Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

N3 Navan to Kells being down graded?

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,327 ✭✭✭bladespin


    Fiskar wrote: »
    My little Kwacker manages 70MPG @ cruising speeds of 120 to 135 KPH, motorway or no motorway.

    Hilly N3 and gear changes kill the car economy on the N3 but the 120 Kph M3 does likewise and is only 0.2 L/100km better on the M3.

    As to why I go the N3, more entertaining bike wise than the M3, would lose my licence on that thing (average 137.5 kph on opening day).
    Great having the choice of road, but confused for the winter given the M50 chaos last january,
    any thoughts? Which road will be well trodden and heated from the exhaust pipes, i reckon the N3.

    ;) Good bikes those wakizakis.

    I'd say the old N3 would be best, those slip roads etc on the motorway look very steep in places and one bit of ice is all it takes on a bike.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,327 ✭✭✭bladespin


    taffy1973 wrote: »
    cars/vans are most economical at 50mph/80kph tho and a lot less economical at 75mph/120kph and what with driving a van its a dearer toll

    Just remembered (lol), there's nothing saying you have to drive at 120kmh on the motorway, it's the limit not the average :p


  • Registered Users Posts: 685 ✭✭✭jock101


    bladespin wrote: »
    Just remembered (lol), there's nothing saying you have to drive at 120kmh on the motorway, it's the limit not the average :p

    There's no point in using a motorway, if you dont drive at the speed limit.
    Motorways are for saving time getting from A to B.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,327 ✭✭✭bladespin


    jock101 wrote: »
    There's no point in using a motorway, if you dont drive at the speed limit.
    Motorways are for saving time getting from A to B.

    Don't agree with that, you can save time tralelling the M3 at pretty much any speed in the morning and evening, remember Dunshaughlin, Navan, Kells during school time :eek:

    Motorways are about constant progress, not speed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4 damLong


    Hi ,I have been in contact with both the NRA and Meath Co.Co.NRA say its now over to Meath Co,Co. & they say they are not considering raising to limit .This is another attack on the hard pressed motorist , with the upcomming introduction of privet companies operating the speed cameras ,and the tolls on the M3 , what do we do , either live with 80 k or pay the toll ?By introducing the M3 they have NOT left us with an alternative national road !!!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,392 ✭✭✭AnCatDubh


    damLong wrote: »
    Hi ,I have been in contact with both the NRA and Meath Co.Co.NRA say its now over to Meath Co,Co. & they say they are not considering raising to limit .This is another attack on the hard pressed motorist , with the upcomming introduction of privet companies operating the speed cameras ,and the tolls on the M3 , what do we do , either live with 80 k or pay the toll ?By introducing the M3 they have NOT left us with an alternative national road !!!

    Since when was 80km/h so bad? For the past 15 years people have only hit 40-60km/h on that road at the major / peak times. I've drove it often in the past.

    The introduction of private companies to implement speed cameras has little to do with it. If the limit is 80km/h then you aren't legally entitled to exceed that. Speed, now perhaps the biggest killer on Irish roads of course should be curtailed. I mightn't like the fact that it is curtailed but it is the right thing to do in terms of road safety.

    From the feedback that i've heard about both M3 and N3, I understand now that both roads work really well.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4 damLong


    the limit is 80km/h then you aren't legally entitled to exceed that. Speed, now perhaps the biggest killer on Irish roads of course should be curtailed. I mightn't like the fact that it is curtailed but it is the right thing to do in terms of road safety.


    So are you saying that the NRA have got it wrong for the last X ammount of years by having a upper speed limit of 100 Km/h ? this road is the same now as it was before adjustment of upper speed limit , there has been no alterations to road dimentions , additional junctions , private dwellings etc , why reduce the speed limit is my question .... i am all for safe driving and looking forward to a continual reduction of fetailities on our country's roads.....but please adotp a common sence approach.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,434 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    Since when was 80km/h so bad? For the past 15 years people have only hit 40-60km/h on that road at the major / peak times. I've drove it often in the past.
    And what about off-peak times? There are long, long stretches of that road that are more than adequate for a 100km/h limit, and the parts that aren't were already 60/50 zones. There is no legitimate reason it should be down-graded, especially now that there's less traffic on it. The only reason is that it forces it to be less viable to use instead of the tolled road

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using post-migration Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and a dark mode setting)



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,392 ✭✭✭AnCatDubh


    damLong wrote: »
    So are you saying that the NRA have got it wrong for the last X ammount of years by having a upper speed limit of 100 Km/h

    Yes, in my humble opinion assuming that the road safety authority speak fact.

    How far do you travel in off peak time?

    If you travel between Navan and Blanchardstown a distance of 40km - If travelling at previous 100kph it will take you 24mins and now travelling at 80kph it will take you 30mins

    (allow for similar stopping / reduced speed limits going through the towns in both situations)

    Increase of +6 mins

    Yes, this is an inconvenience for off peak driving but vast improvement awaits for on peak driving which the majority of road users are that travel that road are (being of the commuter generation).

    In 2009, there were 12 fatalities on County Meath roads. The vast majority of fatalities happen in Ireland - off peak (weekend actually, Sunday being the worst day to be on our roads). If reduction of the speed limit to 80km/h were to do anything in respect of this then a 6 minute differential will be an incredibly small price to pay.

    There is no suggestion that the road is any less safe than before - that is not an issue.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,392 ✭✭✭AnCatDubh


    28064212 wrote: »
    And what about off-peak times?

    as answered above.
    There are long, long stretches of that road that are more than adequate for a 100km/h limit, and the parts that aren't were already 60/50 zones. There is no legitimate reason it should be down-graded, especially now that there's less traffic on it.

    As quoted above, statistically a reduction in vehicle speed on National and Rural roads has a positive impact on the fatalities. It's interesting that urban areas are statistically less likely to have a fatality - slow speed, more controlled driving.

    Yes, the issue of less traffic should make it safer (i'd expect) and traffic travelling on it at slower speeds should, combined, have a positive impact.
    The only reason is that it forces it to be less viable to use instead of the tolled road

    I disagree entirely. There is no evidence to suggest this to be the case.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,434 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    Yes, in my humble opinion assuming that the road safety authority speak fact.
    What fact have the RSA come out with to justify lowering the speed limit on a road that has existed for years with a higher speed limit, even though the only change is a lower traffic volume?
    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    How far do you travel in off peak time?

    If you travel between Navan and Blanchardstown a distance of 40km - If travelling at previous 100kph it will take you 24mins and now travelling at 80kph it will take you 30mins

    (allow for similar stopping / reduced speed limits going through the towns in both situations)

    Increase of +6 mins
    I travel as far as Virginia, so that's about a 15 minute increase for me
    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    Yes, this is an inconvenience for off peak driving but vast improvement awaits for on peak driving which the majority of road users are that travel that road are (being of the commuter generation).
    What? How does a lower speed limit improve it for peak commuters? The fact that the M3 is built improves it, not a lower speed limit, which is what we're talking about. And since the M3 is open, traffic volumes are lower, meaning the lowered speed limit hits a bigger percentage of the traffic.
    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    In 2009, there were 12 fatalities on County Meath roads. The vast majority of fatalities happen in Ireland - off peak (weekend actually, Sunday being the worst day to be on our roads). If reduction of the speed limit to 80km/h were to do anything in respect of this then a 6 minute differential will be an incredibly small price to pay.
    It won't. How many of those fatalities were on the N3? How many were caused by someone who was at the old speed limit on it?
    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    As quoted above, statistically a reduction in vehicle speed on National and Rural roads has a positive impact on the fatalities. It's interesting that urban areas are statistically less likely to have a fatality - slow speed, more controlled driving.
    Statistically, the safest roads of all are motorways, followed by national roads. How does that fit with your "slow-speed" theory? There is nothing in your argument that can't be used to argue that the speed limit should be 10km/h on all roads
    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    I disagree entirely. There is no evidence to suggest this to be the case.
    Other than the fact that they brought the lowered speed limit in at the exact same time as they opened the toll road? And that the higher limit was in place for years beforehand? And that the limit after the M3 finishes is still 100km/h?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using post-migration Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and a dark mode setting)



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,392 ✭✭✭AnCatDubh


    28064212 wrote: »
    What fact have the RSA come out with to justify lowering the speed limit on a road that has existed for years with a higher speed limit, even though the only change is a lower traffic volume

    I think this is answered in the previous posts.
    I travel as far as Virginia, so that's about a 15 minute increase for me

    11mins and 15 seconds if my calculations are correct. Closer to 10 than 15. I agree an inconvenience for you. This assuming you travel off peak. If travelling at peak times then at 80km/h you are probably doing way better than pre M3.

    For my own information is Kells->Virginia at the 80km/h or 100km/h?
    What? How does a lower speed limit improve it for peak commuters? The fact that the M3 is built improves it, not a lower speed limit, which is what we're talking about. And since the M3 is open, traffic volumes are lower, meaning the lowered speed limit hits a bigger percentage of the traffic.

    My point is not that by lowering a speed limit on one day you will actually travel faster. Compare to the N3 pre M3 opening. The point is that an 80km/h on the N3 is faster than a previously heavily congested road at peak times (the N3 the way it was) - even to Virginia by my calculations.

    You now have two good roads to choose from. A double win in my books.
    It won't. How many of those fatalities were on the N3? How many were caused by someone who was at the old speed limit on it?

    Covered in previous posts. The statistics generally suggest a positive impact on road fatalities by reducing the speed of vehicles. It is no more complicated than that.
    Statistically, the safest roads of all are motorways, followed by national roads. How does that fit with your "slow-speed" theory? There is nothing in your argument that can't be used to argue that the speed limit should be 10km/h on all roads

    In what i've seen this may not be correct albeit motorways weren't included but setting motorways aside as we're not contemplating motorway speed reductions, the roads run in a sequence of Urban, National and Rural (lowest to highest fatalities). If memory serves me correct the National roads hovered at about 45% of fatalities.

    There is a reality that a 10km/h speed on all roads probably would have next to zero fatalities if everyone stuck to it - but you are being facetious in suggesting that that is where the statistics will bring you without a healthy measure of practicality involved. It is acceptable to reduce by 20km/h but practically not possible to reduce to 10km/h.
    Other than the fact that they brought the lowered speed limit in at the exact same time as they opened the toll road? And that the higher limit was in place for years beforehand? And that the limit after the M3 finishes is still 100km/h?

    Again, you don't appear to accept the correlation between speed and saftey (or lack thereof) or you would see my basic point. I am comfortable with this position on the basis of my research, what i've heard from the AA in relation to road safety, and pronouncements in the media - RSA, NRA, etc...

    I guess we're getting tied up here in detail. All i'm actually saying is a reduction in speed will equate to safer roads for everyone. I appreciate that you are inconvenienced by it. It takes extra time in an off peak journey. I don't like that either. The trade-off imho is very worthy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,434 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    I think this is answered in the previous posts.
    Where? Specifically about the reasoning behind the N3 limit being lowered? Or is this just a generalised point of lower speed = automatically better?
    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    My point is not that by lowering a speed limit on one day you will actually travel faster. Compare to the N3 pre M3 opening. The point is that an 80km/h on the N3 is faster than a previously heavily congested road at peak times (the N3 the way it was) - even to Virginia by my calculations.
    And that is purely because the M3 is opened. It has absolutely nothing to do with the speed limit being lowered. Nothing. I am not debating that it's good the M3 is opened.
    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    Covered in previous posts. The statistics generally suggest a positive impact on road fatalities by reducing the speed of vehicles. It is no more complicated than that.

    In what i've seen this may not be correct albeit motorways weren't included but setting motorways aside as we're not contemplating motorway speed reductions, the roads run in a sequence of Urban, National and Rural (lowest to highest fatalities). If memory serves me correct the National roads hovered at about 45% of fatalities.
    I can't find stats for national roads vs urban rural either, so I may be wrong. 45% of fatalities is irrelevant, since it doesn't take into account kilometres travelled. However, even if we take your sequence as true, it reads (from lowest fatalities per distance to highest): Motorway -> Urban -> National -> Rural. So that's: Fastest -> Slowest -> 2nd Fastest -> 2nd Slowest. How does it follow that lower speed automatically has a positive impact on fatalities?
    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    There is a reality that a 10km/h speed on all roads probably would have next to zero fatalities if everyone stuck to it - but you are being facetious in suggesting that that is where the statistics will bring you without a healthy measure of practicality involved. It is acceptable to reduce by 20km/h but practically not possible to reduce to 10km/h.
    So what about 70km/h? 60? 50? The reality is that the speed limit should be set at a level suitable for the road. On the N3, that has suddenly been changed, where conditions have not been (except for lower traffic, which would make it safer, not more dangerous)
    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    Again, you don't appear to accept the correlation between speed and saftey (or lack thereof) or you would see my basic point. I am comfortable with this position on the basis of my research, what i've heard from the AA in relation to road safety, and pronouncements in the media - RSA, NRA, etc...
    Speed does not have an automatic correlation with safety. There are numerous examples where going too slow can be as dangerous as going too fast. Excessive speeding is what is dangerous. 100km/h is not excessive on that road, and wasn't considered excessive by the authorities until there was a tolled road that it would be more economical to persuade motorists to use instead

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using post-migration Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and a dark mode setting)



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,392 ✭✭✭AnCatDubh


    28064212 wrote: »
    Where? Specifically about the reasoning behind the N3 limit being lowered? Or is this just a generalised point of lower speed = automatically better?

    Yes, final point on my last post for instance. The correlation between safety and speed. Sorry, but it is no more profound or detailed than that..
    And that is purely because the M3 is opened. It has absolutely nothing to do with the speed limit being lowered. Nothing. I am not debating that it's good the M3 is opened.

    You agree with me here. This is what i have been saying.
    I can't find stats for national roads vs urban rural either, so I may be wrong. 45% of fatalities is irrelevant, since it doesn't take into account kilometres travelled. However, even if we take your sequence as true, it reads (from lowest fatalities per distance to highest): Motorway -> Urban -> National -> Rural. So that's: Fastest -> Slowest -> 2nd Fastest -> 2nd Slowest. How does it follow that lower speed automatically has a positive impact on fatalities?

    But the issue is nothing to do with km travelled - it boils down to the positive correlation between reducing speed and fatalities. This is what the advice is and experience has proved.
    So what about 70km/h? 60? 50? The reality is that the speed limit should be set at a level suitable for the road. On the N3, that has suddenly been changed, where conditions have not been (except for lower traffic, which would make it safer, not more dangerous)

    A level suitable for the road is too narrow a focus unless you expand on your consideration of 'suitable' (imho). You need to take safety into account (again imho). To be fair, the stretch of motorway along the N6 could probably take 140km/h (160km/h? I don't know) but would it be safe? I'd guess not. And yes, as asked in a previous post, i'm guessing that the NRA were incorrect to have the N3 previously at 100km/h from a safety perspective.
    Speed does not have an automatic correlation with safety.

    I understand that it does but i'm happy to understand that you don't accept that point.
    There are numerous examples where going too slow can be as dangerous as going too fast.

    Are you still referring to fatalities?

    Accepted if one vehicle is travelling a 10km/h and one is travelling at 100km/h then the 10km/h is going to cause difficulty but i'm not advocating at 10km/h limit anywhere. But this problem simply doesn't arise if road users fall within the particular speed limit. Yes, many other factors can then count - too long to consider here.
    Excessive speeding is what is dangerous.

    Define excessive. There are too many factors to take into account imho. Speeding is dangerous imho no matter what way you look at it. Curtailing the speed will benefit all road users whilst obviously inconveniencing them.
    100km/h is not excessive on that road, and wasn't considered excessive by the authorities until there was a tolled road that it would be more economical to persuade motorists to use instead

    Yes, one day 100km/h was the limit, the next day it was 80km/h. Were they wrong to have it at 100km/h? Perhaps (yes, imho but that's not important).

    I'll grant you, for a moment, by a wide stretch of the imagination, there is a bean counter in the NRA looking up from over thin framed glasses hanging at the end of their nose, dreaming up ways to make more people use the M3 so the government don't have to compensate the operators, but if this was actually the case, wouldn't it be lower than 80km/h? Surely the additional 5-11 minutes that the journey is being added to isn't enough of a disincentive?

    I'm sorry, but I don't believe motorists would be so naive as to fall for it. If it were to go to 60km/h I would probably be understanding this point but not given the times the change has made.

    .


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,434 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    But the issue is nothing to do with km travelled - it boils down to the positive correlation between reducing speed and fatalities. This is what the advice is and experience has proved.
    What? Of course you have to consider distance travelled, total fatalities is an irrelevant figure without it. That's the equivalent of saying Ireland's road fatalities are fine, the USA has way more fatalities than us. It's a pointless statement without some kind of objective comparison.
    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    A level suitable for the road is too narrow a focus unless you expand on your consideration of 'suitable' (imho). You need to take safety into account (again imho). To be fair, the stretch of motorway along the N6 could probably take 140km/h (160km/h? I don't know) but would it be safe? I'd guess not. And yes, as asked in a previous post, i'm guessing that the NRA were incorrect to have the N3 previously at 100km/h from a safety perspective.
    A level suitable for the road does not equal what the road could 'take', it's what is a safe level based on numerous factors. The N6 is a 100km/h road presumably? Should that be dropped to 80 so? Why not? What about all the other national roads? Should the motorways' limits be brought to 80 too? Why not?
    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    I understand that it does but i'm happy to understand that you don't accept that point.
    So how does that stack up against the Motorway -> Urban -> National -> Rural ordering of fatalities? According to you, speed is automatically more dangerous, but the safest roads are the ones with the highest speed limit. Obviously a higher speed is not inherently dangerous, it depends on other factors.
    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    Define excessive. There are too many factors to take into account imho. Speeding is dangerous imho no matter what way you look at it. Curtailing the speed will benefit all road users whilst obviously inconveniencing them.
    "Speeding is dangerous imho no matter what way you look at it" - what's speeding? Are you defining it as over the limit specified for a road? Or is there a static figure that's defined as "too fast"? In the former case, that means 100km/h is safe so long as that's specified as the limit. In the latter, that means motorways should be the same limit as national and regional roads. There is no evidence that curtailing the speed limit will benefit road users. You realise that lowering the speed limit targets exactly one group of motorists? - People travelling at between 80 and 100km/h. Excessive speeders are going to travel at whatever speed they were beforehand. For example, this guy was doing a minimum of 124km/h on the N3, probably more than 140km/h. Do you think if the limit had been 80km/h at that point he would have been going any slower? No, it just would have been more dangerous for the person who was going at the limit because of the disparity in speed.

    What percentage of the accidents on the N3 do you think have been caused by people travelling between 80 and 100 km/h? And of those, what percentage do you think were because they were travelling at more than 80km/h, and weren't as a result of alcohol, tiredness, dangerous driving or any of a dozen more important factors?
    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    Yes, one day 100km/h was the limit, the next day it was 80km/h. Were they wrong to have it at 100km/h? Perhaps (yes, imho but that's not important).
    How is that not important? Either the road was safe for a 100km/h limit or it wasn't. And if it was wrong, are you advocating lowering the level on all national roads to 80? Why not? The N3 was built to, and conformed to, the same conditions and specifications as other national roads
    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    I'll grant you, for a moment, by a wide stretch of the imagination, there is a bean counter in the NRA looking up from over thin framed glasses hanging at the end of their nose, dreaming up ways to make more people use the M3 so the government don't have to compensate the operators, but if this was actually the case, wouldn't it be lower than 80km/h? Surely the additional 5-11 minutes that the journey is being added to isn't enough of a disincentive?

    I'm sorry, but I don't believe motorists would be so naive as to fall for it. If it were to go to 60km/h I would probably be understanding this point but not given the times the change has made.
    So why wasn't the level changed years ago? It's been 100km/h since the introduction of km/h limits and it was 60mph before that for as long as I can remember. Why was it brought in now? And why was it brought in as part of the M3 project instead of as an ongoing process to review speed limits? And why have the RSA/NRA not announced why the change was made?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using post-migration Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and a dark mode setting)



  • Registered Users Posts: 4 damLong


    IMHO the target and victim here will be the guy travailing along at a safe speed above 80 and less than 100 , who , and i have seen evidence so far ( increased garda presence ) will be targeted for speeding and in my mind this is a money making machine!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,897 ✭✭✭✭Mimikyu


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 480 ✭✭Conor_M1990


    Its handy money for the Goverment imo been living in the area so long and I doubt Im alone I just have a habit of doing 100 kph on it


  • Registered Users Posts: 58,456 ✭✭✭✭ibarelycare


    This post has been deleted.


    AFAIK the one near Fairyhouse hasn't been working for years. Not sure about the one near Tara.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,568 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    The reduction in speed of the old N3/R147 is completely unnecessary, except as a revenue exercise (which itself is also unnecessary, see below)


    - 95% of the road between Blanchardstown and Cavan is of sufficent quality (width, surfacing, visibility) to easily support traffic at 100 km/h.

    The fact that traffic rarely got to this speed is (in my experience of driving the road daily for most of the last 6 years) mostly down to idiots who can't maintain speed or drive at anything above 80 km/h holding up those of us who can - that and the sheep who'd form up in convoy behind said idiot.

    Yea yea, "it's a limit not a target". That's fair enough, but that doesn't give these people the rights to hold up other traffic either.

    It's not for them (or anyone here) to say who's journey is more "important", merely that traffic shouldn't be delayed unnecessarily - move in (when safe to do so) long enough for cars to get past, or leave a gap to the car in front if you've no intention of overtaking, so others can (without having to do 3 in one go).


    - The M3 contract specifically includes a clause that if the traffic through the tolls isn't x, the government (ie: every taxpayer in the country) will compensate the operators y amount.

    Therefore by leaving the old road at 100 km/h, no revenue is in fact going to be lost at all if more cars continue to use it.

    The M3 is great for a quick spin to Blanch, but use it everyday and the toll charges will soon mount up - especially if you've to cross the M50 as well!


    - Other former N-roads have had their limits maintained at 100 km/h after being downgraded (Louth CoCo seem to be good at this!). Equally the N2 from Finglas to Ashbourne is 120 km/h despite NOT being a motorway.

    There's therefore no legal reason why the old N3 can't have its limit restored.


    - As for the "speed kills" argument - not so... INAPPROPRIATE speed kills!

    Let's use the example I quoted over on Motors the other day.
    The "old" N3 (now M3) at the Damastown turnoff has always been 100 km/h and is actually one of the best stretches of road in the area.

    Not surprising then that without ANY structural changes whatsoever at this point, the road has now been reclassified the M3 and the limit upped to 120 km/h.

    Does that mean that all those people who got caught before this change by the local Gardai (who were regularly camped out at this spot) for doing 101-121 km/h can now appeal and get their fines refunded and points removed?

    Of course not, because - even though it must have been OK to do these speeds all along, as it's now perfectly legal/safe to! - it never had anything to do with "road safety".. it'd a revenue and targets exercise, pure and simple!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 59 ✭✭nascar


    bladespin wrote: »
    Just noticed all the speed signs on the old N3 (not the super dooper M3) have been changed to 80kmh, does this mean the road has been downgraded?

    I've tried to follow news on the new road etc fairly closely but can't remember ever reading anything that suggested the speed limits on the old road were being changed.

    don't you realise this is meath co, council's way of trying to get more user's on to the m3, so they get more tax's from the public .?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,327 ✭✭✭bladespin


    nascar wrote: »
    don't you realise this is meath co, council's way of trying to get more user's on to the m3, so they get more tax's from the public .?

    It's not the council, it's the RSA but yes I did realise that, just wanted to see if anyone else would. The money goes to a private operator so it's not tax either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 59 ✭✭nascar


    yes, but if the rsa don't get there income quota, the tax payer has to make up the short fall.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,327 ✭✭✭bladespin


    nascar wrote: »
    yes, but if the rsa don't get there income quota, the tax payer has to make up the short fall.


    Everyone knows that, it's part of the PPP deal. BTW it's not essentially the tax payer that pays, it's the department of the environment (same thing but different).

    Still no reason to try to force drivers over by reducing the speed limits on the old road.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Not


    The reduction in speed limit on this road is IMO a complete cock up in terms of road safety. As a consequence, its practically impossible for those dying breed who prefer to respect speed limits to do so as it seems inappropriately low for the road in many places and therefore anyone trying to adhere to it just gets hounded off the road by the impatience of the main flow of traffic that feels justified in ignoring it. Anyone trying to respect this limit (or even 10 - 20k above it) is subject for the entire length of their journey along this road to seriously close tailgating, aggressive behaviour of following traffic, dangerous overtaking, and the odd attempted side swipe - how does this enhance the safety of this road ??:confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭saltandpepper10


    Not wrote: »
    The reduction in speed limit on this road is IMO a complete cock up in terms of road safety. As a consequence, its practically impossible for those dying breed who prefer to respect speed limits to do so as it seems inappropriately low for the road in many places and therefore anyone trying to adhere to it just gets hounded off the road by the impatience of the main flow of traffic that feels justified in ignoring it. Anyone trying to respect this limit (or even 10 - 20k above it) is subject for the entire length of their journey along this road to seriously close tailgating, aggressive behaviour of following traffic, dangerous overtaking, and the odd attempted side swipe - how does this enhance the safety of this road ??:confused:
    so true.when is common sense going to win out in any situation in this country?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,432 ✭✭✭mcwhirter


    Not wrote: »
    The reduction in speed limit on this road is IMO a complete cock up in terms of road safety. As a consequence, its practically impossible for those dying breed who prefer to respect speed limits to do so as it seems inappropriately low for the road in many places and therefore anyone trying to adhere to it just gets hounded off the road by the impatience of the main flow of traffic that feels justified in ignoring it. Anyone trying to respect this limit (or even 10 - 20k above it) is subject for the entire length of their journey along this road to seriously close tailgating, aggressive behaviour of following traffic, dangerous overtaking, and the odd attempted side swipe - how does this enhance the safety of this road ??:confused:

    I agree, when the road was at 100 km/h it was more dangerous than now due to the volume of traffic.
    Now the road is a lot quieter. 100km/h makes more sense.
    80km/h is just far too slow as the road isn't too bad now it is quieter.
    There a too many feckwits ruling this country.
    For example, there is a road parallel to the main navan road in kenstown that has a 80km/h limit. The road is barely wide enough for 2 cars to pass. It should be a 50km/h like the main road considering there are lot of houses on the road too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 756 ✭✭✭Agent_47


    80 KPH is a farce especially when Bus eireann buses (08D69810) are flying along from Navan to Dunshaughlin at 107 kph ! (a weekday morning this week.)
    BTW, I thought buses were speed restricted?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,434 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Agent_47 wrote: »
    80 KPH is a farce especially when Bus eireann buses (08D69810) are flying along from Navan to Dunshaughlin at 107 kph ! (a weekday morning this week.)
    BTW, I thought buses were speed restricted?
    To the best of my knowledge, they have speed limiters restricting them to 100kph. It's more likely your speedometer is off by a few kph

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using post-migration Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and a dark mode setting)



  • Advertisement
Advertisement