Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Did they scrap the R-plates??
Options
-
07-07-2008 10:50am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Not sure if you meant that, but here goes:
My reasons for opposing the R-Plate nonsense are multiplefold, involving both practical considerations and ideological considerations.
My primary consideration here is, what problem does this proposal aim to fix: how many lives will be saved, how will we deal the problems it creates, but for now let's start with the ideological: a good question would be if one believes that a Nanny State solves all problems? If so and a person tends towards authoritarianism, then this proposal, which seems to be a solution in search of a problem, might seem like a good idea. Similarly, there are a couple of environmental extremists here on boards who would be in favour of anything that makes motoring more frustrating, expensive and unrewarding. I don't need to drop names as anyone who followed certain threads on Commuting and Transport and/or has read my on-boards debates about nuclear electricity will have seen the people I'm talking about. I on the other hand, consider myself to be a moderate left-leaning Libertarian. Genrally speaking I think government should p1ss off and let people live their own lives as they see fit, tempered only by the responsibility to respect the rights of others - with the occasional good exception where there is clear evidence that the State intruding in the affairs of citizens provides significant, measurable improvements to society as a result. I generally oppose having offenses relating to victimless crimes, or adding regulations that do not have solid rational backing.
There is a serious civil liberties issue here and for that reason, I place the onus on anyone proposing new restrictions or seeking to make an offense of a victimless crime, to provide serious justification for it. But in this case, it just so happens that there are practical reason to sin-bin this silly proposal as well.
1) Lower speed limits for newly licesned drivers: Aside from the obvious questions of what the hell anyone expects to achieve with this (given precise details of for example how many lives you expect to save and what methodolgy you used to come to this conclusion) there are two practical problems:
1: Assuming 100% compliance, R-Platers are going to become rolling blockades on places like single carraigeway N-Roads, causing tailbacks and mass frustration, forcing non R-platers to perform more overtaking maneuveres per kilometre to drive at the posted speed limit. I cannot see how this would enhance road safety in any way.
2: Enforcement. How will for example speed cameras detect who can do 100 and who should be doing 80kph? I understand that data for the motorist is fetched by these speed detection systems by license plate only after the vehicle is caught exceeding posted limits. A more nuanced set of speed limit laws will need more elaborate detection that collects a lot more data as a matter of course.
2) No use of motorways:
Again, aside from proponents of this mad hatter scheme being able to tell us PRECISELY why this is required i.e. in precise and clear terms who is victimised by the current scheme and what good will be done by the changes, there are two problems:
1: "new" drivers will lose both time and fuel - perhaps using twice as much of both - having to avoid motorways and use alternative routes.
2: Many towns on these alternative routes, usually the old reclassified N-road, depend on a motorway as their primary by-pass. Not only are many of these bypasses tolled, because they were built as a PPP, but by putting R-drivers off them, will result in more through drivers going through otherwise bypassed town centres.
In many cases, these towns will have traffic problems of their own and extra through traffic will have a cumulative effect, damaging yet further the towns ability to deal with its own local traffic and impairing the quality of life of the people who live and work in the town near the old route. So you now have a dual problem of town centres dealing with through traffic of motorists who don't want to be there, despite there being a state of the art bypass. To deal with this, I forsee 4 options:
A) Tell the towns and the people who live and work in them, that this is our law, we're imposing this problem on you, so put up with it and shut up. A common approach taken by proponents of some authoritarian viewpoints: Impose draconian restrictions on any easy target and damn anyone who gets hurt as a result.
Build inner bypasses where they're needed. Expensive, but for some towns, maybe unavoidable, such as towns in the Dublin and Cork commuter belts.
C) Suspend motorway regulations on town-bypass sections. One idea, but it would make road maps very interesting as the network of solid blue lines become bits of alternating blue and green.
D) Don't enforce the law so R drivers use the motorways and avoid adding to the problem. Could be done, Restricted drivers might mass-disobey the law so as to avoid these problems, but that course of action would of course have other drawbacks.
As for the driver (who has no natural business adding to the town's problems) what if they, for their jobs or whatever, simply cannot afford to spend 5 hours dicking around going up hills, down dales and stopping at every street corner where their collegues/competitors/friends/family do the same journey in 2 hours with a 25% smaller fuel bill? If somoene is aggrieved by the R restriction what recourse will they have, if any?
If these R-Plate rules are introduced the lower speed limts are going to turn obedient drivers into rolling roadblocks on single carraigeways, and the excessive no-motorways restrictions will create mutual problems for both the driver and in some parts, the people, pedestrians, cyclists and local motorists who depend on the motorway's alternate route and actually have a sensible reason to use it.
This and the civil liberties aspect means that there must be a very, super strong case for the proposed changes. Yet so far AFAIK the only place where such a case was seen is in Northern Ireland, that alone is not a case to do it here because the folks in NI are notorious for doing some other things that we don't seem to have the same enthusiasm for.0 -
Advertisement
-
Wishbone Ash wrote: »I'm looking forward to hearing your arguments against it!
BTW Sean , I wasn't being facetious. I was genuinely interested in hearing arguements about R plates. I'd be a bit ambivalent about them myself.Not sure if you meant that, but here goes
You make some good points. I hope you don't mind me making a few observations on some parts.
I would have thought that the introduction of R plates was primarily to ensure the safety of others on our roads.Genrally speaking I think government should p1ss off and let people live their own lives as they see fit, tempered only by the responsibility to respect the rights of others
Generating more awareness of road safety and responsible attitudes may lead to a reduction in accidents. Road safety or lack of could hardly be described as 'victimless'.I generally oppose having offenses relating to victimless crimes, or adding regulations that do not have solid rational backing.
Lets assume that, if introduced, the limit would be 80kph.R-Platers are going to become rolling blockades on places like single carraigeway N-Roads, causing tailbacks and mass frustration, forcing non R-platers to perform more overtaking maneuveres per kilometre to drive at the posted speed limit. I cannot see how this would enhance road safety in any way.
At present the maximum limit for many vehicles is already at or below that limit. Trucks, buses and heavy vans - 80kph. Double deck buses and vehicles towing another vehicle - 64 kph. Mopeds - 45kph. Then there are countless vehicles which are not physically capable of reaching the posted limit.
Trucks and buses do way more miles than new drivers yet I have yet to hear anyone complaining that trucks and buses are the cause of frustration among other motorists.
I also disagree with the concept that slower moving vehicles should be blamed for frustration among other drivers. The speed limits are LIMITS not targets and are based on optimum driving conditions. Drivers are obliged to adjust their driving to the prevailing conditions. If a driver finds this frustrating, then arguably, the problem lies with him, not others.
You are indeed correct but you seem to forget that static speed detectors are only ever used to detect vehicles exceeding the maximum posted limit. In a 100kph road, a camera will not detect a speeding truck, bus, heavy van, moped etc. once they do not exceed the posted limit even though they may have exceeded their own legal limit.2: Enforcement. How will for example speed cameras detect who can do 100 and who should be doing 80kph? I understand that data for the motorist is fetched by these speed detection systems by license plate only after the vehicle is caught exceeding posted limits. A more nuanced set of speed limit laws will need more elaborate detection that collects a lot more data as a matter of course.
A vehicle travelling at 80 kph will use a lot less fuel per km than a vehicle travelling at 120 kph.1: "new" drivers will lose both time and fuel - perhaps using twice as much of both - having to avoid motorways and use alternative routes.
Those towns will already have to accept vehicles/drivers which are currently not permitted to use motorways. I can't see a few R platers making a huge difference.2: Many towns on these alternative routes, usually the old reclassified N-road, depend on a motorway as their primary by-pass. Not only are many of these bypasses tolled, because they were built as a PPP, but by putting R-drivers off them, will result in more through drivers going through otherwise bypassed town centres.
That would be interesting! I can see threads here now about the Fred Dibnah types and their steam tractors causing huge holdups as they travel at 10kph on a by- pass!C) Suspend motorway regulations on town-bypass sections. One idea, but it would make road maps very interesting as the network of solid blue lines become bits of alternating blue and green.
It could be argued that they would know about it's introduction in advance.As for the driver (who has no natural business adding to the town's problems) what if they, for their jobs or whatever, simply cannot afford to spend 5 hours dicking around going up hills, down dales and stopping at every street corner where their collegues/competitors/friends/family do the same journey in 2 hours with a 25% smaller fuel bill? If somoene is aggrieved by the R restriction what recourse will they have, if any?
I've said it a few times here before but think of the potential drivers back in 1964 being told that they no longer could saunter into the post office and buy a licence. There was a thing being introduced called a 'driving test'!
Anyway, thanks for the excellent post Sean! 0
Advertisement