC.
Over half the population are motorists, who then voted for higher VRT on premium motors, penalty points, speed cameras etc..

Ta me anseo wrote: »

4) Finally, do you accept that for the average person and the average journey, if you actually go at 60kph instead of 80kph on the particular stretch of road you are talking about, it will take you no more than seconds or, at a stretch, a minute or two longer to get where you're going? Is impatience really the issue here?

For a 5km stretch, 80kph saves 75 seconds compared to going 60kph. 100kph saves 2 minutes. Can you really justify going two and a half times the legal speed limit to save 2 minutes?

In the context of roadworks on the M50, you can't argue with this.
In the context of driving from Donegal to Kerry, it would have a signigicant difference.

p.s. PMSL at <stands on soapbox> earlier:D:D:D

Ta me anseo

Generally the Guards apply common sense to inaproppriate speed limits.

I know they do, but it's not just about getting caught. It's about unqualified people making potentially incorrect decisions when deciding which limit to ignore. Basically, it's all or nothing. We obey them all or we obey none of them. The really isn't any logical argument for any other way.

In the context of roadworks on the M50, you can't argue with this.
In the context of driving from Donegal to Kerry, it would have a signigicant difference.

Of course you are right. Unfortunately many long distance drivers have figured out that going 120 instead of 100 for a really long trip can save you 20 minutes or more. That's why I hate long distance driving now. You always have some eejit driving on your bumper trying to get that extra minute off the trip time!

p.s. PMSL at <stands on soapbox> earlier

It's embarassingly worn on top from over-use!

Ta me anseo

Oh and I meant to say that I don't know where I got "two and half times the limit" from. I must have said to myself that 60kph is 40mph and 100 is 2 1/2 times 40 or something weird like that.

Anyhoo, 100kph is well over one and half times the limit. Point still made. Hopefully. :rolleyes:

astraboy

Ta me anseo wrote: »

General questions to everyone on this thread who feels they can justify ignoring speed limits when they think they know best:

I know I'm a silly git who thinks he knows best and wishes everyone else would just what they're told. All the same, just answer a few simple questions:

1) If a speed limit is set, can be agreed generally speaking to be ill-advised and set too low, and you think you can justify ignoring it, then does every other limit on every other road not instantly become obselete? Who decides which legal and binding limits need to be adhered to and which ones don't? The individual driver? Can you really not see the problem with your a la carte approach?

2) Will you not accept that a modern society can not survive if we all choose which laws apply to us and which don't? If I think the guy across the road really deserves it can I justify murder in my own head can I then argue that the law doesn't apply to me because I have reasons? And no, that's not an extreme case. Where does your approach to law stop? (Stopping at not obeying silly speed limits is not an answer by the way. You may be able to make an accurate assessment but you can't expect Joe Public to do such a good job.)

3) Have you ever even tried emailing, phoning or writing to your local councilor about the speed limit on the M50? Do you accept that there are recognised ways in a democracy of highlighting your opinions? Can you not see how I might view it as arrogant that you don't agree with a law that applies to everyone, including me and you, will happily ignore it, yet have no interest in having it changed?

4) Finally, do you accept that for the average person and the average journey, if you actually go at 60kph instead of 80kph on the particular stretch of road you are talking about, it will take you no more than seconds or, at a stretch, a minute or two longer to get where you're going? Is impatience really the issue here?

For a 5km stretch, 80kph saves 75 seconds compared to going 60kph. 100kph saves 2 minutes. Can you really justify going two and a half times the legal speed limit to save 2 minutes?

Firstly, I have no problem keeping to the speed limit when it is justified. 100Kph on the Ballincolligh bypass in Cork on a clear day is too slow, its a road of motorway standard, and I openly ignore this limit. Sue me. On the other hand, driving throught town etc I rarely go near 50Kph. Stupidly low limits make a mockery of speed limits in general.

As for the living in a democracy comment. Well if our esteemed leaders can't keep to the law why should we?:D I know I', stretching the point, but government ministers getting up on their high horses about people breaking the speed limit, while they support a corrupt bastard as the leader of Ireland, seems a bit rich. As for asking anyone to raise the speed limit? Come on, I'm sorry but my faith in the system is far too low to even try. No politican is going to stand by a cause so the "Evil" speeders can have their way.

I have an interest in having speed limits raised where necessary. It is not going to happen as long as their is this silly one dimensional view of road safety in the Dail and the RSA that it is all about "Speed"

As for journey times, 10 minutes of my time is MY 10 minutes, it is not the right of the clown in front to take it from me by pottering along. If you can't drive at a reasonable pace, you should not be on the road, and I make no apology for that comment. Tractors, trucks etc that go slow have the common sense to pull in when they can to allow traffic past, slow drivers in cars don't. People get frustrated, and take risks. If you must drive slow, don't hold up others!

Finally, I do like to drive at a reasonable pace. Never dangerously fast, and my speed is always a reflection of the traffic, the road, the conditions and the car I happen to be driving. That is how you select a safe speed, not in some council office with a map, which is how speed limits are currently set. I'm fully aware that my attitude is un "PC" but I rarely think Political correctness and common sense go hand in hand.

MCMLXXXIII

Ta me anseo wrote: »

1) If a speed limit is set, can be agreed generally speaking to be ill-advised and set too low, and you think you can justify ignoring it, then does every other limit on every other road not instantly become obselete? Who decides which legal and binding limits need to be adhered to and which ones don't? The individual driver? Can you really not see the problem with your a la carte approach?

Yes, instantly obsolete. I never use the speed limit to voice my opinion on how fast/slow someone should be going. You can't trust one sign, but not others - it's an all for one deal.

2) Will you not accept that a modern society can not survive if we all choose which laws apply to us and which don't? If I think the guy across the road really deserves it can I justify murder in my own head can I then argue that the law doesn't apply to me because I have reasons? And no, that's not an extreme case. Where does your approach to law stop? (Stopping at not obeying silly speed limits is not an answer by the way. You may be able to make an accurate assessment but you can't expect Joe Public to do such a good job.)

I do accept that, but I also think that we can all get along at different speeds. Also, if you kill the guy across the road, you should be punished - whether you kill him with your hands or your car.

3) Have you ever even tried emailing, phoning or writing to your local councilor about the speed limit on the M50? Do you accept that there are recognised ways in a democracy of highlighting your opinions? Can you not see how I might view it as arrogant that you don't agree with a law that applies to everyone, including me and you, will happily ignore it, yet have no interest in having it changed?

Funny story: I actually spoke with my representative in real life (he's friends with my father). He pretty much agrees with me - he thinks that every crime on the road is covered by other laws (such as murder). Now what?

4) Finally, do you accept that for the average person and the average journey, if you actually go at 60kph instead of 80kph on the particular stretch of road you are talking about, it will take you no more than seconds or, at a stretch, a minute or two longer to get where you're going? Is impatience really the issue here?

Sure, but like I said a while ago, I just like going fast. Also, read my comment below.

For a 5km stretch, 80kph saves 75 seconds compared to going 60kph. 100kph saves 2 minutes. Can you really justify going two and a half times the legal speed limit to save 2 minutes?

2 minutes? Sure, if I'm on the motorway the whole time. One second can make a big difference if I have to stop at an intersection. A 2 second delay can cause me to wait a full minute if I am stopped by a signal. Put enough of those 2-second traffic lights in my trip and it can take a lot longer.

MCMLXXXIII

stevec wrote: »

+100

I take it from your posts that you are either in USA or Canada. I've commonly seen signs like that in use over there along with "traffic fines doubled in work zone" and "20mph when children present" (along side a school - with enforcement times displayed on it).

Yep, I now live in the US, about a 30 min drive from Canada. My family has houses in both countries, so I drive both regularly. All state/federal expressways here are 70mph (everyone goes 80 or 85)(without complaining about everyone else), and the construction speed limit is 45. The speed limit stays at 70 in the work zone, unless there are workers present, if you are caught in a work zone and there are workers: your fine is doubled, and you get an extra point on your license. Also, if you hit a road worker it's $7,500 and 15 years in prison. I'm all for it.

The M50 thing has a couple of issues:

1. For the most part, the road surface on the left lane is consiterably worse than the right lane. There are more potholes and uneven parts due to poorly converted ex hard shoulder - especially where it meets an exit and they seemed to have used a JCB to remove the white hatch marks.
Therefore people like me who respect their cars and alloys are loathe to drive there.

I completely understand. Winters here are worse than back home, so the roads are terrible every spring. Sometimes they just patch up the holes, other times they repave completely. When they patch, they do it during the day and don't even officially close lanes - there's just two big trucks: one with the patching tools and materials, the other to block the workers in case someone runs into them. If they repave...well it depends on how much money the government has. One time it took 2 weeks to repave over 90 miles of I-75 throughout the whole county (3-5 lanes on each side), other times it has taken 6-8 weeks.

2. While there are parts that are straight and smooth and could safely be used at 80 or 100, they might change the layout overnight and the regular user would be caught out by this.

That's irritating...and who is the government to punish the people with lower limits because of the government's own doings?

3. The legal aspect of applying the speed limit has to be taken into consideration. (I'm not 100% but fairly sure this is how it works)
It's not just a matter of workmen plonking up 60kph signs wherever they feel like it. An application must be made too the local council who must then pass a bye law to make the lower limit enforcable.
The application must have precice details on an OS map with the location of the required limits. This can take a fair bit of time so anyone making an application will always make it for the full roadspace required for the works. That's why the seemingly stupid limit can extend km's either side of where the roadworks actually are.

I learned to drive in the US, so I am much more familliar with the laws here, but yes - there are laws about construction speeds - it's not very fickle...but there needs to be construction the whole stretch if they want to keep the speed limit low the whole time too. I'm sure it's similar back in Cork...or the rest of the country for that matter.

MCMLXXXIII

astraboy wrote: »

As for journey times, 10 minutes of my time is MY 10 minutes, it is not the right of the clown in front to take it from me by pottering along. If you can't drive at a reasonable pace, you should not be on the road, and I make no apology for that comment. Tractors, trucks etc that go slow have the common sense to pull in when they can to allow traffic past, slow drivers in cars don't. People get frustrated, and take risks. If you must drive slow, don't hold up others!

^+1!

D_murph

astraboy wrote: »

Firstly, I have no problem keeping to the speed limit when it is justified. 100Kph on the Ballincolligh bypass in Cork on a clear day is too slow, its a road of motorway standard, and I openly ignore this limit. Sue me.

X2. the limit on that road is a joke and its every bit as good as the new M8 in Fermoy IMO :rolleyes:

its not surprising that the guards are usually parked up slip roads on it clocking cars from the rear (in both directions too btw) at busy times so watch out if you drive it regularly.

they must be collecting a fortune there :rolleyes:

astraboy

D_murph wrote: »

X2. the limit on that road is a joke and its every bit as good as the new M8 in Fermoy IMO :rolleyes:

its not surprising that the guards are usually parked up slip roads on it clocking cars from the rear (in both directions too btw) at busy times so watch out if you drive it regularly.

they must be collecting a fortune there :rolleyes:

Ya my buddy was caught on it. He was breaking the limit by 20Kph. (AKA doing the motorway speed limit, on a motorway spec road)

He was not endangering anyone. He's now 80E poorer and 2 points richer. Another fine victory on the road safety front.:rolleyes:

D_murph

astraboy wrote: »

Ya my buddy was caught on it. He was breaking the limit by 20Kph. (AKA doing the motorway speed limit, on a motorway spec road)

He was not endangering anyone. He's now 80E poorer and 2 points richer. Another fine victory on the road safety front.:rolleyes:

I already feel safer knowing that :rolleyes:, another evil speeder brought to justice . he doesnt drive a blue ford focus does he? i saw them nab a guy that passed me in one a few weeks ago.

nothing like hiding up a slip road to provide a high visibility enforcement eh? how many people saw them up there i wonder. not many IMO so they didnt slow many down either :rolleyes:.

just a sneaky revenue generating tactic :mad:

astraboy

D_murph wrote: »

I already feel safer knowing that :rolleyes:, another evil speeder brought to justice . he doesnt drive a blue ford focus does he? i saw them nab a guy that passed me in one a few weeks ago.

nothing like hiding up a slip road to provide a high visibility enforcement eh? how many people saw them up there i wonder. not many IMO so they didnt slow many down either :rolleyes:.

just a sneaky revenue generating tactic :mad:

No a civic.:D He's not a boy racer though, a very safe driver. Agree on the enforcement point, its just sneaky cash generation. God Forbid they would actually go and police a dangerous stretch of road and drive up and down it pulling people for bad driving. That would be too much work with too few fines.

KerranJast

Ronanom wrote: »

With the whole undertaking thing....

I'm guessing its not illegal to be driving along at 120km/hr in the left lane and pass out someone who is stubbornly in the right lane doing 100km/hr... or is it ?

The Rules of the Road regarding overtaking on the left state:

You may overtake on the left when:_
You want to go straight ahead when the driver in front of you has moved out and signalled that they intend to turn right.
You have signalled that you intend to turn left.
Traffic in both lanes is moving slowly and traffic in the left-hand lane is moving more quickly than the traffic in the right-hand lane.

Also:

You must not overtake when
You are at or near a pelican crossing, zebra crossing or at pedestrian signals.
A traffic sign or road marking prohibits it.
You are approaching a junction.
You are on the approach to a corner, bend, dip in the road, hump-back bridge, brow of a hill or on a narrow road.
You are in the left-hand lane of a dual carriageway or motorway when traffic is moving at normal speed.

The key is the speed of both lanes of traffic. There's always a danger that the driver on the right will move back into the left lane without checking behind them/their blind spots for other vehicles. In heavy slow moving traffic both you and they could react quicker and avoid a tip. In fast moving motorway traffic it could cause a serious pile up. Overtaking on the left in fast moving traffic could be seen as dangerous driving by an onlooking Garda. Best thing is to drive behind the other vehicle in the overtaking lane. They should eventually see that you intend to pass them and pull in.

astraboy

KerranJast wrote: »

T. Best thing is to drive behind the other vehicle in the overtaking lane. They should eventually see that you intend to pass them and pull in.

Wishful thinking I'm afraid! I drove in the US a lot and there is no undertaking rule. People just move into whatever lane is the fastest, usually further towards the left(as they drive on the right). However on a 5 lane highway it can look like whacky races, the middle lane going slower then the two on either side of it. No one dares move lane without checking however. Overtaking in the left lane in Ireland is only considered dangerous as its illegal. If people were more aware on the road then there would be not need for this rule.

Q_Ball

astraboy wrote: »

100Kph on the Ballincolligh bypass in Cork on a clear day is too slow, its a road of motorway standard, and I openly ignore this limit.

Maybe we should let the weather dictate the speed of a road then? :rolleyes:

Mr. Presentable

astraboy wrote: »

Well lets just lower the limit to 15kph so, and imprison anyone doing over that. Its the same tired old argument. The main point is, if people believe a speed limit to be fair and justified, they will obey it. Stupidly low limits on a motorway make a mockery of speed limits in general. If construction is ongoing, fine, lower the limit and raise it again once work is done. But this constant focus on speed, speed speed, everyone breaking the limit is going to kill my family malarkey is making me sick. Look up the figures and see how many accidents were caused because the driver was OVER the limit. Not many, if any. Excessive speed for conditions is another thing altogether, and that can only be reduced by education and training, not cameras or draconian speed measures.

OK. Look, this is an old argument but I'm going to do it again. Lack of care and attention are the main causes of accidents - be they through mobile phone use or intoxication or whatever - not speed. Speed, or rather the abrupt stopping, is what causes death and injury.

Your mention of people killed because a driver is over the limit is not technically correct. If the driver had been going slowly enough the tragedy will not have occured. So, the cause of the accident is carelessness, but the cause of the damage is speed.

The chief problem with low limits on the M50, as with regular speed limits elsewhere lies with the people who believe they don't apply to them, or that they are entitled to exceed the limit through some self-justification ("I am a better driver than that, and know my own limits", for example, is a common one on these boards.)

So, in summation, we can all drive as fast as we like if we can pay 100% attention 100% of the time. We can't/don't, so we need to be limited.

Mr. Presentable

astraboy wrote: »

. Overtaking in the left lane in Ireland is only considered dangerous as its illegal. If people were more aware on the road then there would be not need for this rule.

It is dangerous because by it being illegal drivers are not expecting to be overtaken on the inside. It's about respect and attention

astraboy

Q_Ball wrote: »

Maybe we should let the weather dictate the speed of a road then? :rolleyes:

Ya, thats a great idea. When its clear, you can do 110KPH, when its foggy, the limit is lowered. If your such a fool that you don't adjust your driving style to conditions you should not be on the road. Speed limits should reenforce this to a certain extent. Doing 120 on the bypass is perfectly safe in a modern car on a clear day. Probably not advisable to do it when its lashing rain with heavy traffic though. That is my point. Now go drive along at the speed limit thinking your safe.:rolleyes:

astraboy

nipplenuts wrote: »

OK. Look, this is an old argument but I'm going to do it again. Lack of care and attention are the main causes of accidents - be they through mobile phone use or intoxication or whatever - not speed. Speed, or rather the abrupt stopping, is what causes death and injury.

Your mention of people killed because a driver is over the limit is not technically correct. If the driver had been going slowly enough the tragedy will not have occured. So, the cause of the accident is carelessness, but the cause of the damage is speed.

The chief problem with low limits on the M50, as with regular speed limits elsewhere lies with the people who believe they don't apply to them, or that they are entitled to exceed the limit through some self-justification ("I am a better driver than that, and know my own limits", for example, is a common one on these boards.)

So, in summation, we can all drive as fast as we like if we can pay 100% attention 100% of the time. We can't/don't, so we need to be limited.

Please explain why accident rates on the Autobhans without limits are the same as those with limits? Because that just blows your "we need to be limited" argument out of the water. If there is no limit, or a reasonable one, people drive at the speed they feel comfortable at. If your driving at a comfortable speed you are therefore safer, as you are in tune with your reactions, the conditions, and the vehicle you drive.

Obviously, we require better roads and driver training before we get near Germany, but the point remains the same. Why should I be limited by others inattention, poor driving abilities or plain stupidity? Me driving faster then others has no impact on others as long as I do so safely. One can drive at 150Kph safely if aware and well trained, or dangerously at 50kph.

Mr. Presentable

astraboy wrote: »

Please explain why accident rates on the Autobhans without limits are the same as those with limits? Because that just blows your "we need to be limited" argument out of the water. If there is no limit, or a reasonable one, people drive at the speed they feel comfortable at. If your driving at a comfortable speed you are therefore safer, as you are in tune with your reactions, the conditions, and the vehicle you drive.

Obviously, we require better roads and driver training before we get near Germany, but the point remains the same. Why should I be limited by others inattention, poor driving abilities or plain stupidity? Me driving faster then others has no impact on others as long as I do so safely. One can drive at 150Kph safely if aware and well trained, or dangerously at 50kph.

Did you even read my post?

I stressed, more than once, that accidents are not caused by speed. Can you not see that? The results of an accident, however, are exacerbated by speed.

astraboy

nipplenuts wrote: »

Did you even read my post?

I stressed, more than once, that accidents are not caused by speed. Can you not see that? The results of an accident, however, are exacerbated by speed.

Fair enough, we all agree on that one. Its a basic fact of physics. But why should we constantly be limited by a lowest common demoninator speed limit? If people are trained to drive at higher speeds (say 80mph) or they are experienced at it, they will be more able to avoid accidents in the first place. What your suggesting is a zero sum game, we can all limit ourselves to driving a 5kph tomorrow but accidents will still happen! A person driving a BMW M3 at 80mph may be far safer and able to avoid an accident then a person in a 98 corsa doing 70mph. There are many variables at selecting speed, so I believe that if drivers were better trained they would be able to select the most suitable speed for them.

I'm not totally against speed limits. In fact, I have posted that they are necessary on the majority of our roads. I just believe that on our well engineered and tolled motorways as well as dual carriageways, limits need to be raised.

Also, this constant road safety focus on speed is diminishing responsibilities on the Government to improve driver training and our infrastructure.

MCMLXXXIII

astraboy wrote: »

...I drove in the US a lot and there is no undertaking rule. People just move into whatever lane is the fastest, usually further towards the left(as they drive on the right). However on a 5 lane highway it can look like whacky races, the middle lane going slower then the two on either side of it. No one dares move lane without checking however...

Where have you driven in North America? The driving habits really depend on where you are: LA is slow vs fast in Detroit, people in Florida freak out if it rains, but Canadians are perfectly comfortable in the snow. Oh, and when I say slow in Florida, I mean like 45 or 50 on the motorway...kinda like the limit on M50:rolleyes:

Andrewf20

Its an argument that comes up time and time again on boards. At the end of the day, the conflict in opinions comes down to how can an objective, fixed speeds limit can be suitable for a subjective opinion of what is considered dangerous driving. Its very tricky as there are so many variables (weather, traffic, how much folks are paying attention etc). I guess the limits are set low as theres little faith in Joe puplic to keep themselves out of trouble.

I was driving on similar roads (I35) near Austin, Texas last year where they had 3 lanes sandwiched tight between concrete walls during renovations. The limit there was 60mph. Some folks were doing 70mph and it did feel a bit hairy especially in the lanes beside the walls.

I think 70km/hr when workers are in place would seem fine, and 100km/hr when they are off duty on the M50.

astraboy

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

Where have you driven in North America? The driving habits really depend on where you are: LA is slow vs fast in Detroit, people in Florida freak out if it rains, but Canadians are perfectly comfortable in the snow. Oh, and when I say slow in Florida, I mean like 45 or 50 on the motorway...kinda like the limit on M50:rolleyes:

Massachusetts mainly, Boston and surrounding area. Driven in New York city, not as bad as I expected! I found Boston enjoyable yet crazy, people have NO PATIENCE there and are called "massholes" when on the road! The roads and infrastructure, the "big dig" and tunnels were all excellent. I've driven as far as Toronto in Canada and down as far as Delaware so I've covered a good bit of the East Coast.

MCMLXXXIII

astraboy wrote: »

Massachusetts mainly, Boston and surrounding area. Driven in New York city, not as bad as I expected! I found Boston enjoyable yet crazy, people have NO PATIENCE there and are called "massholes" when on the road! The roads and infrastructure, the "big dig" and tunnels were all excellent. I've driven as far as Toronto in Canada and down as far as Delaware so I've covered a good bit of the East Coast.

The East coast is pretty carzy, especially around Boston because none of the streets are very big, and there are round-abouts instead of regular intersections...plus you gotta stop for pedestrians:( They're kinda mean there...however, at least they don't tell you to slow down.

Ta me anseo

I'll just add this post and then leave it at that. I've made my feelings clear I think and there is little point in flogging a dead horse.

I would like to say that I believe that the fact that this kind of subject gets discussed at all, even just on boards like this, as at least some of us are thinking about what's involved in road safety and trying to be sensible about it. To everyone here - Happy and SAFE driving, whatever side of the argument you're on.

astraboy wrote: »

100Kph on the Ballincolligh bypass in Cork on a clear day is too slow, its a road of motorway standard, and I openly ignore this limit. Sue me.

I think you've kind of proved my point. A "like it or lump it" approach like that could never work if everyone applied it. We are stuck with this system whether we like it or not. We have ways of having our concerns raised and influencing the setting of the rules, but you aren't bothered with that. You haven't got the patience.

As for the living in a democracy comment. Well if our esteemed leaders can't keep to the law why should we?

When I was a kid I used to say that. "I only did it because he did it first!". The words "baby" and "bathwater" come to mind. "We have a system. The guy who put it in place is a plonker. So let's ignore the system." Hmmmm....

government ministers getting up on their high horses about people breaking the speed limit, while they support a corrupt bastard as the leader of Ireland, seems a bit rich.

Yes, how could they possibly be serious about road safety if they stand behind a politically inept to**er. Yes, I see your point. They must like all those people getting killed then I suppose.

As for asking anyone to raise the speed limit? Come on, I'm sorry but my faith in the system is far too low to even try.

Simple translation - You haven't got the patience. It actually does work sometimes.

No politican is going to stand by a cause so the "Evil" speeders can have their way.

Not so. I've seen many stand by the requests of the constituents. They want votes after all don't they?

As for journey times, 10 minutes of my time is MY 10 minutes, it is not the right of the clown in front to take it from me by pottering along.

Even if they agree that the speed limit is silly but have decided that they don't want to break the law all the same? They, after all have the right to drive on any public road too. So it's their fault that they are law abiding and have respect for our (accepted as imperfect) system? You simply don't have any patience. By the way, you never have the right to any length of time for any journey. It could take 10 minutes or 10 hours. You have no guarantee so how could anyone "take it" form you?

If you can't drive at a reasonable pace, you should not be on the road, and I make no apology for that comment.

Replace the words "reasonable pace" with the words "a pace of my choosing".

Tractors, trucks etc that go slow have the common sense to pull in when they can to allow traffic past, slow drivers in cars don't.

Can't argue with you there. People in this country have no courtesy anymore.

People get frustrated, and take risks.

How, in God's name, can you blame the slow driver for the fact that someone else showed completely poor judgment and took a risk simply because they had no patience?

That is how you select a safe speed, not in some council office with a map, which is how speed limits are currently set.

I would bet my house on the fact that you are wholly unqualified to make that statement. All the same, you're probably right.

I know I really am doing nothing more than devil's advocate here and I accept many of my arguments are pretty silly and imply that if the law says jump off a cliff we should all do what we're told. What I'm really getting at is that I wish people would show some common courtesy and take a conservative view on life when it involves other people. I wish people would realise that they are displaying nothing more that classic, texbook, machismo when they say they can drive faster safely. They are exactly the same as so many people (including me) who preceded a mishap with the words "it's OK, I know what I'm doing". I wish people would take a step back and realise that it is simple impatience that makes people speed, take risks, and do other stupid things behind the wheel. Every one of us suffer from impatience. It is perfectly normal. Yet, only the very lucky realise it is their achilles heel and try to reduce their exposure to it.

I personally feel that if given a choice between go as fast as you think you can safely go or stick to this stupidly slow limit instead, the general population can only handle the latter option. Too many people will over-estimate their abilities. In fact, life generally says, every one of us will over-estimate our abilities. It is normal human psychology to do so. I wish you could all see that.

I really mean no insult or disrepect to anyone posting here. The fact you are talking about it is good enough for me for starters.....;)

joebudden

Hows it going guys, does anyone know if the speed camera on the M50 headin southbound just as you get off at the airport is working, I think it was Ballymun, may have been over the limit if uit was 60kmh but spotted the camera and kept my eye on as i drove past and not too sure there was a flash...any one know???