Inappropriately high speed limits

munchkin_utd

Again yesterday 4 young people were killed on the N72 on a series of bends on a national road with a general speed limit of 100kmh. The driver was only 17.
Last year a number of students were killed in an accident on the N17 on a similarily bendy section of road which has a limit of 100kmh.

Almost nowhere on the national road network does the NRA adjust speed limits downward where particularly dangerous bends are lethal even if sticking to within the 100kmh limit.

As a reaction to incidents like this the government is engaging a private firm to do speed controls at danger spots. i.e. ensuring that you dont go over 100kmh around a severe hairpin bend (but 99.5 kmh is perfectly "safe" )
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fatal-stretch-is-on-national-list-of-blackspots-2311973.html

A Listowel-based private contractor, GoSafe, will operate mobile safety cameras in 700 collision-prone zones around the country that have been identified as road traffic blackspots with a history of speed-related deaths and injuries.

Am I alone here in thinking that such a move is pointless?
What use is enforcing a limit of 100kmh around tight bends where even doing 60 or 70 could be way too fast?
Does the NRA know that you can have a "speed related death" even if sticking within the (inappropriately high) speed limit?

On the continent on Major roads, the speed limit is adjusted for dangerous sections of road, which takes the element of judging the road out of the drivers hands.
Whilst not comenting on this particular incident, on the surface there does seem to be a pattern of young people with little driving experience not being able to judge the appropriate speed for bad bends (where the limit is 100kmh). And the only guideline they are given on signs is "slow".
Is slow < 100kph? Is slow<70kph? Is slow < 40kph? Who knows.

Maybe its time to go one step beyond the current measures of puting in dozens of vague "Slow" signs and yellow arrows which an inexperience or non local driver can misjudge, to actually setting localised speed limits around particularily bad bends that leave nothing to the judgement and experience of the driver.

And with appropriate lower speed limits related to dangerous stretches of road, maybe the safety cameras will be able to save a few young lives over the next years.

Stonewolf

A Listowel-based private contractor, GoSafe, will operate mobile safety cameras in 700 collision-prone zones around the country that have been identified as road traffic blackspots with a history of speed-related deaths and injuries.

These will all be on straights, hidden in unmarked vehicles so they can extract maximum financial gain.

cnocbui

It's not a lack of signage or appropriate limits that is leading to the deaths of young male drivers.

What do mean 'who knows?' Slow is less than the posted limit - no brainer - and the lack thereof is a a big part of the problem.

Basically I don't agree with you at all. The basic problem is hormone and IQ levels, not signage or inexperience.

A clue lies in one rarely reading about young female drivers being involved in single vehicle accidents late at night.

munchkin_utd

cnocbui wrote: »

It's not a lack of signage or appropriate limits that is leading to the deaths of young male drivers.

Basically I don't agree with you at all. The basic problem is hormone and IQ levels, not signage or inexperience.

the people killed on the N17 last year were all female students.

I was involved in a head on collision on a dangerous bendy stretch of road between clones and cavan.
The driver was a middle aged man well past his hormonal peak.

He didnt know the road and whilst a fair bit under the limit, was still going too fast to take a certain bend and took us out of it.
If this bend had a guidance speed limit, 30kmh say, you would know exactly what "slow" meant rather than "something less than 100kmh", and mebbie that lad in a rush wouldnt have caused a shattered kneecap on himself and 2 written off cars.

corktina

you can't put a speed limit on every twist and turn...thats not sensible. A simple warning sign....BEND or SLOW should be enough to alert a driver to the need to moderate his speed.

Cookie_Monster

The old adage: They are limits not target. Nothing is compelling you to do 100 into these corners.

I have yet to drive on a road anywhere in Ireland where the limit is unsuitably high for the length of it. Or course certain stretches or corners need to be taken slower but thats just common sense. You can't have a speed limit sign every hundred metres just cos there are a few sharp corners

yermanoffthetv

munchkin_utd wrote: »

the people killed on the N17 last year were all female students.

I was involved in a head on collision on a dangerous bendy stretch of road between clones and cavan.
The driver was a middle aged man well past his hormonal peak.

He didnt know the road and whilst a fair bit under the limit, was still going too fast to take a certain bend and took us out of it.
If this bend had a guidance speed limit, 30kmh say, you would know exactly what "slow" meant rather than "something less than 100kmh", and mebbie that lad in a rush wouldnt have caused a shattered kneecap on himself and 2 written off cars.

Totally agree, blaming all evils on young male drivers is a ridiculous cop out and adds noting to the debate :mad: truth is most country roads have dangerous bends and there needs to be a better way to alert people to more severe corners ect. Ive driven some roads in west Clare marked as 100kph no hard shoulder,potholes, high ditches, no cats eyes as well as the blind corners (imagine them at night in the rain :eek:)I think localised speed limits are a great idea, surely it wouldnt that cost much for the councils to go out and erect a few signs in appropriate areas?

Danno

There should be no speed limits outside of villages, towns or cities whatsoever. These 100kmph signs every few miles along our N routes only serve as "targets" or "comfort zones" for many drivers. Many drivers already go at 110kmph knowing that they will get away with it cause it's too close to the limit to warrant a patrol car pulling them in.

What needs to be done is... introduce a 3-strike speeding warning system. Caught three times speeding and then the penalty points get awarded.

Examples of speeding would be more common-sense...
Wet road at 100kmph would warrant a warning/point
Same road in the dry at the same speed would be okay.
Going too slow would also warrant warnings/points

Other ideas would include...
Removal of all hedgerows and stone walls (excl. house boundary walls) from all roads.
Provisions for hard margins on all roads with safe cycleways and walkways (new law needed to transfer whatever land needed to councils to complete works)
Removal of dangerous bends
Proper drainage of roads

the list could go on and on...

ardmacha

It is the responsibility of the driver to adjust speed to the conditions, not of the government to micro manage the proper speed for a unmodernised road which varies in quality. As Gardai cannot be everywhere do you think that any of the drivers in these crashes would have paid any heed to a limit anyway?

Steviemak

corktina wrote: »

you can't put a speed limit on every twist and turn...thats not sensible. A simple warning sign....BEND or SLOW should be enough to alert a driver to the need to moderate his speed.

I drove extensively in New Zealand and practically every bend has a sign stating the appropriate speed at which to take it. It can be done. Plus all the Cats eyes were maintained.

What harm would it do? None, I say, and it may even save lives.

Cookie_Monster

Steviemak wrote: »

I drove extensively in New Zealand and practically every bend has a sign stating the appropriate speed at which to take it. It can be done. Plus all the Cats eyes were maintained.

What harm would it do? None, I say, and it may even save lives.

snip pics

but then you will have people trying to do that speed into the corners or trying to do it faster just to prove it can be done rather than take it at a sensible speed.

I for one would try and do it faster than 55 just cos the sign is there (esp if I do it frequently) if the rest of the road is a standard speed. The only way to find the limits is to try

Stonewolf

Steviemak wrote: »

I drove extensively in New Zealand and practically every bend has a sign stating the appropriate speed at which to take it. It can be done. Plus all the Cats eyes were maintained.

What harm would it do? None, I say, and it may even save lives.

All vehicles are not identical

Steviemak

Stonewolf wrote: »

All vehicles are not identical

Its a guidance tool

Geogregor

Steviemak wrote: »

I drove extensively in New Zealand and practically every bend has a sign stating the appropriate speed at which to take it. It can be done. Plus all the Cats eyes were maintained.

What harm would it do? None, I say, and it may even save lives.

They use it in USA as well but as far as I know it is not a legal speed limit. It is only a guidance. You won't get ticket for going faster. When I drive in US and see bend with sign saying 35mph I usually go close to 50mph but I do slow down. But then I would slow anyway. Only idiot wouldn't when you see 180 degrees turn

There is no point of putting speed limits at every corner. How about changing conditions? Rain, snow, fog? How about difference in cornering between 15 years old Punto and latest BMW with all the gizmos?
Drivers should be educated how to judge safe speed not to drive to the target of the limit.

JohnC.

yermanoffthetv wrote: »

truth is most country roads have dangerous bends and there needs to be a better way to alert people to more severe corners ect. Ive driven some roads in west Clare marked as 100kph no hard shoulder,potholes, high ditches, no cats eyes as well as the blind corners (imagine them at night in the rain :eek:)I think localised speed limits are a great idea, surely it wouldnt that cost much for the councils to go out and erect a few signs in appropriate areas?

There is a better way. They're called eyes. If you see a blind corner, you slow down. You shouldn't need a sign to tell you to do so. If a driver can't slow down without a sign telling him to do so, he should reconsider driving, for everyone's safety.

Steviemak

Kahless wrote: »

There is a better way. They're called eyes. If you see a blind corner, you slow down. You shouldn't need a sign to tell you to do so. If a driver can't slow down without a sign telling him to do so, he should reconsider driving, for everyone's safety.

I don't see the issue with providing drivers with information. Do you suggest we remove all warning signs?

At night Irish roads are often unlit, have no signage, no road marking, no cats eyes, no luminous perimeter fencing when approaching extremely sharp bends. I don't find this acceptable considering Irish drivers pay the highest vehicle taxes in Europe.

Adequate signage is not something to be arguing against, surely?

cnocbui

Steviemak wrote: »

I don't see the issue with providing drivers with information. Do you suggest we remove all warning signs?

At night Irish roads are often unlit, have no signage, no road marking, no cats eyes, no luminous perimeter fencing when approaching extremely sharp bends. I don't find this acceptable considering Irish drivers pay the highest vehicle taxes in Europe.

Adequate signage is not something to be arguing against, surely?

I live in the country and I don't think there is a lack of adequate signage.

Adequate signage is not something to be arguing against, surely?

The core argument was that a lack of signage was a cause of accidents and fatalities in young drivers. I think the argument has no merit.

have a read of this:

Trends in Fatal Car-occupant Accidents

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/trendsfatalcar76.pdf

Nowhere is there mention of inadequate road signage as being a contributory factor.

Stonewolf

Apparently less road signage is actually better.

Jayuu

It seems to me that no one idea is going to work here and that we need to introduce a raft of measure which have to be aimed at young drivers.

I don't see any harm in placing extra signage (such as "Slow" or "Dangerous Bend" or similar stuff on sections of road). I do remember when there used to be the old "Black Spot" signs on roads where accidents had occurred and we do have some places where there are lower speed limit signs on sections of road. Yes, limits only indicate the maximum speed but one is always supposed to be driving at a speed suitable for the road conditions. That's in the Rules of the Road.

I also can't understand why road safety and awareness isn't make part of the school cirriculum. It could be made part of a transition year course which would catch teenagers at age 15-16 just when they are about to start driving. It again won't solve all these problems but perhaps it might encourage kids to consider the dangers before they actually get behind the wheel of a car.

Finally I wonder if we should consider limiting the engine classifications of cars that new drivers can use, in the way we do with motorcycles. So perhaps new drivers would be limited to 1 litre engines on a provisional and for the first year after they get their full licence. A lot of the accidents one reads about are young men (especially) driving souped-up cars or big engine cars so that they can drive at speed. Some sort of limiting factor might help here.

Stonewolf

Jayuu wrote: »

I also can't understand why road safety and awareness isn't make part of the school cirriculum. It could be made part of a transition year course which would catch teenagers at age 15-16 just when they are about to start driving. It again won't solve all these problems but perhaps it might encourage kids to consider the dangers before they actually get behind the wheel of a car.

Driver education has always been a big problem in Ireland and unfortunately is set to continue to be so for a long time to come. What you suggest has been raised time and time again and is a very good idea (other countries do this) but it's unlikely to see implementation for all the same reasons nothing sensible ever gets implemented here.

Jayuu wrote: »

Finally I wonder if we should consider limiting the engine classifications of cars that new drivers can use, in the way we do with motorcycles. So perhaps new drivers would be limited to 1 litre engines on a provisional and for the first year after they get their full licence. A lot of the accidents one reads about are young men (especially) driving souped-up cars or big engine cars so that they can drive at speed. Some sort of limiting factor might help here.

I disagree entirely. I'm a motorcyclist, I've been riding my motorcycle for years and had to endure the 33hp restriction for two years after getting my "full" licence. I'm in my late twenties now and have a provisional for a car, why should I be restricted because some other group of fools are causing havok? I paid three thousand euro for third party only cover for my first motorcycle (a 125) because of these same idiots. The solution is not to create ever more restrictive regimes to try and control a tiny minority of wreckers, making everyone else miserable because of them. That's a fundamental mistake most modern western societies make across a huge range of fields. The solution is to get to the heart of the problem, find out what it is that makes them such a problem and remove that as a factor, which in this case is just plain not knowing what they're doing, not knowing they don't know, and not being able to stop themselves. Those things can be countered with education, but forcing them to drive smaller, less powerful cars will make them resentful (they're teenagers, they're not going to understand) and wont solve the problem because they can cause a horrendous accident in any car.

Steviemak

cnocbui wrote: »

I live in the country and I don't think there is a lack of adequate signage.

I include cats eyes, luminous perimeter fencing, road markings when i refer to the catch all 'signage'. If you drive in countries like france or germany (practically all western EU countries) the roads are lit and marked extremely well for motorists at night. Roads are extremely poorly lit and marked in ireland.

Of course driver training etc is all way more important than signage but I believe it has a place in road safety letting motorist know the conditions ahead.

Cookie_Monster

Stonewolf wrote: »

Apparently less road signage is actually better.

I was cycling home today along the N11 between Cherrywood and Cabinteely and it struck how many signs there actually were. Bus and cycle lane ones at every turnoff and ramps and speed limits and yield to cyclists cautions and lights ahead and all sorts... Why they couldn't at least put two or three on the same pole I'll never get.

-Corkie-

munchkin_utd wrote: »

Again yesterday 4 young people were killed on the N72 on a series of bends on a national road with a general speed limit of 100kmh. The driver was only 17.
Last year a number of students were killed in an accident on the N17 on a similarily bendy section of road which has a limit of 100kmh.

Almost nowhere on the national road network does the NRA adjust speed limits downward where particularly dangerous bends are lethal even if sticking to within the 100kmh limit.

As a reaction to incidents like this the government is engaging a private firm to do speed controls at danger spots. i.e. ensuring that you dont go over 100kmh around a severe hairpin bend (but 99.5 kmh is perfectly "safe" )
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fatal-stretch-is-on-national-list-of-blackspots-2311973.html


Am I alone here in thinking that such a move is pointless?
What use is enforcing a limit of 100kmh around tight bends where even doing 60 or 70 could be way too fast?
Does the NRA know that you can have a "speed related death" even if sticking within the (inappropriately high) speed limit?

On the continent on Major roads, the speed limit is adjusted for dangerous sections of road, which takes the element of judging the road out of the drivers hands.
Whilst not comenting on this particular incident, on the surface there does seem to be a pattern of young people with little driving experience not being able to judge the appropriate speed for bad bends (where the limit is 100kmh). And the only guideline they are given on signs is "slow".
Is slow < 100kph? Is slow<70kph? Is slow < 40kph? Who knows.

Maybe its time to go one step beyond the current measures of puting in dozens of vague "Slow" signs and yellow arrows which an inexperience or non local driver can misjudge, to actually setting localised speed limits around particularily bad bends that leave nothing to the judgement and experience of the driver.

And with appropriate lower speed limits related to dangerous stretches of road, maybe the safety cameras will be able to save a few young lives over the next years.

SNIP

MOD NOTE: Don't assert such things here yet unless the facts have been released into the public domain by a credible body such as the Gardai.

Here you are. This tells some of the story: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/speeding-car-alert-was-given-before-fatal-teen-crash-2316072.html

Geogregor

Geogregor wrote: »

They use it in USA as well but as far as I know it is not a legal speed limit. It is only a guidance. You won't get ticket for going faster. When I drive in US and see bend with sign saying 35mph I usually go close to 50mph but I do slow down. But then I would slow anyway. Only idiot wouldn't when you see 180 degrees turn

There is no point of putting speed limits at every corner. How about changing conditions? Rain, snow, fog? How about difference in cornering between 15 years old Punto and latest BMW with all the gizmos?
Drivers should be educated how to judge safe speed not to drive to the target of the limit.

is that 180 to the left or the right

Carawaystick

Steviemak wrote: »

I include cats eyes, luminous perimeter fencing, road markings when i refer to the catch all 'signage'. If you drive in countries like france or germany (practically all western EU countries) the roads are lit and marked extremely well for motorists at night.

Maybe you could show me *one* example of cateyes in Germany and one from France. Even studs would do.

Autobahns like the A1 are less well marked than our motorways.

I don't agree with micromanaging each bend. Every car will have different characteristics and will be safely able to take a bend at different speeds. There should be an onus on rivers to drive safely. What if a sign for a recommended speed was placed on a bend approach and during or after an inclement weather period, that signed speed was way to high -- Who'd take responsibility for it then. It definitely would not be some internet poster calling for it's introduction.


People will be killed on our roads all the time. There are a lot less people being killed now compared to ten years ago let alone 20 years ago.


Lastly, If there is a limit of x on a road, all it really means is that it may be safe to go at the lower limit plus 1 km/h
i.e. if the limit is 100, the road may be safe to travel on at 81kmh.
To be honest, I'd categorise roads with to high a limit on them as urban or suburban roads. Almost all roads in housing estates, bar the through routes should have a 30 limit. It is bizzarre that in Dublin city, Luke street has a higher speed limit than Burgh Quay

ardmacha

The majority of roads are always going to be unlit as is the case in every country (excluding Monaco and the Vatican). Cars are equipped with headlights for that very reason. Bends and the like are generally signed and road markings in Ireland have improved quite a bit, although there is room for improvement. But the problem is that those with least experience often drive the fastest, it would be much easier for them to simply behave responsibly rather than have a bankrupt State go around putting up lots of signs. In the case of the recent accidents in Donegal and Kerry I imagine the drivers were familiar with the road, but that didn't help.

KevR

Jayuu wrote: »

I also can't understand why road safety and awareness isn't make part of the school cirriculum. It could be made part of a transition year course which would catch teenagers at age 15-16 just when they are about to start driving. It again won't solve all these problems but perhaps it might encourage kids to consider the dangers before they actually get behind the wheel of a car.

+1

We used to get shown videos in school about the dangers of waterways (drowning) and the dangers of electricity lines/power stations (i.e. - the video shows some kid going into a power station to get his football and he gets blown to bits when he touches a power line).

Anyhow, there was never anything about driving or road safety. I would imagine that a lot more uneducated young people get killed on our roads than in power stations or waterways......

limklad

cnocbui wrote: »

A clue lies in one rarely reading about young female drivers being involved in single vehicle accidents late at night.

The Reality is that the Females want to drink and wanting their fellas drive them home with an easy lift. That's why they been so many male drivers and their passengers dying late at night.
Females do not want to drive because they do not want to be caught with drink and drive.

The only way to cut down reckless driving is to punish the Adult Passengers too. If Passengers do not look after their own safety then they should be punished too by getting into cars with reckless drivers. You will then find Accidents rates will have a dramatic drop at night/Weekends. and follow it up with actual enforcements of the Rules of the roads.

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

I live in the country and I don't think there is a lack of adequate signage.



The core argument was that a lack of signage was a cause of accidents and fatalities in young drivers. I think the argument has no merit.

have a read of this:

Trends in Fatal Car-occupant Accidents

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/trendsfatalcar76.pdf

Nowhere is there mention of inadequate road signage as being a contributory factor.

Historically, the UK has been a bit more proactive with warning signs.

I also live in a rural area and the road past my house is a series of bends followed by a long narrow straight road, there are no warning signs at the end of the straight section.

ALL the bends bear the scars from drivers screwing it up and hitting gates, walls & hedges. Drink probably plays a part as well as the road is a well known "alt route" to avoid the checkpoints, I can't be sure if signs would reduce the hit rate but at least motorists would be forewarned about the 90Deg bends.

ongarboy

interesting debate here about putting speed restriction signs up at dangerous bends but surely common sense and the existence of a "dangerous bend ahead" sign is the clue that drivers should slow down. That would be like saying everytime there is 50 meter visibility fog or blizzards, temporary speed restriction signs need to be put up for the duration of the inclement weather so that those without common sense can be notified to slow down to a safe speed limit. It should already be a no brainer for anyone and if not, then what the hell are they doing on the roads as fully licenced drivers??? Driving tests should be designed so that those individuals without the cop on would fail the tests and therefore not be allowed on the roads. Hopefully the new graduated licence system will weed out the morons in the next generation of learner drivers as formal regulated driving lessons will be a compulsory condition of sitting your test.

SeanW

Jayuu wrote: »

Finally I wonder if we should consider limiting the engine classifications of cars that new drivers can use, in the way we do with motorcycles. So perhaps new drivers would be limited to 1 litre engines on a provisional and for the first year after they get their full licence. A lot of the accidents one reads about are young men (especially) driving souped-up cars or big engine cars so that they can drive at speed. Some sort of limiting factor might help here.

I could not disagree more strongly.

For starters, most driving instructors cars are 2 litre diesels. Why? It's very simple, 2 litre engines are easier to learn to drive in than 1 litre engines for the simple reason that bigger engines behave differently in low speed driving. I had no choice but to do my test in a 1l car but made damn sure my first 'ride' was a 2l diesel. It's not even that much in the performance department but it's enjoyable to drive.

Secondly, many family cars in which the young person will be learning to drive will itself have a big engine. Should the family have to change cars to allow the young man/woman to learn to drive in it?

Thirdly, as mentioned more eloquently in a post before mine, what you propose to do is to punish all young drivers for the mistakes of a few muppets. It will also accomplish nothing as forcing all young people into 1l cars wont stop the few idiots from driving round a 180 degree bend at 50Mph with drink taken.