Speed Limit on Outter Ring Road - Calls for Increase

Trick of the Tail

What, a politician two-faced?

How unusual!

A.

AdMMM

I think you're really clutching at straws if you're trying to make something out of a signature obtained back in 2008. Lets also not forget that they represent their constituents rather than themselves so their conduct within the chamber would be based on the feedback they're getting from those they represent rather than their own personal opinion.

sunnysoutheast

AdMMM wrote: »

I think you're really clutching at straws if you're trying to make something out of a signature obtained back in 2008. Lets also not forget that they represent their constituents rather than themselves so their conduct within the chamber would be based on the feedback they're getting from those they represent rather than their own personal opinion.

...plus, whilst opinions may be honestly and strongly held, this isn't exactly the most pressing issue facing our City at the moment. Frankly I'd rather the councillors spent their time and effort on issues regarding job preservation and creation, antisocial behaviour, urban regeneration, rubbish dumping, etc. rather than a change which would result in a net saving of a couple of minutes travelling the entire 10k or so length of the road.

SSE

alpha2zulu

AdMMM wrote: »

I think you're really clutching at straws if you're trying to make something out of a signature obtained back in 2008. Lets also not forget that they represent their constituents rather than themselves so their conduct within the chamber would be based on the feedback they're getting from those they represent rather than their own personal opinion.

Fair enough but I think I would be right in saying that most constituents think the 60km/h limit is bonkers. I mean picture heading up the hill at the six cross roads roundabout, there must be at least 1km of dead straight dual carraigeway in front and there claiming its not safe to do 80km/h on that:rolleyes:

I'm surprised the toll bridge company isent putting on any pressure to get the limit raised to 80KM/H. For anybody from South Kilkenny heading out the Tramore or Airport road,or Hospital and not wanting to worry about getting hit with fines and points ,you have to dawdle along the entire length of the ORR.

Basically it negates the benefit for your 1.90 to only to only a couple of minutes time saving when ya can legally and easily boot down the Quay at 50km/h at off peak times. If they were so concerned about safety they would make the ORR more attractive for people to use rather than the pedestrian filled Quays and Dunmore Road etc.

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

...plus, whilst opinions may be honestly and strongly held, this isn't exactly the most pressing issue facing our City at the moment. Frankly I'd rather the councillors spent their time and effort on issues regarding job preservation and creation,
SSE

Like pushing the well established TK Maxx out...frankly I'd sleep better at night if speed limits were the only thing the council controlled.

Cabaal

Sully wrote: »

I have a copy of the signature Cllr. Mary Roche gave Waterford Young Fine Gael on September 21st 2008 in the Tesco Petrol Station Car Park. She indicated to the YFG members and also on the survey (attached) that she agreed with the increase for the speed limit. Her signature is the first in the attached file.

Cllr. Roche is publicly calling for the speed limit to remain as it is and contradicting what she previously stated.

Perhaps somebody should drop her a lovely e-mail pointing out her error and including a copy of the form she signed

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

...plus, whilst opinions may be honestly and strongly held, this isn't exactly the most pressing issue facing our City at the moment. Frankly I'd rather the councillors spent their time and effort on issues regarding job preservation and creation, antisocial behaviour, urban regeneration, rubbish dumping, etc. rather than a change which would result in a net saving of a couple of minutes travelling the entire 10k or so length of the road.

SSE

I'd have to agree with alpha2zulu in relation to his comments about TK Maxx, the council haven't exactly showen much will towards keeping jobs in Waterford.

alpha2zulu wrote: »

I'm surprised the toll bridge company isent putting on any pressure to get the limit raised to 80KM/H. For anybody from South Kilkenny heading out the Tramore or Airport road,or Hospital and not wanting to worry about getting hit with fines and points ,you have to dawdle along the entire length of the ORR.

Basically it negates the benefit for your 1.90 to only to only a couple of minutes time saving when ya can legally and easily boot down the Quay at 50km/h at off peak times. If they were so concerned about safety they would make the ORR more attractive for people to use rather than the pedestrian filled Quays and Dunmore Road etc.

Yeah but factor in peak times and even with the 60km limit the OR and bypass road from Kilkenny saves a good bit of time,

deisemum

When the road opened Mary Roche was very vocal on wlrfm about 60km/h being the correct speed for this road and that it shouldn't be any higher. If she's going to go on public record about speed limits she shouldn't leave herself open to criticism about her own personal driving habits.

sunnysoutheast

Cabaal wrote: »

I'd have to agree with alpha2zulu in relation to his comments about TK Maxx, the council haven't exactly showen much will towards keeping jobs in Waterford.

At the risk of derailing this thread into what must be the 378th. one which discusses TK Maxx the City Council's retail strategy is all about preserving a critical mass of retail in the City Centre, supporting both direct and indirect jobs in this sector. Nobody seems to be shedding any tears over the jobs lost/reduced hours in City Centre shops and ancillary businesses due to the diversion of spend to TK Maxx who, let's remember, have had the benefit of trading without the correct planning permission, as per the Board's recent decisions. The ongoing success of Penney's relaunch has IMHO vindicated this strategy, and let's hope TK Maxx take up the now vacant Railway Sq. premises.

SSE

Sully

Mod Note:

Lets keep things on topic folks, thanks.

sleepysniper

That speed limit is a complete joke, whats the point in having 2 lanes going each way if all cars are restricted crawling along at 60 km/h? The limit should be 100km/h never mind 80km/h. If your not comfortable doing that speed then stick to the slow lane which is what it should be there for.

Trick of the Tail

No, its not a 'fast lane' and a 'slow lane' - its a driving lane and overtaking lane.

Cars should ALWAYS drive on the left lane of ANY road unless overtaking.

This basic rule is misunderstood by a huge number of motorists. You should ONLY drive in the right lane if overtaking or turning right at the roundabout (unless road markings indicate otherwise).

Having said that, there's not much point in having an overtaking lane if the speed limit is 60km/h; If everyone's driving at 60km/h in the driving lane, how can you overtake?

However, increase the limit to 80 and there will be people doing less than that in the driving lane, so you could legally and safely overtake.

A.

sunnysoutheast

alinton wrote: »

No, its not a 'fast lane' and a 'slow lane' - its a driving lane and overtaking lane.

Cars should ALWAYS drive on the left lane of ANY road unless overtaking.

This basic rule is misunderstood by a huge number of motorists. You should ONLY drive in the right lane if overtaking or turning right at the roundabout (unless road markings indicate otherwise).

Having said that, there's not much point in having an overtaking lane if the speed limit is 60km/h; If everyone's driving at 60km/h in the driving lane, how can you overtake?

However, increase the limit to 80 and there will be people doing less than that in the driving lane, so you could legally and safely overtake.

A.

There MAY be drivers doing less than 80, but more than likely everyone will be at 80 (or more, there is already a de facto 70-75 limit on the road, so we can likely expect a corresponding increase if the limit is increased to 80) so why would overtaking be any easier? Plus, any traffic turning right would now be pulling out into traffic which is travelling 20km/h faster, and it's speed differentials rather than absolute speed which often causes accidents. What do you do then - increase it to 100?

FWIW I think the sections from the new bypass to the 6CR roundabout could stand an increase to 80, but personally I think the section from the 6CR -> Farronshoneen is fine as it is, given the standard of driving regularly displayed!

SSE

jo06555

ITS a money generator for cops and government , hardly any cars do the 60 most are tipping along at 70 ish not realising and then get clocked by the ever present garda van or jeep on the road , its worse up by me on carrickphierish rd its down to 50km/h and gardai are constantly on this road, im sure catching people coming off the 60km/h road and not noticing the 10km/h drop so the gards catch them goin further over the limit .:mad:

Bards

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

There MAY be drivers doing less than 80, but more than likely everyone will be at 80 (or more, there is already a de facto 70-75 limit on the road, so we can likely expect a corresponding increase if the limit is increased to 80) so why would overtaking be any easier? Plus, any traffic turning right would now be pulling out into traffic which is travelling 20km/h faster, and it's speed differentials rather than absolute speed which often causes accidents. What do you do then - increase it to 100?

FWIW I think the sections from the new bypass to the 6CR roundabout could stand an increase to 80, but personally I think the section from the 6CR -> Farronshoneen is fine as it is, given the standard of driving regularly displayed!

SSE

do a google for "the 85th percentile rule" and all will be revealed

just becasue you up the limit to 80 Km/H you will find only a small percentage will break that as opposed to the majority breaking the 60 Km/H

Hoffmans

whatever about the state bounty hunters using it as a revenue collecting scam the fault lies with the out of touch dumb cityiots who placed the limits there in the first place:mad:

tonc76

Below is an excerpt from NRA Design Manual for Roads and Bridges TD 9/07 Road Link Design.

DESIGN SPEED (km/h) 120 100 85 70 60 50 V2/R

STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE m
Desirable Minimum Stopping Sight Distance 295 215 160 120 90 70
One Step below Desirable Minimum 215 160 120 90 70 50

Two Steps below Desirable Minimum 160 120 90 70 50 50

A road with a design speed of 70 km/h will always have a speed limit of 60 km/h applied. The desirable minimum stopping sight distance (SSD) for a road with a design speed of 70 km/h is 120m. This is the minimum distance that is needed for a motorist travelling at 60 km/h to see a hazard, react to that hazard (brake) and come to a complete stop . One of the councillors email replies above stated that the road was designed for a speed limit of 60 km/h (i.e. design speed 70 km/h). If the speed limit is increased to 80 km/h (design speed 85 km/h) the SSD increases to 160m.

I realise that some stretches of the ORR have a SSD of 120m or greater but there are possibly some stretches where an increase to 160m cannot be achieved. In that regard it would be lunacy to have intermittent 60 km/h and 80 km/h speed limits along the roads length.

The 60 km/h speed limit was initially chosen as ring roads attract development along their length. While there will be no new direct accesses to the ring road the junctions along its length will see an increase in traffic movements leading to increased traffic numbers on the ring road itself.

As an aside how come there are no calls to have the speed limit on the R448 from Grannagh Junction to Rice Bridge increased to 80 km/h?

Sully

tonc76 wrote: »

As an aside how come there are no calls to have the speed limit on the R448 from Grannagh Junction to Rice Bridge increased to 80 km/h?
[/FONT][/FONT]

I assumed it was until the motorway opened that it was remaining at that speed..

Bards

tonc76 wrote: »

Below is an excerpt from NRA Design Manual for Roads and Bridges TD 9/07 Road Link Design.

DESIGN SPEED (km/h) 120 100 85 70 60 50 V2/R

STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE m
Desirable Minimum Stopping Sight Distance 295 215 160 120 90 70
One Step below Desirable Minimum 215 160 120 90 70 50

Two Steps below Desirable Minimum 160 120 90 70 50 50

Compare the ORR with most of the other roads comming off it which have a 80 KM/H rating - I know which road I would feel more comfortable doing 80 KM/H on


A road with a design speed of 70 km/h will always have a speed limit of 60 km/h applied. The desirable minimum stopping sight distance (SSD) for a road with a design speed of 70 km/h is 120m. This is the minimum distance that is needed for a motorist travelling at 60 km/h to see a hazard, react to that hazard (brake) and come to a complete stop . One of the councillors email replies above stated that the road was designed for a speed limit of 60 km/h (i.e. design speed 70 km/h). If the speed limit is increased to 80 km/h (design speed 85 km/h) the SSD increases to 160m.

I realise that some stretches of the ORR have a SSD of 120m or greater but there are possibly some stretches where an increase to 160m cannot be achieved. In that regard it would be lunacy to have intermittent 60 km/h and 80 km/h speed limits along the roads length.

The 60 km/h speed limit was initially chosen as ring roads attract development along their length. While there will be no new direct accesses to the ring road the junctions along its length will see an increase in traffic movements leading to increased traffic numbers on the ring road itself.

As an aside how come there are no calls to have the speed limit on the R448 from Grannagh Junction to Rice Bridge increased to 80 km/h?

remember 80 KM/h is not a target but a limit. on some sections drivers will feel more comfortable doing 70 KM/h as opposed to 80KM/H - but having 60 KM/H forced onto motorists on one of "the" safest road in the city is a joke of the highest order

tonc76

It will stay at 60 km/h as the same principles apply. The area within the ORR and Western Link to the Bypass are now effectively classed as urban.

alpha2zulu

Is this unhealthy obsession with design speeds a purely Waterford C/C phenomenon. I mean up in Kilkenny where there are now 2 small roundabouts on the N10 at the Danesfort M9 junction the limit has been increased from 60-80km/h in recent weeks despite being unable to drive anymore than about 40km/h around the roundabouts.

Meanwhile I'm guessing the Waterford-Gowran N9 was probably originally designed for horse and carts but that has seen a 100km/h limit for years;)

merlante

Can't they just change the limit for certain sections down to 60 and keep the rest at 80 if they really have to?

And by the way, a lot of people do the limit, more or less, on that road, including myself, so not 'everyone' does 80. I'd rather be able to do 80 obviously.

If people are breaking the limit, they are to a certain extent taking the law into their own hands and are liable to end up as a bad guy on a speeding ad. You may judge that 80 is okay, and you may be right, but I don't generally think that people choosing their own limit on roads is a good idea. Particularly since most people on the road seem to have only the shakiest grasp of the rules of the road and often exercise bad judgement.

deisedevil

Two lanes. One lane for overtaking.

How many people would be doing 30-40kph on that road that you would have to overtake while staying within 60kph limit? Very few I'd say. So would that justify the need for the Overtaking lane?

deisemum

deisedevil wrote: »

Two lanes. One lane for overtaking.

How many people would be doing 30-40kph on that road that you would have to overtake while staying within 60kph limit? Very few I'd say. So would that justify the need for the Overtaking lane?

There are plenty who drive at 40 - 50 kph and then there's the regular pony and trap racing.

deisedevil

deisemum wrote: »

There are plenty who drive at 40 - 50 kph and then there's the regular pony and trap racing.

And theres plenty who drive at 40-50kph on roads which don't have two lanes.

If they had decided the limit was going to be 60kph then why bother with the two lanes.

jayboi

well in defence of some of the people speeding the signs with the limits on them are gone so small you'd have to be going at 60kph or less to see the bloody yokes!!! I remember passing it yesterday and saying 'what a waste of a good pole'.Its a joke they cant be that much bigger than a dvd, im serious!!!

Sully

Will be covered on WLR again shortly.

AdMMM

Sully wrote: »

Will be covered on WLR again shortly.

Is Billy going to decimate John again?

Sully

AdMMM wrote: »

Is Billy going to decimate John again?

Nope, no Billy today and it was Lauren from Waterford YFG. The conversation more turned into a "Young people in politics" discussion tho. Disappointing

Mr Clonfadda

Drove out to N25 Waterford Bypass on the ORR this Morning.

It is signposted as 50Kmh from Old Kilmeaden rd all the way out to on ramp on bypass. but on the return journey from bypass to Old Kilmeaden Roundabout is signposted as 80Kmh.

Whats with that?

Bards

http://www.waterford-news.ie/news/story/?trs=mhcwmhkfgb&cat=news



[Article] Roche lashes back at ‘personalised campaign’
By Deirdre Dalton


A WEEK later and the difference of opinion over the speed limit on the Outer Ring Road between Cllr Mary Roche and members of Waterford’s Young Fine Gael (YFG), instead of coming to a stop, seems to be gaining momentum at a rate of knots.

The tit-for-tat comments have come about after members of Young Fine Gael raised concerns in relation to Cllr Roche speaking against the idea of increasing the speed limit on the road after she had only 18 months previously signed a petition for its increase.

According to Waterford’s Young Fine Gael branch, who are calling for the limit to be increased from 60km to 80km, Cllr Mary Roche had been in favour of the move when she added her name to their campaign in September 2008.

For someone who wasn’t going to speak about the matter, Cllr Roche has made up for that by writing over 900 words on her thoughts about it on her Internet blog, with Young Fine Gael coming back at her in response.

Cllr. Roche’s blog
“I wasn’t actually going to write anything on this issue not wishing to give the oxygen of publicity to Young Fine Gael (YFG) and the personalised campaign they have waged against me over the past few weeks and the fact that I changed my mind on the 80kph speed limit for the Outer Ring Road,” Cllr Roche wrote in her blog.

“Firstly, and perhaps most depressingly, I am so disappointed at the tack that YFG has taken in how they have dealt with this issue aping as it does the tired old, same old, failed old tactics of previous generations of Irish politicians. In fact it is one of the reasons which makes me rejoice that I am no longer part of a political party and no longer forced, sheep like, to follow the same well trodden paths already taken by so many un-worthies already. It is infinitely depressing that ‘Young’ Fine Gael have nothing new to add to the lexicon.

“However, back to the issue. You would be forgiven for thinking that YFG had discovered the fourth secret of Fatima, they’re that delighted with themselves. So what happened: I signed a YFG petition about 18 months ago supporting the raising of the speed limit on the Outer Ring Road to 80kph from its originally set speed of 60kph. They claim that this is somehow a private stance (????) at odds with my now public stance that the speed limit should remain at 60kph.

“Now I will admit that the Outer Ring Road is a great new road and any driver, not knowing the speed limit, might be forgiven for assuming that it should be at least 80 if not 100kph. I am no different and prior to looking at the issue in more detail that would certainly have been my opinion. (Hence my signing the petition.)

“So what happened? Am I some political deviant misleading the public as to my actual stance? Am I guilty of some dastardly skeletons-in-thecloset type political scandal? Quite simply I would contend: NO. So what happened then? I changed my mind a move for which I make absolutely no apology.

“The crux of the issue is perhaps, why did I change my mind? Was is to annoy YFG? No. (But that is a bonus!) Was it to ingratiate myself with the voters? No. Most people I speak to think that the speed should be increased to 80kph. Was it so that I could be accused of flip-flopping? No. This is generally seen as a weakness in politics (one which YFG, for example, are now seeking to exploit). So why then? Simply this. Information.

I learned, in examining this issue that raising the speed limit to 80kph is just not the right thing to do in the current circumstances.

“So what are those circumstances? Well, I ask you this: if you learned that something you wanted to do would increase the danger to people walking; would not be doable unless and until a lot of money which you don’t have was spent to fix certain problems; would leave your organisation and perhaps yourself open to legal action as a consequence and that finally all the expert opinion was against your proposal; would you persist? Would you increase the danger? Would you risk yourself and/or the taxpayer being sued? Would you commit the money? Would you call the experts liars?

“I would call that foolhardy and irresponsible. But YFG seems to be advocating that despite all this, we should go ahead and change the speed limits merely so that they as a political grouping can be seen to have railroaded through their proposal.



“I for one say no. No to the speed increase unless and until the issues which have been identified are dealt with. No to YFG and their insistence that I stick by an opinion regardless of what I have learned and No to their tactic of trying to personally attack me for my stance(s) on this.

“Furthermore, if and when the paths are separated from the roadway and some work is done on sightlines in areas, I will, perhaps, consider something that is likely to enrage YFG even further I may change my mind again!

“The sooner the political parties young and old learn to change their minds as they learn more, the better I say. Perhaps that might stop us only halfway down some of the blind alleyways we’ve been led down over the years by our political masters. It looks like Fine Gael will form some part of whatever our next Government in this country will be – let’s hope they will bring something new to the pot. On the evidence I am, sadly, not optimistic.

“Finally I would ask Young Fine Gael one question: will they look in the eyes of any family who may suffer an injury or bereavement on the Outer Ring Road as a result of any speed limit increase and tell them that it was the right decision?

“I will change my mind one hundred times rather than stick to a wrong decision especially on an issue where lives, quite literally, are at stake. That, surely, is the criteria and nothing else. When I change my mind because of something I have learned, I congratulate not chastise myself.

“I hope I keep on learning for the rest of my life. I look forward to many more changes of mind! And furthermore I refuse to be bullied or cowed into submission by YFG or anyone else. That, to me, is a political principle worth standing up for.”

YFG slam attack on Cllr Cummins
Waterford Young Fine Gael has responded to the criticism from Cllr Roche, saying that while they don’t have a problem with her change of mind, they do take issue with her treatment of Fine Gael’s Cllr. John Cummins.

“Firstly, and most importantly, we would like to say that we have absolutely no problem with Cllr. Roche “flip-flopping” and changing her mind on the issue. Our particular problem is with Cllr. Roche’s personal attack on Fine Gael Cllr. John Cummins, who is a member of the Waterford Young Fine Gael Branch. We also have a problem with Cllr. Roche lowering the debate to simple stereotypes and disillusioning young people by tarring us all with the same brush,” a statement from YFG said.

“Secondly, Cllr. Roche has said that we are simply following party lines. We are not. Young Fine Gael is an organisation with complete autonomy from the Fine Gael senior party. This is a Young Fine Gael proposal, raised by a Young Fine Gael member in the council chamber. It is a proposal that was tabled in response to a survey in which 70% of participants supported the move. These participants are the same constituents that Cllr. Roche represents in the council. We feel that Cllr. Cummins has a right to raise issues of importance to seven out of every 10 of his constituents, and has the right to do it without being labelled with the same old stereotypes we see all too often.”

YFG said Cllr. Roche had shown “a misunderstanding of the Young Fine Gael proposal”, adding that they too had done their research.

“We are not seeking the introduction of a disproportionately high speed limit, but a responsible and reasonable limit which motorists find more appropriate. Surely when tertiary roads leading to the Outer Ring Road have limits of 80-100kph, 80kph is both a responsible and reasonable limit for a modern stretch of dual carriageway, as is the consensus of 70% of Waterford people. We feel that Cllr. Roche is showing her short sightedness on the issue. Young Fine Gael would never put forward a proposal that we feel would pose a risk to road users,” YFG said.

“What we will do is to seek to represent the Waterford people as best we can. We remain committed, as we always have been, to the highest safety standards, smooth movement of traffic and, above all, responsibility of motorists on the Outer Ring Road, as well as on all roads, locally and nationally.”


=====================================================
It seems mary has has a very personal view on this which is so so wrong. She was elected to represent the constituents of Waterford CIty NOT Mary Roche

All I can say is as someone who voted for her - Never again:mad:

alpha2zulu

Bards wrote: »

“Finally I would ask Young Fine Gael one question: will they look in the eyes of any family who may suffer an injury or bereavement on the Outer Ring Road as a result of any speed limit increase and tell them that it was the right decision?

:mad:

Well I would ask any councillor who is in favour of 60km/h to look in the eyes of anybody fined and recieved points for going 65 on that ring road or 55 on the Ferrybank dualer and say yes your a menace to society.:rolleyes:

The footpath excuse is a bit odd given that the Cork bound carraigeway has no footpath running along the side of most of it, with traffic separated from the footpath by two lanes and a concrete wall!

deisemum

The woman has no shame going on about speed limits and I find it really offensive that she's asking will YFG look into the eyes of any family that suffer and injury or fatality due to an increased speed limit when she's the very one whom I've personally witnessed on more than one occasion exceed the speed limit on the Dunmore Road. The hypocrite.

I think it's time that I personally remind her about people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones the next time I see her doing a school collection.

I'm neither young nor am I affiliated to FG but I'm a resident on the Dunmore Road where the speed limit is 50kph in the city section who is sick of hypocites going on about speed limits yet exceeding the speed limit without any thought for other road users or pedistrians

dunksamillion

I actually got pulled over by the gardai today on my way to work, he was driving up the arse of my car when I was in the right lane and he pulled me over and asked why i was in the fast lane with no cars around me. I was in the right lane because I was turning right at the next roundabout. I was doing 60km/h and i'd say he just wanted to speed and I was in his way.

Cabaal

dunksamillion wrote: »

I actually got pulled over by the gardai today on my way to work, he was driving up the arse of my car when I was in the right lane and he pulled me over and asked why i was in the fast lane with no cars around me. I was in the right lane because I was turning right at the next roundabout. I was doing 60km/h and i'd say he just wanted to speed and I was in his way.

You were in the wrong,
There is no such thing as a fast lane, it is a overtaking lane so unless you are actually overtaking somebody you should not be in it.

So because you were in the incorrect lane the Gardai who was actually using the correct lane (because he was overtaking a car) could not get by, your speculation is pointless regarding why he was driving in that lane in fairness.

If you wanted to go right at the next junction then you should have got into lane just before the next junction.

Very simple in fairness.

mike65

To be fair we don't know how far from the roundabout dunksamillion was (not the smartest user name for a roads/driving post)

merlante

Cabaal wrote: »

You were in the wrong,
There is no such thing as a fast lane, it is a overtaking lane so unless you are actually overtaking somebody you should not be in it.

So because you were in the incorrect lane the Gardai who was actually using the correct lane (because he was overtaking a car) could not get by, your speculation is pointless regarding why he was driving in that lane in fairness.

If you wanted to go right at the next junction then you should have got into lane just before the next junction.

Very simple in fairness.

It was the gard that mentioned the fast lane, not him. It is incorrect that you can't be in the overtaking lane unless you are overtaking. It is valid to be in the right lane, in fact you have to be the right lane when before you take the 3rd exit on the next roundabout, which the poster was.

At what point exactly someone should get into the right lane before the roundabout where they are taking the 3rd+ exit is open to interpretation. Nobody is going to have any sympathy for you if you can't get into the right lane when you need to because of overtaking traffic from behind and/or other traffic turning right behind or in front.

So not so simple in fairness.

nkay1985

merlante wrote: »

It was the gard that mentioned the fast lane, not him. It is incorrect that you can't be in the overtaking lane unless you are overtaking. It is valid to be in the right lane, in fact you have to be the right lane when before you take the 3rd exit on the next roundabout, which the poster was.

At what point exactly someone should get into the right lane before the roundabout where they are taking the 3rd+ exit is open to interpretation. Nobody is going to have any sympathy for you if you can't get into the right lane when you need to because of overtaking traffic from behind and/or other traffic turning right behind or in front.

So not so simple in fairness.

Yeah it does completely depend in how far away from the next roundabout he was though you would have to imagine that a guard wouldn't pull him if he was anywhere near one as his reasoning would have been obvious.

I can't count the number of time I've seen cars go through a roundabout and, straight away, move over into the overtaking lane, drive at 60kmph for the entire distance until the next roundabout and turn right. It's like they're scared they won't manage to move over or something. I really can't understand it.

mike65

Ah but if they are doing the maximum speed allowed under law they are not impeding traffic

dayshah

mike65 wrote: »

Ah but if they are doing the maximum speed allowed under law they are not impeding traffic

I'm not so sure. That is a direct route to the hospital, so it could impede an ambulance.

mike65

People have to pull out of the way of ambulances all the time and usually on a narrow single lane road/street.

Anyway I take it we're no nearer an appropriate speed limit for the "rural sections" of the ORR.

nkay1985

mike65 wrote: »

Ah but if they are doing the maximum speed allowed under law they are not impeding traffic

I don't think the usage of the overtaking lane is governed by whether you're impeding traffic or not. I'm open to correction but I thik it's to be used only for overtaking and that you must move back to the normal driving position as soon as possible.

Trick of the Tail

The above is correct. Its an overtaking lane, and thats what it's for.

You should move to the right lane if turning right at the next roundabout no sooner than you usually would if it was a single carriageway, approx 100m I'd say.

It drives me mad when people leave one roundabout and immediately take the right-hand lane, just because they're gonna turn right a mile ahead.

This forces traffic in the driving lane to illegally undertake.

It also annoys me when people coming from Waterford and turning right on the roundabout to the M9 travel round it in the LEFT lane! What are they thinking?

Roundabout and lane discipline is so bad.

A.

Roanmore

alinton wrote: »

The above is correct. Its an overtaking lane, and thats what it's for.

You should move to the right lane if turning right at the next roundabout no sooner than you usually would if it was a single carriageway, approx 100m I'd say.

It drives me mad when people leave one roundabout and immediately take the right-hand lane, just because they're gonna turn right a mile ahead.

This forces traffic in the driving lane to illegally undertake.
It also annoys me when people coming from Waterford and turning right on the roundabout to the M9 travel round it in the LEFT lane! What are they thinking?

Roundabout and lane discipline is so bad.

A.

If they are turning right is the undertaking illegal, do the ROTR state you can do it if the car in the overtaking lane is turning right?

mike65

If a vehicle is slowing in the right lane for an exit then you can "undertake"

batm!ke

Just heard on Deise AM that the Speed Limit on the Outer Ring Road is to be or is in consideration to be increased to 80kmh. Thoughts?

I know 60kmh is probably not right for that road but IMO people do up to 80 on it anyway because they don't feel 60 is right and that seems to be a generally accepted fact and my worry is now that if it's 80 I can see people doing up to 100kmh on it?

If anyone had a figure for accidents on the road could you post them? I'm on the road at least twice a day going from Airport Roundabout to the Carrickphierish Roundabout and I've never seen an accident. It has to be said, if it's not broke, don't fix it!

Professey Chin

Only accident I ever saw on it was a horse cause of travellers racing them. Looked like the trap kicked up and took the horse down with it.
Fcukers

And worse could have been cause at the same time from them parking a car in 1 lane and running down the road when it happened

mike65

There is a long thread about this somewhere from a few years back.

The ORR from the by-pass to Carriganore (the business park section should be kept at 60) then from the old Cork road to the Airport road should be 80 and 60 after that.

batm!ke

mike65 wrote: »

There is a long thread about this somewhere from a few years back.

The ORR from the by-pass to Carriganore (the business park section should be kept at 60) then from the old Cork road to the Airport road should be 80 and 60 after that.

I would have bumped that thread but thought it was frowned upon?

That's not a bad idea to be fair though.

wexhurdler

It's about time it was changed.. Ridiculous limit! Regardless of the frequency of the roundabouts, 80 is more than an appropriate limit. Might make a considerable dent however in the revenue generated from the excessive number of speed traps on the road!!:rolleyes:

Bards

Might now be worthwhile to use the ORR and Bypass when going to Dublin/Limerick from the Dunmore road area

giles lynchwood

All black driver's and at least 60% of Irish driver's should have a man with a red flag walking in front of them not allowing them to drive faster.