Speeding is endemic in this country, what can be done about it?

Uncle Pierre

Peregrine wrote: »

I can't believe I have to explain this but data collected from a speed survey conducted from high-viz vans on 'National Slow Down Day' which is accompanied by a media campaign and its own hashtag is not in any way representative of normal road conditions.

The RSA free speed surveys are conducted inconspicuously in free flowing traffic. It shows that drivers are speeding on most types of roads.

And finally....think you missed some important key words of my post.

i.e. "Just to show you can prove anything with statistics", and "if you took that stat by itself".

The point was more to do with the effects of somebody selectively quoting stats to suit their own agenda.

For what it's worth, I've actually seen the stats you quote before, and to be honest, think you'd have to be sceptical of some of them too.

Hard to believe, for example, that:
- the average speed of 700 vehicles on 100 km/h dual carriageway was exactly 100 km/h
- the average speed of 140 vehicles on 50 km/h regional roads was exactly 50 km/h
AND (!)
- the average speed of 757 vehicles on 80 km/h regional roads was exactly 80 km/h

Again, not denying there's an issue with some people speeding, and some of them dangerously so.

But also again, just pointing out the pitfalls of relying only on one set of statistics.

athlone573

In fairness I think the M11/N11 at a quiet time isn't the best gauge of the levels of speeding - try the N roads in Donegal/Mayo where you'll have someone up your hole at every opportunity and overtaking(and even double overtaking) on white lines is a common occurrence.

For what it's worth I think the current limits are a reasonable balance but I would like to see AGS focusing more on mobile phone usage which is endemic.

Uncle Pierre

athlone573 wrote: »

In fairness I think the M11/N11 at a quiet time isn't the best gauge of the levels of speeding - try the N roads in Donegal/Mayo where you'll have someone up your hole at every opportunity and overtaking(and even double overtaking) on white lines is a common occurrence.

It's a fair point. But on the other hand, it could probably also be argued that a motorway or dual carriageway with a good surface and very little traffic, and where some cars could probably manage 150 km/h or more, is the sort of place where you'd actually be most likely to see excessive speeding.

As regards the Donegal/Mayo thing - that N59 example I gave earlier on runs into Mayo too. I'd consider it a road where the appropriate limit would be 80 km/h, but instead, it's 100 km/h along most of it.

The "up your hole" people probably aren't actually breaking that limit if the people whose hole their up (sorry for being so crude - but you started it! ) are driving around that 80 mark.

But just because they're not actually breaking the limit is not to excuse them from reckless and stupid driving. I'd join with others here in liking to see more of a crackdown on reckless stuff in general, rather than so much focus always being on just speeding, when in certain limited circumstances, breaking the limit might not be so reckless after all.

And before anybody jumps down my throat on that last point, I'm thinking specifically of that road outside Enniscorthy I also mentioned earlier on, where even Government guidelines say the appropriate speed limit would be 100 km/h, but the County Council has decided on an 80 km/h limit instead.

Driving at 90 or even 85 km/h there wouldn't be reckless, but it would still be speeding, whereas the "up your hole" lad in Mayo wouldn't be speeding at 90, but would still be reckless. Which is worse?

Isambard

there's no way limits will be increased, to reduce emissions and increase safety, it's likely they will be reduced.

I don't think speeding is a huge problem. If you cruise on the limit on a major road you will pass far more cars than pass you. Speeding in built up areas needs to be addressed, but that's not where the Vans are parked.

athlone573

Apologies for the choice of words.

Yeah there is that distinction between "exceeding the speed limit" and "reckless driving".

I would probably be driving at 90-100 on those twisty n roads and 120-125 depending how much of a rush I'm in on motorway. I'm not going out of my way to obstruct people but I'm not going to drive on the hard shoulder for them either.

I certainly think that the tailgating and aggressive driving is more dangerous than a few km's over the speed limit on motorways. However the people who seem to be in a rush aren't going to magically slow down to 100 once they pass you. As I said, I think the current limits are generally fair but if it was feasible for the gardai to focus on the more reckless behaviour we see, I'd be happy.

Wishbone Ash

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

....Just 994 vehicles detected speeding out of a total of 150,605 checked. That's just 0.66%. Or in other words, at any given time, more than 99% of drivers are obeying the speed limit.

If you just took that stat by itself, it hardly suggests that speeding is endemic?

Going by your own post, that was on National Slow Down Day - hardly a valid example.

magicbastarder

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Happened to browse back in here after all. Couldn't help myself!

I didn't mention cycling itself. I mentioned that I generally stay away from threads that descend into the same old tired going-round-in-circles cyclists v motorists debate, that's happened here countless times before. That's not the same thing.

i am a motorist. i've been driving for over 25 years. if anyone was turning this into the debate you were decrying, it was you.

magicbastarder

liamog wrote: »

How would you limit there extent, would you perhaps use a system where a vehicle was expected to react and stop within a given time?

not sure i understand the question, but i have often thought it could be possible with modern technology to design a doohickey into a car which warned you if you were violating the two second rule - all the car would need to calculate this is the speed of the car and the distance to the car in front.

admittedly, on twisty roads, the issue could be false positives, with it reading walls etc. as other cars.

Uncle Pierre

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Going by your own post, that was on National Slow Down Day - hardly a valid example.

See explanation above on why I chose to highlight that particular stat, and why I used certain phrases in doing so.

Uncle Pierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

i am a motorist. i've been driving for over 25 years. if anyone was turning this into the debate you were decrying, it was you.

With the greatest of respect, I think it's fair to say that your posting history suggests that you're an avid cyclist too, and that cycling is probably your preferred mode of transport.

And nothing wrong with that. I used to mainly cycle myself too back when I used to live in Dublin too, mainly because trying to drive there would drive you mad.

Which leads me onto a side note - I sometimes wonder why it is that when people who are primarily cyclists say "I'm a motorist too", they expect to be taken seriously by others who are primarily motorists. Yet when somebody who's primarily a motorist says "I'm a cyclist too", they often get short shrift from others who are primarily cyclists.

Am not saying you do that yourself, and it's not one for this thread anyway. Am just in a bit of a contemplative mood at the moment.......

Uncle Pierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

not sure i understand the question, but i have often thought it could be possible with modern technology to design a doohickey into a car which warned you if you were violating the two second rule - all the car would need to calculate this is the speed of the car and the distance to the car in front.

admittedly, on twisty roads, the issue could be false positives, with it reading walls etc. as other cars.

Anyway, hopefully we can have a sensible talk here.

Would suggest that an issue with your idea is that at 100 km/h, a two-second gap equates to a distance of a little over 55 metres. At 80 km/h, it's a little short of 45 metres.

If you're to leave approx. 50 metres between every two vehicles on the road, then you've got a serious problem developing when it comes to overtaking a slow-moving vehicle like heavily laden lorry at 60 km/h, or a tractor at maybe 40 km/h, particularly on two-lane roads (and by that I mean the sort of road with one lane in each direction).

You'd be in the lane of oncoming traffic for much longer, thereby greatly increasing the chance of a head-on collision. It's either that or expect everybody to slow down to the speed of the very slowest vehicle on the road and never move to overtake, and that's hardly desirable either.

athlone573

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Anyway, hopefully we can have a sensible talk here.

Would suggest that an issue with your idea is that at 100 km/h, a two-second gap equates to a distance of a little over 55 metres. At 80 km/h, it's a little short of 45 metres.

If you're to leave approx. 50 metres between every two vehicles on the road, then you've got a serious problem developing when it comes to overtaking a slow-moving vehicle like heavily laden lorry at 60 km/h, or a tractor at maybe 40 km/h, particularly on two-lane roads (and by that I mean the sort of road with one lane in each direction).

You'd be in the lane of oncoming traffic for much longer, thereby greatly increasing the chance of a head-on collision. It's either that or expect everybody to slow down to the speed of the very slowest vehicle on the road and never move to overtake, and that's hardly desirable either.

I don't think that the "2 second rule" is excessive and would even leave more in wet conditions.

Google gives a stopping distance of 98m at 100kph,in dry conditions, that's taking into account reaction time and braking distance.

Now I might pull a bit closer if I was about to overtake but the other drawbacks of getting too close are that you lose visibility of what's ahead, and you'll get some yahoo flying up behind you and trying to take 2 or 3 vehicles at once.

Furthermore, very slow moving traffic such as agricultural vehicles, will often facilitate passing maneuvers by making use of the hard shoulder where appropriate.

magicbastarder

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Would suggest that an issue with your idea is that at 100 km/h, a two-second gap equates to a distance of a little over 55 metres. At 80 km/h, it's a little short of 45 metres.

yes, but with stated reaction times (from a quick google) being between 0.5 seconds (for a motorist primed to expect an issue) to up to two seconds for a motorist not expecting one; it's important to acknowledge that that 55m only remains that distance if the vehicle in front does not slow dramatically.

Uncle Pierre

athlone573 wrote: »

I don't think that the "2 second rule" is excessive and would even leave more in wet conditions.

Google gives a stopping distance of 98m at 100kph,in dry conditions, that's taking into account reaction time and braking distance.

Now I might pull a bit closer if I was about to overtake but the other drawbacks of getting too close are that you lose visibility of what's ahead, and you'll get some yahoo flying up behind you and trying to take 2 or 3 vehicles at once.

Furthermore, very slow moving traffic such as agricultural vehicles, will often facilitate passing maneuvers by making use of the hard shoulder where appropriate.

Yeah, the more I think about it (did say I'm in a contemplative mood!), the more I reckon I'm probably wrong in how I'm picturing a 50-metre gap between vehicles, and that 50 metres is probably fairly typical all right. Can admit when I'm wrong.

And obviously wouldn't pull right up behind somebody before overtaking anyway. You need to be able to see around them.

On your last point....I'm an occasional tractor driver meself.

Will keep in wherever possible to let others past, but it's not always possible, particularly where there's no hard shoulder.

magicbastarder

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

If you're to leave approx. 50 metres between every two vehicles on the road, then you've got a serious problem developing when it comes to overtaking a slow-moving vehicle like heavily laden lorry at 60 km/h, or a tractor at maybe 40 km/h,

but the two second rule would imply 33m at 60km/h and 22m at 40km/h, which is a lot short of the 50m you mention.
that's probably seven car lengths at 60, and 5 at 40km/h. which is not unreasonable.

eggy81

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Speed increases the likleihood of an incident and makes the incident worse than if it occurred at a lower speed.

Overly slow driving increase the likelihood of accidents. That and woefully bad drivers.

magicbastarder

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, I think it's fair to say that your posting history suggests that you're an avid cyclist too, and that cycling is probably your preferred mode of transport.

distance wise, i drive more than i cycle. it certainly has been the case that in the last year that time-wise, i also drive more than i cycle.
i used to drive all over the country in a previous job too - before the motorway network was built if that's at all relevant.

and also FWIW, there are multiple indicators that motorists who are cyclists are better motorists than non-cyclists. which is not surprising, the more modes of transport you expose yourself to give you a better overall view of what it's like to be other road users.

magicbastarder

eggy81 wrote: »

Overly slow driving increase the likelihood of accidents.

link? or personal opinion?

liamog

magicbastarder wrote: »

not sure i understand the question, but i have often thought it could be possible with modern technology to design a doohickey into a car which warned you if you were violating the two second rule - all the car would need to calculate this is the speed of the car and the distance to the car in front.

For a given road where you want to limit the possibility of an incident and the impact of it, what mechanism would you use to decide on a suitable speed limit?

CoBo55

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

In one year alone, 90,000 speeding fines were issued.
That's an offence of one every five minutes of every hour of every day. A disguising statistic.

There are 2,820,528 driving licences in Ireland so this works out at roughly one offence per 30 people per year. How many are speeding and not being caught?

This rubbishes the claim that they are revenue generators.

Speeders need stricter punishments, including jail time.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-tranom/to2016/dvt/

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/sinn-fein-questions-high-profits-made-by-speed-camera-operator-as-gardai-pay-out-e14m-1146154.html

I'm not meeting them anyway. Every road I'm on lately has the ubiquitous Toyota at the head of the 10 car queue doing 80 in the 100 zone....

eggy81

magicbastarder wrote: »

link? or personal opinion?

Apologies. It’s IMO. I do a couple of hours a day commuting on motorway for about 80% of it and most of the hairy situations come from people either driving far too slow on the motorway or not knowing how to use the motorway at interchanges or when other traffic is joining. The guy pushing 140 normally fly’s along. I don’t think there should be an increase in motorway limits. Just a minimum limit that’s punished similarly to speeding. Say no less than 100 kph.
Obviously there are lads who completely take the piss on the motorway too and they should be taken to task.

Uncle Pierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

but the two second rule would imply 33m at 60km/h and 22m at 40km/h, which is a lot short of the 50m you mention.
that's probably seven car lengths at 60, and 5 at 40km/h. which is not unreasonable.

Yup. Another flaw in my earlier post. I'm obviously not being contemplative enough!

Uncle Pierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

distance wise, i drive more than i cycle. it certainly has been the case that in the last year that time-wise, i also drive more than i cycle.
i used to drive all over the country in a previous job too - before the motorway network was built if that's at all relevant.

and also FWIW, there are multiple indicators that motorists who are cyclists are better motorists than non-cyclists. which is not surprising, the more modes of transport you expose yourself to give you a better overall view of what it's like to be other road users.

Sound.

And wouldn't disagree with your last point either. While I'm usually driving a car while on the road myself, I'm also an occasional tractor driver, an occasional cyclist, and a regular runner on country roads where I sometimes have the sort of close pass that cyclists quite rightly get annoyed about too. I like to think that doing all those other things gives me a better understanding of others and a greater awareness of them while driving the car too.

punisher5112

More power

magicbastarder

eggy81 wrote: »

Apologies. It’s IMO. I do a couple of hours a day commuting on motorway for about 80% of it and most of the hairy situations come from people either driving far too slow on the motorway or not knowing how to use the motorway at interchanges or when other traffic is joining.

the highlighted text is a different scenario, though; inserting yourself into a lane in front of another driver with a noticeable speed difference, is a different kettle of fish to already being in that lane doing that speed.

anyway
https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/speed-crash-risk.pdf

More recent studies confirmed the higher crash risk of drivers driving above the average speed. In Australia this conclusion was based on case-control studies (Kloeden et al. 1997, 2001, 2002). In Great Britain, a similar conclusion arose from a self-report study (Taylor, Lynam & Baruya, 2000). However, these recent studies did not find evidence for a higher crash risk for driving below average speeds. This is most likely due to the fact that the older studies also included manoeuvring vehicles. Manoeuvring vehicles are more at risk and have, per definition, a low speed.

Economics101

Good luck with arguing that speed limits are too low: the control freaks want to make them lower, like 30kph on many roads. Actually the big problem with Irish speed limits is that they bear so little relation to road conditions: I could give loads of examples.
But we must be doing something right. Apparently our road accident fatality rate is the second-lowest in the EU: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ireland-has-second-lowest-rate-of-road-deaths-in-the-eu-latest-data-shows-40576141.html

timeToLive

some roads have a speed limit of 50 where 60/80 would be more reasonable

magicbastarder

Economics101 wrote: »

But we must be doing something right. Apparently our road accident fatality rate is the second-lowest in the EU: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ireland-has-second-lowest-rate-of-road-deaths-in-the-eu-latest-data-shows-40576141.html

we also have an astoundingly low rate of vulnerable road users using those same roads though.
to use a tired cliche, if no-one is injured as a result of swimming in a pool with man eating sharks, it doesn't mean swimming in a pool with sharks is safe, it just means no-one does it.

Wilmol

seamus wrote: »

More fixed cameras, widespread use of average speed cameras on N-roads and in urban areas, 6 points on your licence should get 6 month ban.

It's absurd that someone has to be caught speeding 4 times in 3 years before something is done about it.

Nobody speeds by accident. It happens due to carelessness or recklessness. Neither of which are OK to ignore 3 times in 3 years.

Ok boomer.

punisher5112

If people were held accountable for their actions then we wouldn't need any of these 30km/h stupid limits....

The child that died, of course extremely shocking sad and something one wouldn't wish on anyone but he was allowed out without supervision as many I see daily are and playing on roads when there is a field right beside them ....

Imo since these limits in Dublin I've had more near serious collision with pedestrians then ever before as they either don't look or just step out or run out at the last second because to them the vehicles are hardly moving...

Use crossings, put phone down and look....

On the bikes and scooters just leave sage space it's not difficult but of course they in many cases could do better too.

killbillvol2

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

In one year alone, 90,000 speeding fines were issued.
That's an offence of one every five minutes of every hour of every day. A disguising statistic.

There are 2,820,528 driving licences in Ireland so this works out at roughly one offence per 30 people per year. How many are speeding and not being caught?

This rubbishes the claim that they are revenue generators.

Speeders need stricter punishments, including jail time.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-tranom/to2016/dvt/

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/sinn-fein-questions-high-profits-made-by-speed-camera-operator-as-gardai-pay-out-e14m-1146154.html

So roughly one offence per 10,950 drivers per day. So roughly 10.949 drivers aren't caught speeding every day.

Sounds disgusting alright.

Weepsie

timeToLive wrote: »

some roads have a speed limit of 50 where 60/80 would be more reasonable

Conversely Some roads have limits of 80/100 where 40/50 would be the only reasonably safe speed.

Uncle Pierre

timeToLive wrote: »

some roads have a speed limit of 50 where 60/80 would be more reasonable

That's true. But conversely, the majority of our roads have an 80 limit, where 60 or even 50 would be more reasonable.

I'm talking L roads in rural areas, where the default 80 limit applies, and there are more of those in the country than any other type of road.

The road outside my own house, for example, is barely four metres wide. There's hardly room for two oncoming vehicles to pass by each other unless one or both goes onto the grass verge. Yet legally, I could drive at the same speed there as on that part of the former N11 outside Enniscorthy that I mentioned at what seems to be a long time ago now. Makes no sense.

Anyway...getting late. Goodnight!

magicbastarder

Wilmol wrote: »

Ok boomer.

2019 called, it wants its misused meme back.

magicbastarder

killbillvol2 wrote: »

Sounds disgusting alright.

who said it was disgusting?

punisher5112

Weepsie wrote: »

Conversely Some roads have limits of 80/100 where 40/50 would be the only reasonably safe speed.

Plenty in the country like this, but any sane person wouldn't even try, blind bends, terrible surface, obstacles etc etc... Of course single lane roads too .. deathwish

Economics101

You can never fine-tune speed limits to the conditions on every little stretch of road or to every bend. But you can set suitable limits for significant stretches of road, and the problem is that local authorities do it badly and inconsistently. One example (at least before lockdown kept me at home) was the Kilkenny bypass: single carriageway, frequent roundabouts, heavy traffic, 100kph, given the conditions should be 80; then Waterford bypass, mostly dual carriageway, often long distances between roundabouts, less traffic, limit was 60, should have been 100 (it may recently have been raised to 80 in places).
Are people ever taught to drive (a) not exceeding the limit and (b) at a speed which is safe for the prevailing conditions (weather, visibility, traffic, etc)? You can't legislate for (b) which is often a lot less than (a).

cdeb

magicbastarder wrote: »

who said it was disgusting?

The OP.

(Well, he said it was disguising, but that's presumably a typo)

Wanderer78

Jeremy Sproket wrote:

Speeders need stricter punishments, including jail time.

... So build more jails, that should be cheap! I ll continue speeding thanks

athlone573

Let's ask Jeremy whether he meant disguising or disgusting, both kinda make sense.
I think he was stirring the pot and it doesn't really matter though.

Flinty997

There's more to this...

Going faster is more polluting and going from 120 to 90 can use up to 25% less fuel.

Going faster can actually increase congestion and slow average journey times.

Going faster and having "a good run" actually makes very little difference in journey times in % of time saved. Which is why Google estimates are pretty accurate even on a long journey.

Also when looking at stats the higher speeds are usually on better and safer roads. That skews the stats.

artanevilla

Speed is a factor in 100% of accidents.

There has yet to be a case of two stationary cars crashing into each other.

Wanderer78

artanevilla wrote: »

Speed is a factor in 100% of accidents.

There has yet to be a case of two stationary cars crashing into each other.

...are you sure of that, have you evidence of this?

The limits on most of the motorways and dual carrigeways should be raised, make it 140 on the motorway and 80 for the dualler
Can leave the other national roads the same

Wanderer78

Batrachotox wrote: »

The limits on most of the motorways and dual carrigeways should be raised, make it 140 on the motorway and 80 for the dualler
Can leave the other national roads the same

i think limits are just fine, by raising them, we ll just raise our speeds

magicbastarder

Batrachotox wrote: »

The limits on most of the motorways and dual carrigeways should be raised, make it 140 on the motorway and 80 for the dualler

it'd make a massive difference of about 10 minutes driving from dublin to galway. while increasing emissions, noise, and a probable increase in accidents. i don't see it happening.

AndrewJRenko

Batrachotox wrote: »

The limits on most of the motorways and dual carrigeways should be raised, make it 140 on the motorway and 80 for the dualler
Can leave the other national roads the same

What benefit would arise?

mickuhaha

There are two roads near me that before the m9 was built were 100kmh speed limits. Once the m9 was built they dropped the limit to 80kmh. I just don't understand why. The road has less traffic now.

magicbastarder

i know of a stretch which was treated similarly, between finglas and coolquay on the old N2, which dropped to 60km/h. possibly trying to entice people to use the M2, they've a much faster option only a few hundred metres away.
it's a classic road for having people driving up your gooter when you stick to the limit.

lawrencesummers

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Not a particularly serious suggestion (!), but here goes....

The one thing that encourages drivers to slow down more than any other is when somebody coming in the opposite direction flashes their lights at them.

How about if the Government paid people to drive around randomly flashing at oncoming drivers, whether or not there's actually a speed check ahead?

An excellent idea.

Then when there is an incident and you flash oncoming traffic they ignore it because they are aware of the half baked government idea and continue on their current speed only to crash into an ambulance as it’s loading a RTA victim into the back.

Jenius