Speed limit on a "dead end" residential country lane

magconn

Is it tru that the speed limit on a one lane resedential country lane is 80kph??

Have an issue on my road where its a one lane narrow road, lots of families with young kids but a few yobs who "visit" other houses and fly in and out. Now i know the kids should not be out on the road and as a rule they are not allowed, we have gates, walls etc , but kids are kids, footballs get kicked out or they run across to a friends house !

its gone to the stage where i've told them to play out the back in case the ball does over the wall out front and I'm petrified when they go over to a friends house and have to cross from one house to another or even walk in the road from school.

We put up "slow down" signs but the attitiude us "its 80k, so we can do that!"

Speed ramps are not an option

Dont want to have to get gardai involved as it may cause friction between the families(but i will if i have to as a last resort)

Does anyone know if its possible to get the speed limit decreased and get signs put up? I dont mind paying for signage, poles, or putting them up!

And ideas anyone?? Local candidate looking for vote??????:p

corktina

80k is the maximum,it doesnt give you carte blanche to drive at that speed. if someone is driving at an inapproriate or dangerous speed notwithstanding that, the gardai can take action....

Gillo

Why aren't ramps an option?
No is the perfect time to get on to local councillors to get them in.

ardmacha

Even if it were possible to change the speed limit, do you think this would have an effect on the gurriers' actual speed. And if it were changed then the Gardai would have to get involved to enforce it.

Leave an inflatable duck or something harmless on the road after a bend, and if anyone hits it tell them that could have been a child.

magconn

Gillo wrote: »

Why aren't ramps an option?
No is the perfect time to get on to local councillors to get them in.

heavy machinery comes in the road and ramps would do damage. also a few "big" cars wont allow them either if ya get ma drift !

Will get onto councillor tho

magconn

ardmacha wrote: »

Even if it were possible to change the speed limit, do you think this would have an effect on the gurrier's actual speed. And if it were changed then the Gardai would have to get involved to enforce it.

Leave an inflatable duck or something harmless on the road after a bend, and if anyone hits it tell them that could have been a child.

Well i might have more of a leg to stand on legally !

AugustusMaximus

corktina wrote: »

80k is the maximum,it doesnt give you carte blanche to drive at that speed. if someone is driving at an inapproriate or dangerous speed notwithstanding that, the gardai can take action....

Loads of people say this but it doesn't make sense.

In my mind, speed limits should be indicative of the speed you can drive on a road. Why slap a 80kph limit on a road which is clearly not capable of doing 80kph on. On that basis why not have a 200kph limit on all loads and leave it up to the motorist to decide what speed is best.

I'll tell you why this is the case. County Council's are too bloody lazy or just incompetant to realise that the limit is too high on this road.

Sponge Bob

The guards can still do them for dangerous driving whether under the speed limit or not . Do the yobs live up there and what time do they bomb down the road every morning ??

corktina

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Loads of people say this but it doesn't make sense.

In my mind, speed limits should be indicative of the speed you can drive on a road. Why slap a 80kph limit on a road which is clearly not capable of doing 80kph on.

I'll tell you why. County Council's are too bloody lazy or just incompetant to realise that the limit is too high on this road.

its the default speed limit....whether it makes sense or not isnt relevant. 80k is too fast on every bend in the land, you cant a have a limit specally for every place were 80 k isnt approriate.

MrPudding

corktina wrote: »

80k is the maximum,it doesnt give you carte blanche to drive at that speed. if someone is driving at an inapproriate or dangerous speed notwithstanding that, the gardai can take action....

it appears to be tricky enough to get gardai to take action where the offence is obvious. If the limit is 80 then it is unlikely that the gardai would be able to do anything much about people driving at speeds that are within the limit but some people have a subjective opinion that the speed is too fast.

ardmacha wrote: »

Even if it were possible to change the speed limit, do you think this would have an effect on the gurriers' actual speed. And if it were changed then the Gardai would have to get involved to enforce it.

Leave an inflatable duck or something harmless on the road after a bend, and if anyone hits it tell them that could have been a child.

If the speed was appropriate for the road then the gardai would be able to enforce a realistic limit. There would be no subjective opinion, simple fact. Either they are going ovder the limit or not.

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

In my mind, speed limits should be indicative of the speed you can drive on a road. Why slap a 80kph limit on a road which is clearly not capable of doing 80kph on.

I'll tell you why. County Council's are too bloody lazy or just incompetant to realise that the limit is too high on this road.

Exactly. The limits on a road should be appropriate for the road, or section of the road. most drivers appear to be incapable of determining themselves what an appropriate speed is for a particular road. This need to work the appropriate speed out should be removed from them.

It is too easy for someone to lose control of their vehicle on a road, within the speed limit. As we keep harping on about, there is a big difference between the legal limit and the appropriate speed.

People can spout the old "it is a limit not a target" as much as they want, but the fact remains, if the limit is 80 people can and will drive at 80 even when they probably shouldn't. It would be much easier to control this risk if the limit was actually appropriate.

MrP

MrPudding

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The guards can still do them for dangerous driving whether under the speed limit or not . Do the yobs live up there and what time do they bomb down the road every morning ??

Driving at or below the speed limit on a given road is not necessarily dangerous driving. And besides, do you not think it is a little silly that you think a person could be committing the offence of dangerous driving by merely driving at or below the speed limit?

corktina wrote: »

its the default speed limit....whether it makes sense or not isnt relevant. 80k is too fast on every bend in the land, you cant a have a limit specally for every place were 80 k isn't appropriate.

That's the point isn't it? Perhaps 80 is not an appropriate default speed? Why not have a lower default speed and then raise it in areas where it was appropriate?

MrP

tonc76

ardmacha wrote: »

Even if it were possible to change the speed limit, do you think this would have an effect on the gurriers' actual speed. And if it were changed then the Gardai would have to get involved to enforce it.

Leave an inflatable duck or something harmless on the road after a bend, and if anyone hits it tell them that could have been a child.

This made me laugh

On a serious note the reason that these roads are 80km/h is that all roads from Regional to Local were rebadged as 80 as part of the changeover to metric limits in 2005. The Local Authority can apply to the Minister for Transport for a special speed limit to be applied to the road (which is lower than the current limit)

Cool Mo D

It's not reasonable to expect speed limits to be thoroughly assessed for every tiny back road in the country, the gardai have better things to be doing.

One thing that should be done is putting a default speed limit of 60 km/h for any road that does not have road markings painted on it, if it's not important or wide enough for a white line, it's probably not safe for 80 km/h.

AugustusMaximus

Cool Mo D wrote: »

It's not reasonable to expect speed limits to be thoroughly assessed for every tiny back road in the country, the gardai have better things to be doing.

Setting speed limits has nothing to do with the Gardai. Its up to county councils for regional and local roads.

Cool Mo D

The councils must set them, but they have no process to determine a safe limit for a particular stretch of road.

It is my understanding that they would generally set limits on recomendations form the Gardai. Although they can and do set them off their own bat if they feel like it.

tonc76

Cool Mo D wrote: »

The councils must set them, but they have no process to determine a safe limit for a particular stretch of road.

It is my understanding that they would generally set limits on recomendations form the Gardai. Although they can and do set them off their own bat if they feel like it.

As said previously:

The Local Authority can apply to the Minister for Transport for a special speed limit to be applied to a road. This process also has input from the Gardai. It is ultimately a decision of the Dept of Transport.

flazio

What a lot of you seem to forget is that 4 years ago the speed limit on those roads was 60 miles an hour. I know those speed limit signs declaring any and every road off a National route to be 80km/h can look a bit of a joke at times but I never see people give out about boreens off secondary routes where it was 80km/h anyway. It's a requirement for coming off a national route, nothing more.

cyclopath2001

MrPudding wrote: »

That's the point isn't it? Perhaps 80 is not an appropriate default speed? Why not have a lower default speed and then raise it in areas where it was appropriate?MrP

It's up to everyone to make a correct decision as to what the correct speed is, taking account of prevailing conditions, their own ability, the ability of others using the same road and that of their vehicle. The road signs indicate a maximum, only theoretically possible in 100% perfect conditions and in no way absolves drivers of responsibility to choose a safe and considerate speed.

I suspect that the pro-speed lobby is using the odd sign with apparently too-high limits to try and discredit the principle of speed limits.

Since the appropriate speed can vary by time of day, weather conditions, traffic, driver and vehicle type, it's never going to be possible for a road sign to show a personalised/customised default speed.

MrPudding

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's up to everyone to make a correct decision as to what the correct speed is, taking account of prevailing conditions, their own ability, the ability of others using the same road and that of their vehicle.

Quite. But it seems that a lot of people are incapable of making this decision correctly.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The road signs indicate a maximum, only theoretically possible in 100% perfect conditions and in no way absolves drivers of responsibility to choose a safe and considerate speed.

I am afraid I have to disagree. The limit on a lot of roads is no where near the theoretical limit. We have all seen roads that, irrespective of conditions, skill or vehicle the legal limit is two or three times higher than it should be.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I suspect that the pro-speed lobby is using the odd sign with apparently too-high limits to try and discredit the principle of speed limits.

The odd sign? Funny. Personally I have never tried to discredit speed limits. If you think I have I would be interested in you pointing out where.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Since the appropriate speed can vary by time of day, weather conditions, traffic, driver and vehicle type, it's never going to be possible for a road sign to show a personalised/customised default speed.

It’s funny, you seem to be the one saying that speed limits are useless. You think that drivers should be able to make the correct decision as to what speed they should drive at, whereas I know the vast majority of drivers can’t do that and need a sign to give them a hint.

I know that the appropriate speed can vary, but a lower speed limit on a crappy back road is going to be appropriate more often than a blanket 80kph. It would be a decent start.

MrP

ardmacha

whereas I know the vast majority of drivers can’t do that

Complete nonsense. The vast majority of roads are non national roads and the vast majority of people drive on these without any problem. Anyone who cannot notice that the road is only 4 metres wide and has sharp bends is hardly likely to pay much attention to a sign. The speed limit is a legal restriction, it is not guidance on how to drive and should never be interpreted as such. The government cannot survey every road and establish an appropriate speed for different types of vehicles, different levels of driver experience, different levels of visibility, different road adhesion etc. Even on the OPs road there may be straight sections and bends and the same speed is not appropriate for both of these.

MrPudding

ardmacha wrote: »

Complete nonsense. The vast majority of roads are non national roads and the vast majority of people drive on these without any problem. Anyone who cannot notice that the road is only 4 metres wide and has sharp bends is hardly likely to pay much attention to a sign.

Well that is the point, isn’t it? It would not matter if they paid attention to the sign, a posted speed limit is much easier to enforce than a subjective charge of dangerous driving.

ardmacha wrote: »

The speed limit is a legal restriction, it is not guidance on how to drive and should never be interpreted as such.

So why have them then? **Note to cyclopath** I think limit are needed, it seems to be the anti-speed (1) lobby that keeps questioning their worth.

ardmacha wrote: »

The government cannot survey every road and establish an appropriate speed for different types of vehicles, different levels of driver experience, different levels of visibility, different road adhesion etc.

Now you are being silly. I would argue that they could, though it would be a huge undertaking. At the moment the limit is 80kph, that is inappropriately fast for a percentage of roads. If that limit was dropped by 10kph the percentage it was inappropriately fast for would drop. We now have a speed limit that is more appropriate for more of the crappy roads without anyone even leaving their desk. Of course, we now have roads where the speed limit is inappropriately slow. Personally I would prefer to start low and then raise the sections that needed to be raised than start fast and lower the sections that needed to be lowered.

I liked the suggestion that the limit should be dropped on roads with no markings. That is a very sensible way to identify roads where 80 is probably too fast, and would not require too much work.

ardmacha wrote: »

ven on the OPs road there may be straight sections and bends and the same speed is not appropriate for both of these.

I am sure there isn’t but personally I would rather have an inappropriately slow limit on a straight section of road than an inappropriately fast limit on a section where there may be children or some other hazard. This is, of course, assuming that no one is clever enough to work out that it is possible to have different speed limits on different sections of the same road.




(1) Not sure if anti-speed lobby is the correct term but as I seem to be getting labelled with pro-speed it seems easier to use these labels.
MrP

magconn

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The guards can still do them for dangerous driving whether under the speed limit or not . Do the yobs live up there and what time do they bomb down the road every morning ??

they live a few miles away and time varies but sometimes, its when kids walkin in from school or playing ball outside but i neverseem to be able to get out in time:(

magconn

tonc76 wrote: »

This made me laugh

On a serious note the reason that these roads are 80km/h is that all roads from Regional to Local were rebadged as 80 as part of the changeover to metric limits in 2005. The Local Authority can apply to the Minister for Transport for a special speed limit to be applied to the road (which is lower than the current limit)

ya know when you see in estates in town speed limits of say 5km(i'm not suggesting 5km by the way) or near our local pool there is a 10k limit i think...so how do they do that?? sadly a child has knocked down by a car yesterday just down the road(not in my road), very ill, and the car was doing no more than 50. Even more determined now

John_C

Park a trailer or something a few car lengths up from your house to force them to slow down as they go around it.

Stark

magconn wrote: »

ya know when you see in estates in town speed limits of say 5km(i'm not suggesting 5km by the way) or near our local pool there is a 10k limit i think...so how do they do that??

Someone with too much time on their hands goes out with a 5km/hr sign on a pole and sticks it up. The signs have no legal standing. The lowest speed limit provided for by Irish law is 30km/hr and that has only being approved for a few places in Dublin city centre as far as I know.

cyclopath2001

MrPudding wrote: »

It’s funny, you seem to be the one saying that speed limits are useless. You think that drivers should be able to make the correct decision as to what speed they should drive at, whereas I know the vast majority of drivers can’t do that and need a sign to give them a hint.

The principal benefit of speed limits is that they define a way of measuring who is a law-abiding motorist and who is not.

Certainly I agree that speed limits should have a logical basis, but it's not an exact science.

magconn

John_C wrote: »

Park a trailer or something a few car lengths up from your house to force them to slow down as they go around it.

wouldnt work , loads of road frontage each side ! and it would nullify any visibility for kids and cars

magconn

Stark wrote: »

Someone with too much time on their hands goes out with a 5km/hr sign on a pole and sticks it up. The signs have no legal standing. The lowest speed limit provided for by Irish law is 30km/hr and that has only being approved for a few places in Dublin city centre as far as I know.

yeah, thought the legal side of things would be iffy, dunno bout the too much time on their hands....

AugustusMaximus

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The principal benefit of speed limits is that they define a way of measuring who is a law-abiding motorist and who is not.

Certainly I agree that speed limits should have a logical basis, but it's not an exact science.

You see, they don't have a logical basis at all.

All road beginning with an "R" have a 80kph limit slapped on them straight away as do all "L" roads. Hell, the road could be as straight as an arrow or formerly good enough for 100kph (R639 anyone) yet because it became a regional road, it was reduced to 80kph.

As all regional roads have 80kph limits on them (logic ?) its up to county councils to adjust them as they see fit. Sadly, most county councils don't seem to give a **** and hence this problem persists.

corktina

what do you propose tehn? an intermediate category between R and N at 80k with all lesser roads at 60k...you (plural) wouldnt be happy with that would you?

SeanW

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The principal benefit of speed limits is that they define a way of measuring who is a law-abiding motorist and who is not.

Certainly I agree that speed limits should have a logical basis, but it's not an exact science.

I thought the principal benefit of speed limits was to save lives and give consideration to large volumes of non motorist road users, where such is common? You're suggesting that we do, or should, make silly and arbitrary laws just to see who obeys them?

Our governments (and local authorities in the case of speed limits) have made their fair share of laws (and speed limits) for which the above logic is the only possible explanation.

Complete nonsense. The vast majority of roads are non national roads and the vast majority of people drive on these without any problem. Anyone who cannot notice that the road is only 4 metres wide and has sharp bends is hardly likely to pay much attention to a sign. The speed limit is a legal restriction, it is not guidance on how to drive and should never be interpreted as such. The government cannot survey every road and establish an appropriate speed for different types of vehicles, different levels of driver experience, different levels of visibility, different road adhesion etc. Even on the OPs road there may be straight sections and bends and the same speed is not appropriate for both of these.

QFT!

For the OP - there are of course, not too many unclassified single lane roads where it is safe to do 80kph and anyone who doesn't know that shouldn't be on the road. Simple as that.
Also the term in law is "Maximum Speed Limit" for two reasons - some vehicles have lower inherent speed limit associated with their vehicle class.
Secondly, the term "Maximum Speed Limit" implies, if not expressly defines, that common sense should be used in selecting a safe speed within that limit.

If it is the case that there are a significant amount of children etc on the OPs road and that it is indeed a dead end (no through or long distance traffic per se) then my advice would be to petition the local authority for a lowering of speed limits in the area - preferably backed by a plainly visible GATSO van and other obvious signs of enforcement.
Although I don't know the area in question, I would hazard a guess that 60kph would appropriate for the road in question.

cyclopath2001

SeanW wrote: »

I thought the principal benefit of speed limits was to save lives and give consideration to large volumes of non motorist road users, where such is common?

Yes, but the principal benefit comes only if people respect them and drive at an appropriate speed below it. The immediate benefit is that it is a way of measuring compliance.

SeanW wrote: »

You're suggesting that we do, or should, make silly and arbitrary laws just to see who obeys them?

I am merely suggesting that observing a speed limit is a test of discipline and we should not open the way for arguments that exceeding a limit was 'perfectly safe' because the driver had advanced training or any other such excuses.

AugustusMaximus

corktina wrote: »

what do you propose tehn? an intermediate category between R and N at 80k with all lesser roads at 60k...you (plural) wouldnt be happy with that would you?

All R and L roads should be reviewed with speed limits being put up and down where warranted.

Having all the sections of the old interurbans at 80kph is mindless especially considering that the traffic on these roads has been reduced greatly since the corresponding new sections have been opened.

AugustusMaximus

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I am merely suggesting that observing a speed limit is a test of discipline and we should not open the way for arguments that exceeding a limit was 'perfectly safe' because the driver had advanced training or any other such excuses.

Which of course is the arguement behind Gardai being able to break speed limits during emergencies.

Hell I've seen people here argue on the behalf of a Garda who drove 100kph contra flow down a motorway on the basis that they are trained to do so.

corktina

trouble is with putting UP a speed limit...100 k doesnt seem very fast when you are pointing the right way....

aND AS FOR THE "iM PERFECTLY SAFE TO DRIVE AT 100/120/140 WHATEVER///" arguement, well you (plural) may be but what about that git about to pull out in front of you with out looking./who has a couple too many/ has a dangerous car/who has had a blowout (whatever)

80 k for a non N road is GENERALLY fast enough and 100 k for a non-dual carriageway N road is fast enough too...

Victor

tonc76 wrote: »

This made me laugh

On a serious note the reason that these roads are 80km/h is that all roads from Regional to Local were rebadged as 80 as part of the changeover to metric limits in 2005. The Local Authority can apply to the Minister for Transport for a special speed limit to be applied to the road (which is lower than the current limit)

Its much simpler than that - the council can adopt a bye-law. They only need to consult with the NRA if its a national route.

AugustusMaximus

Victor wrote: »

Its much simpler than that - the council can adopt a bye-law. They only need to consult with the NRA if its a national route.

Does that also apply to stretches of National routes passing through urban areas ?