60KMPH on the M50, what's the point?

quarryman

I use the M50 between Liffey valley and Stillorgan every day.

At this stage, a lot of it is designated 60kmph.

I adhere to it. Its a speed limit.

However I've started to take account of the number of drivers that don't. I will maintain 60kmph on the slow/driving lane. Of the number that do the same at least 5 times that figure are speeding past me at 80-90.

So, for every 10 those of you reading this; 7 to 8 speed on this section - consider this before you reply.

Now, usually, it makes no difference to me if someone else exceeds the limit. But in the case of the M50 the road is in such a condition that it is dangerous to have one lane of cars doing 60k and very close by (with no hard shoulder or grass verge) another lane of cars doing up to 100k.

3 weeks ago I was flashed by a van exiting at Ballymount as I had kept in the outside lane doing 60 while other cars sped past at 90. He wished to exit and had to wait until I continued on past the exit.

I've started to feel that I am risk due to being in the minority obeying the speed limit. Cars will enter merge onto the M50 and immediately accelerate up to the first car travelling at 60 on the slow/driving lane. I've noticed cars jam on once or twice suddenly suprised that the car in front of them is travelling a lot less than the 90k they are.

Things seem to be a lot worse at night. An open road and drivers put the foot down. This, despite the fact that they are within a few feet of workers moving cones or upgrading under flood lights.

The best example was last week. I entered the motorway at Liffey Valley closely followed by a white van. He immediately accelerated and overtook me. Only then did I spot the label on the back: "Motorway Maintenance"!

I should point out, I was one of them. Last year I received a ticket for exceeding 60kmph. This was before the road works had been started fully on an open road early in the morning. I'm not complaining! I accept the fine!

My issue is with those of you acting so dangerously every day on the city's biggest roadwork site.

Why?

/rant over

Cionád

I presume you mean you were driving in the inside lane, and not the outside lane (overtaking lane)?

quarryman

Outside lane.

Furthest from the median.

agent_smith

Well whether other people are speeding or not in the outside lane... you should not be there. You shoudl be using the inside lane. The outside land is only for overtaking.
With regard to your other points, I can understand why people speed up. 60kph is rediculous. People get frustrated. There are parts of the m50 with hard shoulder , no workers and perfect stretches of road that are also marked 60 before corneslcort.

coolbeans

agent_smith wrote: »

Well whether other people are speeding or not in the outside lane... you should not be there. You shoudl be using the inside lane. The outside land is only for overtaking.
With regard to your other points, I can understand why people speed up. 60kph is rediculous. People get frustrated. There are parts of the m50 with hard shoulder , no workers and perfect stretches of road that are also marked 60 before corneslcort.

+1.

Omcd

quarryman, I'll second everything you've said, but applied nationally roadworks or not. I was about to post a similiar rant myself after my experiences travelling up the N3 on Saturday. I make a point of sticking to the speed limits, or very close to, as its the law. However in doing so on Saturday I ended up feeling like a dangerous mobile obstruction, as streams of cars were constantly flying up behind and whizzing past or crawling all over the back bumper until they had the chance to pass. Not one or two cars - but almost everyone - 100k's + seems to be norm in the 60's. I too was wondering, exactly what is the point of speedlimits if 95 % of drivers feel they can habitually completely ignore them ???????????????????????????????????

btw - furthest from median is generally reffered to as the inside lane.

To clarify I know the 60k roadwords limit on N3 is advisory in places, but I'm referring above to other 60's along the N3 that are not advisory (and the 30k limit in Navan is a joke, so thats not included in my rant)

quarryman

No I was on the lane furthest from the centre. I was NOT in the over-taking lane.

try not to get hung up on this. As far as I'm concerned NEITHER of them should be referred to as "over-taking" anyway - its in an area of heavy roadworks. Over-taking should be last thing on your mind.

quarryman

agent_smith wrote: »

Well whether other people are speeding or not in the outside lane... you should not be there. You shoudl be using the inside lane. The outside land is only for overtaking.
With regard to your other points, I can understand why people speed up. 60kph is rediculous. People get frustrated. There are parts of the m50 with hard shoulder , no workers and perfect stretches of road that are also marked 60 before corneslcort.

AS, your "understanding" of people getting frustrated is completely irrelevant.

The limit is there for a reason - to protect workers and drivers in the confined space.

If you are getting frustrated at being unable to exceed the limit you should probably avoid the M50 or adjust your driving behaviour.

andrewh5

coolbeans wrote: »

+1.

+2

highdef

I could be completely wrong but if I remember corerctly when i browsed through the latest rules of the road booklet, the driving lane/overtaking lane rule only applies on roads with a speed limit over 80 KMPH. This would mean you can pass on the inside on the M50 where the 60 KMPH limit is in place. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. Either way, it also says in the ROTR that you may overtake on the inside if:
"Traffic in both lanes is moving slowly and traffic in the left-hand lane is
moving more quickly than the traffic in the right-hand lane."
Is 60 KMPH slowly for a motorway? How long is a piece of string???

Wossack

quarryman wrote: »

Outside lane.

Furthest from the median.

The OP is not a 'fast lane hogger' as so many people have assumed. This is not what this thread is about.


/edit OP, I'd suggest, since so many people havent twigged it yet, that you edit your post and change all instances of 'outside lane' to 'driving lane'

agent_smith

@quarryman:
You asked a question...

quarryman wrote:

My issue is with those of you acting so dangerously every day on the city's biggest roadwork site.

Why?

quarryman wrote:

AS, your "understanding" of people getting frustrated is completely irrelevant.

The limit is there for a reason - to protect workers and drivers in the confined space.

If you are getting frustrated at being unable to exceed the limit you should probably avoid the M50 or adjust your driving behaviour.

You asked the question why people sped and i gave my opinion; I believe people speed as a result of frustration with a limit that they cannot understand or believe should be in force.. whether it is the law or not. Unfortunately there is not an obvious consistancy in speed limits on the m50. Like the examples mentioned earlier, there are parts marked 60kph with no construction, no road obstructions and no obvious reasons for such drastic reductions in speed from 120/100kph to 60kph where no visible or obvious reason can be seen.

JimmyCrackCorn!

The speed limit is there to stop you flatting workmen and each other.

Pointless though as no one pays attention to it as us being Irish and being genetically inclined to ignore/resist/fight any form of authority as "Youwont be told what to do":rolleyes:.

quarryman

Wossack wrote: »

The OP is not a 'fast lane hogger' as so many people have assumed. This is not what this thread is about.


/edit OP, I'd suggest, since so many people havent twigged it yet, that you edit your post and change all instances of 'outside lane' to 'driving lane'

done.

Please focus on the point of the post guys instead of looking for holes in my perceived driving behaviour, I'm more worried about the people doing 90k on the M50 and why you do it.

thanks!

Atomic Pineapple

used to have to put up with it everyday, thankfully i haven't been on the m50 in nearly a year, i used to keep to the limits too and always had cars flying by or cars stuck to my bumper trying to get into the over taking lane, very annoying so it is especially with the reduction in the width of the road

SuperGrover

When I do end up going over a limit, which is rarely these days, it is usually because adhering to some speed limits feels like you are almost stopped. A good example of this is the fact that I have only ever been done twice - in the same place. That stretch on the N4 at Liffey Valley - crusing all the way back from, say, Galway on mostly single lane and then you have to crawl along in a 5 lane system. That's why, sometimes it seems so slow as to be unbearable.

batman2000

quarryman wrote: »

Outside lane.

Furthest from the median.

Just so not to cause any confusion.. A little drawing!


People shouldn't be speeding, IMO I think 80Kmph should be a more realistic speed. But it's 60Kmph so stick with that. The lack of enforcement by the Gardai it another reason why people speed at feel they can get away with it adn they do. Unfortunaltly, a lot need to be treated with children. If there is no-one there enforcing the rules, they will ignore them.

cabrwab

I travel the M50 everyday, and my blood boils with people who tailgate you as you do the 60KPH.

Even if your in the inside lane. However i do find if i've nothing in front of me, unknown to myself i will speed up, not going mental but maybe 80/90KPH.

Iam sorry, But a point of information, in belfast they are doing similar roadworks i think on the m2(not 100%) and they had the speed limit reduced to 50mph (80KPH) which i thought was more resoniable.

MCMLXXXIII

To get straight to the point...because I like to go fast.

...or sometimes because I'm in a hurry.

Do you think I'm selfish on the road? I probably am. I understand there are rules, but speed limits are created in a fickle manner IMHO. Yes, I do actually own the road - along with everyone else. We paid for it with our taxes. We should be able to decide how fast we may drive - not leave it up to a politician that says s/he is making the roads "safe for everyone." All they are doing is making everyone late all the time.

I don't get angry at slow drivers, and I don't expect them to get angry at me. When I was taught to drive, I was told to go as fast as everyone else...oh and go the speed limit if you think you might get into trouble. No, I didn't learn to drive in Ireland, but the new Irish licensing laws are just starting to catch up to what I did when I learned to drive.

Oh yeah, I have been in one accident - I was going about 20 MPH. So for me, it is statistacally safer to drive fast.

Yes, I drive slowly when there are workers upgrading, but other than that I go fast simply because I like it.

quarryman

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

To get straight to the point...because I like to go fast.

...or sometimes because I'm in a hurry.

Do you think I'm selfish on the road? I probably am. I understand there are rules, but speed limits are created in a fickle manner IMHO. Yes, I do actually own the road - along with everyone else. We paid for it with our taxes. We should be able to decide how fast we may drive - not leave it up to a politician that says s/he is making the roads "safe for everyone." All they are doing is making everyone late all the time.

I don't get angry at slow drivers, and I don't expect them to get angry at me. When I was taught to drive, I was told to go as fast as everyone else...oh and go the speed limit if you think you might get into trouble. No, I didn't learn to drive in Ireland, but the new Irish licensing laws are just starting to catch up to what I did when I learned to drive.

Oh yeah, I have been in one accident - I was going about 20 MPH. So for me, it is statistacally safer to drive fast.

Yes, I drive slowly when there are workers upgrading, but other than that I go fast simply because I like it.

Finally someone (out of the 400 who have read the thread, of which at least half speed on this section of road but refuse to admit it) has owned up.

but speed limits are created in a fickle manner IMHO

Your opinion isn't important. The limit is 60k.

I agree that 80k might be more suitable in certain stetches but 60k across a longer area is better solution than switching back and forth between 60 and 80 every 1km.

We paid for it with our taxes. We should be able to decide how fast we may drive - not leave it up to a politician that says s/he is making the roads "safe for everyone." All they are doing is making everyone late all the time.

You DO decide the speed limits. The politician is your representative for those decisions. Don't like it? Vote for another party.

When I was taught to drive, I was told to go as fast as everyone else...oh and go the speed limit if you think you might get into trouble.

Where were you instructed this? Going "as fast as everyone else" is what causes this problem.

D_murph

quarryman wrote: »

Your opinion isn't important. The limit is 60k.

quarryman wrote: »

You DO decide the speed limits. The politician is your representative for those decisions. Don't like it? Vote for another party.

the limit is so low because the "politician" is too gutless to make the call to raise it, especially where there are no roadworks and there is no excuse for having the limit remain so low after the roadworks have ended long ago :rolleyes:

voting for another party will change nothing because after all the effort you may put into this it will still not look PC for them either and nothing will change after it.

MCMLXXXIII

quarryman wrote: »

Your opinion isn't important.

Thank you for that.

quarryman wrote: »

Where were you instructed this?

It wasn't in Ireland.

MCMLXXXIII

D_murph wrote: »

the limit is so low because the "politician" is too gutless to make the call to raise it, especially where there are no roadworks and there is no excuse for having the limit remain so low after the roadworks have ended long ago :rolleyes:

voting for another party will change nothing because after all the effort you may put into this it will still not look PC for them either and nothing will change after it.

^ + a zillion

agent_smith

More important than the marked speed (legal speed) from a safety point of view is the speed which suits the prevailing conditions. The problem is that due to inadequate driver training for both new and so called experienced drivers, the interpretations for this vary wildly.
I've done the ROSPA certifications on my bike. I'm not saying it makes me an authority for judging the correct speed for the conditions on the roads. But part of the course is to teach awareness for driving conditions.
The ROSPA (especially when you sit the rospa silver or gold) takes the approach that you should drive to the conditions and will allow for you to make progress and also where appropriate not drive at the indicated speed.
In this case, due to the crappy weather we are having at the moment , people should be hesitant to drive at the indicated speed limits and should give adequate distance between themselves and the vehicle in front. Sounds obvious but bugger all people do.
Similarly there is the concept of making progress, if general traffic is moving 10kph above the limit it is often safer to keep with the flow and make progress at the current rate instead of deliberately going at the specific limit (to prove a point and because the law itself is black and white). Unfortunately like i said, you will always have tail gaters. Furthermore it is unlikely that improvements to driver training will happen over night. In the mean time here is a real world scenario. You are driving on the m50, you have a new born baby in a baby seat in the rear of your car. The outside lane is busy and in a 100 kph seciton of m50 people are doing 120 on the outside and on the inside sitting on your ass at 100kph because you want to stick rigidly to the law (and you are of course being the good textbook driver doing so). The problem is not you doing the 100kph as you rightly pointed out. Its the idiot in the big truck, van or high powered car behind you that is tailgating. If he goes into the back of you due to frustration, yes he will be wrong and can be prosecuted for dangerous driving. The question is ... .if you were to keep with the flow of traffic would the incident have occured in the first place.

The Real B-man

Cionád wrote: »

I presume you mean you were driving in the inside lane, and not the outside lane (overtaking lane)?

Still cant break the speed limit to overtake... if the speed limit is 60kph it should be a even flow in both lanes you just get the arseholes who think its a fast lane.

_Kaiser_

I had reason to use the M50 over the weekend and genuinely did try to stick to the posted 60km/h limits for a few miles after the toll plaza - however, as has been pointed out by others, with a clear road in front of you, people whizzing past you at nearly double the posted limit, and others so close it's as if they're trying to get into your back seat, I decided that to continue at that rate was in fact more dangerous and duly increased both to keep up with the flow of traffic, and to proceed at a rate that I felt was more suitable for the conditions (around 80km/h) - once I did so the journey became a lot less stressful (and thus ultimately safer) as I didn't have to be constantly watching the rearview mirror rather than the road ahead.

Cionád

The Real B-man wrote: »

Still cant break the speed limit to overtake... if the speed limit is 60kph it should be a even flow in both lanes you just get the arseholes who think its a fast lane.

In his original post the OP had said he was driving in the outside lane whereas he meant the inside lane. I was just pointing that out (and it was later edited).

Wishbone Ash

To avoid all this confusion about slow/fast, inside/outside etc. why not use:-

LEFT LANE (CENTRE LANE) RIGHT LANE

For those of you who like to use "inside lane" for the left, what do you call it on a roundabout? It's furthest from the centre then so it would be the "outside lane"! :eek:

green123

the problem is caused by the useless gaurds
why dont they enfore the law ?

a few unmarked cars, stop a few hundred speeders a day
seems simple

R.O.R

A simple solution to the problem is the average speed camera's they use in the UK. Drove through quite a few sections of road works on the M6 last year, think with a 30mph speed limit. Well advertised average speed camera's were in effect and EVERYBODY sticks to the limit. There is literaly 0.5 mph difference between you and the other 2 lanes of traffic, and because everyone sticks to the limit traffic keeps flowing at a steady rate rather than speeding up, slowing to a halt then speeding up again as happens here.

I have to use the hell hole of the M50 everyday and I'll admit quite often I'll exceed the 60km/h limit, usually between Finglas and Ballymun where it's a straight section of road and traffic spreads out. Usually come to a standstill under the Ballymun flyover, but it probably cuts up to 1 minute off my journey home.

Ta me anseo

(Retrieve Soap Box from cupboard)

(Place Soap Box on floor)

(Stand on Soap Box)

To anyone who thinks that they own the road - I agree with you. We all pay for it and therefore we have collective ownership.

To anyone who thinks that they can do what they want on the road because they own it - No you can't you arrogant a***holes. You live in a democracy which means you elect people to make the rules for you and in doing so you agree unreservedly to stick to those rules. If you don't like the rules you tell your elected person/people to change them. If you think your elected people/persons are lazy and uninterested then you elect someone else. But in the meantime, you stick to the bloody rules. Regardless of what bit of tarmac you think is yours.

To anyone who thinks they are entitled to drive around whatever way they like - No you're not. Driving is a privilege NOT a right. That is why we are all licensed. And that is why your license can be taken off you whenever the government/court/spouse thinks it's appropriate. Stop driving like it is a birth right.

To anyone who kills my son/daughter/wife/brother/sister/mother/father/friend or relative while exceeding the speed limit - I will do everything in my power to have you charged with murder. You know speeding is dangerous and can kill people (no, I will not agree that speed is not the problem) yet you do it anyway, that means you acted deliberately and with intent and knew you were putting lives at risk. Exactly the same as some scumbag who sticks a knife in some other scumbag.

The M50 has speed limits. So does every other road in this country. No one is entitled to ignore any of them. Don't blame the government or the guards for the fact that you feel entitled to ignore the law. If you do 100kph in a 60kph zone you are simply an untrustworthy license holder and should have your privilege removed. You are displaying your contempt for every single person in this country, INCLUDING YOUR OWN FAMILY, and displaying your complete apathy regarding the fact that people may die as a result of your actions.

Don't argue that the M50 doesn't need such a low speed limit and that's the only reason why you speed - because you think it is safer to go faster. That is not the point. You reserve the right to choose how slow you drive. YOU DO NOT RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE HOW FAST YOU DRIVE.

Get over yourselves and show some respect for everyone else by sticking to the bloody limits.

OP, I'm chuffed to see that a person who actually sticks to the limits exists. Hats off to you.

(Get off Soap Box)

(Place Soap Box in cupboard)

javaboy

Ta me anseo wrote: »

Exactly the same as some scumbag who sticks a knife in some other scumbag.

That's a fine rant there and I agree with a lot of it but even I have to take issue with this one. A scumbag stabbing another intends to do harm. A speeder generally does not.

Blk150

Dont pay any attention to it myself whatsoever.I drive at a speed i find suitable to the conditions

Ta me anseo

javaboy wrote: »

That's a fine rant there and I agree with a lot of it but even I have to take issue with this one. A scumbag stabbing another intends to do harm. A speeder generally does not.

(Soap Box safely stowed away)

Of course I agree with you entirely. But funnily enough that's kind of my point.

If a guy stands up in a crowd (not intending to hurt anyone) and takes out a handgun and fires randomly, he will kill people and will likely be charged and found guilty of murder.

Why?

Because he 1)Broke the law 2)While he couldn't have singled out anyone in particular, he dramatically increased the risk of loss of life to others by his actions. It seems beyond reasonable doubt that he must have been aware that death would likely result in many (although perhaps not all) cases if he accidentally hit anyone.

Guy deliberately drives car at 100kph in a 60kph zone or 160kph on a motorway or 80kph in a 50kph aone, etc, etc, etc. Inadvertently hits a pedestrian, other car, lamp post (killing his passenger), etc, etc, etc.

1)He broke the law 2)While he couldn't have singled out anyone in particular, he dramatically increased the risk of loss of life to others by his actions. It seems beyond reasonable doubt that he (and all the rest of us) was aware that death would likely result in many cases if an accident was to occur.

So, what's the difference? The guy with the gun seems obvious. He was shooting into a crowd for Gods sake, right? Of course people were going to get hurt, right? It's obvious.

The problem with driving is that nobody seems to be aware that EVERY TIME YOU GET INTO CAR YOU ARE PUTTING YOURSELF AND EVERYONE ELSE AT RISK. It has become such a natural and common thing that we have completely forgotten how dangerous it actually is. Ask anyone who has been in a serious accident and you will find their outlook on driving has changed completely. Think of your average backroad. Two heavy metal boxes approaching eachother with a closing speed of over 100 miles an hour pass eachother less than a foot apart. IT'S UTTER MADNESS!!!! yet we all react with shock and surprise when two people meet head on. Why are we surprised?

People need to realise that driving constantly has the potential to kill. Therefore, I can not find any excuse for deliberately and knowingly increasing the risk beyond that which is legally explainable. (I say legally explainable because in this democracy we live in, you are entitled by law to behave in a manner that is inside the law. Whether that law is sensible rarely comes into it, so don't argue that I'm effectively saying doing 80kph on an unlit winding backroad is de facto safe.) Surely you must all agree that we must all at this stage be aware that driving faster increases the risk to life. Why should you get away with increasing the risk of my death if you knowingly did it AND knowingly went outside the law in order to do it?

When you drive from A to B, there is no guarantee that you will reach B at all without killing or injuring yourself or someone else. We all need to grow up and be responsible and respect that fact.

So there may be no intent when speeding, but the facts remain that we should know better and could not argue that we were unaware there was an increased risk.

MCMLXXXIII

Ta me anseo wrote: »

Driving is a privilege NOT a right. That is why we are all licensed. And that is why your license can be taken off you whenever the government/court/spouse thinks it's appropriate. Stop driving like it is a birth right.

I don't see why people think that driving is a privilege, as opposed to a right. Is it just because the government said so? I don't ever remember voting based upon a politician's views on traffic laws. Where I live, those decisions are made at a high level - high enough that the only things debated at election time are abortion, gay marriage, and the "war on terror." Also, where I live, if you kill someone in a car accident it is considered involuntary manslaughter. If you are drunk and kill someone, it is considered murder. Besides that, I was taught (and someone else even mentioned it) that driving with the flow of traffic is safer than driving any other speed…even if it’s the limit. I can almost guarantee the car companies never wanted driving to be a privilege instead of a right. Taking public transit is a right. Flying isn’t a privilege. You don’t need to be certified to get into a boat. Why is it different for a passenger car? I can pull someone on water skis going 55mph in a motor boat, but it’s a privilege to drive, buckled up, going 40 mph on the M50?

…I still like going fast.

javaboy

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

I don't see why people think that driving is a privilege, as opposed to a right.

Really? You don't? Is it maybe because you don't need to earn your rights and you can't have them revoked whereas with a privilege you must earn it (the driving test) and it can be revoked (e.g. banned for dangerous driving). It's quite simple really.

Ta me anseo

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

I don't see why people think that driving is a privilege, as opposed to a right. Is it just because the government said so? I don't ever remember voting based upon a politician's views on traffic laws. Where I live, those decisions are made at a high level - high enough that the only things debated at election time are abortion, gay marriage, and the "war on terror."

I don't intend to pretend that I am an expert on politics, but when you vote, you vote for a party, not just a candidate. If you don't know what your party feels or thinks regarding road safety then that's your problem. Go and find out. Ignorance is no excuse.

Also, I think you are confusing the right to apply to drive with the right to drive itself. Everyone is entitled to want to drive. Only those who are considered responsible and skilled enough get a license. If you later prove to be neither, your license is taken away. How can it be a right if someone else decides if you get it or not?

Besides that, I was taught (and someone else even mentioned it) that driving with the flow of traffic is safer than driving any other speed…even if it’s the limit.

This sums up the absolutely typical Irish attitude. "Sure, if everyone else is doing it then it must be OK." If everyone else breaks the speed limit, then you might as well follow them. Ridiculous! Apparently, you're incapable of thinking for yourself.

The whole problem is that we need an entire culture change when it comes to driving. Why can you not see that when you break the speed limit just because everyone else does, you are part of the problem. You are not solving it by keeping up with them.

I can almost guarantee the car companies never wanted driving to be a privilege instead of a right.

I don't see how an industry who survive on and exploit the fact that you and me want to get from A to B could want anything else.

Taking public transit is a right. Flying isn’t a privilege. You don’t need to be certified to get into a boat. Why is it different for a passenger car? I can pull someone on water skis going 55mph in a motor boat, but it’s a privilege to drive, buckled up, going 40 mph on the M50?

Firstly, you're wrong. You pay for your bus or plane so you are receiving a service at a cost. It is a service provided by a company who are not obliged to carry you. Therefore, it is not a right.

Secondly, you need to be licensed to drive. You don't need a license to get on a fupping bus.

Thirdly, the boat analogy is a good one. Mostly because I can't think of any argument to counter it.

What I would say is that the law says you can buy a boat, throw it in a waterway and speed around to your hearts content. Or perhaps more correctly, no law says you can't. There are of course areas of water where speed limits exist, or where access is restricted, etc, etc. But driving your car is covered by a myriad of laws. You are obliged to follow them. Using an example where the law does not extend to cover it doesn't really argue any point at all. (how's that? :rolleyes:)

…I still like going fast.

Buy yourself a track day and get it out of your fupping system before you drive by me at stupid speeds and put me at risk then!!!

bonkey

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

I don't see why people think that driving is a privilege, as opposed to a right.

Tell me...would you apply the same reasononing to...say...practising medicine?

Like driving, its something where you can inadvertantly kill or seriously injure someone through inattentiveness, or lack of training.

Would you have any issue if you went to a doctor only to discover he was a brick-layer who was moonlighting as a doc to make a bit of cash...on the grounds that practicing medicine is a right, not a privilege?

Taking public transit is a right. Flying isn’t a privilege.

In both cases, you are allowing someone qualified to supply you with a service....just like when you go to the doctor.

Would you feel comfortable flying in a plane that was being flown by some bloke hired off the street yesterday who had no formal flight-training but claimed he felt confident behind the stick?

Would you let a brick-layer practice medicine on you?

You don't need to be certified to get into a boat.

Maybe not in Ireland. I would see that as a failing of Irish law, not as a success which we should change our other laws to reflect.

I still like going fast.

Me too. I've had my Mondeo at 190km/h.

It was, however, on a stretch of German autobahn without any upper limit. It was, in other words, done legally. And you know what....doing 80 (and below) on an Alpine road is far more fun.

Here in Switzerland, we don't have a points system. We do, however, have a set of laws which decide what happens when you get caught. Get caught break the speed-limit by more than 21 km/h and its going to cost you your license as well as a hefty fine. The more you're over, the longer they take your license, and the more they charge you.

Tell me...how many of you speed-lovers would do 90 on that 60 stretch if getting caught meant losing your license for 18 months, and a 3000 EUR fine?

MCMLXXXIII

javaboy wrote: »

Really? You don't? Is it maybe because you don't need to earn your rights and you can't have them revoked whereas with a privilege you must earn it (the driving test) and it can be revoked (e.g. banned for dangerous driving). It's quite simple really.

So what you are saying is that even walking down the street is a privelage? If I commit a crime, I can be put in jail...taking away my ability to walk down the street. If I kill someone in a car accident, I can't drive. If I kill someone while on foot, I can't walk down the street. Where is the line drawn?

Ta me anseo wrote: »

This sums up the absolutely typical Irish attitude. "Sure, if everyone else is doing it then it must be OK." If everyone else breaks the speed limit, then you might as well follow them. Ridiculous! Apparently, you're incapable of thinking for yourself.

The whole problem is that we need an entire culture change when it comes to driving. Why can you not see that when you break the speed limit just because everyone else does, you are part of the problem. You are not solving it by keeping up with them.

You are absolutely right when you say it does not help the problem, where you misunderstand is that I, along with all the other speeders, don't think that it's a problem in the first place. No one will try to fix anything unless they think it's broken. There are obviously much more people that like it the way things are, and don't think it needs any fixing.

Oh...just because I am Irish, and have an Irish attitude, does not mean that I am incapable of thinking for myself. However, have you asked yourself that question lately? Your attitude seems to reflect a thought of "do what the sign says, try to enforce it even thought it's not your job, and don't ask any questions...

Ta me anseo wrote: »

Firstly, you're wrong. You pay for your bus or plane so you are receiving a service at a cost. It is a service provided by a company who are not obliged to carry you. Therefore, it is not a right.

...

Thirdly, the boat analogy is a good one. Mostly because I can't think of any argument to counter it.

What I would say is that the law says you can buy a boat, throw it in a waterway and speed around to your hearts content. Or perhaps more correctly, no law says you can't. There are of course areas of water where speed limits exist, or where access is restricted, etc, etc. But driving your car is covered by a myriad of laws. You are obliged to follow them. Using an example where the law does not extend to cover it doesn't really argue any point at all. (how's that? :rolleyes:)

You got me on the service for a fee thing. I didn't really think about what I said until you pointed it out. But yeah - the boat is good, and that's how I compare it. I'm not out to get anyone killed on the motorway, but the laws allow for much easier killing to be done elsewhere.

bonkey wrote: »

Tell me...would you apply the same reasononing to...say...practising medicine?

No and I will tell you why. When I go to the doctor, I'm not paying for someone to give me a shot or even a pill. What I want is someone to tell me what is wrong with my body. Once we figure that out, the medecine is the easy part. Just as drivers such as myself are trained to know everything there is to know about driving, doctors are trained to know everything about our anatomy. One certainly takes longer than the other, but it is also much more complex. Oh, and the same goes for the pilot.

bonkey wrote: »

Tell me...how many of you speed-lovers would do 90 on that 60 stretch if getting caught meant losing your license for 18 months, and a 3000 EUR fine?

That might work in your country/government, but imho, it's terribly controlling. What's wrong with being controlled? No one likes it, they lash out as soon as they have the chance, and people stop trusting the higher powers. I agree with that though - why should the higher powers try to control you instead of aiding you to make that counrty the best possible place for the people that live there?

astraboy

Ya I forgot speed kills.:D

javaboy

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

So what you are saying is that even walking down the street is a privelage? If I commit a crime, I can be put in jail...taking away my ability to walk down the street. If I kill someone in a car accident, I can't drive. If I kill someone while on foot, I can't walk down the street. Where is the line drawn?

It's everybody's right to walk down the street. You throw that right away when you murder someone.

It is not everybody's right to drive. They have to earn the privilege.


I don't know if you're just trying to wind people up but you can't seriously believe that anyone should be allowed just hop into a car can you? As you said yourself:

drivers such as myself are trained to know everything there is to know about driving

. If it was everybody's right to drive, what training would there be? The analogy between walking down the street and driving is false. The analogy between boating and driving is better but as said before is more a case of boating law being behind the times than anything else.

Honestly this is like banging my head against a wall.

astraboy

Yes driving is a previlage. Many people cannot do it, many cannot do it well and these people do not have the "right" to drive on the road and put others in danger. But this constant focus on speed is ridiculous. Speed limits have many places, but please explain why the death rate is the same on the autobahns with out speed limits as those with them? I realize there are many roads in Ireland not comparable to the autobahns, and an upper limit needs to be set. However, our motorway limits and many limits on dual carriageways are too low. Yes, I know its the law. But I prefer to maintain a safe speed, it may or may not be above the legal limit. I realize also I'm going to get slated for that, but so what. I think I'm in a better position to judge the limit on a road I'm on then a politician in a co. council room with a map that has never driven the road. Stupidly accepting the limits as safe and any speed above them as inheritently dangerous is silly. Use of ones own judgment when driving is important, and I think that should apply to speed limits on CERTAIN roads.

D_murph

astraboy wrote: »

Yes driving is a previlage. Many people cannot do it, many cannot do it well and these people do not have the "right" to drive on the road and put others in danger. But this constant focus on speed is ridiculous. Speed limits have many places, but please explain why the death rate is the same on the autobahns with out speed limits as those with them? I realize there are many roads in Ireland not comparable to the autobahns, and an upper limit needs to be set. However, our motorway limits and many limits on dual carriageways are too low. Yes, I know its the law. But I prefer to maintain a safe speed, it may or may not be above the legal limit. I realize also I'm going to get slated for that, but so what. I think I'm in a better position to judge the limit on a road I'm on then a politician in a co. council room with a map that has never driven the road. Stupidly accepting the limits as safe and any speed above them as inheritently dangerous is silly. Use of ones own judgment when driving is important, and I think that should apply to speed limits on CERTAIN roads.

X2^.

some back roads have ridiculously high limits that are equal to some main roads which i find ridiculous.

the workmen that erect the speed limit signs on these roads must be breaking their sides laughing IMO and rightly so too . the idiots that come up with the limits just looked at a map and assigned the road a limit off the top of their head it seems :rolleyes: thus proving their ineptitude.

who would take them seriously after that i ask you?

javaboy

astraboy wrote: »

Yes driving is a previlage. Many people cannot do it, many cannot do it well and these people do not have the "right" to drive on the road and put others in danger.

+1

But this constant focus on speed is ridiculous.

+1

Speed limits have many places, but please explain why the death rate is the same on the autobahns with out speed limits as those with them? I realize there are many roads in Ireland not comparable to the autobahns, and an upper limit needs to be set.

I can't explain the same death rates. I expect a different culture/attitude is a factor though.

However, our motorway limits and many limits on dual carriageways are too low. Yes, I know its the law. But I prefer to maintain a safe speed, it may or may not be above the legal limit. I realize also I'm going to get slated for that, but so what. I think I'm in a better position to judge the limit on a road I'm on then a politician in a co. council room with a map that has never driven the road.

Completely agree. Many are too low and on backroads they're often too high. If everybody could be trusted to both judge what a safe speed is for the conditions and not exceed it, there wouldnt be a need for speed limits. Obviously everybody cannot be trusted so we have them and people should obey them. Where they are too low, you need to badger your representatives.

Stupidly accepting the limits as safe and any speed above them as inheritently dangerous is silly. Use of ones own judgment when driving is important, and I think that should apply to speed limits on CERTAIN roads.

I don't stupidly accept the limits as safe. Most of the roads I drive on every day are too dangerous to drive at the limit on. Yes use of one's own judgement is important but my judgement is different from yours. Everybody's judgement is different. That's why we have an actual fixed limit. People use their judgement as to what speed is safe up until a specified maximum.

btw what do you mean when you say "that should apply to speed limits on CERTAIN roads"? What roads do you mean and are you suggesting the abolition of speed limits entirely on those roads?

astraboy

Javaboy, when I ,mentioned certain roads, I said it to ensure my point was not taken as directed at all roads. Certain roads such as Motorways and Dual carriageways have limits far too low for their design. Obviously road conditions and weather play a part in what speed is safe, but I think on some of these roads should have limits raised, and eventually with better driver training, abolished.(am i living in a dream world where people in Ireland will actually be able to drive on a motorway correctly!?) Other roads like urban areas require limits, and these I agree with.

MCMLXXXIII

I pretty much agree with astraboy. I have driven on all kinds of roads, and there isn't much difference between the interstates I live near, a dual carraige motorway, or the autobahn. I actually thought the autobahn was primitive the first time I was on it.

But also, you need to think - those speed limits were made a long time ago in an area where it can be warm and sunny, or cold and icy. The speed limit was also created taking into consideration that there are large trucks on the road. It's not a good solution to make everyone go as slow as a large truck on ice should be going. I should not be punished for others' timid driving habits.

javaboy wrote: »

I don't know if you're just trying to wind people up but you can't seriously believe that anyone should be allowed just hop into a car can you? As you said yourself: . If it was everybody's right to drive, what training would there be? The analogy between walking down the street and driving is false. The analogy between boating and driving is better but as said before is more a case of boating law being behind the times than anything else.

No, I don't honestly believe that, but I think that there should be training and that there needs to be a better system.

Also, I wouldn't consider boating to be behind the times. Boating has been around for thousands of years, where as driving has only been around for about 150 years. The boating should be much more developed if it took the same route. Maybe the sailors just better understand each other, so they don't need as many rules.

astraboy

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

I pretty much agree with astraboy. I have driven on all kinds of roads, and there isn't much difference between the interstates I live near, a dual carraige motorway, or the autobahn. I actually thought the autobahn was primitive the first time I was on it.

But also, you need to think - those speed limits were made a long time ago in an area where it can be warm and sunny, or cold and icy. The speed limit was also created taking into consideration that there are large trucks on the road. It's not a good solution to make everyone go as slow as a large truck on ice should be going. I should not be punished for others' timid driving habits.
No, I don't honestly believe that, but I think that there should be training and that there needs to be a better system.

Also, I wouldn't consider boating to be behind the times. Boating has been around for thousands of years, where as driving has only been around for about 150 years. The boating should be much more developed if it took the same route. Maybe the sailors just better understand each other, so they don't need as many rules.

Ya I agree on the boating bit. While technically anyone can go out and buy a boat, if you are going to spend 10 or 20K on a half decent powerboat you are generally going to have some experience or training. Just wait until the politicians try and crack down on our fun and put speed limits on all harbors!:rolleyes: Just in case there is one idiot that can't drive his rib! I tend to find there are fewer idiots on the water, even people on jetskis tend to have some cop-on. Also, people are friendlier on the water!

javaboy

astraboy wrote: »

Javaboy, when I ,mentioned certain roads, I said it to ensure my point was not taken as directed at all roads. Certain roads such as Motorways and Dual carriageways have limits far too low for their design. Obviously road conditions and weather play a part in what speed is safe, but I think on some of these roads should have limits raised, and eventually with better driver training, abolished.(am i living in a dream world where people in Ireland will actually be able to drive on a motorway correctly!?) Other roads like urban areas require limits, and these I agree with.

Fair enough I was honestly just wondering what roads you meant. Yes the limits on dual c/ways and mways are too low in most places. The problem is that progress in this country is often painfully slow and many of the well intentioned measures implemented by politicians are ham-fisted efforts. e.g. the recent provisional licence debacle. I would love if all Irish drivers were good enough to judge what an appropriate speed is but at the moment they are not. We have no proper mandatory driver training. We will soon have a minimum number of lessons but that's not the same thing as actually undergoing proper training.

I hope you're not living in a dream world re Irish people driving correctly on motorways but it might be a good 20 years away unfortunately. As it stands I have not been trained in how to use a motorway yet I am allowed. I think I drive correctly on a motorway but that's all. Nobody trained me and nobody tested me on driving at speed on a 2/3 lane carriageway.

We need real driver training here before I would agree with Autobahn speeds on our motorways.

Sorry... gone off on a bit of a tangent there

astraboy

javaboy wrote: »

Fair enough I was honestly just wondering what roads you meant. Yes the limits on dual c/ways and mways are too low in most places. The problem is that progress in this country is often painfully slow and many of the well intentioned measures implemented by politicians are ham-fisted efforts. e.g. the recent provisional licence debacle. I would love if all Irish drivers were good enough to judge what an appropriate speed is but at the moment they are not. We have no proper mandatory driver training. We will soon have a minimum number of lessons but that's not the same thing as actually undergoing proper training.

I hope you're not living in a dream world re Irish people driving correctly on motorways but it might be a good 20 years away unfortunately. As it stands I have not been trained in how to use a motorway yet I am allowed. I think I drive correctly on a motorway but that's all. Nobody trained me and nobody tested me on driving at speed on a 2/3 lane carriageway.

We need real driver training here before I would agree with Autobahn speeds on our motorways.

Sorry... gone off on a bit of a tangent there

No I agree with you. I have been tested on theory on driving on a motorway, and have undergone an advanced driving course so I am trained on motorway driving. However, if I had not done the advanced driving course I would never have been trained in the use of motorways as such, the regular driving test does not take you out on a motorway and many test centers have no motorways near them!

javaboy

astraboy wrote: »

No I agree with you. I have been tested on theory on driving on a motorway, and have undergone an advanced driving course so I am trained on motorway driving. However, if I had not done the advanced driving course I would never have been trained in the use of motorways as such, the regular driving test does not take you out on a motorway and many test centers have no motorways near them!

It doesn't matter whether they've a motorway near them anyway. I did my test at Northpoint, Ballymun right beside the M50 but I still couldn't go on it during my test.

You did an advanced driving course and I commend you for it but the fact is that you didn't have to do it, so most people won't. Most people don't receive any further training or instruction once they pass their test and they spend a lot of their driving time in situations they did not encounter during the test. I don't want to see the country regulated to a standstill with overly restrictive laws/limits but until real driver training is introduced in this country, I'm more than happy to have 120km/h motorways.

bonkey

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

I understand there are rules,

But when I mentioned the strict penalties the Swiss have for breaking their rules, you complain that its "too controlling" for you. So you understand that there are rules, but don't think people should be treated harshly for breaking them.

When I was taught to drive, I was told to go as fast as everyone else...oh and go the speed limit if you think you might get into trouble.

But you also argue that you think you shouldn't get into too much trouble for breaking the speed limit.

Oh yeah, I have been in one accident - I was going about 20 MPH. So for me, it is statistacally safer to drive fast.

I've never been killed. Statistically, that makes me unkillable.

When I go to the doctor, I'm not paying for someone to give me a shot or even a pill. What I want is someone to tell me what is wrong with my body.

And when I pay road-tax etc. I am, in part, paying to make sure that the other people on the road who can put my life at risk are qualified and found capable, in order to minimise that risk.

Just as drivers such as myself are trained to know everything there is to know about driving, doctors are trained to know everything about our anatomy.

My point exactly. Drivers should be trained and pass a qualifying exam. Like doctors, if they repeatedly or seriously **** up, they should no longer be allowed the benefits of that qualification (driving, or practicing medicine).

Therefore, driving, like practicing medicine, is not a right. It is a privilege that you earn by qualifying, and keep by not ****ing up.

No one likes it, they lash out as soon as they have the chance, and people stop trusting the higher powers.

Frankly, if someone doesn't trust the higher powers, because they've implemented measures designed to reduce carnage on the roads, and which (as has been the case in Switz.) can be directly linked to reduced carnage on the roads, then I have to wonder where the problem lies?

If you want to trust the government to put your individual freedoms over other people's lives, then sure...you won't be happy. You won't be happy with a points system, or any other preventative measure. Indeed, you shouldn't even agree that drivers need to be taught anything before they be let on the roads because that's putting other people's safety over individual freedom.

I agree with that though - why should the higher powers try to control you instead of aiding you to make that counrty the best possible place for the people that live there?

By keeping me safe from people who are speeding excessively, they are aiding me and everyone else who isn't speeding excessively.