Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Mobile speed checks
Options
Comments
-
Any place is a suitable place for a speed trap. It's the fear of getting caught and not some deeply-felt concern for the welfare of others that keeps most drivers under the speed limit.give a perfectly valid suggestion as to where a speed trap might be better alternatively located or if a speed limit at a certain should be higher.0 -
cyclopath2001 wrote: »Any place is a suitable place for a speed trap. It's the fear of getting caught and not some deeply-felt concern for the welfare of others that keeps most drivers under the speed limit.
Yes good point any place is a good place - in a perfect world - but I would think starting with accident blackspots would be the best place? If resources are limited then surely this would be a good starting point?
Gurramok yeah again your right but the economy was heading down the wrong road from 2001 and even a man on a galloping horse could see it was going to hit a wall when the interest rates went up in Dec 2005?
Also Cyclopath what do you mean when you say a concern for others, does not keep drivers under the speed limit do you drive in Dublin? If you do it must be a different Dublin because the standard of driving in this city is appaling. How can you honestly say that the fear of getting caught would/could be a deciding factor for anyone in this city keeping below the speed limit. If it was then there would be far less of it around. Whatever happened to commonsense?0 -
The idea is to detect people who break road-traffic laws and disqualify them from driving if they do it often enough. Doesn't matter where they're detected as long as they're detected.horrible island wrote: »Yes good point any place is a good place - in a perfect world - but I would think starting with accident blackspots would be the best place? If resources are limited then surely this would be a good starting point?
Drivers are motivated by self-interest. It's only human.horrible island wrote: »Whatever happened to commonsense?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 21020
horrible island wrote: »
Yes I do but you miss the point. What is the POINT placing a mobile speed check in a place where there is virtually no problem?
Enforcing the law. A new concept to some0 -
Maybe I am getting the wrong place in my head but if we are talking about the junction of the Con Colbert Road, and the South Circular Road just beyond Heuston Station, we have two bus lanes in and out, cycle lanes, pedestrians crossing the road and a rather odd semi roundabout that sends traffic from the west towards the SCR.
- Con Colbert Road has a 60KM limit from the end of the 80KMH limited Chapelizod by pass; this road has a 24/7 bus lane along it until the SCR junction whereby traffic merges and a filter lane turning left forms. The by pass is notorious for speeding, especially heading into town.
- At the SCR end, there is a dangerous crossing point on the SCR where pedestrians would be likely to be around the Royal Hospital, the Hilton Hotel and Kilmainham Jail; there is also the gate to a school and residential unit for St. John of God's and a lot of apartments in the immediate area.
- Just before the traffic lights, the limit reverts to 50KMH, the conventional urban speed limit.
- At the Conyngham Road end of the SCR there is a large humpback bridge across the Liffey which is one lane each way.
Assuming I have the right junction, there isn't really any rational reason to increase the speed limits here on this basis and there is a need for traffic management to be better enforced, be it as a occasional measure or otherwise.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hamndegger wrote: »Maybe I am getting the wrong place in my head but if we are talking about the junction of the Con Colbert Road, and the South Circular Road just beyond Heuston Station, we have two bus lanes in and out, cycle lanes, pedestrians crossing the road and a rather odd semi roundabout that sends traffic from the west towards the SCR.
- Con Colbert Road has a 60KM limit from the end of the 80KMH limited Chapelizod by pass; this road has a 24/7 bus lane along it until the SCR junction whereby traffic merges and a filter lane turning left forms. The by pass is notorious for speeding, especially heading into town.
- At the SCR end, there is a dangerous crossing point on the SCR where pedestrians would be likely to be around the Royal Hospital, the Hilton Hotel and Kilmainham Jail; there is also the gate to a school and residential unit for St. John of God's and a lot of apartments in the immediate area.
- At the Conyngham Road end of the SCR there is a large humpback bridge across the Liffey which is one lane each way.
NO NO NO PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ MY POSTS.........
Look I didnt come on here to be bullied. You are right with your discription of the environs. My concern IS setting up a mobile speed camera just after the lights (at about 100 meters from a drop down from 80KM to
60KM) over 1000 meters - or more - in my opinion from where it is needed - There is a fixed camera at the junction of Con Colbert road and South Circular rd SWITCHED OFF. Surely that is a valid point?? Surely after all you described can relate to that?
The stretch of road at 80KM is a perfectly good stretch of road for about 2KM. Now maybe you are right maybe it should be kept at this speed but for other posters to attack my right to say different is unneccessary!0 -
-
This makes a strong argument for the one that's off to be switched on. But it does not make an argument for the mobile camera not to be operated, especially if drivers are not respecting the limit at that point.horrible island wrote: »My concern IS setting up a mobile speed camera just after the lights (at about 100 meters from a drop down from 80KM to
60KM) over 1000 meters - or more - in my opinion from where it is needed - There is a fixed camera at the junction of Con Colbert road and South Circular rd SWITCHED OFF. Surely that is a valid point?? Surely after all you described can relate to that?0 -
horrible island wrote: »NO NO NO PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ MY POSTS.........
Look I didnt come on here to be bullied. You are right with your discription of the environs. My concern IS setting up a mobile speed camera just after the lights (at about 100 meters from a drop down from 80KM to
60KM) over 1000 meters - or more - in my opinion from where it is needed - There is a fixed camera at the junction of Con Colbert road and South Circular rd SWITCHED OFF. Surely that is a valid point?? Surely after all you described can relate to that?
The stretch of road at 80KM is a perfectly good stretch of road for about 2KM. Now maybe you are right maybe it should be kept at this speed but for other posters to attack my right to say different is unneccessary!
Lets compromise and have two speed checks:)0 -
Join Date:Posts: 21020
horrible island wrote: »
There is a fixed camera at the junction of Con Colbert road and South Circular rd SWITCHED OFF. Surely that is a valid point?? Surely after all you described can relate to that?
That was used as far as I can remember to pick up people breaking the lights. Dont think it was ever a speed camerahorrible island wrote: »You prove my point
What was your point?0 -
Advertisement
-
cyclopath2001 wrote: »The idea is to detect people who break road-traffic laws and disqualify them from driving if they do it often enough. Doesn't matter where they're detected as long as they're detected.
Sounds a bit like the aim is to disqualify as many people as possible. Don't know if that's what you meant or if you just put your point across wrong..
But the idea/aim of a penalty points system is actually to deter people from commiting road traffic offences in the first place through fear of disqualification. Ideally everyone would adhere to all road traffic laws and nobody would ever get any penalty points/disqualified.
Get the point, not the points - RSA, Gardai.
RE the bit in red: It matters a lot. People who break the limit on dangerous rural roads might never drive into Dublin (which is where the vast majority of speed checks/cameras are) so there's a good chance they will never get detected. I don't honestly don't think Gatso Vans hidden in bushes on Dublin Dual Carriageways is the best deployment of resources in terms of detering the most dangerous speeders and saving lives, but it is the best way of generating revenue.
Before you say anything about me only putting up this point for me selfishly not wanting to get caught speeding - I rarely drive into Dublin, I drive over 150km per day on rural roads (outside towns and cities), I see ridiculous driving and speeding on these roads everyday but it's an extreme rarity to see any Garda presence. I have seen more speed checks on the N4 in Dublin last Wednesday and Thursday than I have seen on the N6 between Oranmore and Athlone in the last 2 months! And I obey speed limits (even the ones I don't agree with!) so I have nothing to worry about.0 -
The hope would be that after a few detections, people would modify their behaviour and not reach the point of disqualification.Sounds a bit like the aim is to disqualify as many people as possible. Don't know if that's what you meant or if you just put your point across wrong..
It's more difficult to mount a conventional fixed camera on these roads, other means will need to be devised.RE the bit in red: It matters a lot. People who break the limit on dangerous rural roads might never drive into Dublin (which is where the vast majority of speed checks/cameras are) so there's a good chance they will never get detected.
What is a 'less dangerous speeder'? Are you seriously suggesting not policing these roads?I don't honestly don't think Gatso Vans hidden in bushes on Dublin Dual Carriageways is the best deployment of resources in terms of detering the most dangerous speeders and saving lives,0 -
Someone doing 5kmh over the limit on a Dual Carriageway in Dublin is a lot less dangerous speeder than someone doing 20kmh over the limit on a dangerous country road which arguably has too high a speed limit to begin with.cyclopath2001 wrote: »What is a 'less dangerous speeder'? Are you seriously suggesting not policing these roads?
I would have thought that would have been fairly obvious, didn't think I'd need to explain that.
The Gardai say their aim is to use prioritised enforcement based on their analysis of collision history on stretches of road where the investigating officer thinks the accident was caused by excessive speed.
http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=1368
http://www.garda.ie/sez/Default.aspx
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0520/roadsafety.html
In my opinion, where resources are limited I think the Gardai should strive more than ever to make their 'mission statement' reality and prioritise the most dangerous roads where there are high accident/death rates. I'm not saying they shouldn't enforce traffic laws on the N4 in Dublin but I don't think it should be a priority.
I'm interested to know why you think the N4 Dual Carriageway should be priority over other roads?0 -
Someone doing 5kmh over the limit on a Dual Carriageway in Dublin is a lot less dangerous speeder than someone doing 20kmh over the limit on a dangerous country road which arguably has too high a speed limit to begin with.
I would have thought that would have been fairly obvious, didn't think I'd need to explain that.
The Gardai say their aim is to use prioritised enforcement based on their analysis of collision history on stretches of road where the investigating officer thinks the accident was caused by excessive speed.
http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=1368
http://www.garda.ie/sez/Default.aspx
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0520/roadsafety.html
In my opinion, where resources are limited I think the Gardai should strive more than ever to make their 'mission statement' reality and prioritise the most dangerous roads where there are high accident/death rates. I'm not saying they shouldn't enforce traffic laws on the N4 in Dublin but I don't think it should be a priority.
I'm interested to know why you think the N4 Dual Carriageway should be priority over other roads?
All boils down to practicality. Harder to generate the cash on country roads0 -
The speeds being travelled at on the main roads are higher and the margin of error is less.Someone doing 5kmh over the limit on a Dual Carriageway in Dublin is a lot less dangerous speeder than someone doing 20kmh over the limit on a dangerous country road which arguably has too high a speed limit to begin with....I would have thought that would have been fairly obvious, didn't think I'd need to explain that.
There's a lot of law-breaking there. There'd be even more if people thought they wouldn't get caught.I'm interested to know why you think the N4 Dual Carriageway should be priority over other roads?0 -
The speed limit on the N4 dual carriageway in Dublin County is 80kph. Which is the same as the R roads and single lane country roads. Are you seriously suggesting that "speeding" at 85kph on the N4 in Dublin is the same (or worse) as driving 100kph on a narrow, single country road?cyclopath2001 wrote: »The speeds being travelled at on the main roads are higher and the margin of error is less.
So, plenty of fish in the barrel for the Guards. Doesn't do squat for road safety though, the evidence is crystal clear that Motorways and Dual Carriageways are the safest roads in the State.There's a lot of law-breaking there. There'd be even more if people thought they wouldn't get caught.
So your suggesting that it's OK for the guards to just do speed checks on dual carriageways is a bit like sayings it's OK for the guards to bust someone for smoking cannibis or selling pirate CDs while completely ignoring a big knife fight across the street where someone is getting murdered.
Oh and BTW I want people to obey the law too - but I equally and inseparbly I want laws only that are needed, are fair and that make sense. Unlike you, I don't have a vendetta against anyone.
Given your profile of posts on this forum I could (almost) imagine that if the RSA were to introduce a rule tomorrow saying that nobody can drive a car on Saturday unless they're a guy named Larry and wearing a chicken suit, you would probably not only support it, but demand that the government place surveillance cameras in everyones car to catch out those lawbreaking scumbags named Harry who could only find a clown outfit.0 -
Speeding penalties apply to measured speeds regardless of hazard. Dangerous driving charges are a separate matter.The speed limit on the N4 dual carriageway in Dublin County is 80kph. Which is the same as the R roads and single lane country roads. Are you seriously suggesting that "speeding" at 85kph on the N4 in Dublin is the same (or worse) as driving 100kph on a narrow, single country road?
You might like to think so, but they inhibit speeding and raise some awareness of the safety issues. The accumulated points eventually lead to one less law-breaker on the roads, either through disqualification or a mature choice between one's job and some speed thrills.So, plenty of fish in the barrel for the Guards. Doesn't do squat for road safety though,
No I did not. Are you saying: 'no speed traps on main roads until there are speed traps on all small roads'?So your suggesting that it's OK for the guards to just do speed checks on dual carriageways
When facts run out, get personal. Why not also add a man walking in front with a red flag?Given your profile of posts on this forum I could (almost) imagine that if the RSA were to introduce a rule tomorrow saying that nobody can drive a car on Saturday unless they're a guy named Larry and wearing a chicken suit, you would probably not only support it, but demand that the government place surveillance cameras in everyones car to catch out those lawbreaking scumbags named Harry who could only find a clown outfit.
Seriously, if effective GPS tracking were proposed, it would get my vote. It would be far more effective than the hit&miss of speed traps with drivers slowing down for them before reverting to habitual law-breaking behaviour. It would help shift insurance costs onto people with demonstrable risky behaviour and enable a pay-as-you-go payment plan.0 -
cyclopath2001 wrote: »Seriously, if effective GPS tracking were proposed, it would get my vote. It would be far more effective than the hit&miss of speed traps with drivers slowing down for them before reverting to habitual law-breaking behaviour. It would help shift insurance costs onto people with demonstrable risky behaviour and enable a pay-as-you-go payment plan.
Hey Cyclo - I presume the same applies for cyclists that might cycle the wrong way on a one way street? Or break a red light? Or cycle drunk?
Without number plates or third party insurance, its impossible to protect compliant road users from people that are clearly unsuitable to share the public highways.
Can you offer any suggestions on how you (clearly a commited and, I expect, law abiding cyclist) and I (a professionally trained HGV driver with no accidents or motoring infringements ever) can be protected from people with no compunction about breaching the law?
Mandatory testing prior to the issue of a cycle permit? RFID tracking that could be measured at major junctions? Linked in with CCTV so that offenders could be removed for all our sakes?
Would appreciate your suggestions.
Fischer.0 -
We're discussing how best to regulate speeding?Hey Cyclo - I presume the same applies for cyclists that might cycle the wrong way on a one way street? Or break a red light? Or cycle drunk?.....
General opinion is that there are not enough checks and they're not in all the places they need to be.
I've suggested a way that would be more fair and effective, do you have any suggestions?0 -
I am a motorist , and a pedestrian.
I am torn by the speeding debate. As a motorist I admit I do speed on open dual carrageways like the N4, or the N7. I would possibly be doing 110/115 on the 100 section, or on the Limerick bypass , I would also do 110/120.
However driving around towns/estates I am often under the limit ( estates I am often at 30kph or less not 50 ).
It irritates me to see garda speed checks in places where speeding by 10 /20 kph is relatively safe , for example the Limerick bypass is a motorway std road. Indeed were they not clocking on sections of HQDC the day before they were redesignated ? So a speed that was ' dangerous ' one day was legal and ' safe ' the next.
I see speeding around the busy streets in my town everyday , with people doing totally stupid speeds on streets where there are schools etc . I have asked my local politicians to ask the police for MORE speed checks , but I have NEVER seen one**. Yet at the same time I see these vans parked up at safe places on dualcarrgeways.
** correction I saw them ONCE on a Sunday morning on possibly one of the safest piece of road where there are never any pedestrians and it's almost impossible to speed ( it's a 60kph zone ).
The problem people have is the perception that Garda go for ' numbers ' rather than actually clamping down on people who are reckless.
I also have a problem with the practise of hiding behind bushes/signs etc, if you are going to do speed checks they should be highly visable . What's the point in getting punished for something you did maybe 2 months ago ( and you didn't know you were caught ) , and in the mean time you have carried on speeding or whatever.
The Garda need to STOP the speeding cars at the time , speak to the drivers . Who know's that speeding car may also contain a drunk driver , or be unsafe for the road. A stern talking to by an officer of the law at the time would have a much stronger effect than recv a ticket through the post.0 -
Advertisement
-
No. I said I wanted the speed traps where they will do good - near schools during the school day, around parks where there will be children playing, areas of dense housing, roads in poor condition with a high accident/fatality rate and so on. I think it would make sense to focus efforts at areas where there is a real need for slow traffic, than to just shoot fish in a barrel on dual carriageways and high end roads.cyclopath2001 wrote: »No I did not. Are you saying: 'no speed traps on main roads until there are speed traps on all small roads'?
What part of that do you not understand?
BTW you never answered this analogy:
Supposing you're cycling down your favourite street and you see this scene. What would you think?SeanW wrote:So your suggesting that it's OK for the guards to just do speed checks on dual carriageways is a bit like sayings it's OK for the guards to bust someone for smoking cannibis or selling pirate CDs while completely ignoring a big knife fight across the street where someone is getting murdered.
It was a deliberate exaggeration, but your posting pattern to date suggests that this was not as big an exaggeration as it may have appeared.cyclopath2001 wrote:When facts run out, get personal.
It would also be a massive expansion of a Police State, where Big Brother can track your every move. Perhaps we should put surveillance cameras in people's bedrooms too - so we can catch people who hire hookers?cyclopath2001 wrote:Seriously, if effective GPS tracking were proposed, it would get my vote. It would be far more effective than the hit&miss of speed traps with drivers slowing down for them before reverting to habitual law-breaking behaviour. It would help shift insurance costs onto people with demonstrable risky behaviour and enable a pay-as-you-go payment plan.0 -
Obviously if two incidents are happening in the same place, one more serious than the other, you intervene in the most serious. But, have you heard of the concept of the 'one broken window'?than to just shoot fish in a barrel on dual carriageways and high end roads.Supposing you're cycling down your favourite street and you see this scene. What would you think?
We can avoid this if people agree to drive within the law.It would also be a massive expansion of a Police State, where Big Brother can track your every move.0 -
Sounds reasonable, but that's the question you've failed to answer - what's the point of having most of the speed traps on main roads, while leaving schools, parks and rural roads for the most part unprotected?cyclopath2001 wrote: »Obviously if two incidents are happening in the same place, one more serious than the other, you intervene in the most serious.
Yes. Have you heard of the concept of 'proportionate response' or 'effective deployment of resources'?But, have you heard of the concept of the 'one broken window'?
I have two major problems with this:We can avoid this if people agree to drive within the law.- There are no shortage of lawbreaking cyclists, and with the new 30k speed limits, we now have major roads including parts of the N1 and N11, where a strong cyclist could himself break the speed limit.
Do you support similar measures with cyclists? How would you like some radical motorist proposing GPS tracking, registration plates and RFID tags be placed on your bike? - That argument, if accepted, can go anywhere. e.g.
The recording industry could demand that spyware be placed on everyone's computer - after all, it wouldn't be necessary if people would agree not to infringe copyrights! Police forces could demand CCTV in everyone's homes, but say we could avoid it if people agreed not to hire hookers or smoke weed.
Insidiously, there would then be the possibility of even further abuses.
0 - There are no shortage of lawbreaking cyclists, and with the new 30k speed limits, we now have major roads including parts of the N1 and N11, where a strong cyclist could himself break the speed limit.
-
You put it as if it's an either/or situation. Why can't we have both?Sounds reasonable, but that's the question you've failed to answer - what's the point of having most of the speed traps on main roads, while leaving schools, parks and rural roads for the most part unprotected?
Yes, the penalty points are a mild reminder, the graver penalty of disqualification only arises after repeated offences. That's proportionate. The use of cameras releases actual Garda resources for other duties such as those difficult side-roads.Yes. Have you heard of the concept of 'proportionate response' or 'effective deployment of resources'?
The speed limit regulations don't apply to cyclists.[*]There are no shortage of lawbreaking cyclists, and with the new 30k speed limits, we now have major roads including parts of the N1 and N11, where a strong cyclist could himself break the speed limit. Do you support similar measures with cyclists?
I'd consider it a wake-up-call. Hopefully motorists will realise that if they don't get their act together, and behave properly, that's what will happen.How would you like some radical motorist proposing GPS tracking, registration plates and RFID tags be placed on your bike?
So what form of law-enforcement measures would be acceptable to law-breaking motorists? Easily evaded ones?We can avoid this only by saying NO to Big Brother totalitarianism and its cheerleaders, clearly and without exception. A red line must be drawn to curtail this kind of thing.0 -
We don't have both. We have tha majority of speed trapping going on on main roads and dual carriageways. I would simply prefer the focus on areas where speeding is a real danger.You put it as if it's an either/or situation. Why can't we have both?
Perhaps, but my point still stands - there are no shortage of law breaking cyclists.The speed limit regulations don't apply to cyclists.
No, it is unacceptable totalitarianism - and could only happen because the governments, the CIAs and the Bilderberg Groups of this world want it to happen. No other reason.Hopefully motorists will realise that if they don't get their act together, and behave properly, that's what will happen.
Proportionate ones - again, can you not see why someone would object to this? Would you like the RIAA or IRMA to place spyware on your computer, read your emails intercept your internet traffic? After all, without such a scheme, it's much easier to copy CDs, download movies illegally and so on.So what form of law-enforcement measures would be acceptable to law-breaking motorists? Easily evaded ones?
It's also easier to evade laws on a wide variety of issues because of the lack of government monitored CCTV in your house, and the lack of surgically implated RFID chips in the people. Should we "correct" these too?
In the United States for example, all citations for speeding must happen in the police-pull-over way. Some states even allow you to carry a radar detector in your car.
But they also have a penalty point system of sorts and last I checked there are no shortage of people getting speeding tickets, seat belt violation citations and so on.0 -
I think you will find that in a lot of cases driving at 5 kph over the limit on a dual carriage way is safer than driving a 20kph below the limit in a lot of road in Ireland.Someone doing 5kmh over the limit on a Dual Carriageway in Dublin is a lot less dangerous speeder than someone doing 20kmh over the limit on a dangerous country road which arguably has too high a speed limit to begin with.
But hey, catching those speeders on the N11 is really showing those boys on the back roads in Donegal. I would imagine they would not dream of speeding now.
MrP0 -
They're heavily outnumbered and out-performed by law-breaking motorists. Some drivers I've seen could lose their licenses in 5 minutes, given their constant law-breaking. Indeed, I sometimes wonder if they know what laws they're breaking. Not indicating, amber-light offences, speeding, parking on footpaths, not yielding at junctions, hand-phone when driving, illegal overtaking...what an example to give to young impressionable cyclists who probably look up to these supposed adults as role models.there are no shortage of law breaking cyclists.
This means we need more policing in Donegal. But, it doesn't mean we should stop policing the N11. If we did, people would just drive even more crazily than they do at present.But hey, catching those speeders on the N11 is really showing those boys on the back roads in Donegal.
That would depend on how many points they've accumulated. Unfortunately, it seems that the prospect of punishment is the only motivation.I would imagine they would not dream of speeding now.MrP0 -
So you admit there are no shortage of them?cyclopath2001 wrote: »They're heavily outnumbered and out-performed by law-breaking motorists.
So only children cycle? And when they break the law, it's because they have bad motorist role models?overtaking...what an example to give to young impressionable cyclists who probably look up to these supposed adults as role models.
BTW you still haven't proved any inaccuracy in my comparison of your GPS tracking proposal to other totalitarian Big Brother nightmares.0 -
Why not? It's true. Thankfully, they do so less often, in less numbers and with less serious consequences than when motorists decide to break laws.So you admit there are no shortage of them?
Many (but not all) are children & yes, they're influenced by the behaviour of their parents and other adults. Indeed, it's often parents who encourage their children to ride on the footpath even when they're old enough to use the road.So only children cycle? And when they break the law, it's because they have bad motorist role models?
Of course it's undesirable. So is allowing motorists to continue to kill, maim, injure and intimidate.BTW you still haven't proved any inaccuracy in my comparison of your GPS tracking proposal to other totalitarian Big Brother nightmares.0 -
Advertisement
-
Unmarked 08-D Gatso was on the Mullingar bypass during the week also:
Tuesday - eastbound near Kinnegad, there's a 3km straight stretch of HQDC just before motorway regulations begin, speed limit is 100km/h
Wednesday - westbound under the Castlepollard flyover just where the two lanes merge into one
In the same area last week there was a marked Garda speed trap on the slip road from the old N4 westbound. This is the point where motorway regulations end and the speed limit drops from 120km/h to 100km/h. Road is motorway standard.0
Advertisement