New speed limit on M50 -

Zascar

I just got this email so I thought I would post it here...
----


Dear friends and colleagues

As you may or may not know, the M50 motorway has now been designated with a 100km speed limit. I phoned the NRA this morning to confirm if this was going to be the speed limit while the works are completed, or if this was going to be the speed limit moving forward. They have confirmed to me this morning that moving forward the M50 will have a limit of 100km per hour.

I have included below the email I have sent this morning to the NRA’s CEO (Fred Barry – fbarry@nra.ie) and the safety officer Harry Cullen (hcullen@nra.ie) registering my complaint. This mail contains the reasons I was given by them for their decision, and my answers to those reasons.

The only logical reason I can think of for this decision is because it will be a great place for the police to sit with their gatso guns to earn lots of extra money on speeding fines.

Sorry, I mean “saving lives”. Saving lives on statistically the safest roads.

So I have decided to start an email campaign. I can't make them change their minds, but maybe lots of us can. Please please forward this on to everyone you know, and get them to mail the NRA today also. Join my campaign to have the 120km speed limit reinstated on the M50. Or if they won't, then they shouldn't be allowed charge a toll (personally I don't think they should be allowed to charge this anyway!).

We now live in the nanniest of nanny states.



From: <snip>
To: fbarry@nra.ie; hcullen@nra.ie
Subject: Speed limit on the M50
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 11:46:47 +0100

Dear Mr Barry and Mr Cullen

I am mailing you today to register my complaint at the new speed limit on the M50. It was with total astonishment at the weekend that I have discovered that after years of torment using the M50 – a motor way with a limit of 120km – you have now reduced the speed limit to 100km. This is the national speed limit, the speed limit of carriageways and all primary roads. I get to use these for free!

I have been provided the reasons for your decision and I address each of them below.

1. To increase capacity – you are building an extra lane for this very reason – and in most cases between junctions, 2 additional lanes.
2. To increase safety – statistically motorways are the safest roads anyway – so why reduce the speed down on a 3 lane motorway, yet maintain 100km speed limits on all the twisty narrow back roads of this country where the carnage is actually taking place.
3. Because there are lots of junctions on it - eh hello, isn’t that the reason that from junction to junction there is a specific additional lane?
4. Because of “weaving traffic” – traffic will weave whether there are 1, 2, 3 or 4 lanes involved. Ridiculous nonsense to name this as a reason, and it is my belief that reducing the speed to 100km will only result in increasing road rage, frustration, and people needing to spend more time looking at their speed dials then keeping an eye on the road.

You also wish to increase the cost of the toll for using the motorway, which in my opinion is now no better than a carriageway with the silly speed you have reduced it to. So I have only one conclusion on this issue.

Either you see sense and maintain the speed limit of 120km as is fitting for a 4 lane motorway, OR, you realize that charging people the use of a 4 lane carriageway is not acceptable and therefore stop charging the toll.

Yours......

fletch

I actually don't mind the new 100kph speed limit. The majority of Irish drivers aren't competent enough to merge at a cruising speed of 120kph which causes tailbacks as people on the mainline have to jam on. I think there's a better chance of the traffic moving at a more consistent rate if the speed limit is 100kph.

seamus

Most people will still drive at 120km/h+ anyway. Once the camera locations are known, you'll see some bunching there (ironically, these will be the most dangerous parts of the entire motorway) and then people will speed off.

pippip

They spoke about this on Dublin City FM traffic info in the afternoon about a month ago. It has to be a 100km speed limit because the M50 is now classed under EU law as a "Urban Motorway". I don't fully understand why it wasn't one before, maybe something to do with four lanes now?

Anyway thats the reason...

antodeco

fletch wrote: »

I actually don't mind the new 100kph speed limit. The majority of Irish drivers aren't competent enough to merge at a cruising speed of 120kph which causes tailbacks as people on the mainline have to jam on. I think there's a better chance of the traffic moving at a more consistent rate if the speed limit is 100kph.

Whilst I partly agree on the inability of a large quantity of uneducated drivers, the M50 is capable of higher speeds. For example, the M1, one of the finest roads in the country (IMO) has a speed limit of 120KPH. The new M50 will have far better road quality, the ability to manouvere better if there is an incident ahead (due to more lanes) as well as more lanes, means that those who are unable to maintain a speed of above 100KPH can stay in the furthermost left lane. Those wishing to continue at a higher speed ~120KPH can use the middle lane.

It's all coming down to education of the drivers again. I travel on the new stretches of the M50 a fair amount (tallaght through to Lucan and vice-versa) and I do most of my driving on the left lane. I know this is standard practice, however, I pass most of the other cars who stay in the other lanes. If people were aware of what lane to use, I think traffic and speeds would not be a major issue on the motorway. Im perfectly happy for everyone else to sit in the right or middle lane, whilst I can drive down the left lane, driving "properly" and still "overtaking" everyone else.

pippip wrote: »

They spoke about this on Dublin City FM traffic info in the afternoon about a month ago. It has to be a 100km speed limit because the M50 is now classed under EU law as a "Urban Motorway". I don't fully understand why it wasn't one before, maybe something to do with four lanes now?

Anyway thats the reason...

Not at you pippip, but Im just wondering what the difference between the M50/Sections of the M1/Sections of the M4/Sections of the M11 in terms of "urban motorway"?

seamus wrote: »

Most people will still drive at 120km/h+ anyway. Once the camera locations are known, you'll see some bunching there (ironically, these will be the most dangerous parts of the entire motorway) and then people will speed off.

Agreed. The amount of people who slam on the breaks at this point, causing an automatic response from those behind to slow down. I can understand a sliding scale of speeds. Lets say from the redcow exit onwards to lucan being 100KPH, lucan to the toll bridge 80KPH down to 60KPH. This will be from a saftey point of view and I could understand that.

agent_smith

Disgraceful. There is absolutely no reason IMHO to reduce the speed on the M50 once finished. I agree with most of the OP's points.
As to the the comment that most irish people cannot cruise at 120... i dont agree. Most people will find it simple to cruise along at 120. If they are not capable of cruising at that speed, fine, drop the speed to 100 or whatever you are comfortable with. Its a limit and not a target yada yada yada, but do not penalise those who are capable of travelling at 120 kph.

Marcus.Aurelius

I've also emailed the two boyos.

Disgusted by their behaviour in this matter. We already drive on substandard roads with ridiculously high limits and decent roads with ridiculously low speed limits. Incompetent morons.

HashSlinging

from an economy point of view its better to cruise at 100kph than 120kph as you use far far less fuel at 100. Maybe some one can post up the difference.

BrianD3

AFAIK the lowered limit is to do with reduced lane widths. To fit in 3 lanes they had to reduce the lane width and there are different standards for lane widths for a 120 km/h road than for a 100 km/h road.

The road has higher capacity (in theory)with 3 lanes @ 100 km/h than 2 lanes @ 120 km/h.

In practice, due to clueless drivers it will be a mess of road hogging and undertaking just like the 3 lane section of the N7 is. In that case it is probably good that the limit isn't 120.

L1011

antodeco wrote: »

Not at you pippip, but Im just wondering what the difference between the M50/Sections of the M1/Sections of the M4/Sections of the M11 in terms of "urban motorway"?

The M4 runs through open countryside, at worse you could say about 400 yards of it runs through an industrial estate at Maynooth. The southern bit of the M1 and the majority of the M50 are pretty much equal on urban-ness though.

Who me?

I find the new limits strange. When the M50 is busy it moves slower than 100Kmh, When it's quiet 120Kmh is perfectly safe, particulaly since the improvements.

Ferris

Start a poll on this thread and email in the results to the NRA.

100kph blanket limit is ridiculous imo, why not implement variable limits like they do in the UK.

Run_to_da_hills

Urban carpark more like it, I seriously don't know where the term "urban motorway" came from.

cjt156

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Urban carpark more like it, I seriously don't know where the term "urban motorway" came from.

Actually since the upgrading the southern section moves really well. The only constriction to flow is the toll. I drive from Cherrywoof to N4 every working day & its possible to do the speed limit all the way.

*Tripper*

Good man Zascar, i'll shoot off an email later to the same effect!

Zascar

Petition now online: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/M50120km

Zascar

Zascar wrote: »

I just got this email so I thought I would post it here...
----


Dear friends and colleagues

As you may or may not know, the M50 motorway has now been designated with a 100km speed limit. I phoned the NRA this morning to confirm if this was going to be the speed limit while the works are completed, or if this was going to be the speed limit moving forward. They have confirmed to me this morning that moving forward the M50 will have a limit of 100km per hour.

I have included below the email I have sent this morning to the NRA’s CEO (Fred Barry – fbarry@nra.ie) and the safety officer Harry Cullen (hcullen@nra.ie) registering my complaint. This mail contains the reasons I was given by them for their decision, and my answers to those reasons.

The only logical reason I can think of for this decision is because it will be a great place for the police to sit with their gatso guns to earn lots of extra money on speeding fines.

Sorry, I mean “saving lives”. Saving lives on statistically the safest roads.

So I have decided to start an email campaign. I can't make them change their minds, but maybe lots of us can. Please please forward this on to everyone you know, and get them to mail the NRA today also. Join my campaign to have the 120km speed limit reinstated on the M50. Or if they won't, then they shouldn't be allowed charge a toll (personally I don't think they should be allowed to charge this anyway!).

We now live in the nanniest of nanny states.



From: <snip>
To: fbarry@nra.ie; hcullen@nra.ie
Subject: Speed limit on the M50
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 11:46:47 +0100

Dear Mr Barry and Mr Cullen

I am mailing you today to register my complaint at the new speed limit on the M50. It was with total astonishment at the weekend that I have discovered that after years of torment using the M50 – a motor way with a limit of 120km – you have now reduced the speed limit to 100km. This is the national speed limit, the speed limit of carriageways and all primary roads. I get to use these for free!

I have been provided the reasons for your decision and I address each of them below.

1. To increase capacity – you are building an extra lane for this very reason – and in most cases between junctions, 2 additional lanes.
2. To increase safety – statistically motorways are the safest roads anyway – so why reduce the speed down on a 3 lane motorway, yet maintain 100km speed limits on all the twisty narrow back roads of this country where the carnage is actually taking place.
3. Because there are lots of junctions on it - eh hello, isn’t that the reason that from junction to junction there is a specific additional lane?
4. Because of “weaving traffic” – traffic will weave whether there are 1, 2, 3 or 4 lanes involved. Ridiculous nonsense to name this as a reason, and it is my belief that reducing the speed to 100km will only result in increasing road rage, frustration, and people needing to spend more time looking at their speed dials then keeping an eye on the road.

You also wish to increase the cost of the toll for using the motorway, which in my opinion is now no better than a carriageway with the silly speed you have reduced it to. So I have only one conclusion on this issue.

Either you see sense and maintain the speed limit of 120km as is fitting for a 4 lane motorway, OR, you realize that charging people the use of a 4 lane carriageway is not acceptable and therefore stop charging the toll.

Yours......

I agree with what you are saying but try make your point without coming across like a condescending asshole. They are going to bin your letter straight away.
Perhaps look at the Irish times letters page for guidance.

Tabnabs

A lot of hype about very little. Seriously, what time difference is the Tallaght to toll bridge section going to make with a 20km/hour reduction? SFA!!!

And the opening sentence of the OP's email rant is factually inaccurate. South of the roadworks the M50 continues to be 120km/hr.

yeahright

ronoc I've had letters published in the Times, but thanks for the tip. It wasn't written in a condescending way, and you are the only one who has read it as such...

Dyflin, if you read the original mail I sent, I think you'll see what the response from the NRA was about the speed limit once the work is completed, not what it is at the moment.

Whether you agree with the limit or not is ok with me. I'm not trying to force my opinion on anyone, just inviting those in agreement to join me in an attempt to make a difference. For once I decided that instead of just moaning about it, I could try to do something about it. No doubt it won't make a difference, but at least I tried.

fletch

yeahright wrote: »

ronoc I've had letters published in the Times, but thanks for the tip. It wasn't written in a condescending way, and you are the only one who has read it as such...

Dyflin, if you read the original mail I sent, I think you'll see what the response from the NRA was about the speed limit once the work is completed, not what it is at the moment.

Whether you agree with the limit or not is ok with me. I'm not trying to force my opinion on anyone, just inviting those in agreement to join me in an attempt to make a difference. For once I decided that instead of just moaning about it, I could try to do something about it. No doubt it won't make a difference, but at least I tried.

Is this Zascar???

Steve

Are you saying the *entire* M50 from loughlinstown to the airport will be 100kph or just parts of it?

If so, which parts?

yeahright

No it isn't.

yeahright

On the phone yesterday they told me that after discussion with the council and cops the M50 will be 100km for the reasons written in my original email. I took from that that the majority of it would be 100km. If you want more information then you can call them.

Stealdo

ronoc wrote: »

I agree with what you are saying but try make your point without coming across like a condescending asshole. They are going to bin your letter straight away.
Perhaps look at the Irish times letters page for guidance.

While I disagree with the OP's point I agree with you that that letter and particularly the tone/attitude behind it will get you no where. Although I don't think that OP wrote it, it was attached to the e-mail they received.

The letter seems totally dismissive of the legitimate reason for decreasing the speed limit being the safety of having traffic potentially moving from two outer lanes to the middle lane simultaneously. This alone will make someone reading it disregard the letter. A far better approach would be to objectively give the rationale behind your opinion accepting that there are some safety concerns, not just ranting about how you pay the toll, blah blah no one will care. Comparisons with any other road in Ireland are counter productive for you because the only road you can really compare it with is the M1 section from the airport in where the speed limit is 80 (and you still have people weaving across medians into slip roads rather than wait for the start of the third lane).

If you were to take that letter - from the point of view of an objective person in the NRA, you would have the following responses (IMO)

Point 1 - Speed limit is same national speed limit - irrelevant
Point 2 - toll is paid so should be higher speed limit - irrelevant
Point 3 - extra lanes add capacity not lower speed limit - true, but unlikely that this was actually given as a reason for the limit, more likely the reason for the extra lanes which are the reason for the new limit
Point 4 - Statistical safety of motorway vs twisty backroads - while a decent point, this is irrelevant to the question they're actually looking at which is safety of 3/4 lane motorway with 120 limit vs safety of 3/4 lane motorway with 100 limit
Point 5 - There is an additional lane between junctions - without considering the childish wording of this, this is actually a reason to reduce it, not increase it in my opinion and I'm sure that of the people who you're writing to so you'll need to give some reasoning why this isn't the case
Point 6 - Traffic will weave no matter how many lanes there are - true again, but see point 4 more lanes = more weaving the only comparison their interested in is the new road at 120 vs new road at 100
Point 7 - More road rage/distracted drivers, quite possibly - but you would need to back this up somehow for it to be taken seriously by people who blindly believe slower = safer

The rest is just a repeat of point two, and an ultimatum that has no consequence.

Like I said I would be in favour of the reduced rate because I am not a fan of the way I see people driving on 3 lanes roads (here or in any other country). There is probably a stronger argument for a 100, 100, 120 limit by lane. But the point of this post is not that, it's to point out that no one will take the letter as written seriously because as I said it reads like a rant and does not actually make any points that can be taken seriously without some sort of rational thinking behind them (not saying that it's not rationally thought out, it just doesn't show itself to be).

On the other hand it's quite possible that you expect nothing to be done with your letter and you're just getting this off your chest/registerting your disapproval in which case it serves its purpose fine.

By the way consider this before your next move - the M50 from the M1 interchange to the M11 is approx 38 km. It would take 19 minutes to drive it at 120kph, it would take 23 minutes to drive it at 100kph - it will be very hard to argue that this 4 minute saving is necessary against the slower = safer folks.

Tabnabs

yeahright wrote: »

ronoc I've had letters published in the Times, but thanks for the tip. It wasn't written in a condescending way, and you are the only one who has read it as such...

Dyflin, if you read the original mail I sent, I think you'll see what the response from the NRA was about the speed limit once the work is completed, not what it is at the moment.

Whether you agree with the limit or not is ok with me. I'm not trying to force my opinion on anyone, just inviting those in agreement to join me in an attempt to make a difference. For once I decided that instead of just moaning about it, I could try to do something about it. No doubt it won't make a difference, but at least I tried.

Are you trying to hijack this thread or just using multiple accounts to post?

yeahright

Jaysus what's wrong with you people!!! A friend did me a favour and posted my mail here and let me know about it. And all you're interested in is attacking my prose style, childishness, condescending manner or the fact that I choose to respond to you at all.

You don't agree, that is fine, don't sign the petition or foward the email.

Zascar sorry, last favour your do for me I'm sure!

Steve

Yeahright, you might have explained that instead of just posting answers.

How was anyone to know?

I don't think any harm was meant.

yeahright

yeahright wrote: »

ronoc I've had letters published in the Times, but thanks for the tip. It wasn't written in a condescending way, and you are the only one who has read it as such...

Dyflin, if you read the original mail I sent, I think you'll see what the response from the NRA was about the speed limit once the work is completed, not what it is at the moment.

Whether you agree with the limit or not is ok with me. I'm not trying to force my opinion on anyone, just inviting those in agreement to join me in an attempt to make a difference. For once I decided that instead of just moaning about it, I could try to do something about it. No doubt it won't make a difference, but at least I tried.

Someone a lot wiser than me once said, you can make a lot of noise to get get heard but that doesn't mean they will listen.

You are dealing with a jobs for the boys quango who essentially accountable to nobody. Put yourself in their shoes in their cushy job, if you got that tone of letter or email would you feel the need to act on it?

E92

ronoc wrote: »

I agree with what you are saying but try make your point without coming across like a condescending asshole. They are going to bin your letter straight away.
Perhaps look at the Irish times letters page for guidance.

+1. The first thing I saw there was an arrogance equivalent to that of our new Taoiseach.

You/person who worte it could have been a lot more tactful and would have gotten the point he wanted to get across a lot better.

There's a time and a place for everything and a bit of a rant to someone who you want to change something for you then you don't go about in that tone.

There is such a thing as being polite but at the same time getting the point across loud and clear(if anything being polite you get the point across much louder and clearer).

At the end of the day, I seriously doubt that there is often the opportunity to even reach 100 never mind 120 on the M50, so I'm not sure how much on an inconvenience it is that you can only do 100 on it given that the opportunities to go even at that speed are pretty rare.

In any event, the reason why it has a limit of 100 is because as BrianD3 said earlier, the lanes are now narrower and therefore it is less safe to do 120 than before.

There are far much worse things out there on the roads than "only" being allowed to do 100 on a road that when completed will already be at full capacity thanks to our incompetant Government that wouldn't know what forward planning was if it was staring them in the face.

Like all those Dual Carriageways that are built to Motorway standard but yet have a limit of only 100 even though most of them are not that busy at all.

dak

Maybe it should be reduced to 50kmh and restricted to honda 50's ! We could all zip along !

Seriously its a volume/space/speed problem that even the extra lanes won't solve. What we need IMHO is a Proper Outer Orbital motorway around Dublin !

yeahright

ronoc you are right that this probably won't make a difference, but it was something I felt I had to do.

E92, yes this is trivial in the greater scheme of things, but it p*ssed me off, so I decided to do something. I don't think all Dual Carrigeways are 100km, the Asbourne bypass I am told has a limit of 120km.