First roads to be declared motorways without a motorway order

murphaph

Under the roads act of last year they don't need to use a (long winded) motorway order to create a motorway so more blue signs to spring up....

http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=10193&lang=ENG&loc=2270

E92

About bloody time too. I thought they'd never do it.

Looking forward to 20 km/h faster motoring:D!

But who was the clown that thought that we should still be restricted to only 100 km/h from the Dunkettle Roundabout to Watergrashill:(?

murphaph

E92 wrote: »

About bloody time too. I thought they'd never do it.

Looking forward to 20 km/h faster motoring:D!

Doesn't need to be a motorway for a 120 limit-all those roads would have opened with one or could have one imposed without being motorways!

E92

murphaph wrote: »

Doesn't need to be a motorway for a 120 limit-all those roads would have opened with one or could have one imposed without being motorways!

I realise that but Cork County Council tried to upgrade the Ballincollig bypass,the Dublin road from Dunkettle Roundabout to the M8 bit and the South Ring to 120 km/h and the NRA told them to buggar off.

And I thought the Cashel bypass was only a standard Dual Carriageway though I'm not complaining about an increase in the speed limit!

And the recent opening of the Motorway standard road from Cashel to Cahir is only 100, at least by these roads being reclassified they will get the default limit of 120 km/h.

ardmacha

Good to see it. But with the regrading you'll have someone coming on here talking about the poor L drivers or some other nonsense.

Chris_533976

Fantastic

I dont see why the Dunkettle - Watergrasshill part of the N8 isnt included though?

At least though they're finally getting off their arses and doing it.

Email sent, thanking them and imploring them to ignore the whingers and do this for the sake of the country.

Chris_533976

I wrote a very unprofessional but true email, thought I'd post it here

Hi there,



I just want to say that getting the roads designated to motorway, at long last, is a fantastic thing and will benefit the country as a whole. The removal of cyclists, tractors, people walking and other such nonsense from the dual carriageways, as well as an increased speed limit, will have an excellent safety effect.



I would implore that the Department ignore the inevitable backlash from learner drivers, farmers and other general whingers, and will go ahead with this plan. Learner drivers will complain they cant drive on these roads – their qualified driver that is with them can drive it if necessary. Farmers do not need to bring tractors onto motorways, that is dangerous and there are alternative routes. Cyclists etc just create a hazard and I cant understand a cyclist on a dual carriageway when cycling is better suited to other roads for scenery and fitness purposes.



I am just wondering, however, why the N8 section from Dunkettle to the beginning of the Fermoy bypass is not included. Given that theres an alternate route through Glanmire, I cant see any obvious reason why this cant be reclassified also. Is there any particular reason?



Also, may I recommend publishing similar papers as soon as possible for the N18 Crusheen – Gort and Gort – Oranmore schemes. As they are not in construction until later this year it may mean less unnecessary whining from various members of society.

Victor

http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=10193&lang=ENG&loc=2270

Motorway Redesignation
29 January 2008

Please click on the following Links for Explanatory Leaflet on each scheme

Observations and Comments should be forwarded to the following mailbox

"Redesignation@Transport.ie" no later than 4pm Friday 28th March 2008

http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/10193-0.pdf
http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/10193-1.pdf
http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/10193-2.pdf
http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/10193-3.pdf

E92

All we need is the eco-mentalists to object because some fool thinks that 120 km/h is so much worse for the environment(apparently a car uses 10% more fuel at 120 than at 100, though I doubt it very much, since modern cars would be well designed to be at their optimum efficiency at 120-130 km/h, the general speed limit on most European Motorways), in which case I would remind them that driving at 5 mph uses twice as much fuel as driving at 80 mph, so are going to be speeds below 5 mph as well?(thought not)

Though all these slowing down measures like speed ramps apart from slowing us down and damaging our car's undersides also wastes loads of fuel, so are we going to get rid of these as well?

I still can't believe they are upgrading the Cashel bypass to Motorway, as that road is narrower than other parts of the Motorway standard sections of the Cork-Dublin road, and is meant to be only a standard Dual Carriageway instead of a Motorway standard Dual Carriageway, though I'm not for one second complaining, the sooner we have more 120 limits on the safest roads in the country the better!

My only complaint about this long overdue but nevertheless very welcome plan is why aren't they going to reclassify other Motorway standard roads, like those on the Atlantic corridor as mentioned above, the bits of the Cork-Dublin I mentioned earlier, the South Ring, the road to Midelton from Cork and Ballincollig bypass in Cork, and the dual carriageway bit of the Cork-Limerick road as you get close to Limerick(if ever a road deserves an upgrading, this is it), the Southern Ring road in Limerick, the tunnel for Limerick and the Dundalk to the Border road which I remember seeing here already boasts a 120 limit on this side of the border?

icdg

I would probably be more worried about the Nenagh bypass than the Cashel bypass. The Nenagh bypass is an online upgrade of an S2 (albeit a rather wide one) and is getting redesignated motorway...

Whether the N2 Finglas-Ashbourne will eventually be upgraded is also a question, though what to do about the first few km northbound where the alternative route has been closed and a dodgey exit provided is something that would need to be addressed.

Athlone-Galway is the major part of the inter-urban network left out, possibly due to the Athlone Bypass needing major work before it can be redesignated.

Chris_533976

Bear in mind folks that this is just the first round. If it goes through fairly easily and people see the benefits then other stuff will follow.

Niall1234

E92 wrote: »

But who was the clown that thought that we should still be restricted to only 100 km/h from the Dunkettle Roundabout to Watergrashill:(?

I'd like to think that that section will eventually be upgraded to motorway with the previso that GLanmire to Dunkettle will have a speed limit of 100kph.

If I had my way, South Ring Road, Midleton Road and section from Dunkettle Roundabout to Interchange would all be Motorway. Would have to keep 100 kph limit on SSR though.

E92 wrote: »

Looking forward to 20 km/h faster motoring:D!

120 to 140 kph. Push that envelope.

E92

Niall1234 wrote: »

I'd like to think that that section will eventually be upgraded to motorway with the previso that GLanmire to Dunkettle will have a speed limit of 100kph.

If I had my way, South Ring Road, Midleton Road and section from Dunkettle Roundabout to Interchange would all be Motorway. Would have to keep 100 kph limit on SSR though.

120 to 140 kph. Push that envelope.

They should be all 120 at least IMO(apart from the bit of the South Ring with no hard shoulder). Ballincollig bypass is surely deserving of at least 130 IMO. I know that the start of the road to Dublin is a bit twisty, but it is a high standard and has recently been resurfaced and is therefore serving of a 120 limit too. If the Cashel bypass can get a 120 limit and Motorway status(and that isn't a Dual Carriageway built to Motorway standard either) then there is no excuse for the N8 from the Dunkettle Roundabout to Watergrasshill not having a limit of 120 km/h and Motorway status.

140 would be nice,and about as high as is really as high as you could go with the standard of driving the vast majority of Irish motorists have. If we drove like the Germans then there would be no reason in the world to have speed limits on Motorways at all!

Skyhater

icdg wrote: »

Whether the N2 Finglas-Ashbourne will eventually be upgraded is also a question, though what to do about the first few km northbound where the alternative route has been closed and a dodgey exit provided is something that would need to be addressed.

The N2 was the first road that i though of, and was disappointed not to see it on the list.
It's of the required standard and already has a 120km/h speed limit (which some might say L drivers should not be allowed to do)

To me, it's simple.... the first few KM (up to J2 I think) should be N road, with the M2 beginning after that exit.

Niall1234

E92 wrote: »

They should be all 120 at least IMO(apart from the bit of the South Ring with no hard shoulder). Ballincollig bypass is surely deserving of at least 130 IMO. I know that the start of the road to Dublin is a bit twisty, but it is a high standard and has recently been resurfaced and is therefore serving of a 120 limit too. If the Cashel bypass can get a 120 limit and Motorway status(and that isn't a Dual Carriageway built to Motorway standard either) then there is no excuse for the N8 from the Dunkettle Roundabout to Watergrasshill not having a limit of 120 km/h and Motorway status.

140 would be nice,and about as high as is really as high as you could go with the standard of driving the vast majority of Irish motorists have. If we drove like the Germans then there would be no reason in the world to have speed limits on Motorways at all!

130kph in my mind would be a sensible limit for good quality Motorways. Its the standard limit in most European countries.

Only in Italy (car mad) and Germany (too efficient for speed limits) can you drive faster.

Of course, in an ideal world, all irish drivers would be required to pass a Motorway test to drive on the Motorway. Add in variable speed limits in cases of heavy rain, snow etc and you could push 140 kph as being safe in dry conditions.

murphaph

Niall1234 wrote: »

130kph in my mind would be a sensible limit for good quality Motorways. Its the standard limit in most European countries.

I don't think it is you know

Drax

Last Monday afternoon I witnessed a horse and cart (or whatever those 2-wheeled things are called) making his way up the hard shoulder of the Cashel bypass. Truly incredible. In hindsight I should have called the Gardai but I didnt.

Would he have been legally entitled to do this?

murphaph

Drax wrote: »

Would he have been legally entitled to do this?

Yes.

Padraig Mor

I thought the South Ring, dual carriageway between Dunkettle and Carrigtohill and Ballincollig Bypass were all being upgraded too? They were definitely on the list of roads to be upgraded to 120 k/h (while still retaining N status) but I thought they had all been 'overridden' with Motorway designations by the NRA?

invincibleirish

Padraig Mor wrote: »

I thought the South Ring, dual carriageway between Dunkettle and Carrigtohill and Ballincollig Bypass were all being upgraded too? They were definitely on the list of roads to be upgraded to 120 k/h (while still retaining N status) but I thought they had all been 'overridden' with Motorway designations by the NRA?

there is no way the South Ring is capable of a 120km an hour speed limit? too twisty and busy surely?

Skyhater

Niall1234 wrote: »

130kph in my mind would be a sensible limit for good quality Motorways. Its the standard limit in most European countries.

murphaph wrote: »

I don't think it is you know

I wouldn't say it's the max speed limit in "most European countries", but there are quite a number (especially in eastern Europe) that have roads with 130km/h speeds.

See Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Speed_limits_in_specific_countries

Chris_533976

invincibleirish wrote: »

there is no way the South Ring is capable of a 120km an hour speed limit? too twisty and busy surely?

You could chuck restrictions on it and put it at 80 or 100kmh. As it stands, parts of it (elevated section in Douglas for instance) have no hard shoulder. It shouldnt be 120 thats for sure, the amount of weaving is ridiculous, especially with a lot of lights still not working (emails sent).

I dunno about making it a motorway though. Alternative routes, although they exist, are a bit convoluted and would increase construction traffic through the city centre.

I'd love it as motorway, but I dont think its practical.

Padraig Mor

invincibleirish wrote: »

there is no way the South Ring is capable of a 120km an hour speed limit? too twisty and busy surely?

Well Cork County Council had planned to introduce one between Mahon and Sarsfield Road IIRC but they seem to have been nixed by the NRA with their Motorway plan. You won't hit 120 on it in peak times but I don't see any problem when it's quieter.



Slightly OT: Am I right in thinking that the NRA decided to issue motorway orders (rather than up the speed limits on N roads) in order to stop inappropriate development along these roads?

patrickc

am i missing it or is the 3 lane n7 naas section still 100kph?

Chris_533976

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Slightly OT: Am I right in thinking that the NRA decided to issue motorway orders (rather than up the speed limits on N roads) in order to stop inappropriate development along these roads?

Both

I think they realise the inanity of the 100kmh speed limit on roads designed for 120. But they are also doing it to stop development, as technically a house can have a frontage onto a HQDC, but not of course a motorway. Business parks etc would be the greatest worry.

Hopefully this reclassifying will stop that worry

Our man in Havana

Just wait for all the bitching from L drivers. I would suspect the ones in Cork would be most vocal.

Victor

patrickc wrote: »

am i missing it or is the 3 lane n7 naas section still 100kph?

Lots of left-in, left-out junctions and private entrances.

Niall1234

patrickc wrote: »

am i missing it or is the 3 lane n7 naas section still 100kph?

The junctions are too poor to let it be designated as Motorway. A number of petrol stations and such which new junctions would have to be built for.



The SSR in Cork was never to be upgraded to 120kph. just the Ballincollig Bypass from the Sarsfield Road Roundabout to Ovens. Personally, the whole lot should be a Motorway with a 100 kph limit on it. Nothing drive me more crazy than tractors on the SSR in rush hour. Happens all the time and causes traffic chaos.

Chris_533976

Perhaps once the SRR interchanges are done (whenever that is, FFS the Tullamore ****ing bypass is getting higher priority than this) then they might put motorway restrictions from Dunkettle to the end of the Ballincollig bypass (and maybe even to the other side of Macroom when thats dualled), but with 100kmh or 80kmh limit from the tunnel to the Bandon road roundabout.

The Dunkettle Interchange can technically be motorway itself too, even though its full of lights, but results in convoluted alternative routes, which would fill Glanmire with traffic, especially over the old bridge that just couldnt take it. Common sense (and knowledge of the local roads) would say to keep Dunkettle roundabout and a combination of sliproads as all purpose DC, with the main roads to the north, south and east as motorway.

Niall1234

Chris_533976 wrote: »

Perhaps once the SRR interchanges are done (whenever that is, FFS the Tullamore ****ing bypass is getting higher priority than this) then they might put motorway restrictions from Dunkettle to the end of the Ballincollig bypass (and maybe even to the other side of Macroom when thats dualled), but with 100kmh or 80kmh limit from the tunnel to the Bandon road roundabout.

The Dunkettle Interchange can technically be motorway itself too, even though its full of lights, but results in convoluted alternative routes, which would fill Glanmire with traffic, especially over the old bridge that just couldnt take it. Common sense (and knowledge of the local roads) would say to keep Dunkettle roundabout and a combination of sliproads as all purpose DC, with the main roads to the north, south and east as motorway.

You're saying that the slip roads into and off the old Midleton road would have to be removed ? I agree that these are fairly important and really do take a bit of traffic off the old bridge in the centre of Glanmire.

Ideally of course you'd have a full buterrfly junction like at the red cow but long is that going to take, and is it even possible there.

ga2re2t

My two cents:

With regards L-drivers not being allowed on motorways, life is gonna get worse for them unless they get a full license. In every other country you must get anything from 5 to 30 driving lessons from an official instructor before actually getting to the stage where you can drive accompanied by any other license holder. Some of these compulsory driving lessons are carried out on motorways so equivalent L-drivers in other countries can drive on motorways. It's a ridiculous situation in Ireland whereby you can technically get a full license without any motorway experience. Ireland is gradually moving towards compulsory lessons - motorcyclists will be first:
http://www.rsa.ie/NEWS/News/Consultation_on_Compulsory_Basic_Training_for_Motorcyclists.html

For those of you who are hoping for speed limits greater than 120 km/h, I'm afraid you can keep dreaming. The differences between 120 and 140 km/h are more than you think:
Fuel consumption goes up considerably, much more than the 10% that was mentioned earlier. I saw a graph recently on this forum which pointed this out. Governments know this and so will not increase speed limits because of rising oil/energy prices and CO2 emissions.
Your angle/cone of vision decreases giving you less of a chance to see objects (e.g. animals) on the road side.
Although 140 is only 16% faster than 120, energy follows a squared relation so that a car crash at 140 is 36% more damaging than at 120.
Ireland is not a big country. The times gained by going 20 km/h faster are not enough to warrant the increase.

Sorry for being a bore

Have a nice day :rolleyes:

Niall1234

ga2re2t wrote: »

For those of you who are hoping for speed limits greater than 120 km/h, I'm afraid you can keep dreaming. The differences between 120 and 140 km/h are more than you think:
Fuel consumption goes up considerably, much more than the 10% that was mentioned earlier. I saw a graph recently on this forum which pointed this out. Governments know this and so will not increase speed limits because of rising oil/energy prices and CO2 emissions.
Your angle/cone of vision decreases giving you less of a chance to see objects (e.g. animals) on the road side.
Although 140 is only 16% faster than 120, energy follows a squared relation so that a car crash at 140 is 36% more damaging than at 120.
Ireland is not a big country. The times gained by going 20 km/h faster are not enough to warrant the increase.

Sorry for being a bore

Have a nice day :rolleyes:

On your first point. HQDC's and Motorways in Ireland are designed to be driven on at a maximum of 160kph. While it is more dangerous to drive at 130kph over 120kph on these roads, it would not be deemed to be actually dangerous.

On your second, its hard to argue with. Although, energy does not have a ^2 relationship with speed. It has a ^2 relationship with acceleration. Hence, its getting up to speed where the energy is spent in this respect.

When at speed, the car expieriences air resistance. If there was no air, or parts expieriencing friction with the ground, the car would not require energy at all to retain velocity. However, drag has a ^2 relationship with velocity.

So, yeah, your basically right in your assumptions.


In a perfect world, there would be no drag and the energy expelled in getting the car up to speed would be regained through an energy recovery braking system as seen in hybrid cars.

trellheim

Although, energy does not have a ^2 relationship with speed. It has a ^2 relationship with acceleration.

just plain wrong.

Kinetic energy, the energy a body has as a result of its velocity

= 1/2 * mass of vehicle *velocity * velocity

nothing to do with acceleration.

Consider : If I am travelling at a constant 50 kph and at a steady speed in a 1000Kg car then I have x amount of Joules of Kinetic energy. as long as I stay at that speed I have that. Nothing to do with acceleration. In a theoretical frictionless environment I will continue to possess this energy.

Niall1234

trellheim wrote: »

just plain wrong.

Kinetic energy, the energy a body has as a result of its velocity

= 1/2 * mass of vehicle *velocity * velocity

nothing to do with acceleration.

Consider : If I am travelling at a constant 50 kph and at a steady speed in a 1000Kg car then I have x amount of Joules of Kinetic energy. as long as I stay at that speed I have that. Nothing to do with acceleration. In a theoretical frictionless environment I will continue to possess this energy.

Sorry, explained it badly. The energy is required to accelerate the car to the speed, but the maintenance of this speed is not related to this and has to do with drag and friction.

Chris_533976

Niall1234 wrote: »

You're saying that the slip roads into and off the old Midleton road would have to be removed ? I agree that these are fairly important and really do take a bit of traffic off the old bridge in the centre of Glanmire.

Ideally of course you'd have a full buterrfly junction like at the red cow but long is that going to take, and is it even possible there.

Definatly keep the sliproads, but dont redesignate them. I know the route through Glanmire fairly well and that old bridge + T junction would be a desperate bottleneck.

NRA told me they are going to do a study this year on how to increase traffic capacity at Dunkettle. More details than that sentence though, I dont know. I did do a sketch a while back of how to grade separate it, but its big, costly and difficult. I hate to say it, but having 1 set of traffic lights on some sliproad (cant remember which) made it a lot simpler

Niall1234

Chris_533976 wrote: »

Definatly keep the sliproads, but dont redesignate them. I know the route through Glanmire fairly well and that old bridge + T junction would be a desperate bottleneck.

NRA told me they are going to do a study this year on how to increase traffic capacity at Dunkettle. More details than that sentence though, I dont know. I did do a sketch a while back of how to grade separate it, but its big, costly and difficult. I hate to say it, but having 1 set of traffic lights on some sliproad (cant remember which) made it a lot simpler

I originally thought they were due to put a few left turn slip roads onto Dunkettle. Did they change their mind ?

ga2re2t

Niall1234 wrote: »

Sorry, explained it badly. The energy is required to accelerate the car to the speed, but the maintenance of this speed is not related to this and has to do with drag and friction.

Sorry mate, but you're just digging yourself into a bigger hole by not being clear. Lets go though it in steps:
1. In accelerating, a car uses energy (from petrol or diesel) to overcome inertia, friction and air drag. As it goes faster it gains kinetic energy.
2. At constant speed, it uses energy (from petrol or diesel) to overcome friction and air drag. Its kinetic energy remains constant.
3. In decelerating, a car uses the energy from friction (brakes and the road) and air drag to help decelerate the car. As it slows down it loses kinetic energy. (this kinetic energy is mostly lost as heat to the brakes, the road and the surrounding air).
4. In a crash, a car goes from its driving speed to 0 in only a couple of seconds. It has to lose all it's kinetic energy in this time frame and it does this by mangling up a car. The occupants also undergo considerable g-forces: a 130 km/h crash over 2 seconds will result in up to 2g's (on top of the 1g from Earth's gravity).

Your point on motorways and HQDC's being designed for 160 km/h doesn't really stand. Engineers almost always design structures with safety features above and beyond what will actually be required of them. If the motorways were designed for 120 km/h then we'd be in big trouble! A 160 km/h design ensures safety for the majority of road users even under circumstances where some drivers are breaking the limit by 20 km/h or more.

Chris_533976

Niall1234 wrote: »

I originally thought they were due to put a few left turn slip roads onto Dunkettle. Did they change their mind ?

The only recent work was the general widening and addition of traffic lights. The trouble is, with the tunnel, left turn slip roads wouldnt really fit, and the weaving there is bad enough with the nearby Little Island junction. I dunno what they're gonna do with it, maybe I'll try and dig up that sketch I made.

E92

Niall1234 wrote: »

HQDC's and Motorways in Ireland are designed to be driven on at a maximum of 160kph.

This means that ALL HQDCs and Motorways should have a speed limit of 160 km/h then, since they are designed to handle such a speed.

I was never sure what our HQDCs and Motorways were designed for, but now that I am aware of this it makes no sense whatsoever to have a speed limit on many of our Motorway standard roads of just 5/8s i.e. a small bit over 50% of the speed that they were designed to handle.

120 km/h on a HQDC can't come soon enough then. If something is designed for a certain purpose then it is obviously safe to use it for the purpose in which it was intended, so there should be no safety effect at all by having higher speed limits on roads which were designed in the first place to be able to handle high speeds.

The argument about higher fuel consumption is also flawed at best, as driving at 130 km/h uses just half the fuel driving at 10 km/h does. So should we ban driving at 10 km/h and traffic jams then as well:rolleyes:? Thought not.

Chris_533976

Britains motorways have design geometry of 100mph, but yet the speed limit is 70mph.

invincibleirish

E92 wrote: »

This means that ALL HQDCs and Motorways should have a speed limit of 160 km/h then, since they are designed to handle such a speed.

I was never sure what our HQDCs and Motorways were designed for, but now that I am aware of this it makes no sense whatsoever to have a speed limit on many of our Motorway standard roads of just 5/8s i.e. a small bit over 50% of the speed that they were designed to handle.

120 km/h on a HQDC can't come soon enough then. If something is designed for a certain purpose then it is obviously safe to use it for the purpose in which it was intended, so there should be no safety effect at all by having higher speed limits on roads which were designed in the first place to be able to handle high speeds.

The argument about higher fuel consumption is also flawed at best, as driving at 130 km/h uses just half the fuel driving at 10 km/h does. So should we ban driving at 10 km/h and traffic jams then as well:rolleyes:? Thought not.

Pfft if the speed limit was 160/km then you'd always have the fools in their high powered cars just going over the speed limit, like the guys who go just over 80km/100km/120km.

i would not wish to be on the Fermoy bypass with its hills and overtake someone at oh say 120km when some muppet comes up on the outside lane at 160km+ and kills us all


summary

120km speed limits for a motorway? good
160km speed limits for a motorway? bad


/cue arguments about the autobahns/ we are not Germans were Irish remember!

Metrobest

My opinion is that the speed limit should be based on lane width and traffic volumes, so busier areas approaching cities should have lower limits than sections of motorways through open countryside (if there's any of that left in ireland thanks to the spatial planning policies?)

Padraig Mor

Niall1234 wrote: »

The SSR in Cork was never to be upgraded to 120kph. just the Ballincollig Bypass from the Sarsfield Road Roundabout to Ovens. Personally, the whole lot should be a Motorway with a 100 kph limit on it. Nothing drive me more crazy than tractors on the SSR in rush hour. Happens all the time and causes traffic chaos.

Cork County Council published a consultation document last year which including roads with limits to be increased to 120. I'm pretty sure the SRR from Mahon to Sarsfield Road was included in this and 100% sure the N25 from beyond Dunkettle to Carrigtohill was. Sarsfield Rd to Bandon Rd was not included.

BTW, a motorway order would not prevent tractors from travelling on them - unfortunately, as shown by many threads re the M50 in the Motors forum. Personally, I'd ban tractors from them, even as they stand with N designations - but I ain't in charge!

Niall1234

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Cork County Council published a consultation document last year which including roads with limits to be increased to 120. I'm pretty sure the SRR from Mahon to Sarsfield Road was included in this and 100% sure the N25 from beyond Dunkettle to Carrigtohill was. Sarsfield Rd to Bandon Rd was not included.

BTW, a motorway order would not prevent tractors from travelling on them - unfortunately, as shown by many threads re the M50 in the Motors forum. Personally, I'd ban tractors from them, even as they stand with N designations - but I ain't in charge!

Again, that's just down to law enforcement.

I'd say if a tractor drove past a speed check squad car on a motorway, he would ignore it as the tractor wouldn't be breaking the speed limit. I guaruntee you now the Garda would ignore the tractor.

ga2re2t

E92 wrote: »

This means that ALL HQDCs and Motorways should have a speed limit of 160 km/h then, since they are designed to handle such a speed.

Wow, what amazing conclusions you make! Did you get a degree in road traffic management or something similar? Sure we must be all fools, we should of thought of that yonks ago!

I was never sure what our HQDCs and Motorways were designed for, but now that I am aware of this it makes no sense whatsoever to have a speed limit on many of our Motorway standard roads of just 5/8s i.e. a small bit over 50% of the speed that they were designed to handle.

Now you can update the calculation: 160/120 = 3/4. Feel better?

120 km/h on a HQDC can't come soon enough then. If something is designed for a certain purpose then it is obviously safe to use it for the purpose in which it was intended, so there should be no safety effect at all by having higher speed limits on roads which were designed in the first place to be able to handle high speeds.

Ah feck it, you're a genius! Sure who needs safeguards anyhows? I'll write to the ESB to let them know that they can do away with all those green and brown earth wires cos all my appliances were designed to be safe with no chance of a short circuit!

The argument about higher fuel consumption is also flawed at best, as driving at 130 km/h uses just half the fuel driving at 10 km/h does. So should we ban driving at 10 km/h and traffic jams then as well:rolleyes:? Thought not.

Mammy, mammy, mammy! Jim Bob up the road is allowed go to the funfair and he's only 10 and I'm 11! If he can go I should be allowed go!

Being serious, following complaints by transport gury E92, the government plans to allow the use of space-time warp machines in future car designs so that drivers can go instantaneously from 0 to 50 km/h, thus increasing fuel efficiency and decreasing CO2 emmisions.

E92

ga2re2t wrote: »

Now you can update the calculation: 160/120 = 3/4. Feel better?

No because we have loads of HQDCs slapped with a limit of only 100 km/h(only the road to the border and the Finglas Bypass have a limit of 120).
When the M50 gets upgraded it will have a limit all around it of only 100 km/h. And if you read my post you would realise that I said Motorway standard roads i.e. HQDC and obviously Motorways.

What part of a road being designed for 160 km/h don't you get? If it's designed for something then it can obviously handle something. The only reason our Motorways don't have higher speed limits is because all the eco mentalists would have a seizure and we're all meant to be slowing down, because the only thing that counts for road safety is slowing down. Apparently the rest of the rulers of the road don't matter, not even slightly:rolleyes:.

What part of the "road is designed for 160 km/h: therefore it's speed limit should be 160 km/h" don't you understand?

ga2re2t

Interesting, but possibly worthless, debate we're having here. But sure I'll keep on fanning the flames anyhows:

E92 wrote: »

What part of the "road is designed for 160 km/h: therefore it's speed limit should be 160 km/h" don't you understand?

I understand it all. What you don't understand is that engineering a transport structure to safety standards above its operating requirements is not only common practice, it's common sense. Did you not read the post by invincibleirish earlier on? What part of his post did YOU not understand?

Probably the bigger question is why do you want to go faster? Especially considering that one rarely travels long enough distances where an increase in speed limits actually makes a difference, especially on the relatively small island of Ireland.
Do YOU actually NEED to go faster? Why? Do you want 5 mins extra in bed in the morning? Do you need to release some built up tension (work, sex)? Try taking up some sport, martial arts for example, it does wonders. Maybe you have other issues, I couldn't be bothered giving you more examples. Your desire to drive at 160 km/h says more about your personal life than anything else. How does it feel baring your soul to the public on boards.ie? You should try looking for a suitable section in the "Soc" part of boards.ie.

Happy posting!

E92

ga2re2t wrote: »

Interesting, but possibly worthless, debate we're having here. But sure I'll keep on fanning the flames anyhows:


I understand it all. What you don't understand is that engineering a transport structure to safety standards above its operating requirements is not only common practice, it's common sense. Did you not read the post by invincibleirish earlier on? What part of his post did YOU not understand?

Probably the bigger question is why do you want to go faster? Especially considering that one rarely travels long enough distances where an increase in speed limits actually makes a difference, especially on the relatively small island of Ireland.
Do YOU actually NEED to go faster? Why? Do you want 5 mins extra in bed in the morning? Do you need to release some built up tension (work, sex)? Try taking up some sport, martial arts for example, it does wonders. Maybe you have other issues, I couldn't be bothered giving you more examples. Your desire to drive at 160 km/h says more about your personal life than anything else. How does it feel baring your soul to the public on boards.ie? You should try looking for a suitable section in the "Soc" part of boards.ie.

Happy posting!

Oh get off the "moral high ground" and stop trolling. I was going to answer your question but I see no point in feeding trolls(and I've answered it pretty much already), and stop being so condescending about me and my attitudes towards things.

Niall1234

Whats the point of building roads to a 160kph and slapping a 100kph on it.

Its is extreme over engineering and a waste of public money.

E92 in a way has a point. You build something for a purpose and it should fulfill its intended purpose. Slapping 100kph limits on 160kph is stupidity.

Personally, Irish people are simply not ready for 160kph but 130kph as I've said before shouldn't be out of the question.

ga2re2t, I sincerely hope your not one of the "Holier Than Thou" posters on here who seem to tow the government and Traffic Corps line on everything (even some awfully flawed logic) and claims that they've never broken a rule of the road in their life.

E92

Niall1234 wrote: »

Its is extreme over engineering and a waste of public money.

<snip> You build something for a purpose and it should fulfill its intended purpose. Slapping 100kph limits on 160kph is stupidity.

Personally, Irish people are simply not ready for 160kph but 130kph as I've said before shouldn't be out of the question.

Very good points and I agree with all of that, you're after saying what I've been trying to say basically.

I do agree btw with the assertion that the Irish are incapable of going beyond 130 km/h, however if we all copped ourselves on and took our attitudes towards driving more seriously, then there is no reason at all for not having a limit of 160 km/h.

As for the argument about time, well in 2 years time we will have a Motorway/HQDC(though with a bit of luck under Noel Dempsys wonderful idea of reclassifying the HQDCs to Motorways will finally come to fruition) from Dublin all the way to Waterford, Cork, Limerick and Galway, each of these cities is at least 98 miles from Dublin(Cork is 156, Limerick is 122, Galway is 134, and Waterford is 98.5) according to the AA, so the time savings available when we will have these wonderful high quality roads available by having higher speed limits will be a lot more apparent then than now.

Niall1234

It would prob take a seperate test for Motorway driving.

THis could take up to 5 years to complete. Each and every driver would be required to take the test to drive on a Motorway. Give say 5 years for each and every person who wants to take the test to pass it.

After the 5 year period is up, put up the speed limit and block all users who haven't passed the test from Motorways.

Overall it would almost certainly improve our Motorway driving which at times I find, is quite erratic.