New speed trap M50 northbound

sdanseo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Where exactly do the RSA say

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

A figure of 110kph does not appear in that document. It does, rather logically and sensibly point out that the speed of a vehicle will have a direct effect on the outcome, if there is a collision.

Let's stick with facts - you attributed a statement to the RSA, which they did not, in fact make.

To answer your question, can you say exactly what you mean by 'what they where doing'?

Given that 120kph is the maximum limit on a motorway, if driving conditions are ideal, a speed of 110kph does not seem low.

This is a good start. But we still need to deal with the huge number of other safety offences being committed daily by people who claim to be 'safe' drivers - illegal parking, failing to stop on amber, illegal overtaking, handphone use, and innappropriate speed.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

In that case, a speed of 110kph would be illegal. I'm sure there was a good reason for the limit being set at 100kph, so therefore 110kph would not just be illegal but also unsafe.

From what I saw today on the M1, there are a significant minority of drivers who decide their own speed limits. Hopefully, cameras and accumulated points will catch up with them.

Do you WORK for the RSA? Are you uncle gaybo's PA, perchance?

Someone hold me back, I'm gonna slap him.

smokie2008

[QUOTE=

Stekelly

;66906400] So on this road with a 100 limit what does the line of cars do upon seeing the line son the road? they brake :rolleyes:

In short, people are idiots.[/QUOTE]

Eh no people aren't idiots, cause any proper minded person doing 120k+ sees those lines for a speed camera on the road ahead, like me, they'll slam down on that dam brake pedal, better that then €90 fine and 3 penalty points:D

keithclancy

smokie2008 wrote: »

Eh no people aren't idiots, cause any proper minded person doing 120k+ sees those lines for a speed camera on the road ahead, like me, they'll slam down on that dam brake pedal, better that then €90 fine and 3 penalty points:D

Qualitymark

maddness wrote: »

A fixed camera in an area of a road that is not obvious ( after a bend in this case) does not cause people to slow down unless they have prior knowledge that the camera is there.

But a fixed penalty fine might make the driver slow down and think more carefully about his/her driving *in general* in future

cyclopath2001

Qualitymark wrote: »

But a fixed penalty fine might make the driver slow down and think more carefully about his/her driving *in general* in future

+1

When I got my first speeding ticket some years ago (pre-penalty points), it was well-deserved. It shook me out of my smugness about what a good driver I thought I was. I started to re-think how I drove. Being a good driver takes a lot of discipline. Technical skill is secondary.

The pro-speeding lobby are in denial and will latch onto any excuse (fish-in-a-barrel, revenue generating exercise, does not catch bad drivers....etc) rather than change their habits.

I've no doubt that if there were more speed traps on the black-spots, they'd invent a reason why that too was an unfair restriction the 'right to drive fast'.

Del2005

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

+1

When I got my first speeding ticket some years ago (pre-penalty points), it was well-deserved. It shook me out of my smugness about what a good driver I thought I was. I started to re-think how I drove. Being a good driver takes a lot of discipline. Technical skill is secondary.

Being a good driver requires more. Depending on the conditions technical skill may be primary or secondary or tertiary etc. A good driver adapts to the conditions and doesn't have solid rules.

The pro-speeding lobby are in denial and will latch onto any excuse (fish-in-a-barrel, revenue generating exercise, does not catch bad drivers....etc) rather than change their habits.

I've no doubt that if there were more speed traps on the black-spots, they'd invent a reason why that too was an unfair restriction the 'right to drive fast'.

I'd rather see our scare resources used on roads where deaths and injuries are happening. When they have speed enforcement on these roads, then I'll have no objection to speed cameras on high quality roads.

I'd rather save a life then fine thousands of people.

As it is at the moment we have a high quality multi lane motorway with a speed camera on it. There are numerous roads within a 5km radius of this camera with headstones marking where someone has lost their life. Why isn't the camera on these roads where it may save another family from tragedy?

I suppose it'll all be answered in October when the private speed cameras are rolled out.

If these cameras are covering the dangerous roads and outside schools then fixed cameras on motorways make sense. If they have the private speed cameras on M and N roads it'll show that they are purely revenue generators.

barochoc

Del2005 wrote: »

Being a good driver requires more. Depending on the conditions technical skill may be primary or secondary or tertiary etc. A good driver adapts to the conditions and doesn't have solid rules.



I'd rather see our scare resources used on roads where deaths and injuries are happening. When they have speed enforcement on these roads, then I'll have no objection to speed cameras on high quality roads.

I'd rather save a life then fine thousands of people.

As it is at the moment we have a high quality multi lane motorway with a speed camera on it. There are numerous roads within a 5km radius of this camera with headstones marking where someone has lost their life. Why isn't the camera on these roads where it may save another family from tragedy?

I suppose it'll all be answered in October when the private speed cameras are rolled out.

If these cameras are covering the dangerous roads and outside schools then fixed cameras on motorways make sense. If they have the private speed cameras on M and N roads it'll show that they are purely revenue generators.

Unfortunately I believe your last sentence will be 100% correct. Money money money money! Our government is great at spending it & extorting it too. Lives are further down the list of their priorities!

kasper

when this private company starts to operate their speeding cameras where do you honestly think they are going to put them ? if it was my private company that had the contract i know where i would put them , because i am running a company to make a profit

barochoc

kasper wrote: »

when this private company starts to operate their speeding cameras where do you honestly think they are going to put them ? if it was my private company that had the contract i know where i would put them , because i am running a company to make a profit

Well the M50 is a waist of space. Every school & housing estate should be covered. Billions in revenue for the 1st year. We'll be out of recession before you can say Lollipop Man (Or Woman)

cyclopath2001

Del2005 wrote: »

I'd rather see our scare resources used on roads where deaths and injuries are happening. When they have speed enforcement on these roads, then I'll have no objection to speed cameras on high quality roads.

Speed cameras can free up scarce Garda resources to police roads where cameras could not be used.

Del2005 wrote: »

I'd rather save a life then fine thousands of people.

To get the road safety message across before its too late, fines are a good reality check.

Del2005 wrote: »

As it is at the moment we have a high quality multi lane motorway with a speed camera on it. There are numerous roads within a 5km radius of this camera with headstones marking where someone has lost their life. Why isn't the camera on these roads where it may save another family from tragedy?

You've made a sound argument to police those roads but if the law is being broken on the motorway, then a camera is needed there too.

Del2005 wrote: »

If these cameras are covering the dangerous roads and outside schools then fixed cameras on motorways make sense. If they have the private speed cameras on M and N roads it'll show that they are purely revenue generators.

Cameras are inefficient and don't catch the kind of determined lawbreakers who consider the website 'irishspeedcameras.com' to be a valuable public service. Unless drivers voluntarily stick to speed limits, it's inevitable that recorders will eventually have to be fitted in all cars.

Heroditas

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Unless drivers voluntarily stick to speed limits, it's inevitable that recorders will eventually have to be fitted in all cars.

It certainly is not inevitable. It'll be a very sad day if that happens as part of a compulsory rollout.
I'm sure the nanny staters will be delighted though.

FlashGordon1969

Where exactly are these line markings and I presume the speed limit is still 100km?
I can appreciate why a private company wants to place the camera in a well used road but we all know few if any deadly accidents happen on the M50 but we still have ridiculous speed limits of 100k on narrow country roads. Lowering the limit to 80k would be a positive step as perhaps would minimum speeds on main roads-ever got stuck behind a granny going 40k on a main road!

Max Power1

Heroditas wrote: »

It certainly is not inevitable. It'll be a very sad day if that happens as part of a compulsory rollout.
I'm sure the nanny staters will be delighted though.

+1

I cant ever see it happening, even here, tbh. I sincerely hope that there are more intelligent people in ireland than the likes of the joe duffy brigade that will push for the introduction of recorders in every car.

deadduck

MYOB wrote: »

As I asked someone else with your ridiculous idea that speed limits are actually chosen for any scientific basis, what magical thing happened to a few hundred kilometres of dual carraigeway which had its speed limit raised by 20km/h last year? How did they suddently cease to be unsafe at 101km/h and become unsafe only at 121km/h overnight?

Ditto the entire motorway network gaining 7km/h overnight in 2005.


Speed limits in Ireland rarely have *any* connection to the safe speed of the road. They are either too high (most national secondaries, many R roads) or well below the design speed (nearly the entire motorway network). Slavishly assuming there is any sense to speed limits is far more dangerous than not obeying them.

hey cyclopath2001, i'd be very interested in hearing your response to MYOB's questions?

zeds alive

I'm not sure if its been posted yet but where exactly are the cameras on the M50 atm?

knipex

ReefBreak wrote: »

I can 100% predict with absolute 100% certainty that this will result in the level of road deaths being reduced. Bring it on.

Based on what evidence ?

ReefBreak wrote: »

Sorry to break this to you, but the UK has one of the lowest road-death rates in the world.

Sorry to break it to you but Uk road deaths per billion Km's covered are far far higher than those in Ireland.

Which do you think is a more accurate figure. Per head of population or per Km covered ?

knipex

bookworm2 wrote: »

after this weekend in Ireland, i would think everyone (me included) should be taking the lead foot off the gas pedal. arrive alive even if your late. would you rather get home to your loved ones yourself and reheat your dinner than have the cops arrive on your behalf to tell them your never coming home??

Do you really really believe that speed was the only contributing factor to that accident ?

Do you really believe that a speed camera would have prevented it ?

Qualitymark

I got a couple of points on my licence for speeding some years back. Went out the next day, after paying the €80 fine, and bought a satnav. It's saved me all kinds of trouble - telling me when I'm going over the limit, telling me what lane I need to be in for a turn, etc. Undoubtedly it's made me a safer driver.

Are they going to put up more speed limit signs when they bring in the cameras? Certainly aren't enough right now.

bigbadbear

Can somebody please come on and argue the side that thinks the m50 speedlimit of 100 is justifiable.

FlashGordon1969

No matter what speed limit you put on -some idiot will always ride up your rear bumper when you are sticking to the limit whether that speed limit is justified or not. I ask again-where are these new cameras??

I.S.T.

zeds alive wrote: »

I'm not sure if its been posted yet but where exactly are the cameras on the M50 atm?

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

No matter what speed limit you put on -some idiot will always ride up your rear bumper when you are sticking to the limit whether that speed limit is justified or not. I ask again-where are these new cameras??

There are no cameras yet, just lines painted on the road identical to the ones that are placed at fixed camera locations.

bigbadbear

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

No matter what speed limit you put on -some idiot will always ride up your rear bumper when you are sticking to the limit whether that speed limit is justified or not. I ask again-where are these new cameras??

They are speed cameras not tailgating cameras.

MarkN

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

No matter what speed limit you put on -some idiot will always ride up your rear bumper when you are sticking to the limit whether that speed limit is justified or not. I ask again-where are these new cameras??

Just move over, problem solved.

Qualitymark

MarkN wrote: »

Just move over, problem solved.

Not always possible - usually the glue merchants come and stick themselves to your arse when you're in the middle lane, instead of getting into the passing lane and taking themselves off out of there.

Guy:Incognito

Qualitymark wrote: »

Not always possible - usually the glue merchants come and stick themselves to your arse when you're in the middle lane, instead of getting into the passing lane and taking themselves off out of there.

But your only in the middle lane while overtaking then your moving back in so they cant be there for long.

Stark

Agreed, I never have problems when I only use the middle lane for overtaking. No-one tailgates you in lane 1.

Qualitymark

Stark wrote: »

Agreed, I never have problems when I only use the middle lane for overtaking. No-one tailgates you in lane 1.

Not my experience.

Cuddlesworth

Stark wrote: »

Agreed, I never have problems when I only use the middle lane for overtaking. No-one tailgates you in lane 1.

There would have to be another person in it for tailgating.

Guy:Incognito

Qualitymark wrote: »

Not my experience.

You get tailgated in the driving lane at 100kmph?

You sure your on the M50? Cos I very rarely have anyone behind me at all (and a lot less in front than there are idiots in the middle lane) when I use the driving lane.

L1011

Qualitymark wrote: »

Not my experience.

Yet another case of "I don't believe you"

There are no circumstances where a driver in lane 1 is going to be tailgated, let alone at the speed limit.

deadduck wrote: »

hey cyclopath2001, i'd be very interested in hearing your response to MYOB's questions?

So would I, but they'd require actually stepping away from a position of blind following, so it won't happen.