Terrible crash management on the M50

Schadenfreudia

SpaceTime wrote: »

I've seen people reverse up the hard shoulder as they missed an exit!

Yep, I've seen it several times on the M50, usually with the hazard lights flashing - proof that the clown in the driver seat knows he's a hazard?!

Nino Brown

bucketybuck wrote: »

I'm curious what you think police should be doing on the northbound lanes? How do they stop people rubbernecking?

Place one Garda at the barrier, with a sign saying free NCT and Tax inspections. Watch the traffic moving then!

SpaceTime

I was on M50 near M1 and this guy pulled out of the exit slipway (think he suddenly realised he was in the exit lane), then drove into lane 1 of the motorway and then halfway across lane 2 where I was driving! No indicators, no hint he was going to cut me off. Just suddenly drove straight under me ...

I flashed and beeped and he slammed on brakes and gave me the arms thrown up in air gesture!

I nearly went into him. It was only that the next lane was clear that allowed me to swirve and go around him. He then continued into the 3rd lane behind me and starts flashing his lights!

Drivers like that should have their licences torn up. It's not a rally!

Irish Steve

Greyian wrote: »

Is radio a contributing factor? Would air conditioning/heating be contributory factors? Heated seats? All of these things distract you in some way/make you more relaxed/comfortable (and, as such, less alert).

And, you originally said Gardai should check the phones of any drivers involved. Now, you're saying if the phone is in use, regardless of who is holding the phone etc, it is a distraction. That would suggest any phone is a distraction. Should a passenger in the back seat not be allowed make a phone call/text?

Honestly, it seems like you thought you'd come up with an idea that would be foolproof for punishing people using their phones illegally while driving, and are now defending your idea regardless of the gaping holes in it.

No, what I'm saying is that there is a fundamental problem with an attitude towards mobile phones usage in vehicles that has to be changed. The majority of commuter drivers are alone in the car, and if they are using their phone, (based on regular observations) there is a strong likelihood that it's NOT hands free, or bluetooth, it's in hand, and possibly also being used to text. That attitude in fast moving high density traffic is a major contributory factor in the sort of shunt that happens several times every day on the M50, someone looks down to read a line of text, or look for a number in the contacts list, and the vehicles in front of them hit the brakes, and suddenly, there's yet another rear end shunt. If a phone was in use, regardless of hands free, at the time of the INCIDENT, then there should be appropriate stronger sanction against the person responsible,

There needs to be a differentiation between an accident, where there is no real blame attributable to a driver, and an incident, where it is clear that there were specific contributories to it.

A hands free phone that auto answers is no more or less of a distraction than another person talking, but there are times when ANY conversation is not helpful, and fast moving high density traffic at peak time on the M50 is one of them, not helped by crazy drivers that do totally inappropriate things, like stop in Lane 2 because they can't get into Lane 1 and wouldn't join the queue at the right time, or cut across 3 lanes to make a late exit.

I've been driving for a long time, in a lot of different places, not just Ireland, and in vehicles that were a lot larger and heavier than a car, and in over 40 years, I can count the number of incidents that I've been involved in on the fingers of one hand. Some of those incidents were not of my making, if I've stopped to make a right turn, and someone else rear ends me, then I don't have a lot of responsibility for that, but if I rear end someone else, then maybe I did something wrong. Yes, it is that simple, and some of it does have to be learnt, no amount of reading or theory will make it clear.

Greyian

Irish Steve wrote: »

If a phone was in use, regardless of hands free, at the time of the INCIDENT, then there should be appropriate stronger sanction against the person responsible.

There needs to be a differentiation between an accident, where there is no real blame attributable to a driver, and an incident, where it is clear that there were specific contributories to it.

A hands free phone that auto answers is no more or less of a distraction than another person talking, but there are times when ANY conversation is not helpful.

No, there's a reason why hands free systems are legal, whereas holding a phone in your hand isn't. You say there's a "fundamental problem with an attitude towards mobile phones usage in vehicles", but you're talking about punishing people who do not have that attitude problem.

If conversation is distracting, we should probably ban passengers in cars. People, travelling in a car together, are highly likely to be familiar with each other. It's reasonable to assume that people who know each other well are likely to encourage in friendly conversation. Should we, therefore, in the event of an accident occurring, assume that any cars with passengers were responsible, because they must have been conversing irresponsibly? No, because that's ridiculous, as is punishing people who are legally using their phones in a safe manner.

If someone forgot to take their phone out of the pocket, and someone called it, and the driver was in an accident while it was ringing/vibrating (without answering/removing it from pocket etc), should the driver be held responsible? What you're suggesting is ludicrous.

People are innocent until proven guilty, yet you're suggesting charging/punishing people on the suspicion that they may be guilty.

rrpc

plodder wrote: »

I'd say a lot of scrapes are caused by the speed up, slow down concertina effect. Variable speed limits (that are enforced) on electronic signs will help with that. At busy times, you want the traffic moving slowly, with short gaps, using all lanes consistently. </edit> just to be clear, it's about maximising throughput (ie number of cars passing a point per second) as much as safety.

I can give a number of reasons for the amount of accidents on the M50 and the speed limits would be very low on the list:

1. People not keeping their distance for the speed they are travelling.
2. People not being prepared for their exit and braking heavily in the overtaking lane to cross two lanes and get off.
3. People not joining the motorway at the correct speed. Regularly you see cars coming down the on-ramp at less than 80kph
4. People on the motorway not moving out to the overtaking lane to allow traffic merge from on-ramps.
5. General stupidity, not paying attention and driving dangerously.

SpaceTime

d

Larbre34 wrote: »

Rubbernecking is another matter. On the continent, and particularly in mountainous areas, you see wind deflectors on motorways which double as visible barriers to the opposite carriageway. Fitting them on the M50 would cost a fortune, and should have been done when it was widened, but I think they should still look to erect them in problem areas, such as near slip and merge ramps where conflicts and collisions often occur.

Those should actually be fitted on ALL Irish long-distance motorways where the centre concrete barriers are used.

When they're not in place, it makes using full headlights almost as problematic as using them on a single carriageway as you will blind oncoming traffic.

I noticed, that what makes it even worse is that you often cannot see the cabs of trucks on the opposite carriageway because the headlights are below the crash barrier, but the cab is actually raised above. If it doesn't have lights at the top, it's basically not visible from the opposite side of the road and I've definitely had a few cases where I had full heads on and I've suddenly seen aggressive flashing from a truck on the opposite side which had been almost entirely invisible to me until he started flashing.

They should have been fitted when the motorways were built in the first place.

On the M50 and also the N40 in Cork both of which are distributor roads with tightly spaced junctions, they really need to do something about the lane behaviour though. The single biggest issue is people driving in the wrong lanes.

I no longer buy the 'bad signage' excuse. There are very good gantry signs on all of those roads at this stage. It was a valid excuse a decade ago though.

I'm sure something like clever use of electronic gantry signage could help though.

I do think though on signage they need to make destinations clearer.

For example on the M7 it should say something like

Portlaoise South
Portlaoise Central
Portlaoise North

Variable speed limits would be useful too on the M50, N7 and N40 and a few others, and possibly different speed limits on different lanes might work, although I haven't seen that done elsewhere so I'm unsure how it might play out.

The other issue on both the M50 and N40 is that there are incidences of escape lanes being used as parallel roads / short circuits between two exits.

In Cork the Rochestown / Douglas entrance onto the N40 (tunnel bound) and the Mahon Point exit start to operate as a parallel road when the main carriageways get busy. The result of this can be that it's impossible to merge and lethal to exit as people are shooting along between the two junctions at much higher speed than the traffic flow on the main carriageways.

In a situation like that, there should be a variable speed limit imposed of say 50 or 60km/h on the escape lane that trips into play when the main carriageways are not moving.

The M50 has a few of these too.

When the traffic isn't flowing on the next lane, the variable speed signage would kick in with flashing lights around it and this could be enforced by automatic speed cameras issuing fines.

They're not thinking these things through at all!

rrpc

SpaceTime wrote: »

When they're not in place, it makes using full headlights almost as problematic as using them on a single carriageway as you will blind oncoming traffic.

You should only use full beams on a motorway when there's no other traffic. Too many people use them regardless of what's in front of them on either carriageway.

SpaceTime

There was no other traffic in my carriageway and the truck on the other side of the barrier in the dark was basically 100% invisible, the cab's sitting (dark) above the barrier.

You can't see their lights, so you can't see them at all.

Where exactly did you get the impression I was driving around with full heads on when there was other traffic in view?!

(Lots of lecturing on this forum)

rrpc

SpaceTime wrote: »

There was no other traffic in my carriageway and the truck on the other side of the barrier in the dark was basically 100% invisible, the cab's sitting (dark) above the barrier.

You can't see their lights, so you can't see them at all.

Where exactly did you get the impression I was driving around with full heads on when there was other traffic in view?!

(Lots of lecturing on this forum)

Because you actually said you did.

It's not impossible to see a truck in the opposite carriageway rgardless of where their lights are situated. On an unlit road there's plenty of reflection from them and on a lit road, you don't require high beams anyway. Most trucks have small running lights on the roof of the cab.

Larbre34

Ive mentioned this on other threads before, but it was the most frightening eye opener I ever had about driver behaviour in Ireland.

6 or 7 years ago I went for a spin with a mate in a highly marked Garda Traffic patrol car, V6 Mondeo, hit 200 kph on various motorway sections. On various bits of the N4 and M50 drivers dawdling in the overtaking lane were totally unaware of us being behind them despite the flashing roof bar and strobing headlights along with the siren of course. Ive heard it called the 'menopausal haze' but it applies equally to men and to all ages at times. The lack of attention people are giving to being in control of a ton and half of steel doing 100kph is just incredible.

Del2005

Schadenfreudia wrote:

In the middle of this a guard was talking to the obviously uninjured drivers sitting at their steering wheels as he was writing stuff in his notebook.

Isn't it great that you driving on the opposite side of the road without rubber necking can tell that the driver is OK.

The problem is that once a person in a crash complains of pain it has to be treated as spinal injury, even a low speed crash has a lot of energy, and some of our motorists think that a crash is easy money.

Rubber necking is a huge problem in every country not just here.

Guy:Incognito

rrpc wrote: »

I can give a number of reasons for the amount of accidents on the M50 and the speed limits would be very low on the list:

1. People not keeping their distance for the speed they are travelling.
2. People not being prepared for their exit and braking heavily in the overtaking lane to cross two lanes and get off.
3. People not joining the motorway at the correct speed. Regularly you see cars coming down the on-ramp at less than 80kph
4. People on the motorway not moving out to the overtaking lane to allow traffic merge from on-ramps.
5. General stupidity, not paying attention and driving dangerously.

If you're doing 1 correctly theres no need to do 4.

Problems arise because for some reason people refuse to keep in the left lane of the 2 that most on ramps have. In most cases the right lane terminates a short distance after the bend. The left lane continues all the way to the next exit. But all the idiots bunch in the right lane and then all have to try merge at the same time , a few feet from each others bumper from a gap about 2 cars lengths . Its ridiculous. Stay left and you've the whole distance to the next junction to merge properly.

Irish Steve

Greyian wrote: »

No, there's a reason why hands free systems are legal, whereas holding a phone in your hand isn't. You say there's a "fundamental problem with an attitude towards mobile phones usage in vehicles", but you're talking about punishing people who do not have that attitude problem.

If conversation is distracting, we should probably ban passengers in cars. People, travelling in a car together, are highly likely to be familiar with each other. It's reasonable to assume that people who know each other well are likely to encourage in friendly conversation. Should we, therefore, in the event of an accident occurring, assume that any cars with passengers were responsible, because they must have been conversing irresponsibly? No, because that's ridiculous, as is punishing people who are legally using their phones in a safe manner.

If someone forgot to take their phone out of the pocket, and someone called it, and the driver was in an accident while it was ringing/vibrating (without answering/removing it from pocket etc), should the driver be held responsible? What you're suggesting is ludicrous.

People are innocent until proven guilty, yet you're suggesting charging/punishing people on the suspicion that they may be guilty.

On the basis of the number of near misses I have seen on a regular basis over many years on the M50, if an incident occurs, and a mobile phone was in use by the driver at the time, I don't care if it was being used legally or illegally, the incident occurring means that the vehicle was not being appropriately driven by the driver.

Your example of a phone in pocket seeking attention is irrelevant, it is not IN USE at the time of the incident, my definition of IN USE is that a call, or text, is being processed, so the attention of the driver is being distracted.

And yes, there are times when the other occupants of the vehicle ARE a major distraction, and a partial cause of the problem.

The emphasis I am looking for is to get to the point where using a mobile while driving in heavy traffic becomes the exception rather than the rule, or the norm, it's been clearly shown by many research projects that the use of the phone is way more distracting that a simple conversation, or changing channels on a radio, or adjusting the heater, and the harsh reality is that if the driver is not capable of that level of multi tasking, then there is a doubt about the validity of letting them drive at all.

There's been mentions of drivers stopping to read maps in the middle of the road, a while back I passed a line of traffic on the other carriageway that was exiting the M2 the wrong way down an "on ramp" because of an accident further down the road, reversing back the hard shoulder, all of these sorts of things should be a ban, regardless of the number of points on the licence, for sheer total stupidity. Stopping in a carriageway lane to force an entry into a queue should also be a mandatory ban, if there's no way off, then the ONLY solution is to continue to the next intersection.

And yes, I'd also make it a requirement that after the ban, the driver has to pass a test before resuming driving. Harsh? Too darn right, driving is not a right that everyone gets automatically, it requires a certain level of skill and respect for the rules that are in place to make it safe for everyone.

The American concept of lane blocker barriers to prevent multiple lane changes close to junctions would be a big help, I'd have no problem if the right hand 2 lanes from Valleymount to Blanchardstown were barrier locked so that only through traffic could use them, but that would need some other changes to improve the access slips at some of the existing junctions, as they're not fit for purpose as they stand now, it's impossible to join the traffic lanes at a suitable speed at present.

Schadenfreudia

Del2005 wrote: »

Isn't it great that you driving on the opposite side of the road without rubber necking can tell that the driver is OK.

Yes it was. I find it is difficult to advance when the cars in front of and beside me are stationary.

In that situation an observant chap like me can take in a lot of detail.....

SpaceTime

rrpc wrote: »

Because you actually said you did.

It's not impossible to see a truck in the opposite carriageway rgardless of where their lights are situated. On an unlit road there's plenty of reflection from them and on a lit road, you don't require high beams anyway. Most trucks have small running lights on the roof of the cab.

Actually, in some cases it is.

Some trucks don't have small running lights on the roof of the cab, and those are the ones that are basically invisible, especially if you add in slight drizzle to the mix.

But, then again, I suppose I'm supposed to have some kind of radar-based eye sight...

(Gives up!)

The NRA are perfect, and road design is never ever an issue in Ireland.

/end sarcasm.

Depending on your driving position, the position of the barrier and the intensity of the truck's headlights, if they do not have roof-mounted lights, in some cases they are basically invisible.

bucketybuck

SpaceTime wrote: »

But, then again, I suppose I'm supposed to have some kind of radar-based eye sight...

You don't need radar vision to see a fecking truck coming towards you on a motorway at night. Invisible my arse.

SpaceTime

bucketybuck wrote: »

You don't need radar vision to see a fecking truck coming towards you on a motorway at night. Invisible my arse.

I'll post dash cam footage of it next time.

You absolutely cannot see them in a lot of cases.

Your lights are much brighter than the lighting on the opposite side of the road anyway (unless you're driving a car with particularly dim headlights). The concrete barrier is at exactly the right height to block the beam from the truck's lights and if they've no roof lights, you basically see nothing at all as the pool of light (even with dips) completely blinds you to any dull change of light on the other side of a barrier.

I think you're forgetting that these new stretches of motorway basically have a concrete wall up the middle. They're not open barriers.

Sam Russell

Hino trucks used to have three green lights over the cab which was very useful when driving narrow country roads as you got the idea the vehicle approaching was a bit bigger than a car. Very useful on a dark drizzly night.

rrpc

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'll post dash cam footage of it next time.

You absolutely cannot see them in a lot of cases.

Your lights are much brighter than the lighting on the opposite side of the road anyway (unless you're driving a car with particularly dim headlights). The concrete barrier is at exactly the right height to block the beam from the truck's lights and if they've no roof lights, you basically see nothing at all as the pool of light (even with dips) completely blinds you to any dull change of light on the other side of a barrier.

I think you're forgetting that these new stretches of motorway basically have a concrete wall up the middle. They're not open barriers.

All the data you've given us about this situation suggests that you were in the overtaking lane, with your high beams on, on a lit stretch of motorway with a central barrier no higher than the roof of a car... and it was a very twisty section of motorway too.

Otherwise I can't see how you couldn't have seen a truck coming from a mile off.

Carawaystick

rrpc wrote: »

Otherwise I can't see how you couldn't have seen a truck coming from a mile off.

because it was dark and there was a concrete wall between the trucks headlights and the driver posting upthread?

This happens the whole time on the M6 eastbound, especially from Moate to Kinnegad section.

MrWalsh

rrpc wrote: »

Otherwise I can't see how you couldn't have seen a truck coming from a mile off.

How would you have expected the driver to see the truck when the trucks headlights were obscured by a concrete wall, the truck had no lighting higher than its headlights and it was dark?

rrpc

MrWalsh wrote: »

How would you have expected the driver to see the truck when the trucks headlights were obscured by a concrete wall, the truck had no lighting higher than its headlights and it was dark?

Just for reference, this is the concrete wall that's being referred to.



I drive this route from Dublin to Galway and back again regularly, usually returning to Dublin in the dark. A lot of the motorway is unlit, but I've very seldom had to use my high beams since it's a good straight road and easy to follow if you're staying within the speed limit.

I don't think I've ever been unaware of oncoming traffic on the opposite carriageway although I have been hit by high beams coming towards me on many occasions and I drive a car.

murphaph

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

The Gardai here seem to make no distinction between minor crashes and major ones.

I personally don't rate AGS as a particularly credible police force any more, certainly not in matters of road traffic policing. They strike me as a very amateur outfit, compared to even the PSNI.

I'd rate them along with most southern European police forces I'm afraid.

A fender bender on a UK motorway (or a German Autobahn) would typically see the police car (assuming it got there before the fire brigade) actually dragging the blocking vehicle to the hard shoulder (if it wasn't in a drivable state) to get the traffic moving again.

SpaceTime

rrpc wrote: »

All the data you've given us about this situation suggests that you were in the overtaking lane, with your high beams on, on a lit stretch of motorway with a central barrier no higher than the roof of a car... and it was a very twisty section of motorway too.

Otherwise I can't see how you couldn't have seen a truck coming from a mile off.

Nope, I was in the driving lane, with high beams on on a slightly drizzly-misty night on a twisty section that goes through the mountains in South Tipp / North Cork.

It's a Volvo with xenon lights so they're pretty seriously powerful when in high beam mode.

The truck was absolutely invisible on the other side.

It was on a rural section of the M8, so absolutely no question of it being a 'lit section'. We hardly have any of those in Ireland other than the M50, a bit of the M1 and a few junctions.

While the road isn't difficult to follow, in slightly foggy / misty weather and in that somewhat more curvy area, the high beams are useful.

snoopy84

whenever I drive galway to Shannon I find it nearly impossible to see on the motorway and have to flash my fulls at intervals just to get my bearings, I've seen better lit back roads out in the country than that motorway

SpaceTime

murphaph wrote: »

I personally don't rate AGS as a particularly credible police force any more, certainly not in matters of road traffic policing. They strike me as a very amateur outfit, compared to even the PSNI.

I'd rate them along with most southern European police forces I'm afraid.

A fender bender on a UK motorway (or a German Autobahn) would typically see the police car (assuming it got there before the fire brigade) actually dragging the blocking vehicle to the hard shoulder (if it wasn't in a drivable state) to get the traffic moving again.

Ireland's legal system or at least fear of possible civil action tends to turn minor incidents into a massive deal a lot of the time.

molloyjh

Mé féinism is the single biggest issue on Irish roads in general and is the source of numerous issues on the M50 daily. People who feel they are more important than those around them and so have the right to cut into an off-ramp at the last minute to avoid a queue (regardless of whether that requires stopping dead on the motorway to do it). People who feel that others should be making way for them which sees them weave between lanes or try and get from the right-hand lane across 2-3 other lanes to make their exit. People who cannot wait 10 minutes to take a phone call and so sit on the M50 with the phone up to their ear.

All of this type of behaviour is less about education or awareness and more about self centred ignorance. If someone suddenly merges into your lane with no indicator and no warning when there isn't enough space between you and the car in front to do so safely do you think that person will get out of the car an apologise profusely for their poor driving? Or do you think they'll place all of the blame on you? There's a fairly substantial percentage of Irish people who don't believe the law should apply to them and refuse to do those around them the simple courtesy of considering their existence.

A few months ago I came off the M50 at Dundrum and arrived up by the side of the Beacon to turn into the Sandyford Industrial Estate. The road by the side of the Beacon has 3 lanes. 2 of these lanes are for turning right into Sandyford (the 2 right lanes) and the other is for continuing on straight and turning left. This guy was in the left lane and at the last second decided to turn right directly in front of me with absolutely no warning. The road there is congested enough with the 2 lanes turning and that he didn't cause an accident was blind luck. We both had to slam on our brakes and when I looked at him to try and vent some of my frustration he simply kept staring straight ahead and forced his way in front of me. Initially I thought he was looking to skip the queue in the turning lanes for Sandyford until further down the road he turned left. He had just decided and the last second that he wanted to avoid the queue in front of him (going straight) and was prepared to cause an accident to do so. He's done it again since too. This is an attitude problem, simple as. And the same shows itself on the M50 constantly.

I'd wholeheartedly agree with the idea of wind breakers or something similar to prevent rubbernecking too.

Schadenfreudia

Agree fully. Changing lane on a motorway (or any road) without indicating should be a six-point offence if you are within 40m of any vehicle behind.

Maybe we should allow dashboard camera evidence in traffic claims like they do in Russia?

Are Garda cars equipped with them?

Van.Bosch

murphaph wrote: »

I personally don't rate AGS as a particularly credible police force any more, certainly not in matters of road traffic policing.

A fender bender on a UK motorway (or a German Autobahn) would typically see the police car (assuming it got there before the fire brigade) actually dragging the blocking vehicle to the hard shoulder (if it wasn't in a drivable state) to get the traffic moving again.

The port tunnel has been closed both ways for the last hour due to a crash. How can it close both directions and not be cleared for an hour?