903 new safety camera zones

LillySV

Seth Brundle wrote: »

How many gardai would it take to perform the same tasks as GoSafe?
The fact that they're not doing the speed checks means that they are now able to work elsewhere.
It's simple resourcing really, not sure why you fail to see it.

Yea, now they are set up outside Supermacs

Micky 32

Seth Brundle wrote: »

He wouldn't be there if people weren't speeding though!

You mustn’t get it. So is it being about being slightly over the speed limit on a safe patch of road or preventing something nasty happening on a more dangerous road for the sake of boasting back at the station on how many tickets he wrote out?

Where i might add there’s already a speedvan in that area.

blackbox

A few red light cameras would be a good idea.

theguzman

I'd prefer if they would actually enforce peoples headlights. Could repay the National debt within weeks if they did.

Eric Cartman

shane ross's one last 'F you ' to drivers.

uck51js9zml2yt

I drive 40 km to work on a rural road. 25 km will be speed cameras.

mikeecho

Tiana Millions Veteran wrote: »

I drive 40 km to work on a rural road. 25 km will be speed cameras.

But they'll be parked in certain spots..
You won't be long learning where exactly they park up.

Dublinstiofán

Most of them in Dublin City are in 30kph Zones which isn't possible if there is any sort of flow of traffic. Will be like shooting fish in a barrel.

I read this morning that they are also taking down the ‘speed camera zone’ signs and replacing them with speed limit signs to really **** you over too! The odd time you’d see the speed camera sign and it would remind you to check your speed. Now they’re just out to get you!

CiniO

Speed limits in a form as we know it are inconsistent and doesn't make sense in general.

In the region where I used to live in Mayo, there are roads with 80km/h speed limit which are wide and good visibility, as well as much narrower roads with blind bends with 100km/h speed limit.
You get occasional stretches marked at 50km/h pretending to be in built up areas while all there is around is fences and mountains, while you get 100km/h road going through viallage with shops, church, pubs, etc...


I'm not saying that speed limits are not needed, but IMO many drivers are deceived in believing that if they obey speed limit they are driving safe.
Bullsh1t in my opinion.
Nothing unsafe of able driver doing 200km/h on empty motorway in a good car, and plenty wrong with half blind, tired 90 year old with very slow reactions driving his almost bald tyres, barely NCT legal old car at 100km/h limit in dense rain through the village.

Dravokivich

Micky 32 wrote: »

I see they will be on the M4 going into Dublin, all the way on the M50 to the airport and N4 going up to the M50 roundabout. Nice little cash earner there.

Only against impatient drivers.

firstlight

Nothing to do with road safety
Revenue stream is all
If they were serious about road safety they would go around the country and fix half the roads that are in bits
Chunks missing out of tarmac
Pot holes that would swallow a baby whale

Seth Brundle

Dublinstiofán wrote: »

Most of them in Dublin City are in 30kph Zones which isn't possible if there is any sort of flow of traffic. Will be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Yeah, I used to think this way until I realised that I was wrong.
It us possible to drive within this speed limit and if you can't then don't drive there. There are many other road users there apart from yourself!

Seth Brundle

firstlight wrote: »

Nothing to do with road safety
Revenue stream is all
If they were serious about road safety they would go around the country and fix half the roads that are in bits
Chunks missing out of tarmac
Pot holes that would swallow a baby whale

Have I understood your post right: they are trying to force people to drive at safe speeds but this is a bad thing because the roads are in a bad way?

Dravokivich

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Have I understood your post right: they are trying to force people to drive at safe speeds but this is a bad thing because the roads are in a bad way?

The faster you drive, the less time on the road, less chance of being in an accident if you arent on the road as long.

Dublinstiofán

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Yeah, I used to think this way until I realised that I was wrong.
It us possible to drive within this speed limit and if you can't then don't drive there. There are many other road users there apart from yourself!

What made you realise out of curiosity? Penalty points?

Don’t drive there or don’t get caught there

firstlight

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Have I understood your post right: they are trying to force people to drive at safe speeds but this is a bad thing because the roads are in a bad way?

Look there s a road I use everyday
The Cavan road towards Dublin
Speed drops to 100 from 120 and within 100/200 yards there's a camera
Catch cars out
And trucks that might be on the limiter at 88/89
No change in the road
Purely there for revenue

Then the roads that aren't safe they have at 100 kph
Now you couldn't do that if you tryed because your car would be destroyed from the dips and hollows in the road

The whole road speed network needs a revision
Alter speed s on roads that are safe to do so

Perhaps an altered speed zone on motorways when their clear and empty you can do 150

Modern cars will happily sit at that speed and be safe

theguzman

firstlight wrote: »

Look there s a road I use everyday
The Cavan road towards Dublin
Speed drops to 100 from 120 and within 100/200 yards there's a camera
Catch cars out
And trucks that might be on the limiter at 88/89
No change in the road
Purely there for revenue

Then the roads that aren't safe they have at 100 kph
Now you couldn't do that if you tryed because your car would be destroyed from the dips and hollows in the road

The whole road speed network needs a revision
Alter speed s on roads that are safe to do so

Perhaps an altered speed zone on motorways when their clear and empty you can do 150

Modern cars will happily sit at that speed and be safe

Off to Wuhan with you to the Gulag for re-education.

firstlight

theguzman wrote: »

Off to Wuhan with you to the Gulag for re-education.

Stay out of the middle lane in your electric milk float

CrabRevolution

firstlight wrote: »

Look there s a road I use everyday
The Cavan road towards Dublin
Speed drops to 100 from 120 and within 100/200 yards there's a camera
Catch cars out
And trucks that might be on the limiter at 88/89
No change in the road
Purely there for revenue

Then the roads that aren't safe they have at 100 kph
Now you couldn't do that if you tryed because your car would be destroyed from the dips and hollows in the road

The whole road speed network needs a revision
Alter speed s on roads that are safe to do so

Perhaps an altered speed zone on motorways when their clear and empty you can do 150

Modern cars will happily sit at that speed and be safe

I see this said a lot by those who want higher speed limits but what exactly does it mean? Did older cars explode when you hit a certain speed, or what exactly has changed that means it's safer to do 150 km/h in a new car?

Andrewf20

My take on it is that speed is 1 of a number of factors in an accident so in principle I can see the need for speed cameras and I understand their need in alot of places. However a reasonable number of times, I have seen speed cameras set up at questionable times (quiet hours) and on roads whereby the speed limits seem unnecessarily low.

This along with the fact that penalty points are now 3 and last 3 years instead of 2 and 2 makes to it reasonably easy to rack up points and god only knows what it will be like to declare them to your insurance.

I know of people who got done doing 15km/h on an empty dual carriage way at 7am. Situations like this crop up on conversation a fair amount and it does nothing but frustrate the public.

Speed is easy to measure - this is why they seem to go after it. The whole system now appears draconian, a bit like the "holding a phone offence" while driving. You dont even have to be making a call to get nabbed, but holding a hair brush for example is fine.

My proposal? Adopt a more subjective approach like in the USA whereby speed traps are always done by a copper (in my experience of driving through 41 states). They seem to allow more slack if roads are quiet and weather is good. In fairness the guards do that here sometimes, but I fear the vans will be less merciful.

firstlight

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I see this said a lot by those who want higher speed limits but what exactly does it mean? Did older cars explode when you hit a certain speed, or what exactly has changed that means it's safer to do 150 km/h in a new car?

I mean try doing 150 Kms an hour in a 93 micra
Plenty of cars able to do that speed
It was just a figure of speech
If I didn't say that somebody would have said older cars can't do 150
You can't win
If the speed limit was 150 it doesnt mean u have to do it
More so an option for people who can drive a car at that speed
It's seem some people struggle with doing 50

earlytobed

firstlight wrote: »

Nothing to do with road safety
Revenue stream is all
If they were serious about road safety they would go around the country and fix half the roads that are in bits
Chunks missing out of tarmac
Pot holes that would swallow a baby whale

But the "Revenue stream" is a myth, Gosafe costs the exchequer close to €10 million a year, I quoted the 2017 figures earlier, Gosafe roughly took in €7 million, but were paid €17 million

I still hear it all the time

The theory is that if motorists stuck to the speed limit, the roads would be safer

You are correct about the state of some roads, though I do remember the 80s when thry were a total joke

punisher5112

earlytobed wrote: »

But the "Revenue stream" is a myth, Gosafe costs the exchequer close to €10 million a year, I quoted the 2017 figures earlier, Gosafe roughly took in €7 million, but were paid €17 million

I still hear it all the time

The theory is that if motorists stuck to the speed limit, the roads would be safer

You are correct about the state of some roads, though I do remember the 80s when thry were a total joke

It's making money for the owner....

CrabRevolution

Should we stop paying Gardaí too? They're making money off the law as well.

reg114

Lundstram wrote: »

Pure greed.

No more, no less.

Pure stupidity to break the speed limit, no more no less.

The irony is hilarious. Folks, the faster you drive, the more costly it is to drive your car. People banging on about the misery inflicted upon drivers who recklessly exceed the legal speed limit, really take the pish and they completely miss the point.

Forget about the financial penalty, consider your personal safety and that of other road users.

kirving

earlytobed wrote: »

But the "Revenue stream" is a myth, Gosafe costs the exchequer close to €10 million a year, I quoted the 2017 figures earlier, Gosafe roughly took in €7 million, but were paid €17 million

I still hear it all the time

The theory is that if motorists stuck to the speed limit, the roads would be safer

You are correct about the state of some roads, though I do remember the 80s when thry were a total joke

The GoSafe contract costing the exchequer €10M has all the hallmarks of the emperor's new clothes.

Net Cost ≠ Effectiveness.

The only reason that the programme costs the state so much, is that some TD realised that they could kill two birds with the one stone. Pay their mate exorbitant amounts of cash, while being able to neuter the "flash for cash" argument.

€17M per year into targeted Roads Policing operations would go a hell of a lot further than vans.

CrabRevolution wrote: »

People seem to want it both ways when it comes to speed vans. The fact they take in money apparently a bad thing. But the fact they operate at a loss overall is also a bad thing?

Taking in money from people doing 56km/h at 8am on a Sunday morning is a bad thing, yes. Show me the data that proves doing 56km/h results in a greater chance of an accident than 50km/h.

Of course it's a bad thing. No reason, other than cronyism that they're losing so much money.

Seth Brundle

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Taking in money from people doing 56km/h at 8am on a Sunday morning is a bad thing, yes. Show me the data that proves doing 56km/h results in a greater chance of an accident than 50km/h.

At that speed, it may not increase the chance of an incident (I don't know!) but it definitley will increase the severity of the impact. The road is presumably 50km/h for a reason (pedestrians, cyclists and other VRUs).
For example, do you think it's ok to drive at an increased speed in a housing estate?
Secondly, if you cannot see a big feck off speed camera van with all it's stickers and end up getting caught, etc then you should not be driving at that speed because you sure as hell won't see much else on the road.

earlytobed

punisher5112 wrote: »

It's making money for the owner....

Yes, Gosafe makes money (a lot)
But it's a flat fee, they're not paid per motorist caught, that's another myth

MaceFace

Kevin Irving wrote: »

The GoSafe contract costing the exchequer €10M has all the hallmarks of the emperor's new clothes.

Net Cost ≠ Effectiveness.

The only reason that the programme costs the state so much, is that some TD realised that they could kill two birds with the one stone. Pay their mate exorbitant amounts of cash, while being able to neuter the "flash for cash" argument.

€17M per year into targeted Roads Policing operations would go a hell of a lot further than vans.



Taking in money from people doing 56km/h at 8am on a Sunday morning is a bad thing, yes. Show me the data that proves doing 56km/h results in a greater chance of an accident than 50km/h.

Of course it's a bad thing. No reason, other than cronyism that they're losing so much money.

firstlight wrote: »

Nothing to do with road safety
Revenue stream is all
If they were serious about road safety they would go around the country and fix half the roads that are in bits
Chunks missing out of tarmac
Pot holes that would swallow a baby whale

punisher5112 wrote: »

It's making money for the owner....

I used to get involved in conversations like this, being dragged in and respond to nonsense like the posters above.
Then Trump came along and his looney supporters with conspiracy theory's, deep state, outright lies, and labeling everything they disagree with as fake news even if it is the most common sense. It's the same right across social media. Someone spouts some nonsense and a reader agrees with the sentiment so take it as fact and repeat the nonsense.

1. Is there any proof there is cronyism in the award of the GoSafe contract?
2. Policing the speed limits is a loss making exercise.
3. There are no incentives to increase the number of motorists caught.

The same people who complain that the speed limits are low would be the first complaining about motorists speeding outside their house.

Henry Ford III

I'd encourage everyone to use Wase and to highlight any new speedtraps.

Seth Brundle

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I'd encourage everyone to use Wase and to highlight any new speedtraps.

Why?
If you can't see a "safety camera van" then you probably won't see the cyclist or the pedestrian or whatever.

Henry Ford III

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Why?
If you can't see a "safety camera van" then you probably won't see the cyclist or the pedestrian or whatever.

Because it might just help somebody else.

Seth Brundle

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Because it might just help somebody else.

I refer you back to my second sentence in the previous post.
Anyhow, I'll get down from my high horse now.

marcos_94

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Why?
If you can't see a "safety camera van" then you probably won't see the cyclist or the pedestrian or whatever.

Im not sure what part of the country you're from but around Dublin, the vans are normally around a bend, or parked in a small spot/gap on the side of the road reasonably hidden from the road so by the time you do see the van, its too late.

On your point about the difference of 50 kmh and 56 kmh, I completely agree. In ities and towns, but Having speed vans on dual-carriageways and motorways to catch someone doing 125 kmh is to me a waste of that resource. The van or Garda should be more focused in populated areas.

mikeecho

punisher5112 wrote: »

It's making money for the owner....

That's the point of any commercial business.

They have a fixed contract, they know what their operating costs will be, and their profit is pretty much fixed.

It doesn't matter if they catch 10 times more drivers this week than last week.

They won't make a cent extra.

To say that that whole speed camera program is a money maker, is a poor understanding of how the economy works.

While we're at it . The private contractors who built the motorway.. were they all part of the same money making racket, Heinz ketchup.. shur that's a racket as well.

punisher5112

Where have I stated they make more money.

Are any checks done to see how many vans are on the road?

It's the biggest waste of money as it isn't catching dangerous drivers.

You have to be within less then a 100 metres of the van to be caught...

Look at N11 where speed limit was 40mph, it's now 37mph so doing 65km/h on it would be like it was but no you mustn't do them extra few km/h

mikeecho

punisher5112 wrote: »

Where have I stated they make more money.

The meet fact that in a thread discussing the increase in speed zones, you mention that is a money making racket

punisher5112 wrote: »

Are any checks done to see how many vans are on the road?

Not sure what you mean.
The Gardai contract GoSafe for X no of hours, and the Gardai stipulate when,where and how long each stint will be.

punisher5112 wrote: »

It's the biggest waste of money as it isn't catching dangerous drivers.

You have to be within less then a 100 metres of the van to be caught...

Well if someone is over the speed limit and can't see a van in under 100m , maybe that driver is a danger.

punisher5112 wrote: »

Look at N11 where speed limit was 40mph, it's now 37mph so doing 65km/h on it would be like it was but no you mustn't do them extra few km/h

I'll have a look, next time I'm passing.

Plenty of roads were 30mph, now 50km that's 31mph
And then the 60mph zones, there's now 100km , that's 62mph
And what about the 70mph motorways, up to 120km/ 75mph.

Don't hear you complaining about that.

Seth Brundle

punisher5112 wrote: »

It's the biggest waste of money as it isn't catching dangerous drivers.

So who is it catching?

punisher5112 wrote: »

You have to be within less then a 100 metres of the van to be caught...

But other people say that it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Either it's easy to not get caught or it's not?!?!
Anyhow, it will catch people who are speeding and inattentive which is good!

punisher5112 wrote: »

Look at N11 where speed limit was 40mph, it's now 37mph so doing 65km/h on it would be like it was but no you mustn't do them extra few km/h

We don't have anywhere that has speed limits in mph!

However, pedantry aside, the majority of our roads had an increase in their effective speed limit when we went metric. Have you an issue with that?

AndrewJRenko

punisher5112 wrote: »

It's actually laughable to be honest.....

The state are going mad to privatise everything and in the end it ends up costing way more.

Way more than what? How much would it cost to run this service with Gardai?

earlytobed wrote: »

Gosafe make lots of money, but at a cost to the taxpayer

The consortium was paid €17.27million in 2017, of which €7.5million was recouped for the Exchequer through fines paid by motorists.

Operating at a €10 million loss

Or roughly that's two schools not being built each year because motorists won't get near to obeying traffic laws without this threat of being caught.

punisher5112 wrote: »

Texting, watching videos, plating games, social media etc on phone is only a €60 fine..... That's so wrong.

True, though the 3 penalty points are the real kicker.

Scarily enough, watching videos is not actually illegal here, unlike the UK, if they're not holding or supporting the phone in their hand.

Dublinstiofán wrote: »

I read this morning that they are also taking down the ‘speed camera zone’ signs and replacing them with speed limit signs to really **** you over too! The odd time you’d see the speed camera sign and it would remind you to check your speed. Now they’re just out to get you!

It seems like you've missed the purpose of the speed limit signs.

kirving

Seth Brundle wrote: »

At that speed, it may not increase the chance of an incident (I don't know!) but it definitley will increase the severity of the impact. The road is presumably 50km/h for a reason (pedestrians, cyclists and other VRUs).
For example, do you think it's ok to drive at an increased speed in a housing estate?
Secondly, if you cannot see a big feck off speed camera van with all it's stickers and end up getting caught, etc then you should not be driving at that speed because you sure as hell won't see much else on the road.

I'm not anti speed camera, but I have a big issue with their implementation. As far as I'm concerned, it's up to the RSA to justify how our money is spent, and I've yet to see any data to show that 56km/h is actually more dangerous than 50km/h, all variables considered. The reason I'm picking these out is because of the hundred of kilometers I drive every week, the only place I see cameras are in 50km/h zones.

It's far more complex than more speed = more danger, and I'd like to see that reflected in our roads policing.

In fact, if I had my way, I'd have average speed cameras on all busy motorways, and on selected N and R roads nationwide. I would be in favour of on the spot bans (and taking the car for the duration) for people who take the mick on offenes like YouTube or seatbelts.

You know as well as I do that they park in locations where they're difficult to be seen, behind walls in particular.

MaceFace wrote: »

I used to get involved in conversations like this, being dragged in and respond to nonsense like the posters above.
Then Trump came along and his looney supporters with conspiracy theory's, deep state, outright lies, and labeling everything they disagree with as fake news even if it is the most common sense. It's the same right across social media. Someone spouts some nonsense and a reader agrees with the sentiment so take it as fact and repeat the nonsense.

1. Is there any proof there is cronyism in the award of the GoSafe contract?
2. Policing the speed limits is a loss making exercise.
3. There are no incentives to increase the number of motorists caught.

The same people who complain that the speed limits are low would be the first complaining about motorists speeding outside their house.

All I asked was for some data to show their effectiveness in reducing road deaths, and you somehow bring Trump into it.

1. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, I'm not sure what else it can be. I'm not normally a Daily Mail reader, but this highlights GoSafe's political links.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333766/Speed-camera-tycoon-Xavier-McAuliffe-caught-speeding-twice-week.html

2.
Measuring somethings effectiveness by how much money it costs is an interesting way of doing it. "Hey Joe Public, look how much of your money we're spending in order to make our roads safer."

Refuting the "flash for cash" argument by stating that they're loss making, assumes that we're getting absolutely the best possible value for money.

The Children's Hospital, Broadband plan, National Stadium, Luas, MetroLink to name but a few recent state contracts, would indicate a pattern of the state blindly overspending, in an effort to show some kind of progress in each.

Given the cost, I'd much prefer to see comprehensive data to show their effectiveness, that isn't collated together with safer cars, better roads, etc.

3. Not directly no, but the contract is far harder to justify at renewal time if the net cost increases.

mikeecho

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I'm not anti speed camera, but I have a big issue with their implementation. As far as I'm concerned, it's up to the RSA to justify how our money is spent, and I've yet to see any data to show that 56km/h is actually more dangerous than 50km/h, all variables considered. The reason I'm picking these out is because of the hundred of kilometers I drive every week, the only place I see cameras are in 50km/h zones.

It's far more complex than more speed = more danger, and I'd like to see that reflected in our roads policing.

In fact, if I had my way, I'd have average speed cameras on all busy motorways, and on selected N and R roads nationwide. I would be in favour of on the spot bans (and taking the car for the duration) for people who take the mick on offenes like YouTube or seatbelts.

You know as well as I do that they park in locations where they're difficult to be seen, behind walls in particular.



All I asked was for some data to show their effectiveness in reducing road deaths, and you somehow bring Trump into it.

1. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, I'm not sure what else it can be. I'm not normally a Daily Mail reader, but this highlights GoSafe's political links.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333766/Speed-camera-tycoon-Xavier-McAuliffe-caught-speeding-twice-week.html

2.
Measuring somethings effectiveness by how much money it costs is an interesting way of doing it. "Hey Joe Public, look how much of your money we're spending in order to make our roads safer."

Refuting the "flash for cash" argument by stating that they're loss making, assumes that we're getting absolutely the best possible value for money.

The Children's Hospital, Broadband plan, National Stadium, Luas, MetroLink to name but a few recent state contracts, would indicate a pattern of the state blindly overspending, in an effort to show some kind of progress in each.

Given the cost, I'd much prefer to see comprehensive data to show their effectiveness, that isn't collated together with safer cars, better roads, etc.

3. Not directly no, but the contract is far harder to justify at renewal time if the net cost increases.

The long and short of it ..
It's cheaper to outsource the hours of mobile camera vans than to do it in house.

Instead of paying a Garda wage, buying and maintaining the vans and equipment etc etc etc.. you get a company that has people on minimum wage.
The company gets their cut, and AGS doesn't have any of the headaches.

It's a financial loss.. but less of a loss than having it run completely by AGS.

Edit.. oh, we're saving lives thus money .. maybe, maybe not.

uck51js9zml2yt

Dravokivich wrote: »

The faster you drive, the less time on the road, less chance of being in an accident if you arent on the road as long.

Yes that 60 seconds saved on your journey will cause less traffic accidents but the extra speed might stop you braking for a child. But that's ok, they are replaceable in 9 months or so.

AndrewJRenko

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I'm not anti speed camera, but I have a big issue with their implementation. As far as I'm concerned, it's up to the RSA to justify how our money is spent, and I've yet to see any data to show that 56km/h is actually more dangerous than 50km/h, all variables considered. The reason I'm picking these out is because of the hundred of kilometers I drive every week, the only place I see cameras are in 50km/h zones.

It's far more complex than more speed = more danger, and I'd like to see that reflected in our roads policing.

In fact, if I had my way, I'd have average speed cameras on all busy motorways, and on selected N and R roads nationwide. I would be in favour of on the spot bans (and taking the car for the duration) for people who take the mick on offenes like YouTube or seatbelts.

You know as well as I do that they park in locations where they're difficult to be seen, behind walls in particular.



All I asked was for some data to show their effectiveness in reducing road deaths, and you somehow bring Trump into it.

1. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, I'm not sure what else it can be. I'm not normally a Daily Mail reader, but this highlights GoSafe's political links.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333766/Speed-camera-tycoon-Xavier-McAuliffe-caught-speeding-twice-week.html

2.
Measuring somethings effectiveness by how much money it costs is an interesting way of doing it. "Hey Joe Public, look how much of your money we're spending in order to make our roads safer."

Refuting the "flash for cash" argument by stating that they're loss making, assumes that we're getting absolutely the best possible value for money.

The Children's Hospital, Broadband plan, National Stadium, Luas, MetroLink to name but a few recent state contracts, would indicate a pattern of the state blindly overspending, in an effort to show some kind of progress in each.

Given the cost, I'd much prefer to see comprehensive data to show their effectiveness, that isn't collated together with safer cars, better roads, etc.

3. Not directly no, but the contract is far harder to justify at renewal time if the net cost increases.

Political connections? It says 'he was a supporter of Bertie Ahern'. So from that you've deduced there was corruption involved? Really?


Do you need help in understanding the difference between building a hospital or a tram network, and running some speed vans?

Totofan99

I'd love to know how they're going to park camera vans in the Jack Lynch and Limerick tunnels

AhHaor

The N4 and then going south on the m50 is a joke. If you do 60 there you'll have someone up your rear flashing etc. I get why it needs to be 60 for liffey valley and others going south on m50. The RSA needs to be started again, and huge emphasis on culture change, drink driving is vastly reduced, but mobile phone usage is rampant.

Proper shock ads required, follow up on crashes, attribute blame and reasons for crash.

lertsnim

AhHaor wrote: »

Proper shock ads required, follow up on crashes, attribute blame and reasons for crash.

The graphic ads need to come back. The one always on with the mother, nurse etc. has lost any impact it might have had. Agree entirely on the cause of a crash being released.

Seth Brundle

AhHaor wrote: »

The N4 and then going south on the m50 is a joke. If you do 60 there you'll have someone up your rear flashing etc. I get why it needs to be 60 for liffey valley and others going south on m50.

Overhead cameras might work there but you obviously couldn't place a van there.
As for someone flashing you, having used this stretch for many years, people generally only flash you if you're in the right lane of the two slip lanes (as you leave the N4). If you're not overtaking then you shouldn't be in the right lane.
But lane discipline is one of the many things that Irish drivers don't have difficulty with.

AhHaor wrote: »

The RSA needs to be started again, and huge emphasis on culture change, drink driving is vastly reduced, but mobile phone usage is rampant.

Proper shock ads required, follow up on crashes, attribute blame and reasons for crash.

We all know the reasons. Speed, tiredness, drink, drugs and so on. Doesn't make a difference though - people continue to do these things.
Currently the RSA are showing drivers ads about giving space when passing cyclists. Still doesn't mean that people listen and continue to pass dangerously.

lertsnim wrote: »

The graphic ads need to come back. The one always on with the mother, nurse etc. has lost any impact it might have had. Agree entirely on the cause of a crash being released.

Personally I'm not convinced that adverts have much of an effect. AFAIK, enforcement is the only solution!

AhHaor

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Overhead cameras might work there but you obviously couldn't place a van there.
As for someone flashing you, having used this stretch for many years, people generally only flash you if you're in the right lane of the two slip lanes (as you leave the N4). If you're not overtaking then you shouldn't be in the right lane.
But lane discipline is one of the many things that Irish drivers don't have difficulty with.

I'm talking about the N4 as you approach the split for two m50 directions and town, that 2 lane slip road is actually 30km/hr!

Seth Brundle

AhHaor wrote: »

I'm talking about the N4 as you approach the split for two m50 directions and town, that 2 lane slip road is actually 30km/hr!

I am aware of where you're referring to and it is 60km/h.
Further on it drops to 30km/h and I also understand why it is reduced.
Maybe think why the speed limit is set at that level (hint: something to do with a big tight bend?).

Dravokivich

AhHaor wrote: »

The N4 and then going south on the m50 is a joke. If you do 60 there you'll have someone up your rear flashing etc. I get why it needs to be 60 for liffey valley and others going south on m50. The RSA needs to be started again, and huge emphasis on culture change, drink driving is vastly reduced, but mobile phone usage is rampant.

Proper shock ads required, follow up on crashes, attribute blame and reasons for crash.

I've never had a problem keeping to the speed limit there and feel it should be 60 from further back, as people merging from the Hermitage are expected to merge into an 80 zone, that pretty much immediately reduces to a 60 zone. But sure screw'em they can flash all they want, I'll only slow down if someone is trying to push me.

Even this morning, I was coming up to a yield and slowing down, to allow the other drivers with right of way to proceed, but lo and behold, they flash to "permit me to pass," and everyone gives out to me for yielding.


Incident reports need to be published, so we can all learn from the causes of accidents. It annoys me greatly that it isn't done. I genuinely don't care who's to blame. It can all be anonymised, Driver A/B/C whatever.