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.
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?
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.
"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?
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
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?
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!!
This post has been deleted.
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
AFAIK the one near Fairyhouse hasn't been working for years. Not sure about the one near Tara.
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!
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.
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.
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 ??
so true.when is common sense going to win out in any situation in this country?
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.
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