City just crazy

xckjoo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How does other vehicles overtaking you make it difficult for you?

The momentum of objects around you influences your perceived speed.....

McGiver

flazio wrote: »

At the most, not least. 100km/h with unprotected footpaths either side is a bit too dangerous, that's why the last bit of the N4/N6 into Dublin before the M50 is 80km/h. Because of the footpaths and cycle lanes beside it.

In UK such roads would be 40 mph speed limit. Reasonable compromise between speed and safety- 65 kmh.

McGiver

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It sounds like you don't have the right temperament for taking responsibility for a tonne or two of metal in an area shared with pedestrians and cyclists.


What's hard? Do you have trouble staying under 50 kmph in car parks?

Hard to control your emotions and hence adhere to the rules of the road, including the speed limits at a given place? Think such people shouldn't be allowed to drive, and I mean it very seriously.

Psychological tests required on top of driving test itself, I think.

I could do 50kmh there when I took my driving lessons. Just control your urges and fecking follow the rules. Every time I went there, I was literally the only one adhering to the speed limit. Very dangerous overtaking, no signals etc., were going on there around me. Withnessed it several dozen times.

McGiver

Gracelynn Whining Rainbow wrote: »

They need proper speed limits not enforcement. 50kmh is idiotic, I would go mad sitting at that speed on them roads.

Au contraire. Enforcement is very much lacking in Galway. Guards would get a lot of extra cash looking at the situation here. Plus the positive effect of a deterrent and maybe people would start following the rules.

xckjoo

McGiver wrote: »

Hard to control your emotions and hence adhere to the rules of the road, including the speed limits at a given place? Think such people shouldn't be allowed to drive, and I mean it very seriously.

Psychological tests required on top of driving test itself, I think.

I could do 50kmh there when I took my driving lessons. Just control your urges and fecking follow the rules. Every time I went there, I was literally the only one adhering to the speed limit. Very dangerous overtaking, no signals etc., were going on there around me. Withnessed it several dozen times.

Not sure if that's directed at me, but don't see how "emotions" or "psychological tests" are relevant. It's about perception. How fast does it feel like you're going and what's the risk of going this speed. The speed of the other cars influences the first, the wide, well surfaced road influences both. The fact that you remember having to work so hard on it shows you that it's at least somewhat abnormal. You're on your best behavior for a driving lesson/test and you still have to force the issue. It's no wonder everyone breaks it once they pass the test. I'd bump up the speed limit here (can drop it down again for the bits near houses) and reduce it elsewhere, closer to the city centre. Then enforce the crap out of speeding and red light jumpers. Might actually improve the overall traffic flow.

AndrewJRenko

xckjoo wrote: »

The momentum of objects around you influences your perceived speed.....

Have you tried using your speedo?

McGiver

xckjoo wrote: »

Not sure if that's directed at me, but don't see how "emotions" or "psychological tests" are relevant. It's about perception. How fast does it feel like you're going and what's the risk of going this speed. The speed of the other cars influences the first, the wide, well surfaced road influences both. The fact that you remember having to work so hard on it shows you that it's at least somewhat abnormal. You're on your best behavior for a driving lesson/test and you still have to force the issue. It's no wonder everyone breaks it once they pass the test. I'd bump up the speed limit here (can drop it down again for the bits near houses) and reduce it elsewhere, closer to the city centre. Then enforce the crap out of speeding and red light jumpers. Might actually improve the overall traffic flow.

Wasn't directed at you specifically. It's about the mindset.

The point is - the rule is what it is and it must be there for a reason. Follow the rule and be safe. By not following ANY rules you are creating a mindset in the society where it is OK to break ANY other rule, this then degrades the standard in overall. It's psychological thing, and a certain kind of a moral hazzard.

I don't think everyone breaks the rules. We could then very well abolish all rules with this attitude "you know I think this particular rule is bollocks". Why then having any rules at all? Just to go to India and see what no road rules (and/or lack of any bother following them) mean - chaos and several times higher mortality on the road.

Everyone would agree that speed limites need to be properly set, but LOWER speed limit makes NO HARM whatsoever. It's always safer than higher speed limit.

xckjoo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you tried using your speedo?

If you drive staring at your speedometer the whole time you're going to have a bad time. Its more important to be looking out the window and seeing what's going on around you. It's easy for the foot to accidentally get a bit heavier when everyone else is whizzing passed you. Hell even your choice of music is able to effect that.

Keep digging though. I'm sure you feel like you're being clever but you were off-point with what you said and your unwillingness to realise that is your own cross to bare.

McGiver

xckjoo wrote: »

If you drive staring at your speedometer the whole time you're going to have a bad time. Its more important to be looking out the window and seeing what's going on around you. It's easy for the foot to accidentally get a bit heavier when everyone else is whizzing passed you. Hell even your choice of music is able to effect that.

That looking out at the road is essential I agree with, but as well as looking at the speedo. It's there for a reason...

xckjoo

McGiver wrote: »

Wasn't directed at you specifically. It's about the mindset.

The point is - the rule is what it is and it must be there for a reason. Follow the rule and be safe. By not following ANY rules you are creating a mindset in the society where it is OK to break ANY other rule, this then degrades the standard in overall. It's psychological thing, and a certain kind of a moral hazzard.

I don't think everyone breaks the rules. We could then very well abolish all rules with this attitude "you know I think this particular rule is bollocks". Why then having any rules at all? Just to go to India and see what no road rules (and/or lack of any bother following them) mean - chaos and several times higher mortality on the road.

Everyone would agree that speed limites need to be properly set, but LOWER speed limit makes NO HARM whatsoever. It's always safer than higher speed limit.

Just to clarify, I meant that by having a road like this with a speed limit that almost nobody sticks to, it fosters a behavior of ignoring speed limits in general. So while I agree in principle that lower speed limits are good, they need to be put in place where they'll actually be followed.

McGiver

xckjoo wrote: »

Just to clarify, I meant that by having a road like this with a speed limit that almost nobody sticks to, it fosters a behavior of ignoring speed limits in general. So while I agree in principle that lower speed limits are good, they need to be put in place where they'll actually be followed.

50 kmh is not harmful on that road whatsoever. Never. It cannot be. it's a "cultural" issue that speed limit there isn't followed. That's all what it is.

xckjoo

McGiver wrote: »

That looking out at the road is essential I agree with, but as well as looking at the speedo. It's there for a reason...

Thanks Capt Obvious . Must be nice up there on the high horses. Are yourself and Andrew sharing or did ye get one each?



Talk about what people should be doing all ye want. Then go out and look at what actually happens. If you're going to tell me you have never broken the speed limit on that road I'm going to assume you either 1) don't drive it very often or 2) are poor at evaluating your own behavior. I might be wrong on both accounts, but it's a fair assumption for most people.

xckjoo

McGiver wrote: »

50 kmh is not harmful on that road whatsoever. Never. It cannot be. it's a "cultural" issue that speed limit there isn't followed. That's all what it is.

?
Are you saying 50kmph is the slowest speed limit we should have and is completely safe?

McGiver

xckjoo wrote: »

?
Are you saying 50kmh is the slowest speed limit we should have and is completely safe?

On that road - yes. Perfectly safe. Whether it's reasonable, that's a separate topic. But it's 50 so stick to it. Why wouldn't stick to this and then stick to another one elsewhere? The driver decides what speed limit to follow? Well...

Obviously, 50kmh in estates isn't safe and too much, so I'm happy that 30kmh zones started popping up lately. In UK, most estates would have 20mph limit, for a reason, it's just reducing risk.Many places in town should have 30mkh as well, why they don't puzzles me. Again, in UK, such places would be 20mph.

It all boils down to safety. Tthe lower the better. BTW we are not talking motorways here that's something else.

xckjoo

McGiver wrote: »

On that road - yes. Perfectly safe. Whether it's reasonable, that's a separate topic. But it's 50 so stick to it. Why wouldn't stick to this and then stick to another one elsewhere? The driver decides what speed limit to follow? Well...

See my rant above about the difference between what people should do and what they actually do. No point in telling me. I stick to that limit nearly every time. I'm just self-aware enough to know that I occasionally exceed it and that most people aren't going to bother.

You're kinda backing up my point though. If someone doesn't stick to the limit there, why would they do it elsewhere? It feeds into the existing culture of ignoring speed limits and driving at whatever speed the driver feels like it should be.

joeKel73

zell12 wrote: »

The 50kph on BnaT is due to the entrance on GlenburrenPark

Never understood that. It's a 1.8km stretch of road, Glenburren Park entrance is 100m from the end of it - why not mark it as 100kph and reduce to 50kph 150m from either end...?

jjpep

There should be speed cameras installed along bothar na treabh and the bridge. Would be good to see in paces like shantalla road as well.

The problem isn't the speed limits, its the non enforcement, which leads some people to taking the piss which is what causes problems for everyone else.

AndrewJRenko

xckjoo wrote: »

If you drive staring at your speedometer the whole time you're going to have a bad time. Its more important to be looking out the window and seeing what's going on around you. It's easy for the foot to accidentally get a bit heavier when everyone else is whizzing passed you. Hell even your choice of music is able to effect that.

Keep digging though. I'm sure you feel like you're being clever but you were off-point with what you said and your unwillingness to realise that is your own cross to bare.

Have you tried looking at your speedo for short durations that don't distract from your ability to drive safely, as it is designed to be used?

flazio

McGiver wrote: »

In UK such roads would be 40 mph speed limit. Reasonable compromise between speed and safety- 65 kmh.

There is no 65km/h limit in existence, it's either, 30, 50, 60, 80, 100 or 120km/h. Occasionally you would see a suggested reduced speed under sharp bend signs particularly at motorway slip roads,but they aren't legally binding.

McGiver

xckjoo wrote: »

Just to clarify, I meant that by having a road like this with a speed limit that almost nobody sticks to, it fosters a behavior of ignoring speed limits in general. So while I agree in principle that lower speed limits are good, they need to be put in place where they'll actually be followed.

Not sure I understand the logic.

So the mob decides which speed limit is "correct" and hence should be followed? And if "incorrect" speed limit is in place the mob are fine to ignore it? With this logic all speed limits are incorrect, because the mob's goal is to get from point A to B in the shortest possible time!

Jaysus please no. Think traffic controllers and urbanists know better what speed limit to put where based on data. The mob doesn't have that data, for the mob every speed limit is a nuisance.

McGiver

flazio wrote: »

There is no 65km/h limit in existence, it's either, 30, 50, 60, 80, 100 or 120km/h. Occasionally you would see a suggested reduced speed under sharp bend signs particularly at motorway slip roads,but they aren't legally binding.

Thale 60kmh is an anomaly, it doesn't follow the UK mph limits while the other do. Should have been 65 kmh, unequal gap between 50 and 80.

Anyway, so why not put 60 kmh on that bloody road? It just can't be 80 - footpath and cycle paths on the side.

xckjoo

McGiver wrote: »

Not sure I understand the logic.

So the mob decides which speed limit is "correct" and hence should be followed? And if "incorrect" speed limit is in place the mob are fine to ignore it? With this logic all speed limits are incorrect, because the mob's goal is to get from point A to B in the shortest possible time!

Jaysus please no. Think traffic controllers and urbanists know better what speed limit to put where based on data. The mob doesn't have that data, for the mob every speed limit is a nuisance.

Jesus give me patience. Are you and Andrew working on being obtuse or is it natural? I'm going to ignore him because he's clearly too self righteous to engage in a conversation. I still have some hopes for you though



Where did I say that "the mob decided what speed limit is 'correct'"? Once again, what you think people should do is irrelevant to what they actually do. I think people should leave the car at home and walk/cycle/take the bus to work, but guess what, it's not happening as things stand.

If you're old enough to remember the speed limits changing to kmph, you should remember that the limits are clearly set by a basic set of rules (proximity to city, housing estate access, etc.). The speed limit on 2 km long cul-de-sac I grew up on is 80kmph. What data are the boffins crunching to come up with that figure????? You'd be hard pushed to hit the 80 before you end up upside down in a field surrounded by cows.



Bothar na dTreabh could easily handle traffic speeds of more than 50kmph. It does so every day. There isn't even an issue with people crossing mid-road like you'd get on the Quincentenary Bridge. Speeding is out of control in this country at the moment, but I'd rather see the cops cracking down in places where the risks are higher than wasting effort to enforce a rule that's not serving a significant purpose.

xckjoo

McGiver wrote: »

Thale 60kmh is an anomaly, it doesn't follow the UK mph limits while the other do. Should have been 65 kmh, unequal gap between 50 and 80.

Anyway, so why not put 60 kmh on that bloody road? It just can't be 80 - footpath and cycle paths on the side.

So you argue with me that the speed limit is fine but you yourself think it's too slow. Are you just arguing for the sake of it?


The speed limits were set when we changed from mph to kmph. An equivalent kmph was established for each of the standard mph speeds. While a large chunk of our road rules are similar to the UK ones, we're not the same country and don't follow everything they do. There doesn't seem to be an appetite for introducing new limits so we have what we have. You'll have to ask those teams of "traffic controllers and urbanist" why they've calculated these speeds as optimum (or just realise it was all done by committee and a set of basic rules).

AndrewJRenko

xckjoo wrote: »

Jesus give me patience. Are you and Andrew working on being obtuse or is it natural? I'm going to ignore him because he's clearly too self righteous to engage in a conversation. I still have some hopes for you though

The point that you're choosing to ignore is that it's really not that hard to stick to any speed limit. If you make it a priority, you can stick to it. All this 'can't go under 50 kmph' is just guff put out to make up another excuse for motorists. If you want to stick to under 50 kmph, you can do it.

My eight year old family car has a speed limiter as part of the cruise control. If you can't control your right foot, use the technology to control it.

xckjoo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The point that you're choosing to ignore is that it's really not that hard to stick to any speed limit. If you make it a priority, you can stick to it. All this 'can't go under 50 kmph' is just guff put out to make up another excuse for motorists. If you want to stick to under 50 kmph, you can do it.

My eight year old family car has a speed limiter as part of the cruise control. If you can't control your right foot, use the technology to control it.

The point your missing is that I never said it was impossible to go under 50, but that it was far far easier to find yourself going over 50. The fact that everyone else that's discussed it has highlighted the effort it takes to stay within speed limits on this road suggests it's an issue. Even the fact that we all can immediately identify that road as being one where it's an issue should tell you something. I can't think of a single other road around that would cause such consensus. But TBH I don't think you're interested in what point I was making, you just saw an opportunity for self congratulations and piousness. If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I say that I do stick to 50 or below, but it takes concentrated effort to remain below that speed and I don't think (or see) that others are willing to do that. So while I chug along at 50kmph, every other car on the road is flying past me. What difference does that make other than to my sense of smugness?



That's a lovely anecdote about your car, but with all the cars I've driven over the years, I've never had one that had a speed limiter or cruise control. Feel free to congratulate yourself on that too.

AndrewJRenko

xckjoo wrote: »

The point your missing is that I never said it was impossible to go under 50, but that it was far far easier to find yourself going over 50. The fact that everyone else that's discussed it has highlighted the effort it takes to stay within speed limits on this road suggests it's an issue. Even the fact that we all can immediately identify that road as being one where it's an issue should tell you something. I can't think of a single other road around that would cause such consensus. But TBH I don't think you're interested in what point I was making, you just saw an opportunity for self congratulations and piousness. If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I say that I do stick to 50 or below, but it takes concentrated effort to remain below that speed and I don't think (or see) that others are willing to do that. So while I chug along at 50kmph, every other car on the road is flying past me. What difference does that make other than to my sense of smugness?



That's a lovely anecdote about your car, but with all the cars I've driven over the years, I've never had one that had a speed limiter or cruise control. Feel free to congratulate yourself on that too.

You actually said that it is hard to drive under 50. I still don't get what is hard.

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

The momentum of objects around you influences your perceived speed.....

@Andrew: Do you disagree with this?


You compared it to driving in a carpark. If you can't see that it's easier to drift over 50 on a busy road than a carpark then your judgement is poor and not to be trusted. The fact that you thought them comparable should have been my first clue to ignore you.

Mrs OBumble

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You actually said that it is hard to drive under 50. I still don't get what is hard.

If everyone around you is doing 60, and if the road conditions ate ok, then arguably doing under 50 is more dangerous, no matter what the limit is.

AndrewJRenko

xckjoo wrote: »

@Andrew: Do you disagree with this?


You compared it to driving in a carpark. If you can't see that it's easier to drift over 50 on a busy road than a carpark then your judgement is poor and not to be trusted. The fact that you thought them comparable should have been my first clue to ignore you.

Yes, it is easier to 'drift' along with the average speed of other traffic, but that is just that - drifting. It's not good driving, and it's not really hard to stick to the speed limit, once you decide that's something that you want to do.

xckjoo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, it is easier to 'drift' along with the average speed of other traffic, but that is just that - drifting. It's not good driving, and it's not really hard to stick to the speed limit, once you decide that's something that you want to do.

See my comment about comparing driving in a car park to driving on the road and the perception of speed based on motion around you. I don't trust your ability to judge actions so don't really have anywhere else to go with this conversation.