30 KPH spped limit on the M50 roundabout and the N3

Pineapple stu

Victor wrote: »

Then stop staring at your speedometer.

So, you would like to read-end someone who has broken down around the corner?

Thats a stupid question Victor, are you under the impression that i havent a clue how to drive and not aware of any potential dangers on the road ?
If i was going 30kph in any direction around that bend it would be the same as breaking down especially if a truck comes behind me travelling a bit quicker.

BostonB

Pineapple stu wrote: »

... i dropped down to 50 and then to 30 and it is dangerously too slow, it was walking pace...

Er...

3.6–5.4 km/h Average walking speed.

I'd like to see you walking at 30 km/h

ChewChew

I took it today at 50. there were 4 cars and a transit behind me and they all over took me. 50 is a fine speed to take it. 80, no. 30, no.

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

Murt10

Victor wrote: »

Originally Posted by Murt10: I actually spend so much time looking down at the speedo, I am more dangerous that I would be at 50kph.

Victor: Then stop staring at your speedometer.

Unless I keep staring at the speedometer I will without question be breaking the 18 mph speed limit, risking penalty points, a hefty fine and increased insurance premiums.

These speed limits are suppost to make the roads safer. To my mind they fail miserably. They in no small way increase the danger of an accident.

Moving away from the M50 for a moment. The Quays in Town are an even worse nightmare. Drunks, pedestrians and cyclists walking/falling cycling in front of you, all the while you are preoccupied with staying under 18 MPH speed limit and also trying to stay in the correct lane.

I suppose if there is any bright side, it's that if you do hit someone at such a slow speed you are unlikely to kill anyone.

If the RSA are really serious about keeping the speed down then they should install appropriate speed reduction measures. Those small 3 - 4 inch high ramps spring to mind. Scare the living daylights out of anyone.

Pineapple stu

BostonB wrote: »

Er...



I'd like to see you walking at 30 km/h

I knew someone would go to the effort of posting the exact walking pace .

zbluebirdz

The problem with a number of these "off-ramps" and "on-ramps" (eg M50 south onto n3), is that the bends in the roads are too flat - they don't have a high cant/camber*. With a higher cant/camber, the tall vehicles are less likely to tip over. However, in icy conditions, vehicles are likely to slip down into the bend if they're going very slow ...


The road that goes from N3 to Navan road, there's a 30k limit going up the S bend and hill. Visibility is reduced and the risk of bumping into another car on the other side of the "hill" is very high - hence the 30k limit. Again, another poor road design.


IMHO, in some cases, the limit of 30k is there for a reason - mainly due to poor road design.


* Cant/Camber: Quoting wikipedia:
The cant of a railway track (also referred to as superelevation) or a road (sometimes referred to as camber or cross slope) is the difference in elevation (height) between the two edges. This is normally done where the railway or road is curved; raising the outer rail or the outer edge of the road provides a banked turn, allowing vehicles to traverse the curve at higher speeds than would otherwise be possible.

ted1

it's completely bad road design. As mentioned above the cambers are all wrong.

Dub XV

Pineapple stu wrote: »

30kph is a stupid limit on the ramps, the car will stall trying to go that slow up it. Someone mentioned that the limit is there for trucks etc to prevent them from tipping over on the bend, to me thats just nonsense. Its simple, you drive to the conditions of the road and not to the max speed limit. Anyone driving along there would ( or should ) drive with enough care so that they have full control of their vehicle to go around it safely. It doesnt matter if the limit is 100mph you are not going to take it at 100mph are you.

If it was a 100mph limit and you drove at that speed around that bend FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER...I bet that by the time you scrape the **** outta your shorts you would vow never to take it at 100mph again.

It's there as a warning to unsuspecting drivers (regular or artic) that there is a major, severe bend ahead which requires caution. Simple as that.

Dub XV

Pineapple stu wrote: »

Thats a stupid question Victor, are you under the impression that i havent a clue how to drive and not aware of any potential dangers on the road ?
If i was going 30kph in any direction around that bend it would be the same as breaking down especially if a truck comes behind me travelling a bit quicker.

But you think a truck coming behind you when you are travelling at 30kph is the same as you being at a complete stop is the same.

On yer bike!

Pineapple stu

Dub XV wrote: »

If it was a 100mph limit and you drove at that speed around that bend FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER...I bet that by the time you scrape the **** outta your shorts you would vow never to take it at 100mph again.

It's there as a warning to unsuspecting drivers (regular or artic) that there is a major, severe bend ahead which requires caution. Simple as that.

There are signs warning of the bend ahead and i would drive with caution regardless of the speed limit.

Pineapple stu

Dub XV wrote: »

But you think a truck coming behind you when you are travelling at 30kph is the same as you being at a complete stop is the same.

On yer bike!

Depends on the speed of the truck, and i dont have a bike .

Do you drive? do you drive on the said section of road ? If you did then you would realise how dangerous travelling at 30kph there is.

The whole point of the lay out was to do away with the build of traffic in the first place , if every vehicle travelled at 30kph the traffic will be at a stop coming off the M50 and the N3 .

Dub XV

Pineapple stu wrote: »

Depends on the speed of the truck, and i dont have a bike .

Do you drive? do you drive on the said section of road ? If you did then you would realise how dangerous travelling at 30kph there is.

The whole point of the lay out was to do away with the build of traffic in the first place , if every vehicle travelled at 30kph the traffic will be at a stop coming off the M50 and the N3 .

Yes I do drive.....as part of my job.....and use that section more than once a day.

I have never once seen a build up of traffic there!

jack presley

Dub XV wrote: »

I have never once seen a build up of traffic there!

That's probably because nobody drives it at 30!

Dub XV

jack presley wrote: »

That's probably because nobody drives it at 30!

That's a fair point.....

Take that sign as a warning...if you end up hittin the wall you could look like a proper plank

wildlifeman

i saw this thread ages ago and wondered what section ye were on about. I drive this road twice a day and never noticed the limit. I average 60 - 70 going onto the M50 and its quite fun manouvering at that speed. feels like a race track.

Pineapple stu

Dub XV wrote: »

That's a fair point.....

Take that sign as a warning...if you end up hittin the wall you could look like a proper plank

They have breaks on cars nowdays

BostonB

Pineapple stu wrote: »

They have breaks on cars nowdays

You might want to get those breaks fixed. Brakes would be much more useful.

Dub XV

Pineapple stu wrote: »

They have breaks on cars nowdays

So that's where all those people who have car accidents are going wrong

Pineapple stu

You need a brake from driving when you are tired

Murt10

I wrote to Leo Varadker about these idiotic speedlimits. He in turn wrote to the NRA on my behalf.

The NRA have responded that they felt that 40 kph was a safe speedlimit for this section of road, but as this speed limit was not possible, either 30 or 50kph allowed under the current legislation, the 2004 Road Traffic Act, they opted for 30 kph instead.

Apparently, the 2010 Road Traffic Act is going to bring in a 40 kph speed limit, sometime in the future.

I still think that 40 kph is far too slow for a modern car and I am sure that most people will continue to ignore them, until they start handing out points.

It would be surprising if any ministers cars, now driven by civilian drivers, are ever caught by private speed cameras and punished for exceeding the speed limit or driving in a bus lane. They are no longer a serving garda, but I wouldn't hold my breath on them getting points, or a fine.

Some way will be found round it. This is Ireland after all (nudge, nudge, ;)say no more)

G.MAN

Murt10 wrote: »

I wrote to Leo Varadker about these idiotic speedlimits. He in turn wrote to the NRA on my behalf.

The NRA have responded that they felt that 40 kph was a safe speedlimit for this section of road, but as this speed limit was not possible, either 30 or 50kph allowed under the current legislation, the 2004 Road Traffic Act, they opted for 30 kph instead.

Apparently, the 2010 Road Traffic Act is going to bring in a 40 kph speed limit, sometime in the future.

I still think that 40 kph is far too slow for a modern car and I am sure that most people will continue to ignore them, until they start handing out points.

yawn

It would be surprising if any ministers cars, now driven by civilian drivers, are ever caught by private speed cameras and punished for exceeding the speed limit or driving in a bus lane. They are no longer a serving garda, but I wouldn't hold my breath on them getting points, or a fine.

Some way will be found round it. This is Ireland after all (nudge, nudge, ;)say no more)

yawn

G.MAN

Murt10 wrote: »

It would be surprising if any ministers cars, now driven by civilian drivers, are ever caught by private speed cameras and punished for exceeding the speed limit or driving in a bus lane. They are no longer a serving garda, but I wouldn't hold my breath on them getting points, or a fine.

what has this got to do with anything???

Gaspode

G.MAN wrote: »

yawn

What has that got to do with anything. Please respond in a grown up manner.

Twigster

Murt10 wrote: »

I still think that 40 kph is far too slow for a modern car

ridiculous, you shouldn't be driving to suit your car, you should be driving to suit the road conditions and/or quality. what was varadkars opinion on it or did he just fob it off to the NRA?

athtrasna

Twigster wrote: »

ridiculous, you shouldn't be driving to suit your car, you should be driving to suit the road conditions and/or quality. what was varadkars opinion on it or did he just fob it off to the NRA?

An opinion doesn't get you anywhere...he went and got the actual official reasoning...there are plenty of laws and rules we don't agree with but its those laws that we are bound to.

Am actually surprised Leo even acted on the email as all government ministers were supposed to do NO constituency work for the first 100 days.

Twigster

athtrasna wrote: »

An opinion doesn't get you anywhere...he went and got the actual official reasoning...there are plenty of laws and rules we don't agree with but its those laws that we are bound to.

Am actually surprised Leo even acted on the email as all government ministers were supposed to do NO constituency work for the first 100 days.

well he might have expressed an opinion one way or the other and i'm just curious as to what that may have been. I'm sure it's covered in his brief as minister for transport and not just constituency work.

Victor

athtrasna wrote: »

Am actually surprised Leo even acted on the email as all government ministers were supposed to do NO constituency work for the first 100 days.

Is there any indication that Leo was actually in the loop and some advisor or civil servant didn't deal with it?

Murt10

Victor wrote: »

Is there any indication that Leo was actually in the loop and some advisor or civil servant didn't deal with it?

Ministers normally take note of what their constituents conact them about. Constituents are after all the people who will re-elect them, or not, as the case may be. They are also the people who will doorstep them as they go about canvassing. They are important enough to have a separate Constituency Office, staffed by full time civil servants, within their Department.

Reps from everyone else are dealt with by the Ministers Office.

I'm not saying that one rep from one constituent will have any effect, but the more constituents that contact a minister on any issue, the more important that issue becomes, in the eyes of that particular minister.

When the private speed cameras are eventually rolled out, and otherwise normal and lawabiding people start getting fines and points, for just driving on roads where there is an inappropriate and idiotic speed limit, there will be a massive surge in interest in the penalty points system, who introduced it, who is responsible for it, who is in overall charge of it etc

Why do you think it has taken so long for the cameras to be introduced? Whoever is responsible for it will be very unpolular with the general public. Voters won't care who is in charge of the NRA,or what Gay Byrne or any other ancient has been, has to say on the matter. The voters have absolutely nothing to do with them, nor do they want anything to do with them. But they can be expected to vote against the Minister with overall responsibility for them, come the next election, if they have been fined, got penalty points and had their insurance premiums raised.

I'm sure this issue has a long way to run.

jack presley

Murt10 wrote: »

When the private speed cameras are eventually rolled out.

They've already been in operation for months now!