New M50 speed cameras

Davy

Noticed white lines on the M50 northbound today just before J3, think it was on all lanes not sure, but im pretty sure they weren't their yesterday. They are painted exactly like the garda fixed camera setup, just cant see where the cameras are going to go? The gantry behind seems a bit far back?

donspeekinglesh

Yeah, noticed them this morning. Don't think they were there yesterday.
They're in about the same place as the camera used to be before the upgrade work.

Stonewolf

Because of all those horrible accidents that happen on motorways ...

Cookie_Monster

Stonewolf wrote: »

Because of all those horrible accidents that happen on motorways ...

Especially on motorways that have artificially lowered limits already!

the_syco

Stonewolf wrote: »

Because of all those horrible accidents that happen on motorways ...

Money trees grow better at the side of motorways...:rolleyes:

Davy

Looking at this today, the only pace where they could mount the cameras is on the VWS gantry a little south of it. It will be covering all four lanes.

faceman

Speed camera on the M50 is pointless as the M50 has so many regular users. radar cams would be far more effective.

godtabh

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Especially on motorways that have artificially lowered limits already!

They arent artificially lowered. The lane widths have been reduced hence a lower speed limit

Mitch Connor

godtabh wrote: »

They arent artificially lowered. The lane widths have been reduced hence a lower speed limit

the design speed of the road is still higher than 100km/ph.

Cookie_Monster

godtabh wrote: »

They arent artificially lowered. The lane widths have been reduced hence a lower speed limit

why should that matter in the slightest?

Most of that road is designed for 160kph and should be 120, slightly narrower lanes is not a good reason to lower it to 100. the lanes are still wide enough for all vehicles and properly marked.

channelsurfer2

where is junction 3?

Empire o de Sun

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why should that matter in the slightest?

Most of that road is designed for 160kph and should be 120, slightly narrower lanes is not a good reason to lower it to 100. the lanes are still wide enough for all vehicles and properly marked.

I've used the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges for many years and have never seen 160 km/h design speed.

the maximum design speed is 120 km/h,

Cookie_Monster

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

I've used the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges for many years and have never seen 160 km/h design speed.

the maximum design speed is 120 km/h,

its come up here and and the motors forum dozens of times from various sources that Irish motorway are designed to a spec 160kph. I dunno if its entirely true but I've seen it enough on here to believe it.

By its very nature a road with a legal maximum speed of 120 will have to be capable of allowing greater speed, otherwise the majority of traffic will be operating at the limit of the roads design which is inherently dangerous.

richardjjd

channelsurfer2 wrote: »

where is junction 3?

M1/airport

Highly Salami

channelsurfer2 wrote: »

where is junction 3?

M1/M50

tonc76

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I dunno if its entirely true but I've seen it enough on here to believe it.

Sweet Jesus :rolleyes:

Empire o de Sun

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

its come up here and and the motors forum dozens of times from various sources that Irish motorway are designed to a spec 160kph. I dunno if its entirely true but I've seen it enough on here to believe it.

By its very nature a road with a legal maximum speed of 120 will have to be capable of allowing greater speed, otherwise the majority of traffic will be operating at the limit of the roads design which is inherently dangerous.

The design speed in the DMRB (Design manual for roads and bridges) is used to design for the specified road type & speed. It doesn't mean you can't travel faster. It is a design speed that gives you safe geometry, signhtlines, spec etc. to design a road. These will have a safety factor built into them of course but it still remains at 120 km/h. The safety factor could be 1.5 or 2.0. That I do not know.

The 160 km/h come from the fact that it corresponded to 100 mph and everyone assumed that this was the magical number.

The design speeds are from memory

120 km/h
100 km/h
85 km/h
70 km/h
60 km/h
50 km/h

Squeaksoutloud

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

The design speed in the DMRB (Design manual for roads and bridges) is used to design for the specified road type & speed. It doesn't mean you can't travel faster. It is a design speed that gives you safe geometry, signhtlines, spec etc. to design a road. These will have a safety factor built into them of course but it still remains at 120 km/h. The safety factor could be 1.5 or 2.0. That I do not know.

The 160 km/h come from the fact that it corresponded to 100 mph and everyone assumed that this was the magical number.

The design speeds are from memory

120 km/h
100 km/h
85 km/h
70 km/h
60 km/h
50 km/h

These figures are correct. Table 3 of NRA TD 9/05 lists the safe design parameters for each design speed. The maximum design speed is 120km/h.

Cookie_Monster

Well regardless, it means its designed to at least 120 then, if not 160. so why is it only 100, as the lanes are a foot or 2 narrower? That doesn't make sense to me.

Cookie_Monster

tonc76 wrote: »

Sweet Jesus :rolleyes:

:eek::eek::eek:

Something on the internet that may be true, shocking. Why not believe stuff posted on boards, it provides a lot of useful information.

celticbest

Not sure what needs to be done but can this thread be merged with this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055928792:confused:

SeanW

Regardless of whether the speed limits are logical or not, I suggest that anyone who has observed a speed camera being set up should report their observations here:
http://www.irishspeedtraps.com/

Cookie_Monster

SeanW wrote: »

Regardless of whether the speed limits are logical or not, I suggest that anyone who has observed a speed camera being set up should report their observations here:
http://www.irishspeedtraps.com/

the fixed cameras are disgracfully biased towards the upper east coast :mad:

larryone

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Well regardless, it means its designed to at least 120 then, if not 160. so why is it only 100, as the lanes are a foot or 2 narrower? That doesn't make sense to me.

Because most Irish drivers dont seem to be able to use motorways properly.
The lack of lane discipline people have here makes a higher speed limit alot more dangerous.
Also - lane widths have a huge impact on the maximum safe speed. If they're narrower, lane drift is much more likely at higher speeds.

tonc76

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek:

Something on the internet that may be true, shocking. Why not believe stuff posted on boards, it provides a lot of useful information.

Rather than believe what people say on an anonymous forum why not research a topic properly before forming an opinion??

PS I've got a bag of magic beans that I'll sell to you for €1,000 - interested?:pac:

Cookie_Monster

tonc76 wrote: »

Rather than believe what people say on an anonymous forum why not research a topic properly before forming an opinion??

PS I've got a bag of magic beans that I'll sell to you for €1,000 - interested?:pac:

I can form an opinion on anything I wish without having to go research it. and while what you've said there is plainly ridiculous, I would consider it sensible for our roads to have a much higher design speed than the legal limit allows, purely for safety reasons.

There are several scenarios where vehicles (Emergency services) have to travel well in excess of 120 for example. 160 pkh also roughly equates to 100mph, which is where it probably comes from.

Victor

Traffic on a busy section like the M1-M50 flows best at about 60km/h. The faster individuals go, the less traffic the road can carry and the greater likelihood of accidents.

There is a serious problem on that section with weaving traffic and foolish people crossing hatched areas, rushing to get into the "fast" lane.

While a road may be designed for a particular speed, is that speed suited to the users and their vehicles?

Going from the Red Cow to the airport, going at 120km/h might save you 2-3 minutes.

Cookie_Monster

Victor wrote: »

Traffic on a busy section like the M1-M50 flows best at about 60km/h. The faster individuals go, the less traffic the road can carry and the greater likelihood of accidents.

when was the last time you were on the m50?, even at rush hour it generally flows at 100 these days. (well, the outside lane anyway)

Breezer

larryone wrote: »

Because most Irish drivers dont seem to be able to use motorways properly.
The lack of lane discipline people have here makes a higher speed limit alot more dangerous.

Exactly. People moving at 120 (and beyond, since inevitably you'd have people going faster) coupled with the mad weaving, middle-lane drivers, people who expect motorway traffic to give way to them as they merge off a slip road, etc. would cause absolute chaos IMO.

Victor

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

when was the last time you were on the m50?,

At rush hour sometime last summer. I'm specifically referring to the Santry-Airport bit.

even at rush hour it generally flows at 100 these days. (well, the outside lane anyway)

That evening it was about 20km/h because of people's poor driving. While it appeared as if there was severe congestion ahead from say an accident, the reality was that people were weaving between lanes and braking excessively.

AlekSmart

There is a serious problem on that section with weaving traffic and foolish people crossing hatched areas, rushing to get into the "fast" lane.

There sure is,a Vic,there surely is.....:)

Which is why the Irish version of the DMRB really needs to be rewritten asap to cope with a certain inability/resistance to obeying any of the rules of motorway driving which other,more sophisticated cultures readily accept.

The first item to be dispensed with is the "Solid Bordered Hatched Area" which is simply regarded as an item specifically provided to assist those motorists who happen to be running late and as a consequence need to get ahead of everybody else.

These SBHA`s are wildly overused and over-abused on the Irish National Primary route network and a programme of converting them to either an fully kerbed island OR intigrating the space into the lane system.

But,of course,what is totally missing from the "new improved" M50 is any real Garda Traffic Corps presence,especially around the on-off ramps.

A dedicated presence at these locations would yield a kings-ransom in Fixed-Penalty notices as the Middle-Lane hogs who suddenly hang a left to leave the M-way felt their collars being tugged.....

I.S.T.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

its come up here and and the motors forum dozens of times from various sources that Irish motorway are designed to a spec 160kph. I dunno if its entirely true but I've seen it enough on here to believe it.

tonc76 wrote: »

Sweet Jesus :rolleyes:

Lol, a classic case of tell the same lie enough times and people will believe it!

robust

There is preparation being made for speed cameras all along the M50. The term "shooting fish in a barrel" comes to mind.

Let me throw a absolutely mad idea out there.....

Maybe the person/persons who decided to install these cameras would consider putting the cameras in areas where there are people living. ie. towns, housing estates, schools, etc. The idea being to help reduce speeds in these areas and maybe help reduce deaths. Oh! sorry what was I thinking you cant make money by doing that.......

Cookie_Monster

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Lol, a classic case of tell the same lie enough times and people will believe it!

well i frequently do 140-160 on the m50 without the car crashing off the road, so clearly it can cope with these speeds easily. even at those speed I'll get overtaken every now and again

jd

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

when was the last time you were on the m50?, even at rush hour it generally flows at 100 these days. (well, the outside lane anyway)

Victor is technically correct, maximum capacity of a road generally occurs at about 60 km/hr, I had some references before..

LOS Flow conditions v/c limit Service volume Speed Density
(veh/h/lane) (miles/h) (veh/mile)
A Free 0.35 700 > 60 < 12
B Stable 0.54 1100 > 57 < 20
C Stable 0.77 1550 > 54 <30
D High density 0.93 1850 2: 46 40
E Near capacity 1 2000 2: 30 67
F Breakdown Unstable . < 30 > 67

Cookie_Monster

jd wrote: »

Victor is technically correct, maximum capacity of a road generally occurs at about 60 km/hr, I had some references before..

he may be technically correct but the road does flow freely these days even at rush hour. you can do 100 no problem at rush hour. From experience, I'm practically correct.

I.S.T.

jd wrote: »

Victor is technically correct, maximum capacity of a road generally occurs at about 60 km/hr, I had some references before..

LOS Flow conditions v/c limit Service volume Speed Density
(veh/h/lane) (miles/h) (veh/mile)
A Free 0.35 700 > 60 < 12
B Stable 0.54 1100 > 57 < 20
C Stable 0.77 1550 > 54 <30
D High density 0.93 1850 2: 46 40
E Near capacity 1 2000 2: 30 67
F Breakdown Unstable . < 30 > 67

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

he may be technically correct but the road does flow freely these days even at rush hour. you can do 100 no problem at rush hour. From experience, I'm practically correct.

You are not talking about the same thing. He is referring to the speed at which the road is operating at maximum capicity, you are talking about the maximum speed you can achieve at rush hour.

gorkamorka

hi,just saw the white marks tonight (10.6.10) on m50 north between ballymun/m1 intercharge, did not noticed gatso or either flashes.got scared s***less, as ive got one unsettled fine and dont want more . Ive travelled about 120kph.is the camera there ?

Davy

gorkamorka wrote: »

Ive travelled about 120kph.is the camera there ?

Nope, not yet

Stark

Victor wrote: »

At rush hour sometime last summer. I'm specifically referring to the Santry-Airport bit.

On the M50 itself or the M1 section just after you come off the M50? I generally find the M50 flows quite well around there but then traffic on the M1 is practically at a standstill. I don't think the interchange was finished back then either so perhaps that contributed to the congestion at the time.

Cookie_Monster wrote:

There are several scenarios where vehicles (Emergency services) have to travel well in excess of 120 for example. 160 pkh also roughly equates to 100mph, which is where it probably comes from.

I believe it's from the time of British motorways before the 70mph speed limit was introduced:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorway#Speed_limits

It would make sense that if decades old British motorways were capable of 100mph, then our modern network of motorways (which I personally regard as some of the best in the world) would be similarly capable imo.

bbuzz

godtabh wrote: »

They arent artificially lowered. The lane widths have been reduced hence a lower speed limit

It's more to do withy the reduced sight lines that they have on the motorway since it was widened and the shorter on and off ramps. The upgraded M50 was only ever designed to operate at 100km/h. It would be dangerous to raise the speed limit.

Anyway, the section between jct12 and 13 was always 100km/h.

I.S.T.

I passed it at the weekend and still no sign of a camera. From the positioning of the markings on the road it looks like it's going to be a standard Gatso camera mounted on a pole at the side of the road.

Stonewolf

It's just for revenue generation, same as the van they keep putting under the bridge in Finglas.

It shouldn't be possible to fine someone for an offense that carries penalty points, that way the cameras would actually be used to improve road safety.

I.S.T.

Stonewolf wrote: »

It shouldn't be possible to fine someone for an offense that carries penalty points, that way the cameras would actually be used to improve road safety.

Agree 100%. They should abolish the fine and just give out penalty points. Afterall, if the purpose is to improve road safety, as they claim, there is no need for a fine.

Stonewolf

I'd like to say that I have nothing against the appropriate usage of speed cameras. In areas with a proven problem where excess speed is the cause of a demonstrably higher accident rate with very large and obvious cameras and considerable forewarning.

Sneaky cameras that catch people unawares do not contribute to road safety as they do not force people to slow down, they just make them angry at being caught. Such cameras also erode public respect for the law and regardless of whether it's their purpose foster the perception that thier purpose is revenue generation.

Speed cameras also need to be deployed only in places where the speed limit carries a real relevance to the road in question but that's more a problem with councils than anyone else.

At the end of the day, we the people should be able to say that these systems work with and for us, not against us. We should be able to see a well designed and placed speed trap as a positive safety enhancement, but as long as they are deployed sneakily and antagonisticly we will distrust them and view them as a menace and they will therefore encourage us to view the law and its enforcers as a machinery of oppresion and theft.

Cookie_Monster

Stonewolf wrote: »

I'd like to say that I have nothing against the appropriate usage of speed cameras. In areas with a proven problem where excess speed is the cause of a demonstrably higher accident rate with very large and obvious cameras and considerable forewarning.

Sneaky cameras that catch people unawares do not contribute to road safety as they do not force people to slow down, they just make them angry at being caught. Such cameras also erode public respect for the law and regardless of whether it's their purpose foster the perception that thier purpose is revenue generation.
.

well said.

I'd have no issue with a speed camera in every village in the country, as you come down from 80/100 to 50 and in the major towns and cities in roads proven to be dangerous. other than 50 or 60 areas they are nothing but revenue generators that contribute nothing to safety

Run_to_da_hills

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

its come up here and and the motors forum dozens of times from various sources that Irish motorway are designed to a spec 160kph. I dunno if its entirely true but I've seen it enough on here to believe it.

By its very nature a road with a legal maximum speed of 120 will have to be capable of allowing greater speed, otherwise the majority of traffic will be operating at the limit of the roads design which is inherently dangerous.

Its called the "factor of safety".

And the same principal is used in SWL (slings & hoists ), lifts, cranes, tyres speed ratings, etc.

I think it is at least 25% in most cases.

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

Davy

Wasnt their yesterday, so i would say you are alright unless it went in last night which i doubt it did

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

Davy

Captain Morgan wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Your not the only one, i did it myself during the week