Speeding ticket on Naas Road

L1011

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

MYOB, it is not just the fact of people getting killed, it is also the damage being done, eg Brand new van in our job hits a large-ish dog, collie size, driving around the 60kph mark, €1400 damage to van.

Worse damage is done in bird strikes... and anyway, had it hit the dog at 40km/h it would have had likely identical damage.

GreeBo

MYOB wrote: »

My point was that his claim that the potential of wildlife strikes should cause speed limits to be lower is invalid if he thinks air travel is safe.

How many people have actually died from hitting deer, etc? I doubt the figure is all that much higher.

Im going to go out on a limb here and say that his point was more that "But Conditions are generally more safer for planes to fly than cars to drive. " Not that you dont need to worry about wildlife strikes in the air...


Oh and
"According to the Response Insurance group, car-deer crashes nationwide kill 150 people and a half-million deer each year, and cause an average of $2,000 in vehicle damage per crash. In Wisconsin, 11 people were killed in car-deer crashes in 2004."

craichoe

leon8v wrote: »

I never disagreed with that point. The initial point I disagreed with was that Irish roaads were not capable of allowing cars to drive at 160kph and it wasnt you that made it.
I do however disagree that Gatso vans and speed cameras are the solution to the above problem, ie that we dont have the drivers with the skill base to allow it. If Drivers were trained properly in this country then we could have higher motorway limits. While there are plenty of people who could safely drive at 150/160kph on certain motorways in Ireland, there are more who cant drive on motorways full stop!!

The Road is capable of that speed, hell by that argument its capable of taking a car at 320km/h, other factors have to be taken into account, i.e. traffic density, amount of slip roads etc.

Theres are too many slip roads, and the motorways / dualcarriage ways are not straight enough

L1011

craichoe wrote: »

The Road is capable of that speed, hell by that argument its capable of taking a car at 320km/h, other factors have to be taken into account, i.e. traffic density, amount of slip roads etc.

Theres are too many slip roads, and the motorways / dualcarriage ways are not straight enough

Erm, no, a road is only capable of its design speed. The number of junctions and straightness of the road define its design speed! Irish motorways are built to a (minimum) design speed of 160km/h - not 320km/h.

GreeBo

MYOB wrote: »

Erm, no, a road is only capable of its design speed. The number of junctions and straightness of the road define its design speed! Irish motorways are built to a (minimum) design speed of 160km/h - not 320km/h.

Is this 160 design speed on the road or per lane?
The 3 lane parts are 100kph, because of the width right? So how is 160kph in the plan?

L1011

GreeBo wrote: »

Is this 160 design speed on the road or per lane?
The 3 lane parts are 100kph, because of the width right? So how is 160kph in the plan?

The road.... though I actually haven't got a clue what you're trying to mean by that?

Also, we do not have any 3 lane motorways without special designated status (The M50, with too close junctions and narrowed lanes) so this is entirely irrelevant.

GreeBo

MYOB wrote: »

The road.... though I actually haven't got a clue what you're trying to mean by that?

Im guessing the design speed is based on the lane layout of the road. If there was only one lane I could see 160 being feasible, 3 lanes and 160 is not feasible.

MYOB wrote: »

Also, we do not have any 3 lane motorways without special designated status (The M50, with too close junctions and narrowed lanes) so this is entirely irrelevant.

Whats the special designated status of the 3lane section of the M50?

You say its irrelevant, why? If the roads are designed for 160 then why is the limit so much less than that?

L1011

GreeBo wrote: »

Im guessing the design speed is based on the lane layout of the road. If there was only one lane I could see 160 being feasible, 3 lanes and 160 is not feasible.

Whats the special designated status of the 3lane section of the M50?

You say its irrelevant, why? If the roads are designed for 160 then why is the limit so much less than that?

How on earth is 160 feasible on a one lane road! The more lanes a road has, the faster it can be (within reason). That said, you proved over a 20+ lane thread that you've no concept of road capacity or safety on multi-lane roads anyway...

The M50 is specially designated as an 'urban motorway' - not a standard motorway. The distances between entrance and exit ports since the (heavily constrained) upgrade is far too short to allow a speed any higher than this - while the original road would have been designed for 100mph, it is no longer suitable.

GreeBo

MYOB wrote: »

How on earth is 160 feasible on a one lane road! The more lanes a road has, the faster it can be (within reason).

If there was only 1 lane on the M50 in each direction then Im pretty sure you can safely drive faster than having a car either side of you, no?
Surely the wider a lane is, the faster you can safely go on it?
If I put four 3m wide lanes on the current m50 then its not safer than 3 lanes of 4m.
You are incorrectly assuming a one lane road means a road with one narrow lane on it.
We are dealing with static road widths and adjustable lane widths here. Not rocket science surely?
(Unless you have a magical way of making more lanes of equal width without increasing the overall road width? If so I know some people in the NRA who would like to talk to you.)

GreeBo

MYOB wrote: »

The distances between entrance and exit ports since the (heavily constrained) upgrade is far too short to allow a speed any higher than this - while the original road would have been designed for 100mph, it is no longer suitable.

Where has this distance between the ports changed on the M50 since it was first created? Whats changed to make it no longer suitable for 160?

L1011

If a road has one lane, it cannot/does not have a design speed of higher than about 60mph without a high minimum speed limit. Multi-lane roads can have higher design speeds with lower minimum speed limits (55km/h on motorways here). Additionally, single lane roads will in fact be slower than standard single carriageway roads due to there being absolutely no overtaking locations!

You're bring irrelevant and unconnected arguments in here.

L1011

GreeBo wrote: »

Where has this distance between the ports changed on the M50 since it was first created? Whats changed to make it no longer suitable for 160?

N4 interchange. N7 interchange. Soon to at the N3 interchange. Extra ports have been added in very short distances.

GreeBo

MYOB wrote: »

Additionally, single lane roads will in fact be slower than standard single carriageway roads due to there being absolutely no overtaking locations!

The speed you can progress at is not the same argument as the max design speed of the road.

MYOB wrote:

N4 interchange. N7 interchange. Soon to at the N3 interchange. Extra ports have been added in very short distances.

But the limit was never higher than 70mph on the M50 right?
What difference do the interchanges make to the design speed limit? Is it for the people trying to merge or for the people already on the road?

leon8v

craichoe wrote: »

I wouldn't say Irish roads are suitable for speeds of 160 kph, they aren't straight enough.

craichoe wrote: »

The Road is capable of that speed, hell by that argument its capable of taking a car at 320km/h, other factors have to be taken into account, i.e. traffic density, amount of slip roads etc.

Theres are too many slip roads, and the motorways / dualcarriage ways are not straight enough

You initially said they arent straight enough. Make up your mind, which is it, they arent straight enough or traffic density slip roads etc.

If the people running this country had any sense there wouldnt be fixed speed limits, they would vary with conditions. During rush hour most roads are self regulating anyway. In bad weather conditions, the limit should be lowered on motorways and in good clear conditions with low volume traffic they should be increased. They have invested heavily in many overhead gantries for display on the M50 for example that could hold these speed limit digital displays with traffic monitoring cameras to allow them to see if they need changing. This happens in other countries where limits can change.
IMO the M1 would be capable of handling a speed limit of 160kph, or a more realistic limit of 130/140 but I am not sure how many Irish drivers could. As I have said already more than once in this thread, they get no training on motorways as part of the learner experience. Just on the point of junctions and slip roads, in other countries, I have seen a solid white line between the far right lane and the middle lane in the case of a 3 lane road at junctions to stop people from crossing 3 lanes at one go at a junction. Maybe too advanced for Ireland?

L1011

GreeBo wrote: »

The speed you can progress at is not the same argument as the max design speed of the road.

Erm, yes it is. Go read something on road design.

GreeBo wrote: »

But the limit was never higher than 70mph on the M50 right?
What difference do the interchanges make to the design speed limit? Is it for the people trying to merge or for the people already on the road?

I know you're going to ask another inane question, followed by another, and another but anyway:

1: Yes, it was. It was 120km/h prior to these works.
2: The addition of extra ports means there are far shorter merges available. Despite the addition of the extra lane there is still added weaving. This means that despite the road having been designed originally - with a single on and off ramp per exit and exists spaced suitable - for a max operating speed of 100mph; it is no longer suitable for a max operating speed that high. This, along with narrower lanes, would reduce the max operating speed to something below 160km/h, and is part of the reason why the speed limit has been reduced to 100km/h.

As I said before, please go and read something on road design before replying. Many road authorties provide copies of their manuals on their websites (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm for instance) and there are also many text books on it.

GreeBo

MYOB wrote: »

I know you're going to ask another inane question, followed by another, and another but anyway:

Wow.

MYOB wrote: »

1: Yes, it was. It was 120km/h prior to these works.

So why wasnt it 160km/h originally if that was the design and there was no issue with all these extra ports?
120 < 160 (even for very large values of 120)

L1011

GreeBo wrote: »

So why wasnt it 160km/h originally if that was the design and there was no issue with all these extra ports?
120 < 160 (even for very large values of 120)

Because no roads in this country are rated to their full design speed. All our motorways - with the exception of the M50 and parts of the M1 - are 120km/h. All - with these exceptions - are capable of 160km/h or higher. The limited sections of the M1 have junctions in too close sucession also.

It BeeMee

GreeBo wrote: »

So why wasnt it 160km/h originally if that was the design and there was no issue with all these extra ports?
120 < 160 (even for very large values of 120)

To have a limit of 160km/h, the road would need a design speed of 200 to cater for all the great drivers who feel the limit doesn't apply to them, taking into account their own abilities, the car they're driving, driving conditions etc etc etc...

There will always be someone, somewhere, who will drive faster than the limit.

GreeBo

It BeeMee wrote: »

To have a limit of 160km/h, the road would need a design speed of 200 to cater for all the great drivers who feel the limit doesn't apply to them, taking into account their own abilities, the car they're driving, driving conditions etc etc etc...

Good point, thx.

It BeeMee wrote: »

There will always be someone, somewhere, who will drive faster than the limit.

Somewhere? Dont you mean the motors forum on boards.ie? :P

GreeBo

leon8v wrote: »

No need for a co-pilot or navagator, .....<snip>....I will be relying on the sat nav

This is why its pointless arguing with these people OldmanMondeo, he cant even agree with himself :rolleyes:

leon8v

GreeBo wrote: »

This is why its pointless arguing with these people OldmanMondeo, he cant even agree with himself :rolleyes:

What are you talking about??
Has it taken you a few days to come up with that one?? You really are clutching at straws there.
There is a big difference between navigating 10000 feet in the sky where the only thing you can see out the window is clouds and navigating on a road. Are you old enough to even have a licence? Am starting to think you arent.

delly

Came off the M50 North (Naas Road) heading into town on Friday at six o'clock PM. It was dark so I didn't see the gatso van on the left until it was probably too late. Went from 80 to 60 about 200 metres from the van, so was probably done, but we'll wait and see.

Setting them up in the dark is sure to get the likes of me and others who at this stage are veterans at spotting the white vans during the day. Maybe i'll change my ways........:rolleyes:

GreeBo

leon8v wrote: »

There is a big difference....

And thats exactly the point. Flying is safer because its far more regulated than driving is. You dont have to ask permission to change lanes on a road, you do in the sky. You also have to get permission to change your speed, your direction, everything. Any clown can do whatever they want in a car and *thats* why we have speed limits to limit the amount of damage these idiots can do to everyone else.

leon8v

GreeBo wrote: »

And thats exactly the point. Flying is safer because its far more regulated than driving is. You dont have to ask permission to change lanes on a road, you do in the sky. You also have to get permission to change your speed, your direction, everything. Any clown can do whatever they want in a car and *thats* why we have speed limits to limit the amount of damage these idiots can do to everyone else.

Look I am not going to debate it any further with you. You have totally missed the point of what me and others here are saying. Its that type of blinkered closed minded view that has this country the way it is.

craichoe

MYOB wrote: »

Erm, yes it is. Go read something on road design.



I know you're going to ask another inane question, followed by another, and another but anyway:

1: Yes, it was. It was 120km/h prior to these works.
2: The addition of extra ports means there are far shorter merges available. Despite the addition of the extra lane there is still added weaving. This means that despite the road having been designed originally - with a single on and off ramp per exit and exists spaced suitable - for a max operating speed of 100mph; it is no longer suitable for a max operating speed that high. This, along with narrower lanes, would reduce the max operating speed to something below 160km/h, and is part of the reason why the speed limit has been reduced to 100km/h.

As I said before, please go and read something on road design before replying. Many road authorties provide copies of their manuals on their websites (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm for instance) and there are also many text books on it.

I still have to see any bit of documentation that states the design speed of these roads is 160 km/h

Also, even if it was:
The design speed of a road is the maximum speed at which a motor vehicle can be operated safely on that road in perfect conditions.

The speed limit is set for a reason relating to safety on that road, the Design Speed could be you, driving alone on that road, with no rain, a perfect road surface and a vehicle in perfect working order, that doesnt apply to real life.

GreeBo

leon8v wrote: »

You have totally missed the point of what me and others here are saying.

That its ok for you to speed because you are such great drivers or that its unfair that you get caught speeding when there are worse crimes somewhere else? Remind me, I got confused there in the middle.

OldmanMondeo

I love the way these speeding fine / gatso topics go on for 16 pages.

The road in question is well marked with the speed limits, should you get caught speeding here serves them right. The road is straight and you can see clearly to the Longmile junction, Failing to see a Big White Van parked on a footpath / grassverge means you are not paying attention to the driving conditions. No matter if you think the speed limit is to low for that strech or not, it is clearly marked from both the M50 and N7 before the mad cow mess.

TheNog

I can't believe this thread is still going!!!!

At the end of the day people will always claim to be good drivers cos that's the mentality they have set into their minds and that's why they get so hot and bothered when they are stopped for speeding or dangerous driving or whatever. Having said that I don't know how a person can proclaim to be a good driver when there is no real test in place in Ireland to challenge their ability to drive. The driver test does cover the basic alright but does not go into advanced driving or anywhere near it. So in essence people believe that because they have never caused a collision, automatically think they are great drivers.

As regards speeding: Who is the worst driver - a person doing 140kph on a motorway or the person driving at 70kph in a 100kph?

The answer is honestly we don't know.

Why is this?

Because again there is no proper testing in place. People should drive according to their ability but must factor in the ability of other drivers around them too which is quite simply lacking. I have done driving courses and consider myself a reasonably good driver but would it be safe for me to driver at 160kph in a 100kph or even on a 120kph? Absolutley not because we all know there are absolute eejits on the road who not are not paying attention which brings me again back to what I said earlier in this thread. People are not paying enough attention to the road and whats around them and so are missing the Gatso van up ahead or don't see the car coming behind them or from the right or the car taking the right ahead of them. There was pictures posted of a Gatso on the M1 (I think). The pics were taken at least 150m away and yet someone insinuated it was a sly move but if you really study the pic you will notice it is parked partially behind a sign and it is parked near the end of an off-ramp. If that does not arouse suspicion to a person then they are a lost cause.

What I suggest to people is when driving along keeping a running commentary on whats going on in front and behind you (also suggest you do this on your own so as not to appear mad). Potential hazards on the road are entrance to fields, oncoming traffic/pedistrians, junctions (especially with traffic lights), animals, schools, traffic coming behind you. It is harder to do than you think but gradually you will become more aware of your surroundings.

TheBazman

delly wrote: »

Came off the M50 North (Naas Road) heading into town on Friday at six o'clock PM. It was dark so I didn't see the gatso van on the left until it was probably too late. Went from 80 to 60 about 200 metres from the van, so was probably done, but we'll wait and see.

Setting them up in the dark is sure to get the likes of me and others who at this stage are veterans at spotting the white vans during the day. Maybe i'll change my ways........:rolleyes:

I was heading out the other way at the same time - it was flashing like paparazzi at a Britney Spears wardrobe malfunction!

delly

TheBazman wrote: »

I was heading out the other way at the same time - it was flashing like paparazzi at a Britney Spears wardrobe malfunction!

So the new ones flash? Didn't see any flash myself if that's the case.