Speeding: Your Views!!

Kimbot

Ok so there are plenty of debates on this ongoing in threads on boards but I want to see what everyones general opinion on the matter is!!

People pop up new threads saying something along the lines of: "Got caught speeding at X location!!! Why are the gardai stopping me instead of preventing real crime??"

THen there is some that say: "I was caught doing 100 in a 60 zone and I can't afford to be getting penalty points" then further down the threads they will say "I never speed, I obey all speed limits"

In all fairness if you are caught speeding or breaking the law then stop giving out!! You have broken the law being caught so take your punishment!!



What do others think??

galwaytt

the only problem is that the law, as it currently stands, can be unjust. Speed cameras on motorways and dual carraigeways only incite anger, resentment and malice generally towards the subject.

If the law acts like an ass, it's treated as one, and treating the motorist as a cash cow, just 'cos they can, only exacerbates the problem.

I heard on the radio only this a.m. that in Germany a proposal to impose speed limits - of any kind - on certain sections of Autobahn, was thrown out. Thank god someone is thinking straight.

OldmanMondeo

Totally agree with you. I reckon I was done the weekend, but I know it was my fault, I was doing 70 - 80kpm in a 60 kph zone. I will pay the fine and take the points. I don't blame the guards for have the gatso-van there. If your stopped doing 1 kilometer over the limit, you are still speeding, yes harsh to get do for it, but still over the limit. Shooting fish in a barrel is a comment I have read here, what a load of ****, if you don't speed you won't get caught.

I was thinking a few years ago of advertising a fool proof way of not getting a speeding ticket, Send my €5 and I will send you pack on how to beat the speed camera. Once I get the money, send a letter, with diagrams of course, basically saying do not go over the speed limit. dead cert winner.:D

Sam Vimes

yes it is a crime and yes it should be punished. just as soon as they've caught all the murderers and rapists and thieves and drunk drivers, then they should spend all day hiding behind a tree at a point where a speed limit drops suddenly and catch the people who haven't had a chance to slow down yet

or maybe even put speed cameras on rural roads where speeding is really dangerous instead of motorways where the difference between 120 and 130 is negligible

cold_filter

I dont speed in dublin cos there isnt any point as there are quite a lot of gardai around and traffic is usually not moving.

I go to mayo and galway frequently, mayo especially i fly around like a lunatic

Sam Vimes

cold_filter wrote:

I dont speed in dublin cos there isnt any point as there are quite a lot of gardai around and traffic is usually not moving.

I go to mayo and galway frequently, mayo especially i fly around like a lunatic

my point exactly

Kimbot

Commander Vimes wrote:

or maybe even put speed cameras on rural roads where speeding is really dangerous instead of motorways where the difference between 120 and 130 is negligible

But the thing is its not on the 120 section of the motorway!! Its 3/4 the way into a 60kmph section!!

so 120 and 60 is a big difference!!

Kimbot

cold_filter wrote:

I go to mayo and galway frequently, mayo especially i fly around like a lunatic

So you think speeding is fine???
What happens if you killed someone driving like a lunatic??

gyppo

jonny24ie wrote:

In all fairness if you are caught speeding or breaking the law then stop giving out!! You have broken the law being caught so take your punishment!!

Could'nt agree more.

prospect

I agree with the OP,

But the idea of speed checks is supposed to be about reducing road deaths. And concentrating the vast majority of spped cameras on cars breaking the 100Km/h speed limit on the N7 by about 5Km/h is not going to help stop people dying on our roads.

Quite simply there needs to be a more even spread across the country and across all roads.



I will give yo an example, about 500 meters from my house is a very bad cross roads (country road). There is constantly accidents at them, probably about 1 per month on average.
The reasons for this are two-fold. 1. There is insufficient signage warning the people on the minor road that they have to yield, and also the main road is used by commuters trying to avoid the N7 and they fly through that junction.
I have NEVER seen a Speed Check on that road.

Every friday morning there is a Gatso camera outside Coca Cola, between the Red Cow Roundabout and the Longmile Road junction.
I have NEVER seen an accident on that road.

So the question remains, what is the Governments/Gardais main priority when assigning Speed camera locations.

Mitch Connor

i always try to obey the speed limit, but i'll admit i do not always manage it. sometimes it is set infuriatingly low for no reason.

On the N11, northbound, coming up towards the old turn off for greystones/delgany(the one you can't take anymore) the limit goes down to 60, then 50, for a set of road works. I've no problem with this at all, here the limit makes sense. However, when you clear the roadworks, the limit stays at 60 for a couple of miles, for no reason that i can see. There are roads that merge on to the N11, but that have the time and road space to get up to a higher speed and merge safely so i can't understnad why the limit remains at 60 - the road is only slightly curved, wide, and is good quality. It's areas like that, with stupid limits, that I feel are the problem. People will 'speed' through these sections, making them, possibly, more likely to speed in other sections of roadway.

On the m50 in the morning, i follow the speed limit through each section, even the painful 60kmh zone, but i have no problems with those that don't. Plenty of the 100kmh zones could handle 120 without any problems, so it doesn't bother me if people fly past me. Although there are accidents on the M50, i don't think the place could be labled dangerous, not in relation to speed anyway - its teh idiots braking late and swerving for exits that cause the real problems on these stretches.

I can't see why anyone would have an issue with speed limits in theory, but in practice, a lot of them are too low and this can infuriate some people. If ALL roads were properly analysed, and given limits that actually relate to the road size, quality and visibity then people would be much happier. I can't say its much fun doing some back roads at 50kmh because you can't actually see around the next corner while someone behind you is up the arse of your car becase its an 80kmh zone.

Kimbot

prospect wrote:

Every friday morning there is a Gatso camera outside Coca Cola, between the Red Cow Roundabout and the Longmile Road junction.
I have NEVER seen an accident on that road.

I think this has to do with the joyriding that used to go on in the industrail estate behind the factory there for a long time!! Its there from the evening before hand and it was always know that the "Cruise" was Thursday and Sunday nights!!

I.S.T.

I'm not against speed checks, once their motive is to improve road safety. For example, there is sometimes a speed check outside Drimnagh Castle school on the Long Mile Road in Dublin. I have absolutly no sympathy for anyone caught speeding in that area as there are a lot of school kids about. But as far as I can see the majority of speed traps are set up in locations where they will generate the most revenue and have very little to do with improving road safety.

cormie

1km over the limit in a 60km zone is now deemed as driving dangerously by breaking the speed limit, but even if you are going 61km in a 60 zone, you're still going under the 40mph it used to be. So does a little sign really determine how safe you are? I don't think so. The same way you could be going 79kmph in an 80 zone on a blind bend on a country road but still by law, be driving at a safe speed since you are under the limit.

There's talk of making some of the N11 up the limit to 120kmph, which I would agree with as a lot of the road is definitely safe to go this speed, but just because it's not upped yet, is it not safe to go that speed now but will be when the limit is upped? Of course not.

Speed limits are really only there for people who can't determine a safe speed to go for the conditions surrounding them.

Kimbot

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

I'm not against speed checks, once their motive is to improve road safety. For example, there is sometimes a speed check outside Drimnagh Castle school on the Long Mile Road in Dublin. I have absolutly no sympathy for anyone caught speeding in that area as there are a lot of school kids about. But as far as I can see the majority of speed traps are set up in locations where they will generate the most revenue and have very little to do with improving road safety.

Not trying to be a smart a$$ but your sig, name and site all suggest you are against them but you have made valid points on the subject!
Forget about where is generating revenue etc, this topic is about do you think its ok to speed then when you get caught give out about it??

prospect

jonny24ie wrote:

I think this has to do with the joyriding that used to go on in the industrail estate behind the factory there for a long time!! Its there from the evening before hand and it was always know that the "Cruise" was Thursday and Sunday nights!!

I don't think so. I have often gone into work early (i.e. before 7am) and no gatso, then later in the morning it would be there.

I.S.T.

jonny24ie wrote:

I think this has to do with the joyriding that used to go on in the industrail estate behind the factory there for a long time!! Its there from the evening before hand and it was always know that the "Cruise" was Thursday and Sunday nights!!

I have seen it there lots of times on Saturday and Sunday afternoons.

Kimbot

cormie wrote:

Speed limits are really only there for people who can't determine a safe speed to go for the conditions surrounding them.

So if I thought it was safe to drive on a 50kmph doing 180kmph then its ok??? That really makes no sense at all mate!!
The limit is the maximum speed you are allowed to go by law!!

mmenarry

There's "speeding" in the legal sense, i.e. driving above the posted limit.

Then there's "appropriate speed", taking into due care of the environment and conditions.

People get upset when the two don't match.

For example, dead of night on the M50, 130kph isn't as dangerous as 30kmh past a school at chucking out time. The law makes no distinction - and neither do speed cameras. Except the 30kmh is legal?!?!

More traffic corps personnel are what we need, not speed cameras. "Safety" is the usual reason trotted out for more cameras, but it isn't the best way, and I'd be willing to bet cold hard cash it isn't the most cost effective way to improve road safety either.

And the fact that an ANPR is on the way (Automated Number Plate Recognition) only points to the government's policy on vastly increasing the number of "safety dumb" cameras. We'll end up like the UK shortly - you can't move 200 yards without hitting a speed camera over there.

M.

gyppo

cormie wrote:

There's talk of making some of the N11 up the limit to 120kmph, which I would agree with as a lot of the road is definitely safe to go this speed, but just because it's not upped yet, is it not safe to go that speed now but will be when the limit is upped? Of course not.

Anyone who has read my previous posts will have no doubt that I am totally against speeding.

However, I agree with the above point. How about looking at this in reverse.
The "old" N6 from Kinnegad to Tyrellspass had a speed limit of 100kmh. Since the new tolled dual-carraigeway opened, the limit on the "old" road has been reduced to 80kmh.

Methinks this is more to do with generating toll revenue on the new road, than improving safety on the old road - or am I just being a cynical little bunny:)

I.S.T.

I bet if they abolished the fine associated with speed cameras, i.e. you just get the penalty points and no fine, we would see a dramatic reduction of cops hiding in bushes on the N11, N4, etc

Mitch Connor

jonny24ie wrote:

So if I thought it was safe to drive on a 50kmph doing 180kmph then its ok??? That really makes no sense at all mate!!
The limit is the maximum speed you are allowed to go by law!!

It would probably not be ok, but you are also missing the point. the point is that sometimes it is still SAFE to drive over the signposted limit, and sometimes it isn't safe to even drive at the signposted limit.

What you think is safe, and what is actually safe are two different things, and speedlimits don't automatically indicate what is safe - sometimes the limit posted is too high, sometimes it is too low.

Biro

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Totally agree with you. I reckon I was done the weekend, but I know it was my fault, I was doing 70 - 80kpm in a 60 kph zone. I will pay the fine and take the points. I don't blame the guards for have the gatso-van there. If your stopped doing 1 kilometer over the limit, you are still speeding, yes harsh to get do for it, but still over the limit. Shooting fish in a barrel is a comment I have read here, what a load of ****, if you don't speed you won't get caught.

I don't really agree with this. The point of the whole speeding fines and points is supposed to be reducing road deaths, isn't it? Not catching people breaking the law where ever it is convenient. I would say that many a speed check was placed in motorways and good stretches at the weekend, but none of those helped any of the 6 killed in Donegal, nearly all on twisty stretches. And all at unsociable hours too.
And catching someone at 1kmph over the limit is just completely defeating the purpose. Your speedo is not that accurate anyway, and they should give a margain of error on people's mechanical equipment, in every other country and relating to every other law in the world nearly you get a margin of error on any measuring device.

gyppo

Biro wrote:

And catching someone at 1kmph over the limit is just completely defeating the purpose. Your speedo is not that accurate anyway, and they should give a margain of error on people's mechanical equipment, in every other country and relating to every other law in the world nearly you get a margin of error on any measuring device.

Afaik, you are given a margin of error by the guards, as their equipment is calibrated to a specific tolerance, 10% I think.

cold_filter

jonny24ie wrote:

So you think speeding is fine???
What happens if you killed someone driving like a lunatic??

The speed limit on the road is 100kph, i drive fast but the road prevents me from reaching that speed as there are quite a few bends on it between the town and the house

Mitch Connor

Biro wrote:

I don't really agree with this. The point of the whole speeding fines and points is supposed to be reducing road deaths, isn't it? Not catching people breaking the law where ever it is convenient. I would say that many a speed check was placed in motorways and good stretches at the weekend, but none of those helped any of the 6 killed in Donegal, nearly all on twisty stretches. And all at unsociable hours too.
And catching someone at 1kmph over the limit is just completely defeating the purpose. Your speedo is not that accurate anyway, and they should give a margain of error on people's mechanical equipment, in every other country and relating to every other law in the world nearly you get a margin of error on any measuring device.

there is a margin of error, but you speedo displays a figure HIGHER tehn your actual speed, or your actual speed. Never lower. So if you are caught doing 121 in a 120 zone, your speedo would prob have been showing somewhere between 121 and 125, if not even a little higher. While i think it is harsh, and don't agree with getting done for it, i just thought i would point out the flaw in your argument.

Stark

Tauren wrote:

i always try to obey the speed limit, but i'll admit i do not always manage it. sometimes it is set infuriatingly low for no reason.

I'm pretty much the same. When driving across the country, I'll stick religiously to the 100km/hr and 120km/hr limits (except when overtaking, when it's safer to break the limit in order to get off the wrong side of the road as quickly as possible). But then I'll hit a spot where there's a few cones along the side of the road and suddenly the speed limit drops to 50kph and I'm like "no ****ing way" (except for last week when I decided to be a **** and stick to it, I'm sure the people in the line of cars behind me weren't very happy with me at all).

Generally my experience of special speed limits is:

80kph - generally put in place by councillors who are at least semi-intelligent. If I hit one of these signs I'll stick to it as in my experience, they're usuallly there for good reason.

60kph - On main roads, they generally seem to be put in place by people with half a brain cell ("oh oh, there was an accident here where Pisshead McGee drove himself into a tree, better slash the limit by 40kph for everyone, do not pass 80kph, do not collect $200"). Though Fingal coco does seem to use it quite a bit in areas where the standard 50kph would be too low.

50kph - Perfectly appropriate for residential areas. I'll ignore it if it's on a main road that had roadworks months earlier though.

Seth Brundle

jonny24ie wrote:

But the thing is its not on the 120 section of the motorway!! Its 3/4 the way into a 60kmph section!!

so 120 and 60 is a big difference!!

Currently there is only one camera on the M50 (with one or more) coming soon. This camera is situated in a straight stretch at the flyover for the old Airport Road (santry) flyover. It is a couple of hundred metres prior to the speed reduction (80km/h) signs.
The camera removed was beside the off ramp at ballymun as you head southbound. Again it was a nice straight stretch.

The location choice so far for many of these cameras has been suspect to say the least. I do agree however, that if one goes alongside the roadworks then this is much better than previous locations.

Biro

Tauren wrote:

there is a margin of error, but you speedo displays a figure HIGHER tehn your actual speed, or your actual speed. Never lower. So if you are caught doing 121 in a 120 zone, your speedo would prob have been showing somewhere between 121 and 125, if not even a little higher. While i think it is harsh, and don't agree with getting done for it, i just thought i would point out the flaw in your argument.

I do realise that alright, and it's deliberatly set to read higher, but different sized wheels will throw it's accuracy, and also I'm sure wear and tear will gradually reduce it's accuracy.

cormie

jonny24ie wrote:

So if I thought it was safe to drive on a 50kmph doing 180kmph then its ok??? That really makes no sense at all mate!!
The limit is the maximum speed you are allowed to go by law!!

No, drivers should be able to determine what speed is safe without the need for signs telling us, if a driver can't do that, then they shouldn't really be on the road in the first place.

So take your example, since you mention a 50 zone, the law has predetermined 50 is safe. 50 could be too high, imagine it's 3pm and there is a school on the road and there are children all over the place, I wouldn't thread more than 25-30kmph in this situation. Or 50 could be too low, imagine this same stretch of road with the school on it at 3am, the 50 would be there because of the school, otherwise it's a long, wide visible road, but there aren't going to be children around at 3am, so more than 50 would probably be safe. I say probably because each situation is different and the driver should be able to determine this themselves.

I can't say whether going that 180kmph in a 50 zone would be safe because of this. If drivers were capable, then there should be no need to indicate a 50 zone, meaning going 180 in a 50 zone would be hypothetical as there would be no 50 zone. Hypothetically speaking;):D

In saying all this, I think speed limits do serve a purpose of what's up ahead, but this same purpose could be served by other warning signs (approaching school, village, hard bend etc).

OldmanMondeo

Biro wrote:

I don't really agree with this. The point of the whole speeding fines and points is supposed to be reducing road deaths, isn't it? Not catching people breaking the law where ever it is convenient. I would say that many a speed check was placed in motorways and good stretches at the weekend, but none of those helped any of the 6 killed in Donegal, nearly all on twisty stretches. And all at unsociable hours too.
And catching someone at 1kmph over the limit is just completely defeating the purpose. Your speedo is not that accurate anyway, and they should give a margain of error on people's mechanical equipment, in every other country and relating to every other law in the world nearly you get a margin of error on any measuring device.

My point is that the speed limit is 60, I was going over it, my fault. It does not matter that it was on the M50, I was speeding end off. What I have learnt is to watch my speed more carefully in future, not just on the M50, but every time I drive. The more people that learnt this message, the less people will die. The M50 is one of the most used roads in the country, as all motorways are, the gaurds will get the speeding message across to more drivers on a motorway than a rural road. It is more efficitive than a billboard saying slow down.

As for catching someone 1kph over the limit, I did say that would be harsh and I would doubt anyone has ever been done for exceeding by 1 kph.

After reading what people said about the speedo being slightly lower, maybee I will be ok, but I will still watch my speed.

More camera and speed checks (not traps) are needed on rural roads. Accident black spots need cameras 24/7. but motorways need to be monitiored to. We have only had motorways in this country for, what 10 years, people still do not know how to use them, driving in the outside lane, etc, so anything that educates drivers should be seen as a good thing.

I.S.T.

cormie wrote:

No, drivers should be able to determine what speed is safe without the need for signs telling us, if a driver can't do that, then they shouldn't really be on the road in the first place.

I wouldn't agree with this seeing as so many drivers can't even manage to use their indicators correctly, judging an appropiate speed is way beyond them!

cormie wrote:

So take your example, since you mention a 50 zone, the law has predetermined 50 is safe. 50 could be too high, imagine it's 3pm and there is a school on the road and there are children all over the place, I wouldn't thread more than 25-30kmph in this situation. Or 50 could be too low, imagine this same stretch of road with the school on it at 3am, the 50 would be there because of the school, otherwise it's a long, wide visible road, but there aren't going to be children around at 3am, so more than 50 would probably be safe. I say probably because each situation is different and the driver should be able to determine this themselves.

Perhaps there is a need for variable speed limits then. They could use digital speed limit displays similar to the ones in the port tunnel. Outside a school the speed limit is lower during school hours and increases later in the evening whe n there are not many people about.

Leon11

not an advocate of speeding however a few of my aussie guys I brought to rugby were telling me that they have a system of leeway, ie 100km/h speed limit, you can do 110% of speed plus 5km/h. Not too sure whether or not to believe it tho, don't think that would work here because our roads are smaller

Biro

Digital variable speed limits are the way forward for sure. How many times have people been doing the legal limit on the M50 only to round a bend and find that you have half a mile to come to a complete stop while watching to make sure the plonker behind you realises the danger? An electronic limit would work in lots of places.
In general I do approve of the emphasis on catching speeders. I would prefer more emphasis on rural areas and during unsociable hours and in known danger places.
Seperate from speeding I definately think that tyres are probably the most important part of your car and there is next to no emphasis put on them. Thats just wrong.

Stark

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

I bet if they abolished the fine associated with speed cameras, i.e. you just get the penalty points and no fine, we would see a dramatic reduction of cops hiding in bushes on the N11, N4, etc

Probably not as they'd still be there for the purposes of getting numbers up. "x number of people caught speeding this weekend" makes it look like something is being done road safety wise, when it's more akin to covering a haemophiliac with band-aids.

cormie

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

I wouldn't agree with this seeing as so many drivers can't even manage to use their indicators correctly, judging an appropiate speed is way beyond them!


Perhaps there is a need for variable speed limits then. They could use digital speed limit displays similar to the ones in the port tunnel. Outside a school the speed limit is lower during school hours and increases later in the evening whe n there are not many people about.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no way suggesting that we take down the signs and let drivers determine what's safe. I'm saying that would be the ideal, if every driver was capable of being able to determine what's safe, but every driver can't. As you said, people can't even indicate properly, so determining a safe speed would be a far too big a responsibility.

Digital signs would definitely be an improvement!

Mitch Connor

they'd never work, we'd simply end up being told the limit was 88kmh, always.

Biro

Tauren wrote:

they'd never work, we'd simply end up being told the limit was 88kmh, always.

Or 888kph and newspapers reporting on people having cases thrown out of court for getting caught doing 200kph because the sign read 888...
If they worked they'd be the answer, but then again they'd probably get a price for putting them in at somewhere around 2 billion euro.

Wishbone Ash

cormie wrote:

No, drivers should be able to determine what speed is safe without the need for signs telling us, if a driver can't do that, then they shouldn't really be on the road in the first place

That's ridiculous cormie. It would then be based on the driver's opinion and not on the actual prevailing conditions. A mature driver who has learned a lot from years of experience and who may have witnessed/or been involved in several accidents would probably have a totally different concept of what is safe compared to a relatively new inexperienced driver.

Kimbot

OldmanMondeo wrote:

My point is that the speed limit is 60, I was going over it, my fault. It does not matter that it was on the M50, I was speeding end off. What I have learnt is to watch my speed more carefully in future, not just on the M50, but every time I drive. The more people that learnt this message, the less people will die. The M50 is one of the most used roads in the country, as all motorways are, the gaurds will get the speeding message across to more drivers on a motorway than a rural road. It is more efficitive than a billboard saying slow down.

As for catching someone 1kph over the limit, I did say that would be harsh and I would doubt anyone has ever been done for exceeding by 1 kph.

After reading what people said about the speedo being slightly lower, maybee I will be ok, but I will still watch my speed.

More camera and speed checks (not traps) are needed on rural roads. Accident black spots need cameras 24/7. but motorways need to be monitiored to. We have only had motorways in this country for, what 10 years, people still do not know how to use them, driving in the outside lane, etc, so anything that educates drivers should be seen as a good thing.

Exactly... OMM hit the nail on the head. He ggot caught speeding and has learnt to keep his eye on the speed everywhere not just on that specific patch of road!! I too have got caught speeding and it has copped me on, I used to think ah the limits are for fools etc etc but was not one for overly speeding. I got caught and now no matter where I am I stick to the limit all the time!!

Mitch Connor

Biro wrote:

Or 888kph and newspapers reporting on people having cases thrown out of court for getting caught doing 200kph because the sign read 888...
If they worked they'd be the answer, but then again they'd probably get a price for putting them in at somewhere around 2 billion euro.

and, of course, by the time that got round to doing it, we'd all be in cars that drove themselves, like I Robot and Minority Report.

Kimbot

Wishbone Ash wrote:

That's ridiculous cormie. It would then be based on the driver's opinion and not on the actual prevailing conditions. A mature driver who has learned a lot from years of experience and who may have witnessed/or been involved in several accidents would probably have a totally different concept of what is safe compared to a relatively new inexperienced driver.

Also true!!
People are hired to think of these limits for reasons and they specialise in this area!! Its a matter of the signpost being the maximum speed you can do on that road!! Not a target that you have to beat time and time again!!

cormie

jonny24ie wrote:

Wishbone Ash wrote:

That's ridiculous cormie. It would then be based on the driver's opinion and not on the actual prevailing conditions. A mature driver who has learned a lot from years of experience and who may have witnessed/or been involved in several accidents would probably have a totally different concept of what is safe compared to a relatively new inexperienced driver.

Also true!!
People are hired to think of these limits for reasons and they specialise in this area!! Its a matter of the signpost being the maximum speed you can do on that road!! Not a target that you have to beat time and time again!!

I know, I'm not saying we should abolish speed limits tomorrow, just saying it would be the ideal. It could never work!:(

Mitch Connor

jonny24ie wrote:

Also true!!
People are hired to think of these limits for reasons and they specialise in this area!! Its a matter of the signpost being the maximum speed you can do on that road!! Not a target that you have to beat time and time again!!

erm....yeah. not a good point there. How would that explain the ridiculas speed limits given for roads?

People don't actually think about these things, not properly and analytically like they should.

If they did, we wouldn't have 60kmh dual carraigeways for no reason, and 80kmh rural roads.

Kimbot

Tauren wrote:

erm....yeah. not a good point there. How would that explain the ridiculas speed limits given for roads?

People don't actually think about these things, not properly and analytically like they should.

If they did, we wouldn't have 60kmh dual carraigeways for no reason, and 80kmh rural roads.

There has to be a reason behind it!! YOu can't say that the local council etc agreed to underspeed a road just for the hell of it!! Locals could have complained and because of that limits might have to be dropped. Its not all down to the authorities at the end of the day, we all do get an input into it yet refuse to speak up!!

OldmanMondeo

I don't think the digital signs are the way to go. The current sign needs little maintance, where as the digital sign will need power, buggered if there is a power cut, can be easily damaged, could be difficult to see in certain weather conditions and could be open to dispute to what the sign was reading, i.e. "these feckin Guards have control over the sign and are out to catch me". Also changing speed limits will further confuse drivers as to the actuall speed of the road, we're confused enough as it is....

Stark

johnny24ie wrote:

There has to be a reason behind it!! YOu can't say that the local council etc agreed to underspeed a road just for the hell of it!!

When the Fermoy bypass opened, they reduced the speed limit on the old section of the N8 from 100km/hr to 80km/hr for the hell of it. Oh wait, no, there was a reason: the letter before the road name changed from "N" to "R" :rolleyes:

OldmanMondeo

Tauren wrote:

erm....yeah. not a good point there. How would that explain If they did, we wouldn't have 60kmh dual carraigeways for no reason, and 80kmh rural roads.

the faster you drive the louder the noise. Dual carraigeways are usually in built up areas, so the other consideration apart for safety is noise polutation.

Wishbone Ash

Tauren wrote:

How would that explain the ridiculas speed limits given for roads?

Ridiculous in who's opinion?

Mitch Connor

jonny24ie wrote:

There has to be a reason behind it!! YOu can't say that the local council etc agreed to underspeed a road just for the hell of it!! Locals could have complained and because of that limits might have to be dropped. Its not all down to the authorities at the end of the day, we all do get an input into it yet refuse to speak up!!

Again, no.

I know of an area of dual carraigeway that was dropped to 60. the locals complained because it was TOO SLOW, the locals that the speed was dropped for. So, council decided to drop the limit irrespective of what the locals wanted, and the road quality itself.

I can say little thought goes in to it, or that the thought that does go into it is looking at the money aspect as much as anything else, because it certainly doesn't seem to be road safety that was teh priority. Can you give any other reason why a dual carraigeway going through a non-residential area, and being straight and wide, is subjected to a 60kmh speedlimit? I'll admit this road has two other roads merging with it along this section, but at other points along the n11 roads manage to merge without the speeed limit being dropped to 60.

Kimbot

Stark wrote:

When the Fermoy bypass opened, they reduced the speed limit on the old section of the N8 from 100km/hr to 80km/hr for the hell of it. Oh wait, no, there was a reason: the letter before the road name changed from "N" to "R" :rolleyes:

Well then it was brought back to a regional road and not a national so the limit changed which would be correct!! If the road was no longer up to National route standards then it has to be changed!!