N11 ridiculous speed limit

loyatemu

right - so they've spent €100m, 3 and a half years, and a lot of aggro evicting eco-warriors etc to upgrade the N11 between Kilmac and Glen O' The Downs to dual-carriageway

so why the hell have they slapped a 40mph limit on the entire road?! The old single-carriageway road was 60mph. When you leave the N11 and join the narrow local roads (eg at the exit for Delgany) the limit is also 60mph. It makes no sense and is the opposite of progress.

It is also dangerous - I tried to obey the limit and was by far the slowest thing on the road and was an accident waiting to happen. I could understand maybe having a lower limit through the glen and kilmac village (50mph would be sufficient) but having the whole road 40mph is ridiculous.

Samson

I agree.
The road is now far safer, yet they reduce the speed limit.
Bizarre.

I was going to suggest writing to either the NRA or Wicklow County Council.
But, to be honest, what's the point?
Banging, head, brick wall etc.

nellieswellies

I was under the impression that the speed limit in place was just temporary incase people get confused with the wider safer road and decide to start weaving from left to right with the shock and awe of the whole thing.

ando

what about that 30 zone when leaving Dublin (just after the 50zone)... don't particularly like that one meself

Redshift

I heard this very queston asked on the radio recently and apparantly this limit is temporary untill all the landscaping is completed after which it will be 60 MPH

commuterised

yeah i also heard the 40 was a temporary speed limit until the road works were finished in Kilmac, but the 40 signs look pretty permanent to me..

loyatemu

amazingly I got a reply back from the NRA (and quick too!)
yeah - the limit is temporary

"Work on the main carriageways was completed recently and a 40 mph limit does indeed still apply. This is a temporary measure adopted primarily for safety reasons until essential related works on adjoining roads and landscaping are finalised. At that stage a 60 mph limit will apply - except for a stretch in the vicinity of Kilmacanogue Village where access to/from the village and roadside developments dictates a lower limit, again in the interests of the safety of road users"

the signs look permanent to me too, but at least it will be 60 eventually.

Our man in Havana

Is there any visible enforcement of the 40mph limit?

I assume this is the limit from "the Beehive" to Newtownmountkennedy bypass?

ArphaRima

I hate this country so much

ColinM

I assumed that they were the 40 limit signs left over from the road works and that they were just too lazy and incompetent to take them down - in much the same way as "Danger - MAJOR road works in 500meters" signs remain in place for years after road works are completed. The southbound carriageway on the M11 bray bypass motorway prior to the newly finished Kilmacanogue / Glen of the Downs dual carriageway has these warning signs even though there are no roadworks at all. This is highly dangerous and quintessentially Irish.

I'm not going to do 40mph or less on that road, and if I get done for speeding it will be yet more proof that the Guards, the NRA and Seamus Brennan don't actually care about road safety or the spirit of the law with regard to speeding or dangerous driving, but really see fines as a further means of revenue generation from the already overburdened motorist.

Victor

Originally posted by loyatemu
the signs look permanent to me too,

The pole is permanent, the sign is reusable.

Samson

Thank God it's temporary.

I had visions of a rebirth of the Lucan dual-carriageway episode. There was a ridiculous 40MPH limit in effect for about 3 years, and the Gardaí were there (shooting fish in a barrel) almost daily, now that it's up to a more reasonable 50MPH limit you see the boys maybe once a week!

Seth Brundle

Given the traditions used in this country, don't assume that they will be replaced!
Local authorities &/or the Gardai are often happy with leaving inappropriate speed limits in place [there may be a logic to the idea but this doesn't mean it makes sense]
e.g. Lucan Dual Carriageway
M50/M1 junctions
Naas Rd [along Citywest] when it was completed
dual carriageways around Galway
etc.
etc.

Seth Brundle

... add the M50 south of the Tallaghtfornia junction to my list. Why this is 60mph is beyond me [don't say deer, hard shoulders, lack of adequate centre meridian, noise to me as these are common on other motorways]

fenris

I drive that road regularly, and very rarely see anybody working on it, if you are going to put silly speed limits then only do it while there is work being done, that means put it back to 60 when they all bugger off at 15:00 and back to 40 when they start work at 11:00 the next morning.

Don't bother with any replies about people being confused by changing speed limits, you are supposed to see them not remember them !

Victor

Originally posted by kbannon
... add the M50 south of the Tallaghtfornia junction to my list. Why this is 60mph is beyond me [don't say deer, hard shoulders, lack of adequate centre meridian, noise to me as these are common on other motorways]

Is there central barriers on this section?

Korg

Not wanting to sound like a troll or anything, but how long is this section of road you're supposed to drive 40mph on? I dont live there but a quick search shows this section to be 5km, 3 miles, which takes 4 1/2 minutes at 40mph, 3 minutes at 60, 3.6 at 50. If it's longer please correct me. [edit] re-reading the thread properly now, it's not just the new wider section that's restricted? the point still stands tho![/edit]

I use arguments like this all the time eg when people insist on driving at 85 on the m50, which barely saves 2 minutes if travelling from the airport end to the tallaght junction. The time actually "lost" when driving at the speed limits can turn out to be less than you think, and given the safer stopping distances etc etc. Same with driving 60 on sections on the m50 instead of 70. The time lost is only a few minutes.

Driving at 40mph shouldn't be "an accident waiting to happen". If people can't control their cars at 40mph (behind someone else doing 40 or whatever) they shouldn't be driving. Period.

ColinM

Tsk, Korg. Boring mathematics about how much time you do or don't save isn't the point. The fact is that a 40mph limit is a pisstake, pure and simple.

BTFW, if you are doing 70mph in the overtaking lane on the M50 and think you are doing me a favour by not pulling over to let me pass because you doubt I'll save much time by going faster, just pull over anyway. I'd like to decide how many minutes I'll save (or not).

It's dangerous to do 40mph on a dual carriageway because people won't be expecting you to be going so slow, and if they are not paying proper attention, or have a poor perception of speed and distance (which alot of people do) you may find someone ploughing into the back of you before too long if you actually obey these limits. There's a lot of crap drivers out there who have very little awareness of what's going on around them and have reaction times that would be better measured in terms of minutes rather than seconds.

But besides all that, common sense will tell you that it is just plain ridiculous that I can legally do 60mph on any back road (that often isn't wide enough for two cars to pass by each other) where the national speed limit applies, and yet on a wide safe dual carriageway with a good surface and plenty of visibility I am supposed to be restricted to 40. It's cracked. It doesn't make sense. It's typically Irish.

There is still a 40mph limit in place on the N4 three-lane carriageway off the M50 too. The only reasons I can think for this is that the bridge on that road is totally fnucked up. It has obviously sunk a few inches, so if you were going much over 60 and weren't expecting it, it's vaguely possible that you may lose control of the car. (That's only if you were a sh1t driver of course). What is done about the actual problem with the bridge though? Absoloutely fricking nothing.
Buses use this road also, so maybe it is felt that cars shouldn't go over 40 in case there is somehow an increased likelihood of accidents between cars and buses if cars are allowed to travel at higher speed. I don't know if this is true, but I'm not dismissing it out of hand. Perhaps that is the reason. Still though, I'd like to know why whatever Irish gobsh1tes were in charge of building that bridge couldn't have built it properly in the first place, and why they can't fix it now.

Maybe some more of the road tax we pay could actually be put into the roads? Maybe that would be too sensible though.

silverside

why should i pull in if i am crusing at 70 in the fast lane of the m50 and some fool driving at 85 flashes me? I will only get stuck in the left lane which in practice is used by slower moving and merging traffic? Why should I inconvnence myself so that you can break the law and I will only catch you up in a minute or two once you get stuck behind the next car?

jd

Originally posted by ColinM

I'm not going to do 40mph or less on that road, and if I get done for speeding it will be yet more proof that the Guards, the NRA and Seamus Brennan don't actually care about road safety or the spirit of the law with regard to speeding or dangerous driving, but really see fines as a further means of revenue generation from the already overburdened motorist.

Just don't expect much sympathy if you run into a jcb or something.

ColinM

Originally posted by jd
Just don't expect much sympathy if you run into a jcb or something.

You'd be lucky to have seen one (at least in motion) anywhere along that road over the last few years.

It has been in the interest of the people contracted to build this road to make as little progress as possible. There was no deadline and no penalty for delays. Indeed, it was distinctly in their interest to drag out this project as long as possible. They kept getting paid as long as it was still being "built". In fact, there were more additional invoices put in for extras during the course of building this short stretch of road than any other road building project in the history of the state.

Still though, if I do run into a JCB, feel free to tell me you told me so.

ColinM

Originally posted by silverside
why should i pull in if i am crusing at 70 in the fast lane of the m50 and some fool driving at 85 flashes me? I will only get stuck in the left lane which in practice is used by slower moving and merging traffic? Why should I inconvnence myself so that you can break the law and I will only catch you up in a minute or two once you get stuck behind the next car?

Ah, great - I'm delighted one of you came out of the woodwork. I'm feeling a little pent up right now, so in case I vent at you, I'm going to leave my response to this until some time when I'm feeling at my most rational.

John R

Originally posted by silverside
why should i pull in if i am crusing at 70 in the fast lane of the m50 and some fool driving at 85 flashes me? I will only get stuck in the left lane which in practice is used by slower moving and merging traffic? Why should I inconvnence myself so that you can break the law and I will only catch you up in a minute or two once you get stuck behind the next car?

It is not a FAST LANE it is an OVERTAKING LANE. Read the rules of the road and get yourself some driving lessons.

silverside

ah dont lecture me on the rules of the road, i know them well -what do they say about the speed limit?

However in practice the left lane of the m50 is used by traffic going at 55-60 and the right land is used by traffic going at 70. Its not like UK 3 lane motorways where the 3rd land is REALLY and overtaking lane. My point is (on a busy day) if you keep swapping lanes to make reasonable progress (as you are entitled to) it is ultimately more dangerous than sticking in the right lane at 70-75. I can also can see further ahead which is safer, and I am not inconveniencing any legal driver. If the left lane is free for some considerable distance ahead I will of course pull in.

Andrew Duffy

A very good reason for the 40 and 50 Mph limits on the N4 is that during peak periods the speed of traffic fluctuates dramatically. When I was driving on it I'd regularly find myself merging at 40-45, then braking hard as soon as I'd merged. If I'd waited for a large enough gap to merge more safely in I'd have been putting myself in danger of a thumping from the drivers behind. There are also several pedestrian crossings, at grade junctions, median openings and tight left-on, left-off junctions on the road, many of them located just beyond sharp bends. Not to mention the fact that the third lane closes quite abrubtly. Basically, if you drive above the speed limit on that road you deserve to have your licence revoked.
Thankfully the entire stretch from the M4 at Leixlip to the M50 is due to be upgraded to 2x3+buslane, with all the level crossings and right turns removed. There'll even be parallel service roads for local traffic.

Korg

Originally posted by ColinM
BTFW, if you are doing 70mph in the overtaking lane on the M50 and think you are doing me a favour by not pulling over to let me pass because you doubt I'll save much time by going faster, just pull over anyway. I'd like to decide how many minutes I'll save (or not).

I never said that, you'll never catch me doing that, the lane is for overtaking. You can decide to save as many minutes as you like, so long as you don't break any laws.

Originally posted by ColinM
It's dangerous to do 40mph on a dual carriageway because people won't be expecting you to be going so slow, and if they are not paying proper attention, or have a poor perception of speed and distance (which alot of people do) you may find someone ploughing into the back of you before too long if you actually obey these limits. There's a lot of crap drivers out there who have very little awareness of what's going on around them and have reaction times that would be better measured in terms of minutes rather than seconds.

This isn't an excuse. Crap drivers shouldn't be driving. When a crap driver hits another car saying "aw sure i wasn't paying attention" wont hold up in any court.
I wonder what the statistics are on the number of accidents caused by drivers being hit because they were "driving too slow" at 40 etc. As a guess i'd say it pales in comparison to the number of accidents due to speeding.

Originally posted by ColinM
Tsk, Korg. Boring mathematics about how much time you do or don't save isn't the point. The fact is that a 40mph limit is a pisstake, pure and simple.

I think it is relavent. I've no problem driving at 40mph, the few minutes lost don't bother me, i don't find it harder to drive, i feel there's even less chance of me losing control of the car.

Victor

Originally posted by John R
It is not a FAST LANE it is an OVERTAKING LANE. Read the rules of the road and get yourself some driving lessons.

If the trucks in the left hand lane are doing 50 and he's doing 70, he should be in the right hand lane. It isn't his business that someone wants to do 80 in the right hand lane.

BrianD3

If the trucks in the left hand lane are doing 50 and he's doing 70, he should be in the right hand lane. It isn't his business that someone wants to do 80 in the right hand lane.

If a suitable gap appears in the left hand lane, then he's obliged to move into that gap. It doesn't matter whether there's a vehicle behind him or not. The left hand lane is for driving in, the right hand lane is for overtaking - simple as that. And if there is someone behind trying to overtake it doesn't matter one bit that he wants to do 80, 90, 100, 120 mph or whatever. The speed doesn't come into it at all. It's not up to motorists to enforce the law on speeding by blocking a faster moving vehicle from overtaking.

BrianD3

Victor

Originally posted by BrianD3
If a suitable gap appears in the left hand lane, then he's obliged to move into that gap. It doesn't matter whether there's a vehicle behind him or not. The left hand lane is for driving in, the right hand lane is for overtaking - simple as that. And if there is someone behind trying to overtake it doesn't matter one bit that he wants to do 80, 90, 100, 120 mph or whatever. The speed doesn't come into it at all. It's not up to motorists to enforce the law on speeding by blocking a faster moving vehicle from overtaking.

However, as I said if there is traffic in the left hand lane doing 50, he is entitled to **overtake** at 70 and once he continues to overtake and no gaps become apparent, he is in the right.

BrianD3

why should i pull in if i am crusing at 70 in the fast lane of the m50 and some fool driving at 85 flashes me?

The guy behind isn't the fool - you are. How many times must muppets like you be reminded that it's an OVERTAKING lane. You don't CRUISE in it you OVERTAKE in it :rolleyes:

I will only get stuck in the left lane which in practice is used by slower moving and merging traffic?

If you're doing 70 mph and someone else wants to go faster, then it's you who's the slow moving traffic.

Why should I inconvnence myself so that you can break the law

You should inconvenience yourself because it's the law. Drive in the left lane, overtake in the right lane. Get it? If somone wishes to overtake you and you're already doing the speed limit, it makes no difference. You don't have the right to hog the overtaking lane and block them from passing. It's not up to you to enforce the speed limit by blocking faster moving vehicles on a motorway.

BrianD3

Korg

I must get a copy of "The Road Traffic General Bye-Laws (Amendmant) Regulations 1893 to 1992", the ordinary rules of the road book is only so clear on the whole motorway thing.

My 2000 reprint of rules of the road does state things like, on page 38 "No vehicle other than exempted vehicles (fire brigades, ambulances, Garda cars) may exceed the maximum road speed limit at any time" (emphasis added for effect). It also says on the same page that the speed limit on a motorway is 70mph. It doesn't say that when overtaking you may exceed the speed limit, not that i can find, only that you may not exceed the speed limit at any time.

Hang on, that's resonably clear. Maybe the regulations have more accurate info.

My understanding, from that book, is sit in the left lane unless you want to drive faster than other cars doing 50-60, in which case you may overtake them at 70 in the right lane, return to the left as soon as possible & drive somewhere between 50-70.

sirlinux

You could be costing someone their life, there could be an ambulance or fire brigade at the back of that 10 car queue you just created by hogging the right hand lane, the right hand lane is for overtaking, get back into the left lane and stop being such a gimp.

Andrew Duffy

Something tells me there are a lot of boy racers here. Hey lads, your balls will get bigger all on their own when puberty kicks in; you don't have to drive a car at excessive speed to feel manly. And about that abulance, well, you'll need one eventually if you keep up the speeding.

unkel

Originally posted by BrianD3
If a suitable gap appears in the left hand lane, then he's obliged to move into that gap

Taking the words right out of my mouth:)

This works very well on the Continent. A typical scenario would be something like this: Car A is driving at 70mph overtaking series of lorries doing 50mph. Another car B comes up behing him doing 90mph. The driver in car A assesses the speed of car B and moves into a gap (could be tiny). The driver in car B drives overtakes him at 90mph fully accommodating the driver of car A, i.e he assesses the speed of car A and the size of the gap. If the gap is very small he might accelerate even further to make sure that car A can remain his speed and safely overtake the next lorry after himself

summary of the result generalising a bit for effect:

Continent:

Courtesy among drivers happy to drive at the speed they choose. Smooth and eco-friendly driving even at higher speeds. Safety

Ireland:

Everybody becomes a wanker: the wanker that prevents people from overtaking because he feels they are going fast enough, and the wanker that feels he has to drive up previous wanker's arse and flash him. Not safe, lots of breaking and accelerating using up way more fuel than driving smoothly but faster. Road rage, stress

My twocents

Our man in Havana

Time to put the thread back on topic:

I drove the new section of the N11 today and I totally agree the 40mph limit is stupid. I think they are going to raise the limit to 50mph, I saw some signs that were turned around showing 50mph near the hotel exit.


As for the 40mph limit from newtown bypass to rathnew, its totaly needed as there is works with crossovers and diversions not safer to do more.

Capt'n Midnight

If memory serves you do 40mph on the N11 and then at the turn off for Newtownmountkennedy has an end of speed limit sign (60mph) and shortly afterwards you are back to 40mph.

Daft - it's a bit like the 50mph zone in Chapelizod if you come off the Kylemore road and on to the Lucan road - Count until you see the 40mph signs again (one is very overgrown) - it's only a few seconds.- If they moved the signs back a bit then merging should be safer...