Speeding and law making in Ireland

SuperGrover

Makes no sense. This is the country you are driving in. You experience bad driving (BTW - some driver behaviour is awful).

But to surmise that this a uniquely Irish experience based on your dail Irish commute is flawed logic.

blastman

bazz26 wrote: »

Unfortunately speed limits are genrally seen as minimum not maximum targets.

You should try taking my route to work in the morning... :rolleyes:

ninty9er

javaboy wrote: »

Wait it's Germany. Don't you mean the left hand lane? :pac:

Indeed I did. apologies. reverse the whole lane thing in that post!

E92

Irish drivers aren't that bad in some areas. In town I rarely find myself having to brake because some moron decides to shoot out on top of me when trying to enter the road. People generally tend to be ok with lane changing in town as well(apart from roundabouts though where they are woeful).

On single carriageways provided people travel at the speed limit you very rarely see bad driving. Yes people do exceed the speed limit but I don't consider that to be bad driving provided it is safe to do so.

We are atrocious driving on Motorways and Dual Carriageways though, for the simple reason that I regularly pass people doing 80 or 90 when they should be doing 100 or 120. You are supposed to drive at the speed limit when it is safe to do, not for nothing do they expect you to drive at the speed limit in the driving when it is safe to do so.

I have no tolerance for Sunday drivers, so I'm usually found hogging the overtaking lane overtaking all the slow people(and there are lots on Motorways but yet not that many on single carriageways for some reason), especially on Motorways where there seems to be a phobia for exceeding 100 km/h.

The amount of people that drive slowly on a motorway never fails to amaze me. People not driving in the correct lane is another bugbear of mine too, and on 3 lane roads this almost always happens.

Yet you get people exceeding the 50 km/h limit by 20-30 km/h.

We are absolutely diabolical at roundabouts too, another pet hate of mine.

People either never indicate irrespective of what exit they are going to take(the only time you should approach a roundabout not indicating is if you're taking the second exit, unless of course the second exit is to the right in which case you indicate right approaching the roundabout), indicate left even though they're not taking the first exit(left is exclusively for the first exit when approaching a roundabout), indicate right(all other scenarios) and don't switch over to indicating left just after the exit preceding the one the wish to take, indicate left the whole way around and I'm sure there's others I've thought of too.

Oh yeah people aren't very good at knowing what lane they are supposed to be in approaching a roundabout either(left for exits 1 and 2, right for all others, and if there are road markings then the road markings overrule the above rule and you must always follow the road markings(which people going from Limerick to Cork never do at the roundabout in Mallow:mad:)), and don't do lane changing when appropriate either.

If fairness people do always yield when required though.

Steve

In Ireland the incompetent minority dictate the speed limits because the government don't have the balls to put a system in place that will weed them off the road - it might cost votes...

And to those advocating the German autobahns - yes they are built to a far superior standard, they're thicker. smoother and the bends have a much greater radius than anything in the UK or Ireland - this enables them to have the higher limit.

E92

SteveC wrote: »

In Ireland the incompetent minority dictate the speed limits because the government don't have the balls to put a system in place that will weed them off the road - it might cost votes...

And to those advocating the German autobahns - yes they are built to a far superior standard, they're thicker. smoother and the bends have a much greater radius than anything in the UK or Ireland - this enables them to have the higher limit.

I don't know, I've gone on some German autobahns with no speed limit and there's no hard should on them. I don't think the autobahns are quite as amazing as some people would have us believe.

The BIG difference is the standard of driving on them, people always stay in the appropriate lane and if you're in the wrong lane you'll be flashed straight away to move in and to let the faster car through.

A road has to be built to a certain international standard before it can be called a motorway anyway.

Steve

E92 wrote: »

I don't know, I've gone on some German autobahns with no speed limit and there's no hard should on them. I don't think the autobahns are quite as amazing as some people would have us believe.

The BIG difference is the standard of driving on them, people always stay in the appropriate lane and if you're in the wrong lane you'll be flashed straight away to move in and to let the faster car through.

A road has to be built to a certain international standard before it can be called a motorway anyway.

I've no source for this apart from a discovery channel type documentary that I watched about how they built them. They are definitely better built and have a lot longer intervals for maintenance etc..
I agree with the better driving standard as well - my first trip was as a passenger at 250kmh about 8 years ago - scared the bejeesus out of me but was perfectly safe.

ArphaRima

I always drive at the speed I deem appropriate for the road, the conditions, and the traffic. The posted speed limit has little bearing on that decision. Then again the speeds I am comfortable at are generally higher than the posted limit.

As for the comment on Irish drivers, despite the number of idiots I DO see) we are generally very good on a world scale. Only lane discipline/merging really lets us down IMHO.

Alun

E92 wrote: »

I don't know, I've gone on some German autobahns with no speed limit and there's no hard should on them. I don't think the autobahns are quite as amazing as some people would have us believe.

Indeed. I've driven on some of the older concrete paved (bump-de-bump-de-bump) autobahns which are unrestricted but would have 100km/h limits slapped on them here because some desk bound 'traffic engineer' decides they don't adhere to the design standards. If you get off the main arterial autobahns on to some of the older, more minor ones, say around the Ruhrgebiet, and you'll see some quite serious bends in places.

D_murph

fluffer wrote: »

I always drive at the speed I deem appropriate for the road, the conditions, and the traffic. The posted speed limit has little bearing on that decision. Then again the speeds I am comfortable at are generally higher than the posted limit.

i cant believe youve gone this long without the usual suspects pouncing on you mercilessly for that statement in here lol

cyclopath2001

E92 wrote: »

You are supposed to drive at the speed limit when it is safe to do, not for nothing do they expect you to drive at the speed limit in the driving when it is safe to do so..

Legal refs please?

javaboy

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Legal refs please?

I'm pretty sure there are none. I think the ROTR say you shouldn't impede other traffic but I'm almost 100% certain that there is no requirement to drive at the limit.

Cool Mo D

About the Autobahns: they're really not built to any higher standard than Irish motorways, slightly lower even: the majority have 2 lanes each way, same as Irish motorways, and especially at junctions they have short merges and extremely sharply curved slip roads, that wouldn't usually be seen here. The older ones don't even have hard shoulders.
It is the drivers they have, with very strict enforcement of tailgating, no stopping, and lane hogging laws by cops that makes them work so well (along with far superior signage).

D_murph

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Legal refs please?

eringobragh

D_murph wrote: »

lol




..

D_murph

eringobragh wrote: »

lol

E92

javaboy wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there are none. I think the ROTR say you shouldn't impede other traffic but I'm almost 100% certain that there is no requirement to drive at the limit.

They hardly fail you in the driving test for not driving at the speed limit(not over it obviously) when it is safe to do so for the good of their health.

I don't think there is an actual rule that specifically states you must drive at the speed limit when it is safe to do so, but certainly it is common courtesy and basic good manners that you should drive at the speed limit when appropriate.

Certainly the ROTR specifies AFAIK that you must not hold up progress, and by not driving at the speed limit when it is safe to do so you are holding up people, so that implys that you are supposed to drive at the speed limit.

If the ROTR said specifically that you have to drive at the speed limit then I would have said that you must drive at the speed limit; as the ROTR implies that you have to but doesn't specifically say it, I said you are supposed to drive at the speed limit for a very good reason.

There is a big difference in meaning between the words "have to/must" and "supposed to" a point evidently missed on some.

They certainly do not mean the same thing.

Lecture in English now over:D!

gyppo

nipplenuts wrote: »

The problem is it doesn't matter what the limit is, the same people exceeding it now will exceed it no matter what it is. It's to do with the old "I am a better judge of what's safe for me than any legislator" notion that some drivers have. What they forget is there are other, perhaps less gifted, drivers sharing the road with them, over whose driving they have no control.

Totally agree with this post.

Also, the "a la carte" interpretation of what many drivers feel is a safe speed can put "lesser skilled" drivers in danger.
Picture this scenario: How many times have you looked in your rearview mirror (whilst driving at the legal limit) and seen a dot in the distance when about to carry out an overtaking manouvre? How long before that dot is on top of you?? Can you tell from a quick glance in the mirror what speed this distant dot is travelling at??

/edit Im not saying speed limits should not be altered. What I am saying is that limits should be enforced, so everyone is playing by the same rulebook.

E92

gyppo wrote: »

Totally agree with this post.

Also, the "a la carte" interpretation of what many drivers feel is a safe speed can put "lesser skilled" drivers in danger.

So what you're saying is that we should slow down to allow incompetent people drive?

If people are not capable of driving properly then they should be put off the road.

bonkey

My tuppence on the subject...

German autobahns are a mixed bag. The standard of driving on them is mixed. They don't work perfectly. Some sections are in need of a total overhaul. I've done 190+ on them, and I've been stuck in hours of traffic-jams at all sorts of hours. I've seen some of the most idiotic driving ever on them: as a passenger, at 160-170, someone cut in front of us about 50 cm from our front bumper. The driver of the car I was in closed up and put on his heads, still at the same speeds, to try and express his opinion of the stupidity of the other driver. Genius.

But here's the thing...Germany is big. There is real time to be gained when you are covering serious distance, and can do stretches at 200-ish instead of 120-ish. I've cut an hour of a long journey that way (and paid for it in fuel economy).

Ireland is not big. If you allowed people to drive at 160 instead of 120, it wouldn't up their average speeds by 40 km/hr...it would probably up it more like 10km/hr. Over distances you're likely to drive in Ireland, that will maybe cut 10-15 minutes of a non-trivial journey. Up from 120 only to 130 or 140....and it will make SFA difference...about as much as you'd gain by hitting a green light instead of a red. So why bother? Really....what is the point?

Incidentally, Germany are increasingly reducing the amount of unrestricted stretches, and are even talking about doing away with them entirely. Every so often, there's talk from one mainland nation or another about dropping the entire speed-limit to a max of 100 km/h.

gyppo

E92 wrote: »

So what you're saying is that we should slow down to allow incompetent people drive?

If people are not capable of driving properly then they should be put off the road.

No, re-read my post.

E92

bonkey wrote: »

Incidentally, Germany are increasingly reducing the amount of unrestricted stretches, and are even talking about doing away with them entirely. Every so often, there's talk from one mainland nation or another about dropping the entire speed-limit to a max of 100 km/h.

A German state did indeed recently adopt blanket speed limits on all the Autobahns, however as it was a city state it affected the grand total of 11 km of the 12,200 km Autobahn network!

While German politicians talk about introducing blanket speed limits(and they do), the German public is still largely against such a notion.

They have been talking about putting blanket speed limits on the Autobahn network since the 1980s and yet around half of the network still doesn't have such an inconvenience.

Around a third of the Autobahn network has blanket limits, but these are usually on roads that are so busy you'd never get the chance to exceed the limit anyway, or alternatively black spots(very rare) and increasingly environmental.

The remained have temporary speed limits because they are being resurfaced, and Autobahns are resurfaced on a freakishly high basis. They roads over there are maintained to an extremely high standard, practically every road is as smooth as a billiard table.

The only reason why they are talking about removing blanket speed limits is because of the environmental impact no speed limits has, the safety aspect is not even mentioned as justification for speed limits.

javaboy

E92 wrote: »

They hardly fail you in the driving test for not driving at the speed limit(not over it obviously) when it is safe to do so for the good of their health.

They don't fail you in the driving test for not driving at the speed limit. They may mark you down for not making progress. That doesn't mean you have to go at the limit just because you can.

kippy

kbannon wrote: »

Personally, I'd like to see a higher average level of competency with drivers before the limits go any higher.
Whats the point of having 160km/h on a motorway only for some dopey git to tootle along obliviously in the overtraking lane at 80km/h?

Agreed.
Question:
Where did the majority of drivers here "learn" to drive safely at higher speeds? (I am talking anything above 140kph)
I didnt learn, per se, to drive at 120 from anyone but would be interested to hear what gives people to confidence to drive at 140+ on motorways.

cyclopath2001

E92 wrote: »

Certainly the ROTR specifies AFAIK that you must not hold up progress,

Can you quote it?

javaboy

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Can you quote it?

Hmmm... on the website all I can see is this in the motorway section:

You must progress at a speed and in a way that avoids interference with other motorway traffic.

I don't have my copy of the ROTR handy but I thought there was something about making progress in it. It's certainly implied in the test that you should make reasonable progress.

cyclopath2001

javaboy wrote: »

I don't have my copy of the ROTR handy but I thought there was something about making progress in it. It's certainly implied in the test that you should make reasonable progress.

That's certainly (using different wording) in the RoTR and, for motorways, is not unexpected.

But to get technical, looking at the SI on which most of the RoTR is based, I cannot actually find anything that backs up what it says about making progress on motorways.

For other roads, including dual carriageways, where is the evidence to support E92's assertion?

Zube

javaboy wrote: »

They don't fail you in the driving test for not driving at the speed limit. They may mark you down for not making progress.

But it's the same thing: if you drive about at 49 kph, you fail. My sister failed, and that was the reason given. She went for a couple of lessons afterwards to prepare for a retest, and that's what the instructor told her: stop driving below the limit or you'll fail.

Mr. Presentable

Zube wrote: »

But it's the same thing: if you drive about at 49 kph, you fail. My sister failed, and that was the reason given. She went for a couple of lessons afterwards to prepare for a retest, and that's what the instructor told her: stop driving below the limit or you'll fail.

Zube baby, the only way they'd fail her for that is if she was doing 49kmh on a road with a limit of 80/100kmh during her test. If her instructor told her she has to drive at the limit all the time he should be discredited and sacked.

Zube

At the moment, max open road driving speeds seem to be set by people imagining the worst if they are caught: what is a license-losing or dangerous driving speed. Enforcement is so low that nobody worries about a fine or a few points, unless they already have points on their license. I'd support sensible limits (like higher on M-ways (except the M50!), good roads, lower on bad roads, near black spots, schools and crossings) together with blanket enforcement.

There are a lot of roads which were arbitrarily assigned limits of 80 or 100 kph based on whether they were designated N routes when the kph limits came in. Similarly, former N routes now replaced by motorways (which were apparently safe at 100) are being redesignated 80 as the Rxxxx. This is ridiculous, limits should be based on the quality of the road, not whether the road is a green, red or yellow line on a map.