Speed Limit on Outter Ring Road - Calls for Increase

wellboy76

Got done doing 72 on the ORR 2 weeks ago. It is a 60 zone.

Drive it tomorrow and try stay at 60. Its impossible.

To do their job you need these 3 things;

1) a Barrel,
2) some fish,
3) a gun

:rolleyes:

Bards

wellboy76 wrote: »

Got done doing 72 on the ORR 2 weeks ago. It is a 60 zone.

Drive it tomorrow and try stay at 60. Its impossible.

To do their job you need these 3 things;

1) a Barrel,
2) some fish,
3) a gun

:rolleyes:

Start calling to local councillors' doors and tell them to get off their ass and change this ridicusously low speed limit or you won;t be voting for them come next election

Sully

To the best of my knowledge, most (if not all) fine gael councillors are in support for raising the speed limit but other councillors are not. I believe there was to be a motion on this but it wasn't expected to be passed.

kayaksurfbum

60k is fine on the ORR, with all the roundabouts on it you need it to be that speed. if its raised to 80k then everyone will do 100k, and there will be a lot of cars crashing into roundabouts id say.

Also, its safer for cyclists and runners.

deisedevil

kayaksurfbum wrote: »

60k is fine on the ORR, with all the roundabouts on it you need it to be that speed. if its raised to 80k then everyone will do 100k, and there will be a lot of cars crashing into roundabouts id say.

Also, its safer for cyclists and runners.

Are ya mad? Why not drop it to 20k so it's safer for ould grannies out for a walk.

Or to 10k to minimize the chance of making a pancake out of a hedgehog.

Edit: Also, if you are that brutal a driver that you can't figure out from the signs and the fact that theres a roundy grassy hill approching and you belt on at 100k then you deserve to crash into a roundabout and you shouldn't be driving a car in the first place.

kayaksurfbum

deisedevil wrote: »

Or to 10k to minimize the chance of making a pancake out of a hedgehog.

Ya know thats a good point!!! :pac:

Cabaal

kayaksurfbum wrote: »

60k is fine on the ORR, with all the roundabouts on it you need it to be that speed. if its raised to 80k then everyone will do 100k, and there will be a lot of cars crashing into roundabouts id say.

Also, its safer for cyclists and runners.

ORR in Kilkenny has only one lane in each direction and on the vast majority of it the speed limit is 100km...its currently dropped to 60km/hour on some sections due to construction works.

Plenty of walkers and cyclists on it and I've never seen any indicants at the roundabouts that speed caused....I have seen the usual idiots not knowing how to indicate and use a roundabout but sure that happens on the Waterford ORR and any other roundabout in Ireland :rolleyes:

Speak Now

wellboy76 wrote: »

Got done doing 72 on the ORR 2 weeks ago. It is a 60 zone.

Drive it tomorrow and try stay at 60. Its impossible.

To do their job you need these 3 things;

1) a Barrel,
2) some fish,
3) a gun

:rolleyes:

:eek: must have a quite day for them to do you at that :rolleyes:

I'm usually between 70 and 80 and i've had the gun pointed at me several times without being pulled over. Could have been some newbie on the job.
A local guard was telling me common sense usually prevails and they wouldn't pull up drivers unless they over 80.

Speak Now

Cabaal wrote: »

ORR in Kilkenny has only one lane in each direction and on the vast majority of it the speed limit is 100km...its currently dropped to 60km/hour on some sections due to construction works.

Plenty of walkers and cyclists on it and I've never seen any indicants at the roundabouts that speed caused....I have seen the usual idiots not knowing how to indicate and use a roundabout but sure that happens on the Waterford ORR and any other roundabout in Ireland :rolleyes:

Much more built up area as well :eek:

There's a rule of tumb with most irish drivers unfortunatly, they only use indicators when they want to cut across traffic themselves. Drivers behind are generally irrelevant

deisedevil

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

Much more built up area as well :eek:

There's a rule of tumb with most irish drivers unfortunatly, they only use indicators when they want to cut across traffic themselves. Drivers behind are generally irrelevant

Yep, really grinds my gears.

The whole system for teaching people to drive in Ireland is whats at fault and for that reason we have to drop the speed on roads to ridiculous levels because poor drivers can't handle it.

Why in gods name can there not be a compulsory system of teaching children to drive through school and system where over a few years you must attend driving courses and then pass regular tests before your given a full license. They do it in other countries so what's stopping us doing it.

It's not all down to drink and speed, but it seems to me that all the RSA's money is pumped into adverts around this. How about putting all their money into education? At least the next generation might not drive like a pack of lunatics.

wellboy76

deisedevil wrote: »

Yep, really grinds my gears.

The whole system for teaching people to drive in Ireland is whats at fault and for that reason we have to drop the speed on roads to ridiculous levels because poor drivers can't handle it.

Why in gods name can there not be a compulsory system of teaching children to drive through school and system where over a few years you must attend driving courses and then pass regular tests before your given a full license. They do it in other countries so what's stopping us doing it.

It's not all down to drink and speed, but it seems to me that all the RSA's money is pumped into adverts around this. How about putting all their money into education? At least the next generation might not drive like a pack of lunatics.

The reason they dont learn Irish is cause they are too busy learning Irish and religion

Speak Now

wellboy76 wrote: »

The reason they dont learn Irish is cause they are too busy learning Irish and religion

I'm sure you meant that to come out different

wellboy76

Sorry, meant driving not Irish:rolleyes:

kayaksurfbum

If they increase the limit on the ORR you wont get anywhere quicker, it will just lead to bigger tailbacks on the roundabouts, people hitting the brakes harder, changing lanes faster and more general road rage. The distance between the roundabouts is much greater on the KK RR.

I spend allot of time on the road with work and iv seen nearly every main road in the country. Go to Dublin and drive down the quays now, 30k limit, traffic actually moves really well, the lights are timed cut tailbacks and i think it works.

gscully

kayaksurfbum wrote: »

The distance between the roundabouts is much greater on the KK RR.

It just seems that way because you are allowed drive 40km/h faster on it!

The only potential danger of increasing the speed limit on the ORR is having to move into the outer lane into faster traffic while you attempt to overtake those effing ponies & traps!

Cabaal

gscully wrote: »

It just seems that way because you are allowed drive 40km/h faster on it!

I'd agree, the distance on some of the Kilkenny ORR between roundabouts can often be shoter then that in Waterford..

Take the distance between the Kells roundabout and the Waterford roundabout on the Kilkenny ORR...its not that far a distance at all yet the speed is 100km

Speak Now

kayaksurfbum wrote: »

If they increase the limit on the ORR you wont get anywhere quicker, it will just lead to bigger tailbacks on the roundabouts, people hitting the brakes harder, changing lanes faster and more general road rage. The distance between the roundabouts is much greater on the KK RR.

I spend allot of time on the road with work and iv seen nearly every main road in the country. Go to Dublin and drive down the quays now, 30k limit, traffic actually moves really well, the lights are timed cut tailbacks and i think it works.

But you're just talking about rush hour really.
The ORR in waterford doesn't have roundabout queues normally.

Also regardless it won't stop people cutting through wrong lanes.
I can handle people doing it on the the double laned ones but the last one which runs into the old signal lane leads to some crazy driving.

And dont get me started about those who indicate right when taking the second exit :mad: :mad: :mad:

hellfireie

once the cops arent on the ORR i dont care where they haunt!! 60km is a joke a bad joke

jayboi

Well just because a lot of people don’t agree with the speed limit doesn’t mean people can do anything they want, its like as soon as you turn onto that road every single rule of the road goes out the window I’ve seen it all on their.

A few things that annoy me the most on it is when im trying to keep my distance for the car in from the car in front (3 second rule I think its called) and the person behind gets so infuriated at the massive gap no bigger than 15 metres in front of me that he accelerates to about 90-100k(im serious) to overtake the slots in front of me resulting in a gap about 5 meters in front of me so I have to brake to put some space between us what annoys even more is that if they were to break suddenly after slotting in it would probably be my fault for not keeping my distance from the car in front and going into the back of him, even more stupid is that after I make some distance the whole thing starts over again!!!

Another is using the inside lane and an express way people flying up overtaking everyone, staying in the inside lane and then going straight on at the roundabouts and you just know in their heads their saying 'stupid egits if you stayed in this lane all the way you'd be in faster'

Trick of the Tail

There is a real problem in imposing speed limits that are lower than it seems natural to drive at, given the conditions.

It has been scientifically proven that a lower speed limit than the 'natural' speed causes people to behave less rationally, and their reflexes and judgement is impaired.

The research was done by removing speed limit signs from a number of roads entirely, then monitoring the speeds that traffic naturally settled to.

Results are surprising: You'd think people drove at breakneck speeds. They didn't, they drove at a speed that was 'natural' given the road conditions.

Thats why its wrong to impose a 60km/h limit on the ORR - it 'feels' wrong. People do stupider things.

And the argument that people would take the roundabouts at 100 is rubbish. In that case there should be speed signs every 10 metres, stating the exact speed we're allowed to do at that point.

It is a speed LIMIT, not the speed you are encouraged to take.

Driving education does need to be dramatically improved, learners REALLY taken off the road, and people prosecuted for bad driving. Which includes driving too slowly.

And if hear some pompous politician or guard on the radio saying 'SLOW DOWN' I'm going to drive round there at 120km/h and punch him.

What if I'm driving at 20km/m on a motorway? Does he want me to slow down then?

Instead, they should say DRIVE CAREFULLY !!

A.

mike65

+1 to all that, jayboi its the 2 second rule. Unless inflation has taken its toll.

C_Dawg

I'm not paying fines for the sake of getting somewhere a minute quicker.

I'll do my speed of 60-ish kph.

However I do agree that the road could do with being 80kph. Alas until its changed what can ye do.

looksee

There seems to be a lot of drivers who are under the impression that roundabouts are for overtaking - while you are taking the long route round the edge, they come up on the right, straight (ish:D) across and cut you up as you are leaving the roundabout. Happened to me several times. One moron did it today, overtook me as I was leaving the roundabout and then, even though there was no one else around, cut in front of me with barely a car length between us.
One of the problems about doing 60 on a road like that is you have to watch the speedometer to keep speed down, which is a major distraction from watching the road.

sunnysoutheast

alinton wrote: »

There is a real problem in imposing speed limits that are lower than it seems natural to drive at, given the conditions.

It has been scientifically proven that a lower speed limit than the 'natural' speed causes people to behave less rationally, and their reflexes and judgement is impaired.

The research was done by removing speed limit signs from a number of roads entirely, then monitoring the speeds that traffic naturally settled to.

Results are surprising: You'd think people drove at breakneck speeds. They didn't, they drove at a speed that was 'natural' given the road conditions.

Thats why its wrong to impose a 60km/h limit on the ORR - it 'feels' wrong. People do stupider things.

And the argument that people would take the roundabouts at 100 is rubbish. In that case there should be speed signs every 10 metres, stating the exact speed we're allowed to do at that point.

It is a speed LIMIT, not the speed you are encouraged to take.

Driving education does need to be dramatically improved, learners REALLY taken off the road, and people prosecuted for bad driving. Which includes driving too slowly.

And if hear some pompous politician or guard on the radio saying 'SLOW DOWN' I'm going to drive round there at 120km/h and punch him.

What if I'm driving at 20km/m on a motorway? Does he want me to slow down then?

Instead, they should say DRIVE CAREFULLY !!

A.

Any links? I've seen research on experiments in the Netherlands on "naked streets", where the barriers between traffic and pedestrians in towns are removed and the traffic self-regulates its speed. I think this is being implemented on Kensington High St. I don't think it's relevant to arterial or larger distributor roads.

You basically take your life in your hands turning right at any of these roundabouts as it is, always an exciting moment wondering if the approaching cars will stop. The thought of doing this with approaching traffic at 80 or 100 doesn't really bear thinking about.

SSE

wellboy76

looksee wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of drivers who are under the impression that roundabouts are for overtaking - while you are taking the long route round the edge, they come up on the right, straight (ish:D) across and cut you up as you are leaving the roundabout. Happened to me several times. One moron did it today, overtook me as I was leaving the roundabout and then, even though there was no one else around, cut in front of me with barely a car length between us.
One of the problems about doing 60 on a road like that is you have to watch the speedometer to keep speed down, which is a major distraction from watching the road.

Most have "C" regs

Trick of the Tail

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

You basically take your life in your hands turning right at any of these roundabouts as it is, always an exciting moment wondering if the approaching cars will stop. The thought of doing this with approaching traffic at 80 or 100 doesn't really bear thinking about.

SSE

Why would the traffic be approaching at 100km/h? If you're still doing 100 as you approach a roundabout you're gonna crash into something.

You don't need signs counting down your speed until to get to a change in the road, you need driving sense and education. Thats what's at fault here.

Maybe there should be signs on approaches to rbouts reminding people to 'give way to traffic approaching from right' - as some people don't seem to know this.

As as regards rbouts being used for overtaking, well, if going straight on at a rbout where the entry, exit and rbout have two lanes it is permissible to enter on the right lane, use the right lane of the rbout and leave in the right lane.

I agree though that too many people don't know how to use roundabouts. There should be public information films shown in commercial breaks on TV about this.

In the same way there should be public info films showing people how to drive a dual carriageway. "Drive on the left, overtake on the right".

It amazes me how many people seem to automatically drift to the right lane even when there's no-one in front of them.

A.

Bards

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

Any links? I've seen research on experiments in the Netherlands on "naked streets", where the barriers between traffic and pedestrians in towns are removed and the traffic self-regulates its speed. I think this is being implemented on Kensington High St. I don't think it's relevant to arterial or larger distributor roads.

You basically take your life in your hands turning right at any of these roundabouts as it is, always an exciting moment wondering if the approaching cars will stop. The thought of doing this with approaching traffic at 80 or 100 doesn't really bear thinking about.

SSE

do a google for "85 percentile rule"

gscully

alinton wrote: »

As as regards rbouts being used for overtaking, well, if going straight on at a rbout where the entry, exit and rbout have two lanes it is permissible to enter on the right lane, use the right lane of the rbout and leave in the right lane.

Do road-markings supercede the general rules of the road? I believe they do. I'll cite the lane changes at the Tesco, Ardkeen and RSC roundabouts to allow better flow.

If that's the case, then drivers should obey the road markings on the ORR which clearly show the left lane is for the first and second exits, and the right lane is for the third exit.

Most drivers will overtake on the right, and cut back into the left lane before reaching the roundabout. Others will use the right lane as a way of skipping the queue. Observe the roundabout at Ballinamona every workday at 9am!

wellbutty

gscully wrote: »

Do road-markings supercede the general rules of the road? I believe they do. I'll cite the lane changes at the Tesco, Ardkeen and RSC roundabouts to allow better flow.

If that's the case, then drivers should obey the road markings on the ORR which clearly show the left lane is for the first and second exits, and the right lane is for the third exit.

Most drivers will overtake on the right, and cut back into the left lane before reaching the roundabout. Others will use the right lane as a way of skipping the queue. Observe the roundabout at Ballinamona every workday at 9am!

Good point. Adding the "right lane, turn right" road markings on the outer ring road has made the road worse because most people are now cutting in at the last second before the roundabout...as the arrow indicates.

Also, this arrow has given very slow drivers the right to take up position in the right lane as soon as they leave a roundabout as they intend on going right at the next roundabout.

Why cant the city council keep it standard on the outer ring road, the left lane of a roundabout being for exits 1 and 2, the right lane is for exits 2 and 3 or a full lap.

Bards

From http://www.munster-express.ie/local-news/council-split-over-ring-road-speed-limit/

I think a little e-mail to those councillors who do not understand the 85 Percentil Rule is in order

Edit:

Just sent the following mail to the Councills who opposed the Higher Limit

cllrdcullinane@waterfordcity.ie
cllrsryan@waterfordcity.ie
cllrjwalsh@waterfordcity.ie
cllrloneill@waterfordcity.ie
cllrmroche@waterfordcity.ie
cllrphayes@waterfordcity.ie
cllrtcunningham@waterfordcity.ie

Dear Councillors,

As a voter, Motorist, and citizen of Waterford City I would like to draw your attention to the "85th Percentile Rule" in relation to road safety and the setting of speed limits. If as you say most drivers do not obey the speed limnit on the Outer Ring Road and are "Speeding" and still there has not been any serious accident then surely it is time to amend the limit to that of what the majority of responsible motorists decree (I.E the 85th Percentile).

It is far more dangerous looking down at your speedomotor every few seconds than driving at a speed appropiate to the road conditions and using common sense. Yes a few poeple will break this higher limit but the gardai will gain more respect than labeling everyone who goes over the absud slow limit 0f 60 Km/H as speeders.



I quote from http://www.ite.org/standards/speed_zoning.pdf


"Generally, traffic laws that reflect the behavior of the majority of
motorists are found to be successful, while laws that arbitrarily restrict
the majority of motorists encourage violations, lack public support and
usually fail to bring about desirable changes in driving behavior. This is
especially true of speed zoning.

The most widely accepted method by state and local agencies is to set
the limit at or below the speed at which 85 percent of the traffic is
moving. The 85th percentile speed is how drivers “vote with their feet.”
Studies have shown crash rates are lowest at around the 85th percentile

In fact, on a per mile driven basis, high speed roadways, like interstates,
have a lower speeding related fatality rate than low speed roadway.
Large variations in speed within the traffic stream create more
conflicts and passing maneuvers."



mnore from http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html

"Setting speed limits properly
Here is the news. Most drivers understand well what speeds are safe to use in what circumstances, and can be observed all over the country setting safe speeds both over and under the limit every day. Traffic engineers have long known this and have a rule called the "85th percentile rule". It's based on a frequency against speed plot of observed vehicle speeds, usually passing a fixed point. The 85th percentile rule tells us that in typical circumstances 85% of drivers are not exceeding safe thresholds. Setting a speed limit at the 85th percentile level is usually safe and correct.

But some responsibility for setting speed limits has been passed down to unskilled councillors, who set speed limits badly based on unclear thinking or even absurd prejudice.

So our major gripe number 1 is that speed limits should always be set by skilled traffic engineers with due regard for 85th percentile considerations. They should always be set to consistent national standards, so that similar roads anywhere in the UK will tend strongly to have similar limits.

There are presently far too many new 30 mph and 40 mph limits on roads that used to be National Speed Limit (NSL), where a responsible driver at a responsible speed may be prosecuted since the limit was set using absurd criteria. These roads are often policed by speed camera, which is simply evidence of the current ridiculous obsession with numerical speed.

Drivers are being expected to believe that what was safe yesterday at 60 mph is now dangerous and against the law at 45 mph. In most cases it simply isn't true, and everyone who thinks about it knows so. In this way, many important speed limits risk being brought into disrepute.

Read more about 85th percentiles: (overview) and (compendium of research)"

Yours sincerely
xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bards

Here is one reply I received last night
===============================

xxxxxxxxxxx,

Thanks for your email on this item.

The key issue is one of safety. The City Council engineers stated that the
road is not an inter-city dual carriageway but an Urban dual carriageway. We
are advised that the road was designed for traffic travelling at 60 Km/s.
The specification for the road would need to be higher to cater for faster
speeds.

My own initial response was like yours given that the road is in non-built
up areas at present. In the future when the city expands beyond the Ring
road and we have more traffic on the road and also pedestrians using the
footpaths it will be more understandable.

Notwithstanding we have asked the engineers to see if there are some
sections of the road that could accommodate faster speed safely and report
back to us, and also cost of doing upgrades where possible.

I will let you know the outcome of this,

Regards,

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

======================
stinks of sitting on the fence - and not doing the job which they are elected to do


Edit:

Here is another reply from a Pro Councillor - after querying what is going on in the chamber with regard to decision making
==============================

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
As far as I can tell those Councillors opposed to raising the limit are unwilling to take a view contrary to the view of the Gardai which I think can be summarized as follows " Road safety on the ORR is excellent and it is felt that the speed limit is a significant contributory factor in maintainin safety so Gardai are opposed to any alteration in the speed limit which potentially might alter the safety record of the ORR".

The problem I have with the above position is that it infers that Safety WILL suffer if the speed limit is raised and this in my view is nonsense when we know that the Gardai's own survey tells them that the average speed of motorists travelling the ORR is actually 71. I think that the Gardai quite simply take the view that " we (the Gardai) have nothing to gain by agreeing to raise the limit so why change the status quo". That is the problem with modern society and this issue is a classic example. It is not about reasonableness or fairness or commonsense or 'the other person' anymore. It is about suiting oneself and 'doing nothing' if at all possible. If you do nothing you can't be held responsible so THAT is the underlying most important factor which some public reps bring to bear prior to determining their position on ANY matter. Political correctness wins over commonsense nearly everytime.

As I said to you before there are some of us who will continue to fight the fight for commonsense and personal responsibility. I have no fear that I would be jeopardizing motorist or pedestrian safety by voting to raise the speed limit on this road to 80. Indeed I feel that I would be acting responsibly and sending a signal that thought and consideration is put into these decisions and subsequently min my view there is a better chance of that reasonableness being reciprocated by the motorist not alone on that road but throughout Waterford. A happy motorist who is not frustrated by unreasonable or illogical motoring conditions or restrictions is a safer motorist for himself, other road users and pedestrians.


Kind regards

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sully

I'd be very interested to know who has been responding to the emails. I think its important we understand each person who replies views.

Bards

Sully wrote: »

I'd be very interested to know who has been responding to the emails. I think its important we understand each person who replies views.

Those interested can PM me. I am not inclined to reveal councillors e-mail identities on a public forum

Cabaal

Bards wrote: »

Those interested can PM me. I am not inclined to reveal councillors e-mail identities on a public forum

But did you not just post all their e-mail addresses?
Whats the harm in just stating their name?

south

As public representatives I’m sure they wouldn’t mind.

sunnysoutheast

alinton wrote: »

Why would the traffic be approaching at 100km/h? If you're still doing 100 as you approach a roundabout you're gonna crash into something.

Well, yeah, but for some reason this road in particular appears to make people leave their braking until the last second. I've lost count of the number of times I'VE had to be on the brakes turning right at a roundabout as a defensive measure as a car comes towards me on the ORR only to finally stop a couple of yards OVER the white line, usually giving me a withering look for having the temerity to cause them to stop.

In any case I think the Councillor's point is a good one - this road has been designed for a limit of 60 and for future traffic patterns, not the present semi-rural position. Before we know it we might be reminiscing about the days when it was even possible to do 60 on it!

SSE

Bards

some more replies

==============

Hi xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,


The 60KMP speed limit was set by 'skilled traffic engineers' as you put it. A recommendation was made by our roads engineers that a 60kmp limit be set. In fact the road was built to this specification. Councillors sought legal advice and were informed that if we were to increase the speed limit the council would be liable if an accident caused by someone driving at the increased speed. In other words the limit cannot be increased without significant and costly remediation of the road. A full cost analysis is being prepared by the council.

The council's Transport Policy Committee commissioned a report into this issue. The report sought the advice of experts and concluded that it would be unwise to increase the limit. As a councillor, whether skilled or unskilled in this area, I have a responsibilty to have regard to expert opinion. I have driven the road myself and I have no difficulty in keeping within the limit. I am not in favour of allowing motorist driving habits to dictate road policy and simply because people choose to drive over the limit is not reason enough to increase speed limits.

The issue of the outer ring road will revert to full council in due course. Councillors will be briefed by city council engineers, by the Director of Services with responsibility for roads and by the City Manager. The Gardai will also offer their opinion. I look forward to renewed discussion at council on this issue and armed with all of the facts I will make a final decision.

Kind Regards,

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

=========================================

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thank you for taking the time to write to me regarding the issue of the speed limit on the Outer Ring Road. I am not a member of the Transportation Committee that had access to the report from the Road Engineers and the opinion of the Gardai on this subject. Neither am I an expert on the subject of how traffic speeds are set and will await the report by the experts before I make an informed decision on the issue. Once again thank you for your email.

Regards
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

=========================================

Sully

Seem a bit rude in those replies there.

looksee

alinton wrote: »

As as regards rbouts being used for overtaking, well, if going straight on at a rbout where the entry, exit and rbout have two lanes it is permissible to enter on the right lane, use the right lane of the rbout and leave in the right lane.
A.

That may be so, but on the entire ring road - and most other places in Waterford as far as I can see - the right lane is only for turning right, with a couple of exceptions that are clearly marked as being different. One is the Tesco turn-off and the other is the Tramore Road at the Ballindud roundabout.
Slightly off-topic there were a group of travellers with sulkeys (? is that what they are called) on the ring road today. Two were men, one with a young (8ish) girl beside him, one was a lad of about 13 and one was a very young boy who looked to be barely 10. The 10 year old did not look at all confident about controlling his horse. They were moving at a fair clip. I cannot see that there is a lower age limit for a child being in control of a horsedrawn vehicle, the traffic was moving rather cautiously round him, but it didn't look like a good idea at all.

gscully

It's a joke! They say that the road is built to 60km/h specifications. I must be Michael Schumacher then, since I've driven in excess of the speed limit many a time and never hit the median or flipped the car into the halting site! As for the bit about housing estates in the future? No entrances to housing estates will be on the ORR and no amount of reckless driving will endanger these estates.

What specification was the Kilkenny ring road built to then?

Typical bull from councillors unwilling to make the extra effort. Please Bards, post their names so that we can remember them next time! Councillors make a career out of policies and opinions and should be accountable. How do we know that those who have replied to you won't make increasing the speed limit an election promise only to renege once again when elected?

Cabaal

Sully wrote: »

Seem a bit rude in those replies there.

Poorly written alright,

Bards

This is the best one yet!!

And these people are meant to represent US - The taxpayer & Voter

Dear xxxxxxxxxxx,
if we were to allow your rule, there wouldn't be a single major route in this country on its current speed limit. I drove to Sligo this weekend (and back) and was passed on every road, of every calibre by speeding motorists - even those who were turning off the road a hundred yards further on. As I already said I cannot understand why people can not just drive within the speed limit. If you are constantly having to check your speed then you are either a very inexperienced on indeed impatient driver. Once again and for the record: the outer ring is an urban dual carriageway deisgned for a 60kph speed limit with a path along its entire length. I am not surprised that a 22 year old councillor is persuaded that it should be faster. I am not.
Thanks for you interest in the debate!
Mary

anyone likle to take up the mantle and reply to some of those councillors


P.S
This reply was so Childish that I left the name at the bottom for all to see

Sully

Signed Mary? As in March Roche?

Must have a look at that petition YFG have for increasing the speed limit, could have sworn I saw her name on it.

Cabaal

Bards wrote: »

This reply was so Childish that I left the name at the bottom for all to see

I think its only fair to post the names for all of them instead of just showing up people that given a childish/poor response, if the others are good responses then surely we should see who gave them?

All in the interest of fairness and all

Bards

Cabaal wrote: »

I think its only fair to post the names for all of them instead of just showing up people that given a childish/poor response, if the others are good responses then surely we should see who gave them?

All in the interest of fairness and all

As I said before I have no problem giving the names to those who PM me

Sully

Its actually also worth noting that the ORR was NOT built for 60km/hr. The road was actually built for a 70km/hr speed limit but this is not officially recognized as a legal speed so was put at 60km/hr.

Bards

Sully wrote: »

Its actually also worth noting that the ORR was NOT built for 60km/hr. The road was actually built for a 70km/hr speed limit but this is not officially recognized as a legal speed so was put at 60km/hr.

And as we all know design speeds all have a greater tolerance than the actual one. so a design speed of 70 KM/h will easily and safely accomodate traffic doing 80 KM/h

.. all this goes to show is that responsibility for speed limits should be removed from the Local Council

gscully

Bards wrote: »

And as we all know design speeds all have a greater tolerance than the actual one. so a design speed of 70 KM/h will easily and safely accomodate traffic doing 80 KM/h

.. all this goes to show is that responsibility for speed limits should be removed from the Local Council

...and given their attitude to the questions of the public they promised to serve, so should a number of other responsibilities!

Trick of the Tail

If they're serious about being worried about legal action, then let's all take action against the various local authorities who preside over stretches of road that have HIGHER speed limits than appropriate.

The N9 between Waterford and Paulstown, for example.

Those mealy-mouthed excuses are just rubbish.

And once again we hear from our so-called representatives, who refuse to represent us.

A.

Sully

Mod Note
Split posts from the topic on the bypass as its a separate road with a different speed limit. Please use this topic to discuss the issue with the speed limit on the Outter Ring Road.

Thanks.

Sully

I have a copy of the signature Cllr. Mary Roche gave Waterford Young Fine Gael on September 21st 2008 in the Tesco Petrol Station Car Park. She indicated to the YFG members and also on the survey (attached) that she agreed with the increase for the speed limit. Her signature is the first in the attached file.

Cllr. Roche is publicly calling for the speed limit to remain as it is and contradicting what she previously stated.