M40 motorway redesignation and demand management system [works ongoing]

hans aus dtschl

EnzoScifo wrote: »

You'd be surprised at the amount of times I've seen tractors coast along at 50kmph in the middle lane of N40 Eastbound before the Kinsale Road flyover in the evening rush hour.

Yep.
Again, I don't think this is all down to "fecklessness" on the part of the drivers - the reason is often that the alternate routes are even more inappropriate.

As has been stated the N40 - and other roads in the Cork area - were created at a HQDC standard, not a motorway standard, as no design consideration was given to some road users. It wasn't in the brief, likely because nobody foresaw the current usage levels.

loyatemu

EnzoScifo wrote: »

You'd be surprised at the amount of times I've seen tractors coast along at 50kmph in the middle lane of N40 Eastbound before the Kinsale Road flyover in the evening rush hour.

if they can do 50km/h then they're allowed on the motorway anyway.

Cork Trucker

EnzoScifo wrote: »

You'd be surprised at the amount of times I've seen tractors coast along at 50kmph in the middle lane of N40 Eastbound before the Kinsale Road flyover in the evening rush hour.

loyatemu wrote: »

if they can do 50km/h then they're allowed on the motorway anyway.

Here's the list

Provisional licence holders.
Motorcycles under 50cc.
Agricultural vehicles.
Vehicles carrying oversized loads (anything that causes you to take up extra lanes – when exceptions are made, they're often escorted)
Pedestrians.
Cyclists.
Horse riders.
Mobility scooters.

AugustusMinimus

Can a tractor capable of a minimum of 50kph use a motorway if it is being used for construction and not agricultural use?

Cookiemunster

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Can a tractor capable of a minimum of 50kph use a motorway if it is being used for construction and not agricultural use?

There's no such distinction. ANY vehicle capable of traveling at 50 KPH, provided the driver has a full licence, the engine is above 50cc and it has pneumatic tyres can use a motorway.

L1011

It has to be using road diesel to be legally capable of that speed. Agri diesel is legally restricted

quietsailor

DerMutt wrote: »

The latest email update on the N40 ITS:

• An Intelligent Transport System is proposed for the N40 Cork South Ring Road area. The system will include closed circuit TV coverage of the road network, permanent electronic Variable Message Signs, provision of real time Journey Time Information etc.
• On completion, the system will allow remote monitoring of the entire network, greatly improve incident response times and the availability of real time Journey Time Information will allow motorists to plan their journeys in advance. More detailed information on this system will be circulated in future updates.
• The area covered will include the N40 itself, approaches to the N40 including N28 Cork/Ringaskiddy road, N27 Cork City to airport road and N71 Cork/Bandon road. The N8, M8 and N25 approaches to the Dunkettle Interchange will also be covered.
• Works to install the necessary communication ducting are already underway. Works to identify ground conditions at the various ITS installation points will be getting underway in the coming days.
• In order to minimise disruption to traffic, virtually all works during this Phase will be carried out under night-time working. We expect these Phase 1 Works to be completed early in December 2018

I think this work has started on the Cork Bandon road already, there are concrete plinths being installed opposite each other on both sides of the road from the halfway roundabout inwards.

Kevwoody

quietsailor wrote:

I think this work has started on the Cork Bandon road already, there are concrete plinths being installed opposite each other on both sides of the road from the halfway roundabout inwards.

As far as I know that's a bridge/culvert maintenance program, it's being carried out all over Munster by Cumnor from Blarney.
Basically anywhere there is pipework crossing the road a concrete area is being constructed at the roadside.

quietsailor

Kevwoody wrote: »

As far as I know that's a bridge/culvert maintenance program, it's being carried out all over Munster by Cumnor from Blarney.
Basically anywhere there is pipework crossing the road a concrete area is being constructed at the roadside.

That would make sense, thank you

marno21

Portable VMS now at J18 on the M8 showing journey times to N40 J6 and some other destination that I didn't quite catch.

The permanent VMS erected there but inactive will likely be activated shortly to replace this.

kub

There are 2 others, one is at the Little Island junction proclaiming the journey time to Kinsale Road roundabout.

The other is just after Kinsale Road roundabout heading East proclaiming the journey time to Little Island.

How these things can be correct always puzzles me.

marno21

kub wrote: »

There are 2 others, one is at the Little Island junction proclaiming the journey time to Kinsale Road roundabout.

The other is just after Kinsale Road roundabout heading East proclaiming the journey time to Little Island.

How these things can be correct always puzzles me.

When fully operational, and they could be fully setup now, there will be cameras at the sign that tells you the journey time and cameras at the destination on the sign. The cameras will read number plates at the sign and the destination and display the average journey time between the two

kub

Thank you that makes perfect sense. Also should they ever decide to clog up the city by tolling the tunnel, then they will have the necessary infrastructure in situ.

Cork Trucker

kub wrote: »

Also should they ever decide to clog up the city by tolling the tunnel, then they will have the necessary infrastructure in situ.

I reckon this is in theory, part of the plan to do exactly that.

marno21

There will be no toll on the Jack Lynch Tunnel until there is a functional orbital route of the city and an additional motorway crossing of the Lee.

Eventually in the future when there is a Glanmire-Killeens-Ballincollig-Ballinhassig-Ballygarvan-Ringaskiddy route the existing N40 will likely be multipoint tolled from Bishopstown to the JLT. That's a long way down the road though.

AugustusMinimus

marno21 wrote: »

There will be no toll on the Jack Lynch Tunnel until there is a functional orbital route of the city and an additional motorway crossing of the Lee.

Eventually in the future when there is a Glanmire-Killeens-Ballincollig-Ballinhassig-Ballygarvan-Ringaskiddy route the existing N40 will likely be multipoint tolled from Bishopstown to the JLT. That's a long way down the road though.

I can’t see it happening. Local traffic on the south side of the city is hugely dependent on the SRR. Traffic would be gridlocked if you dumped even 30% of the traffic into the local road system.

It would also be political suicide. People would go bezerk.

alaimacerc

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I can’t see it happening. Local traffic on the south side of the city is hugely dependent on the SRR. Traffic would be gridlocked if you dumped even 30% of the traffic into the local road system.

Might make more sense to do it the other way around -- complete the "North Ring", and toll that. But that would similarly militate against it functioning as an actual ring road, and move to a "bypass to the bypass" model.

I'm sure roadsuperfans would ideally want both, but that's surely not so much on the long finger, as at the end of a very outstretched arm indeed.

hans aus dtschl

alaimacerc wrote: »

Might make more sense to do it the other way around -- complete the "North Ring", and toll that. But that would similarly militate against it functioning as an actual ring road, and move to a "bypass to the bypass" model.

I'm sure roadsuperfans would ideally want both, but that's surely not so much on the long finger, as at the end of a very outstretched arm indeed.

I can tell you anecdotally that a lot of traffic avoids the Watergrasshill toll already. I'm not sure that people will pay even a reasonable toll for the "North Ring"

DerMutt

kub wrote: »

There are 2 others, one is at the Little Island junction proclaiming the journey time to Kinsale Road roundabout.

The other is just after Kinsale Road roundabout heading East proclaiming the journey time to Little Island.

How these things can be correct always puzzles me.

There's one by the reservoir at the top of Carr's Hill too. Just showing a flashing dot at the moment.

marno21

Contract for the concrete bases & gantries for the ITS installations has been awarded to Jons Civil. Work to start the week beginning Monday 20th May, to be complete by January 2020 or possibly Christmas.

Chris_5339762

Well they've spent lots of money overnight re-lining the lanes at the Bandon Road Roundabout. It looks much better but sadly there is no mention of N40 on any of the lanes; instead they've used N25 everywhere.

Oh dear.

Aontachtoir

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Well they've spent lots of money overnight re-lining the lanes at the Bandon Road Roundabout. It looks much better but sadly there is no mention of N40 on any of the lanes; instead they've used N25 everywhere.

Oh dear.

No - really? It hasn't been the N25 for what, seven years? :eek:

BelfastVanMan

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Well they've spent lots of money overnight re-lining the lanes at the Bandon Road Roundabout. It looks much better but sadly there is no mention of N40 on any of the lanes; instead they've used N25 everywhere.

Oh dear.

No - really? It hasn't been the N25 for what, seven years? :eek:

Jesus wept....

OldMrBrennan83

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Well they've spent lots of money overnight re-lining the lanes at the Bandon Road Roundabout. It looks much better but sadly there is no mention of N40 on any of the lanes; instead they've used N25 everywhere.

Oh dear.

As a matter of interest, what have they done? Is there a new lane layout on the roundabout now?

marno21

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

As a matter of interest, what have they done? Is there a new lane layout on the roundabout now?

The lines were faded, it was getting quite dangerous.

Would I be right in saying it wasn't even N25 when the flyover opened ?

kub

Aontachtoir wrote: »

No - really? It hasn't been the N25 for what, seven years? :eek:

Someone is going to get a promotion out of this, if the fault is with the TII / County Council.

Or an almighty xxxxxxxx if it is the contractors mistake.

Maybe the County Council are having a laugh before they hand over this area to the City Council at the end of this month?

Aontachtoir

kub wrote: »

Maybe the County Council are having a laugh before they hand over this area to the City Council at the end of this month?

Geez lads. Ye lost the boundary war, get over it.

I can only presume the instructions said "put an extra layer of paint on the markings that are currently there" and that meant touching up the old N25 markings. :rolleyes:

marno21

I was heading east on the N40 Monday evening at 6pm when I saw a cyclist coming up the on ramp at J4 Sarsfield Road with no reflective gear on at dusk. This is a 3 lane dual carriageway with no hard shoulder and an extremely narrow lane east of the Togher exit due to cones on the verge.

Motorway classifications can't come quick enough.

This is aside from the usual debauchery with tractors causing rolling roadblocks frequently at peak times.

SeanW

What's the story with that re-designation? Happening, in progress or what?

marno21

SeanW wrote: »

What's the story with that re-designation? Happening, in progress or what?

Jacobs are completing a motorway reclassification study in conjunction with TII at present. As part of the larger N40 works, focus at present is on the CCTV masts and VMS sign gantries.

Hibernicis

marno21 wrote: »

I was heading east on the N40 Monday evening at 6pm when I saw a cyclist coming up the on ramp at J4 Sarsfield Road with no reflective gear on at dusk. This is a 3 lane dual carriageway with no hard shoulder and an extremely narrow lane east of the Togher exit due to cones on the verge.

Motorway classifications can't come quick enough.

This is aside from the usual debauchery with tractors causing rolling roadblocks frequently at peak times.

+++++

This road is so very very far beyond its core design capacity and rating.

Driving N40 West->East last week on the section before Mahon Point exit, an ould lad (think Jackie Healy Rae) bopping along on a seriously big tractor pulling a even bigger high sided trailer filled with loose grass/hay and no tarpaulin top. Behind him a long line of red lights, multiple last minute lane changes sans indication, and an utter blizzard of the crap that was in his trailer being spewed over all three lanes. You simply cannot have a road with a 100km speed limit that is catering for 50,000-100,000 vehicle movements per day, also catering for cyclists, L-drivers and fully laden tractors/trailers zooming along at 38.5kmph. The sooner this road goes all blue the better, irrespective of the downside consequences. And hopefully it happens before a 10/20/50 multiple death accident occurs.

hans aus dtschl

Hibernicis wrote: »

You simply cannot have a road with a 100km speed limit that is catering for 50,000-100,000 vehicle movements per day, also catering for cyclists, L-drivers and fully laden tractors/trailers zooming along at 38.5kmph.

As a cyclist and a motorist I fully agree.

Hibernicis wrote: »

The sooner this road goes all blue the better, irrespective of the downside consequences. And hopefully it happens before a 10/20/50 multiple death accident occurs.

The "downside consequences" of routing HGV's through the city are deaths and injuries. That's without discussing concepts like air quality and the "liveability" of the city. You're conflating two things: a requirement for a road and a requirement for high speed.

So yes, fully agreed that there needs to be segregation, ASAP. But not agreed at all that high-speed vehicles are the priority movement.

We've discussed this at length on the thread, simply making the road M status won't solve all problems, just hide them. Every few weeks there's a multi-vehicle crash on Harpers Island, which is a straight section of motorway-quality road with no junctions whatsoever. (Edit: just to point out that there has never once been a slow-moving vehicle at fault or even involved here, always standard fast-moving vehicles).
You're suggesting that slow moving cyclists and HGV's are the cause of high speed crashes. This can not be possible, because only high speed vehicles can crash at high speeds. NTA/TII made the same mistaken assertion in their assessment of the scheme.

Unless there's a secondary route, simply "banning" the vehicles that get in your way is a very short-sighted idea. As we've discussed, it would be extremely easy and cheap and fast to also provide a dedicated cycleway, but there's no movement on this.

HGV's are going to take a lot more effort: basically NTA need to fund and progress CMATS. Probably N40 North and Southern Distributor roads at a minimum.

Edit: Look, I also hate getting stuck behind slow-moving vehicles on the N40. It's infuriating, particularly at rush-hour. But we need to figure out where they're going to actually go after they're banned. It's not good design to just say "that'll be someone else's problem".

loyatemu

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

As a cyclist and a motorist I fully agree.


The "downside consequences" of routing HGV's through the city are deaths and injuries. That's without discussing concepts like air quality and the "liveability" of the city. You're conflating two things: a requirement for a road and a requirement for high speed.

So yes, fully agreed that there needs to be segregation, ASAP. But not agreed at all that high-speed vehicles are the priority movement.

We've discussed this at length on the thread, simply making the road M status won't solve all problems, just hide them. Every few weeks there's a multi-vehicle crash on Harpers Island, which is a straight section of motorway-quality road with no junctions whatsoever.
You're suggesting that slow moving cyclists and HGV's are the cause of high speed crashes. This can not be possible, because only high speed vehicles can crash at high speeds. NTA/TII made the same mistaken assertion in their assessment of the scheme.

Unless there's a secondary route, simply "banning" the vehicles that get in your way is a very short-sighted idea.

which HGVs would be banned by redesignation?

marno21

Dublin and Limerick seem to manage just fine with a ring road under motorway restrictions. Same as every other town along the M1/M3/M4/M6/M7/M8/M9/M11/M18 including large ones such as Ennis, Portlaoise, Naas, Newbridge etc

Unsuitable traffic on the N40 is leading to crashes and deaths along the route. It needs to be prohibited.

I'd also say it's imperative that blue signs should go from Ovens to Carrigtwohill East. Whatever about the N40, having cyclists on the N22 and N25, at 120km/h with clear useful alternative routes is daft.

hans aus dtschl

loyatemu wrote: »

which HGVs would be banned by redesignation?

Well maybe I'm wrong in describing them simply as "HGV" but some of the commercial vehicles that I've seen doing less than 35kmh on the N40 are:
Cranes, tractors, special-Load vehicles, such as those transporting bits of turbines or heavy equipment, side-loaders, back-hoe excavators, etc.

hans aus dtschl

marno21 wrote: »

Dublin and Limerick seem to manage just fine with a ring road under motorway restrictions. Same as every other town along the M1/M3/M4/M6/M7/M8/M9/M11/M18 including large ones such as Ennis, Portlaoise, Naas, Newbridge etc

Unsuitable traffic on the N40 is leading to crashes and deaths along the route. It needs to be prohibited.

I'd also say it's imperative that blue signs should go from Ovens to Carrigtwohill East. Whatever about the N40, having cyclists on the N22 and N25, at 120km/h with clear useful alternative routes is daft.

I'd say unsustainable volumes of traffic and lots of weaving are as big an issue on the N40 to be honest.

Yep, the newer roads all have alternative routes and protected the M status properly. It's how it should be done. None of these were re-graded from N status. The M8 from Dunkettle North was recently re-graded without issues or complaints from anyone.

Part of the N25 issue is because there's no suitable alternative from Cork to Glounthaune/Little Island. Little Island to Carrigtwohill is a different story, obviously.

Hibernicis

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

The "downside consequences" of routing HGV's through the city are deaths and injuries.

I absolutely did not propose banning HGV’s from the N40 and instead routing them through the city.

hans aus dtschl

Hibernicis wrote: »

I absolutely did not propose banning HGV’s from the N40 and instead routing them through the city.

Whether you propose it or not, TINA (there is no alternative).

Unfortunately a lot of these vehicles rely on the N40 at present. It's why I get stuck behind the same bloody manitou so often at rush hour.

Here, I'm not saying that we need to keep allowing bicycles in the overtaking lane of the N40, which is the current ugly situation. I'm just saying the solution needs to be more involved than the M-status.

Hibernicis

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Whether you propose it or not, TINA (there is no alternative).

Unfortunately a lot of these vehicles rely on the N40 at present. It's why I get stuck behind the same bloody manitou so often at rush hour.

Here, I'm not saying that we need to keep allowing bicycles in the overtaking lane of the N40, which is the current ugly situation. I'm just saying the solution needs to be more involved than the M-status.

Do you actually know what a HGV is ?

hans aus dtschl

Hibernicis wrote: »

Do you actually know what a HGV is ?

Do you have a point that you'd like to elaborate on?
What carries turbine blades at present?

Edit: For clarity, my entire point was that slow moving traffic shouldn't be on the N40, but that there's no viable alternative at present. I am not seeking to categorise each slow moving vehicle: that's not quite the point.

loyatemu

turbine blades are an unusual load and usually require some sort of Garda escort so could use the motorway anyway (probably at night).

Combine harvesters, JCBs etc definitely shouldn't be using main roads - if they need to travel any distance they should be on low-loaders.

Hibernicis

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Do you have a point that you'd like to elaborate on?
What carries turbine blades at present?

Not sure whether you are bring deliberately disingenuous or simply trying to draw me into some pointless pedantic argument. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and try to explain my point in simple terms. For clarity let me restate that I never suggested or proposed banning HGVs from the N/M40.

9x% of HGVs (and realistically 99.x% of them) would be permitted on the road were it operating under motorway restrictions. The exceptions would be standard motorway exceptions, e.g. wide loads, slow moving vehicles etc. These are few and far between and there are special arrangements available for the special cases, e.g your turbine blades can be transported on a motorway (and frequently are) with special escorts at times of low demand.

I did not suggest that a motorway designation for the N40 is in any way ideal. It’s little more than a sticking plaster. But a very necessary sticking plaster to address a very dangerous situation. The long term solutions required to reduce the volume of traffic on the N40 back to levels that are safe for a standard urban dual carriage way are years away (North Ring, M28, Dunkettle, local distributor roads, junction improvements, etc). In the meantime the N40, which is carrying traffic well in excess of the threshold for designation as a Motorway, should be so designated, on safety grounds if nothing else.

hans aus dtschl

Hibernicis wrote: »

Not sure whether you are bring deliberately disingenuous or simply trying to draw me into some pointless pedantic argument. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and try to explain my point in simple terms. For clarity let me restate that I never suggested or proposed banning HGVs from the N/M40.

9x% of HGVs (and realistically 99.x% of them) would be permitted on the road were it operating under motorway restrictions. The exceptions would be standard motorway exceptions, e.g. wide loads, slow moving vehicles etc. These are few and far between and there are special arrangements available for the special cases, e.g your turbine blades can be transported on a motorway (and frequently are) with special escorts at times of low demand.

I did not suggest that a motorway designation for the N40 is in any way ideal. It’s little more than a sticking plaster. But a very necessary sticking plaster to address a very dangerous situation. The long term solutions required to reduce the volume of traffic on the N40 back to levels that are safe for a standard urban dual carriage way are years away (North Ring, M28, Dunkettle, local distributor roads, junction improvements, etc). In the meantime the N40, which is carrying traffic well in excess of the threshold for designation as a Motorway, should be so designated, on safety grounds if nothing else.

I think that's a reasonable response from you. And no, I'm not being disingenuous with this or previous posts.

Here's the point: slow moving vehicles mixed with fast-moving vehicles on the N40 is a problem (it's a problem on any road): I suspect that we can both agree this?

I'm saying we want slow moving vehicles to take a different route. Again I suspect that we can both agree this. It seems reasonable. The N40 would be wasted on slow traffic, it's designed for higher speeds.

You're saying that the M-status is one attempt/route to achieving this. I don't have a major problem other than to say that this cannot work as we would like, because lots of the other slow moving vehicles will stay using it. Things like tractors that are technically capable of 50kmh but won't achieve that with a load. Things like slow moving JCB's and side-loaders. They're all going to still be on the M40, as it would be recategorised. Most of these won't have garda escorts. I fully accept that some will, and let's ignore those because it's a whole different category.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, and we both agree on the long term required solution.

But I'm saying that putting the reclassification in isn't going to do the necessary for us. Because I genuinely expect that we will still see cyclists and slow moving farm traffic on the M40. The reason being: I can't imagine cycling on it at present, but some people are choosing to do so. Mostly these people are NOT oblivious to safety issues, but rather are making a calculation that it's "safe enough" and more convenient (and in some cases safer) than their alternative route. So I'm saying that we need to improve or provide the alternative routes ASAP.

I'm saying that if our objective is to remove slower-moving traffic from the N40, it's gotta go somewhere. And that we're now doing a kind of window-dressing exercise pretending that the slow-moving traffic won't be on that road. But cranes etc are still going to pootle along it at 40kmh, so the safety objective won't actually be met. Does that make sense?

I'm also saying that slow-moving traffic either will use the N40 or go through town, in the M40 scenario. That's a whole other point.
Edit: I'm not accusing you of wanting heavy slow traffic through town, but at the moment there's no real alternative, it's N40 or town. If we want it off the N40, then some has to go through town.

hans aus dtschl

loyatemu wrote: »

turbine blades are an unusual load and usually require some sort of Garda escort so could use the motorway anyway (probably at night).

Combine harvesters, JCBs etc definitely shouldn't be using main roads - if they need to travel any distance they should be on low-loaders.

And yet I don't think the M-status will prevent them if they're capable of doing some relatively low minimum speed (50kmh?) that was pretty much my point. Re-categorising the N40 won't fix this one for us. That's the problem I'm trying (but obviously failing) to get across.

Markcheese

Most High speed tractors are able to travel motorways, combines, jcbs, loaders (including that manitou), bicycles and learners aren't..
The drama with the N40 /m40 isn't really any of those vehicles (though they don't help), it's traffic volume... And junctions...
And it is what it is... There isn't really a (viable) public transport alternative to the N40,

hans aus dtschl

Markcheese wrote: »

Most High speed tractors are able to travel motorways, combines, jcbs, loaders (including that manitou), bicycles and learners aren't..
The drama with the N40 /m40 isn't really any of those vehicles (though they don't help), it's traffic volume... And junctions...
And it is what it is... There isn't really a (viable) public transport alternative to the N40,

I'd say that bicycles and learners aren't a significant issue: learners can go through town, bicycles can be accommodated in other ways.

But on the rest of your message, are you sure you're right? I'd thought cranes, harvesters, digging vehicles and loading vehicles are technically allowed on the M-status roads, as long as they can do 40kmh, according to the commercial vehicle test? Or are category S vehicles not allowed? In which case, those guys are going through town, I guess.

Markcheese

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I'd say that bicycles and learners aren't a significant issue: learners can go through town, bicycles can be accommodated in other ways.

But on the rest of your message, are you sure you're right? I'd thought cranes, harvesters, digging vehicles and loading vehicles are technically allowed on the M-status roads, as long as they can do 40kmh, according to the commercial vehicle test? Or are category S vehicles not allowed? In which case, those guys are going through town, I guess.

Most loaders and harvesters can't do 40 kph, so they'll be stuck on a low loader towed by a tractor.... So driving along the motorway at 40ish...

AugustusMinimus

I’ve witnessed a cyclist in the left most lane without any lights on the section between Kinsale and Sarsfield Roundsbout in the pitch dark. How the guy didn’t get killed I’m not sure.

BikeRacer

marno21 wrote: »

I'd also say it's imperative that blue signs should go from Ovens to Carrigtwohill East. Whatever about the N40, having cyclists on the N22 and N25, at 120km/h with clear useful alternative routes is daft.

'Daft' how exactly? It's the same reason people drive on the N22 and N25, it's the quickest. Also the hard shoulder on the N22 is by far the safest part of any cycle I do. I'm not sure why an extra 20 km/h makes any tangible difference in your mind, if your on a bike and hit at 100 or 120 km/h the outcome is going to be the same.

marno21

BikeRacer wrote: »

'Daft' how exactly? It's the same reason people drive on the N22 and N25, it's the quickest. Also the hard shoulder on the N22 is by far the safest part of any cycle I do. I'm not sure why an extra 20 km/h makes any tangible difference in your mind, if your on a bike and hit at 100 or 120 km/h the outcome is going to be the same.

There was a cyclist killed on the N22 2 years ago. Cycling on the N22 requires crossing on ramps with traffic merging and departing at high speed, and places cyclists and other vulnerable road users at risk due to high traffic volumes and high mainline traffic speeds.

I really don't get what's wrong with cycling the many roads which run parallel to the N22.

There are limited amount of 120km/h roads that permit cycling and for good reason.