New M50 speed cameras

I.S.T.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

its come up here and and the motors forum dozens of times from various sources that Irish motorway are designed to a spec 160kph. I dunno if its entirely true but I've seen it enough on here to believe it.

tonc76 wrote: »

Sweet Jesus :rolleyes:

Lol, a classic case of tell the same lie enough times and people will believe it!

robust

There is preparation being made for speed cameras all along the M50. The term "shooting fish in a barrel" comes to mind.

Let me throw a absolutely mad idea out there.....

Maybe the person/persons who decided to install these cameras would consider putting the cameras in areas where there are people living. ie. towns, housing estates, schools, etc. The idea being to help reduce speeds in these areas and maybe help reduce deaths. Oh! sorry what was I thinking you cant make money by doing that.......

Cookie_Monster

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Lol, a classic case of tell the same lie enough times and people will believe it!

well i frequently do 140-160 on the m50 without the car crashing off the road, so clearly it can cope with these speeds easily. even at those speed I'll get overtaken every now and again

jd

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

when was the last time you were on the m50?, even at rush hour it generally flows at 100 these days. (well, the outside lane anyway)

Victor is technically correct, maximum capacity of a road generally occurs at about 60 km/hr, I had some references before..

LOS Flow conditions v/c limit Service volume Speed Density
(veh/h/lane) (miles/h) (veh/mile)
A Free 0.35 700 > 60 < 12
B Stable 0.54 1100 > 57 < 20
C Stable 0.77 1550 > 54 <30
D High density 0.93 1850 2: 46 40
E Near capacity 1 2000 2: 30 67
F Breakdown Unstable . < 30 > 67

Cookie_Monster

jd wrote: »

Victor is technically correct, maximum capacity of a road generally occurs at about 60 km/hr, I had some references before..

he may be technically correct but the road does flow freely these days even at rush hour. you can do 100 no problem at rush hour. From experience, I'm practically correct.

I.S.T.

jd wrote: »

Victor is technically correct, maximum capacity of a road generally occurs at about 60 km/hr, I had some references before..

LOS Flow conditions v/c limit Service volume Speed Density
(veh/h/lane) (miles/h) (veh/mile)
A Free 0.35 700 > 60 < 12
B Stable 0.54 1100 > 57 < 20
C Stable 0.77 1550 > 54 <30
D High density 0.93 1850 2: 46 40
E Near capacity 1 2000 2: 30 67
F Breakdown Unstable . < 30 > 67

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

he may be technically correct but the road does flow freely these days even at rush hour. you can do 100 no problem at rush hour. From experience, I'm practically correct.

You are not talking about the same thing. He is referring to the speed at which the road is operating at maximum capicity, you are talking about the maximum speed you can achieve at rush hour.

gorkamorka

hi,just saw the white marks tonight (10.6.10) on m50 north between ballymun/m1 intercharge, did not noticed gatso or either flashes.got scared s***less, as ive got one unsettled fine and dont want more . Ive travelled about 120kph.is the camera there ?

Davy

gorkamorka wrote: »

Ive travelled about 120kph.is the camera there ?

Nope, not yet

Stark

Victor wrote: »

At rush hour sometime last summer. I'm specifically referring to the Santry-Airport bit.

On the M50 itself or the M1 section just after you come off the M50? I generally find the M50 flows quite well around there but then traffic on the M1 is practically at a standstill. I don't think the interchange was finished back then either so perhaps that contributed to the congestion at the time.

Cookie_Monster wrote:

There are several scenarios where vehicles (Emergency services) have to travel well in excess of 120 for example. 160 pkh also roughly equates to 100mph, which is where it probably comes from.

I believe it's from the time of British motorways before the 70mph speed limit was introduced:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorway#Speed_limits

It would make sense that if decades old British motorways were capable of 100mph, then our modern network of motorways (which I personally regard as some of the best in the world) would be similarly capable imo.

bbuzz

godtabh wrote: »

They arent artificially lowered. The lane widths have been reduced hence a lower speed limit

It's more to do withy the reduced sight lines that they have on the motorway since it was widened and the shorter on and off ramps. The upgraded M50 was only ever designed to operate at 100km/h. It would be dangerous to raise the speed limit.

Anyway, the section between jct12 and 13 was always 100km/h.

I.S.T.

I passed it at the weekend and still no sign of a camera. From the positioning of the markings on the road it looks like it's going to be a standard Gatso camera mounted on a pole at the side of the road.

Stonewolf

It's just for revenue generation, same as the van they keep putting under the bridge in Finglas.

It shouldn't be possible to fine someone for an offense that carries penalty points, that way the cameras would actually be used to improve road safety.

I.S.T.

Stonewolf wrote: »

It shouldn't be possible to fine someone for an offense that carries penalty points, that way the cameras would actually be used to improve road safety.

Agree 100%. They should abolish the fine and just give out penalty points. Afterall, if the purpose is to improve road safety, as they claim, there is no need for a fine.

Stonewolf

I'd like to say that I have nothing against the appropriate usage of speed cameras. In areas with a proven problem where excess speed is the cause of a demonstrably higher accident rate with very large and obvious cameras and considerable forewarning.

Sneaky cameras that catch people unawares do not contribute to road safety as they do not force people to slow down, they just make them angry at being caught. Such cameras also erode public respect for the law and regardless of whether it's their purpose foster the perception that thier purpose is revenue generation.

Speed cameras also need to be deployed only in places where the speed limit carries a real relevance to the road in question but that's more a problem with councils than anyone else.

At the end of the day, we the people should be able to say that these systems work with and for us, not against us. We should be able to see a well designed and placed speed trap as a positive safety enhancement, but as long as they are deployed sneakily and antagonisticly we will distrust them and view them as a menace and they will therefore encourage us to view the law and its enforcers as a machinery of oppresion and theft.

Cookie_Monster

Stonewolf wrote: »

I'd like to say that I have nothing against the appropriate usage of speed cameras. In areas with a proven problem where excess speed is the cause of a demonstrably higher accident rate with very large and obvious cameras and considerable forewarning.

Sneaky cameras that catch people unawares do not contribute to road safety as they do not force people to slow down, they just make them angry at being caught. Such cameras also erode public respect for the law and regardless of whether it's their purpose foster the perception that thier purpose is revenue generation.
.

well said.

I'd have no issue with a speed camera in every village in the country, as you come down from 80/100 to 50 and in the major towns and cities in roads proven to be dangerous. other than 50 or 60 areas they are nothing but revenue generators that contribute nothing to safety

Run_to_da_hills

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

its come up here and and the motors forum dozens of times from various sources that Irish motorway are designed to a spec 160kph. I dunno if its entirely true but I've seen it enough on here to believe it.

By its very nature a road with a legal maximum speed of 120 will have to be capable of allowing greater speed, otherwise the majority of traffic will be operating at the limit of the roads design which is inherently dangerous.

Its called the "factor of safety".

And the same principal is used in SWL (slings & hoists ), lifts, cranes, tyres speed ratings, etc.

I think it is at least 25% in most cases.

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

Davy

Wasnt their yesterday, so i would say you are alright unless it went in last night which i doubt it did

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

Davy

Captain Morgan wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Your not the only one, i did it myself during the week

donspeekinglesh

Was through there today. No sign of cash machine yet.

Victor

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

its come up here and and the motors forum dozens of times from various sources that Irish motorway are designed to a spec 160kph. I dunno if its entirely true but I've seen it enough on here to believe it.

But the whole system would need to be designed for that speed. Road, road conditions, traffic, vehicle, driver ... other drivers. Sorry theres too many idiots out there.

nuttlys

new white lines somewhere between junction 15 and 12 northbound, can't remember exactly where as they caught me by surprise yesterday. Same scenario as the juc 4 - 3 northbound lines, no camera visible but directly under the gantry.

I felt that the white lines at the M1 interchange were just to scare people, especially those trying to hit the City bound freeflow at >100 since the truck turned over, but now I'm thinking could all those empty gantry's (which extend just over half the width of the road) be there for speed cameras?

If so that could mean in excess of a dozen sets of speed cameras each way? Which would mean that about 24 of the planned network of 40 odd 'national' speed cameras I've read about coming this year will be on the M50!?

Stark

I've heard before of plans for privately run speed cameras to enforce the 100km/hr limit on the M50. (Totally pointless imo unless you're only interested in either revenue generation or tokenism).

godtabh

I see there is another camera going in up towards dundrum going northbound (cant exactly remember where it is but it was after dundrum and before tallaght)

snickerpuss

Are all the cameras going up currently northbound?

Sean9015

You know, I have to laugh every time I see the anti speed camera rants such as those on this thread.

The speeds through the M50 works (posted at 60km/h) of much of the traffic were laughable - there was no attempt by drivers (including so-called professionals - lorries, buses, taxis) to stick to it. I hope the threatened cameras made a fortune. I really do. I have seen the results in the past of a speeding motorist going over a guard rail and taking out the workers behind - not pretty.

It's simple folks: stick to the posted speed limit, and no cash is generated. If you are incapable of holding a speed without looking continuously at the speedo, (ie using cues like engine tone, road noise etc) then you shouldn't have a licence. Period.

Stonewolf

These cameras are not on the works areas, they're on the completed motorway which in theory should be a very safe place to drive.

Stark

Sean9015 wrote: »

The speeds through the M50 works (posted at 60km/h) of much of the traffic were laughable - there was no attempt by drivers (including so-called professionals - lorries, buses, taxis) to stick to it. I hope the threatened cameras made a fortune. I really do. I have seen the results in the past of a speeding motorist going over a guard rail and taking out the workers behind - not pretty.

The roadworks have finished on the M50.

Davy

nuttlys wrote: »

I'm thinking could all those empty gantry's (which extend just over half the width of the road) be there for speed cameras?

They are for VMS in the future