Absolutely ridiculous speed limit sign

LegacyUser

See link attached. Now how in gods name can they have the same speed limit on this ****ty road as they do on the n4 past lucan!? only in ireland...

http://www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=634

mikemac

Sighh......it's a limit not a target so what does it matter.
There will never be a garda checkpoint on this road or any road like this so it wouldn't matter if it was 50 or 100, it's still up to the driver to judge the appropriate speed

Nuttzz

micmclo wrote:

Sighh......it's a limit not a target so what does it matter.

because some idiot is bound to say to himself, "80Kph eh? I'll give that a bash" It might not be a target to you, that doesnt apply to anyone else

Hotblack Desiato

Nuttzz wrote:

because some idiot is bound to say to himself, "80Kph eh? I'll give that a bash" It might not be a target to you, that doesnt apply to anyone else

Then the problem isn't the sign, it's the fact that we give driving licences to idiots.

Chris_533976

Although I obviously wouldnt drive 80kmh (or even half that) on that road, most people think and assume that the speed limit on a route means that the route is built to allow cars to use that limit.

Although its wrong, it makes common sense to assume that. That said, it makes more common sense to drive to conditions.

In any case, an 80kmh limit on that road (and hundreds of others) is farcical.

ucdperson

Although its wrong, it makes common sense to assume that.

What is common sense about that? The road clearly wasn't originally built for motorised transport of any sort. Why would "most people" think that it was built to support the national speed limit? In fact "most people" are not eejits. In the North such a road would have a 60mph limit, does that make driving on it at that speed OK?

Then the problem isn't the sign, it's the fact that we give driving licences to idiots.

Too true.

Chris_533976

Put it this way then. In Germany (say) if you saw an 80kmh speed limit you could safely drive that speed on that road. Not here, and thats a problem.

The council should not put up an 80kmh speed limit unless you can reasonably and safely drive 80kmh on that road. Putting up an 80kmh limit on the road in the OP is utterly utterly stupid.

Happy Bertie

In the US I have never seen a road where the speed limit was too high for the road condition. Varying speed limits in 5 mph increments are used. On a stretch of road of vary geometry, you could go from 55 to 40 and then to 50 mph in the space of 2 miles. You can safely use the speed limit sign there as a guide to the speed you can drive along that road in free flow conditions.
I would say the best solution for the road shown in the photo is not put up any sign at all (except at the start of the road{for legal reasons}) as it seems saving money is the goal (why otherwise would they have a one speed limit fits all standard [they get bulk volume discounts by using one type of sign]?) and the poor physical road characteristics act as a poor man's "speed bump" which will slow cars down anyway. Otherwise thousands more speed limit signs should be made so that variable speed limit signs could be put everywhere. This I feel would be a waste of money.

The question now is where is the start of the road? You'd have to ask a Corkman that one.

highdef

When I was in Marbella last year, the speed limit signs were excellent. The signs would change over the space of a couple of 100 metres, possibly dropping from 100 KM/hr to maybe 60 KM/Hr with signs showing 90, then maybe 70, depending on the severity of the bend. Made driving on unfamiliar roads quite easy. Something like that would be great over here. I drove from Pullathomas in Mayo to Westport via the N59 and the road was atrocious at times. Car lifted off the road at one stage, car bottomed out a few times and some bends were barely safe to take at 50KM/Hr, despite the fact that it was all 100 Km/Hr!!! If any part of the road has a 100 KM/Hr limit on it, then it should be safe to drive at that speed in optimal conditions

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Spogpean wrote:

See link attached. Now how in gods name can they have the same speed limit on this ****ty road as they do on the n4 past lucan!? only in ireland...

http://www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=634

speed limits are assigned by the category of the road, if its a motorway = 120km/hr, dual carrage way and national primary roads = 100km/hr, other (no matter how bad they are) = 80km/hr. that change was made when the km changeover was made. they got rid of the national speed limit and repalced it with theese ones, so in 2004, the speed limit on that road was 100km/hr not 80km/hr!!!, it just wasnt advertised

Rosie Fat Asparagus

Rosie Fat Asparagus wrote:

speed limits are assigned by the category of the road, if its a motorway = 120km/hr, dual carrage way and national primary roads = 100km/hr, other (no matter how bad they are) = 80km/hr. that change was made when the km changeover was made. they got rid of the national speed limit and repalced it with theese ones, so in 2004, the speed limit on that road was 100km/hr not 80km/hr!!!, it just wasnt advertised

Maybe the solution is to restore the "national speed limits", make a lot more sense than putting up silly signs on these little roads.

jlang

But changing back to the old black bar on white sign wouldn't change anything - except make it harder to remember what the national speed limit is for the class of road you are on. Regardless, driving faster than you consider safe just because it's under the legal limit is stupid. Any road that now looks like it has a ridiculous 80km/h limit actually used to have an even more ridiculous limit of 60mph. They just weren't explicit about it. The ridiculous 100km/h on sub-standard N roads show us which roads need to be ugraded to the expected standard. At least now there may be some call to do a nationwide review and put in reduced local limits where appropriate. As long as they review the idiotic low limits at the same time, I'd be happy.

Hotblack Desiato

highdef wrote:

When I was in Marbella last year, the speed limit signs were excellent. The signs would change over the space of a couple of 100 metres, possibly dropping from 100 KM/hr to maybe 60 KM/Hr with signs showing 90, then maybe 70, depending on the severity of the bend. Made driving on unfamiliar roads quite easy.

That sort of carry-on is just stupid, you end up with a forest of signs which people end up just ignoring. Too much information is worse than too little.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Deleted User wrote:

Maybe the solution is to restore the "national speed limits", make a lot more sense than putting up silly signs on these little roads.

well if you do that, it goes back to 100km/h! i live on one of those backward roads, and nobody ever goes over 40 or 50km/h. its not a problem

Stark

micmclo wrote:

Sighh......it's a limit not a target so what does it matter.
There will never be a garda checkpoint on this road or any road like this so it wouldn't matter if it was 50 or 100, it's still up to the driver to judge the appropriate speed

Why bother with speed limits at all then.

Rosie Fat Asparagus

Rosie Fat Asparagus wrote:

well if you do that, it goes back to 100km/h! i live on one of those backward roads, and nobody ever goes over 40 or 50km/h. its not a problem

Just to clarify, I meant to say restore the national speed limit sign, and educate drivers as to what they are.

Having national limits as opposed to signs on all roads would have made it much easier to change the limits on HQDCs.

Hotblack Desiato

Stark wrote:

Why bother with speed limits at all then.

Outside of urban areas (if those!), good question.
Just because a speed is below the posted limit doesn't mean it's appropriate or safe. Just because it's above the posted limit doesn't mean it's inappropriate or unsafe. Best to teach drivers to make safe decisions rather than slavishly following signs which can take no account of weather, time of day, conditions, traffic, etc.

E92

Stark wrote:

Why bother with speed limits at all then.

There should NOT be a need for speed limits anywhere, people should be responsible enough and intelligent enough to know what is or isn't a safe speed to travel at for a given situation.

We all know that dual carraigeways that have 100 km/h limits on them are as ridiculous as the twisty N roads that have 100 km/h on them. A HQDC/Motorway is well capable of 130-140 km/h, whereas sometimes it not even possible to GO on those twisty roads at 100 km/h on roads that have the said limit.

Luckycharm

Spogpean wrote:

See link attached. Now how in gods name can they have the same speed limit on this ****ty road as they do on the n4 past lucan!? only in ireland...

http://www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=634

It is funny that when I was in Donegal there were roads there with Signposts for 100km on roads that so narrow and bendy that I think that a rally driver with a clear road would struggle to do 100km on.
THen I am 3 lane motorway to Naas where the speed limit is 80km on some stretches :eek:

I.S.T.

Luckycharm wrote:

It is funny that when I was in Donegal there were roads there with Signposts for 100km on roads that so narrow and bendy that I think that a rally driver with a clear road would struggle to do 100km on.
THen I am 3 lane motorway to Naas where the speed limit is 80km on some stretches :eek:

A good example here: http://www.irishspeedtraps.com/SpeedLimits.aspx

Ham'nd'egger

Luckycharm wrote:

It is funny that when I was in Donegal there were roads there with Signposts for 100km on roads that so narrow and bendy that I think that a rally driver with a clear road would struggle to do 100km on.
THen I am 3 lane motorway to Naas where the speed limit is 80km on some stretches :eek:

As has been said countless times before, the maximum speed limit is just that; a limit and not a target to be reached. If it isnt safe to do X speed limit, then you don't do it.

Brian CivilEng

In Victoria, Australia they use an ingenious "suggested speed" warning sign. Let's say that a certain road had a signed speed limit of 80k, but at certain sections this speed would be dangerous, such as sharp bends etc. Well they use a variation of the yellow diamond warning sign, showing a "safe" speed to use for the hazard shown.

I can't find a photo of the sign on google, I'll email a mate in Melbourne and get him to take a photo for me.

It's gas, on a drive that took in parts of NSW and Victoria, we noticed that on crossing into Victoria, the same dangerous road was now suddenly littered with warning signs, crash barriers, rest areas etc. They sure take their safety seriously in VicRoads.

Brian CivilEng

Nerd that I am, I looked up the Victoria traffic Engineering Manual.

Victor

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

A good example here: http://www.irishspeedtraps.com/SpeedLimits.aspx

The first photo shows the N4 dual carriageway (Lucan by-pass) in Dublin. The second is a regional road in the Dublin mountains near Bohernabreena. Both roads have a speed limit of 80kmh. The N4 is a safe dual carriageway with three lanes in each direction. In 2004 there were no people killed on the N4 inside build up areas*.

*figures from National Roads Authority's "Road Collision Facts 2004" report

Your comments are misleading and incorrect. Using the definition from Road Collision Facts 2004 below, you can't come to a conclusion on the number of accidents on that section of road. What you also fail to mention is that the dual carriageway is busy, has pedestrians, cyclists and bus users, private accesses and at grade crossings. It has no median barriers and limited side barriers and consequently has exposed obstructions.


http://www.nra.ie/Publications/DownloadableDocumentation/RoadSafety/file,3629,en.pdf

Built-up Area
A built-up area means an area which was within a 30 to 40 m.p.h. (48-64 kph) speed limit zone in 2004.

I don't know the road in Bohernabreena, but I suspect a 50 kh/h limit is in order if that section in the photo is representative. http://roads.southdublin.ie/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=141&Itemid=62

Victor

Victor wrote:

dual carriageway is busy, has pedestrians, cyclists and bus users, private accesses and at grade crossings.

The westbound section of N4 between the Newcastle rd traffic lights & the Leixlip junction is particually dangerous during the evening rush, 80Kmh limit here is realistic. On other sections between the lights & M50 100 should be OK.

In general the sheer weight of traffic during peak periods make speed limits unecessary (is impossible to get anywhere near those speeds).

Variable speed limits could be employed on major roads around Dublin (after the "improvements") to reduce bunching at junctions.

Extract from an article I came across recently http://www.abd.org.uk/jjleeming.htm

JJ Leeming - Accidental expert

Leeming carried out extensive speed surveys in Dorset, and found that posting a speed limit made very little difference to speeds. With the exception of a minority, drivers adjusted their speed to the conditions, and a speed limit made little difference — findings that have been replicated across the world. What Leeming did find occasionally, however, was that where a speed limit was introduced that was actually higher than the speed at which traffic would otherwise travel, speeds would sometimes increase. He gave as an example a 40mph limit introduced on a previously unrestricted section of road. The limit had been opposed by Leeming, but local pressure forced it through. It was found that the most frequent speed range adopted by drivers rose from 30-32mph before the limit to 38-40mph afterwards; in the three years before the speed limit, there had been 16 accidents — in the three years afterwards there were 30.

The tendency to drive up to a speed limit is one of the strongest arguments against the use of blanket limits, since drivers may be tempted to believe that they are no longer responsible for deciding on a safe speed — the thinking has been done for them. This ties in with Leeming's comment, quoted in an earlier instalment, that accidents rarely occur at places that look dangerous, because drivers can see they are dangerous and take great care — accidents occur where no danger is apparent. Leeming alludes to this in suggesting reasons for the lack of success of speed limits:

It highlights the attitude that the speed set is achievible.

cyclopath2001

Deleted User wrote:

It highlights the attitude that the speed set is achievible.

The dilemma is that if it's left up to motorists to decide what speed to drive at, they'll base their calculations on maintaining control of their own vehicle and totally ignore the effect speed (no matter how safely or competently performed) has on others.

cyclopath2001

cyclopath2001 wrote:

The dilemma is that if it's left up to motorists to decide what speed to drive at, they'll base their calculations on maintaining control of their own vehicle and totally ignore the effect speed (no matter how safely or competently performed) has on others.

Consideration for other road users is a key part of driver training, you will fail the driving test if you didn't.

Other road users are also responsible for their actions, drivers should not be expected to virtually stop everytime they pass another road user incase they do something stupid.

D'Peoples Voice

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

A good example here: http://www.irishspeedtraps.com/SpeedLimits.aspx

That webpage is mad, it completely ignores the fact that LOCAL government set the speed limit, as they are familiar with their locality, not CENTRAL Government.
The GARDAI have no choice but to police the limits set down by a democratically elected local Government, and the courts have no choice but to enfore the laws if people break the speed limits set by the democratically elected local Government.

Give credit where credit is due, before the changeover to kilometers, Olivia Mitchell did say that there should be a route and branch check on speed limits by LOCAL Government and not simply a conversion from miles to kilometers. But LOCAL government are a law onto themselves, that said as we saw with the wise mover by Meath County Council and the speed limit on the Ashbourne bypass, if the will is there.....although the signposts for place names in the north of county around Oldcastle would suggest Meath county council are bit a joke.

I.S.T.

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

That webpage is mad, it completely ignores the fact that LOCAL government set the speed limit, as they are familiar with their locality, not CENTRAL Government.

I don't see what the relevance is. Sounds like a red herring to me.

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

The GARDAI have no choice but to police the limits set down by a democratically elected local Government

Nothing wrong with policing the limits but why do they mostly enforce the limits on roads with heavy traffic volume such as the N11 or N4 rather than the roads where the accidents occur?

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

, and the courts have no choice but to enfore the laws if people break the speed limits set by the democratically elected local Government.

Give credit where credit is due, before the changeover to kilometers, Olivia Mitchell did say...

Is she in Fine Gael by any chance????

corktina

i don't see how anyone can construe a speed limit sign as evidence that the road is suitable for that speed....what if you were driving a truck or a double decker bus? it would have to mean the road was safe for that speed for them too.....it means parts of this road MAY be physically capable of being driven at speeds of more than 80k but you musnt do it.....after all there are plenty of Urban streets where it would be suicidal to do even 50k