New speed trap M50 northbound

garancafan

bigbadbear wrote: »

I'm a very good and safe driver but when it comes to the M50 there is not a hope in hell of me sticking to the ridiculous speed limit.

That would seem to be a contradiction in terms.

Del2005

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

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

A camera only requires ~30m of straight road to catch someone speeding, a Garda requires a longer stretch of straight road. A camera is more suitable for rural roads then having a Garda sitting on it to catch the 1 driver who goes past each day.

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

How is putting a camera on one of the safest roads in the country and leaving all the dangerous roads with no cameras getting a safety message across? What it says to me is that if you want to speed without the risk of getting caught use back roads where the Gardaí don't do speed checks.

A speed camera on a back road which saves 1 life would be much more beneficial then a speed camera on the M50 which saves none, but makes millions in fines.

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.

Would it not be better to have people getting caught speeding on roads where there is a greater risk of serious incident first?

When these roads are blanketed with (average) speed cameras and Gardaí/private speed checks use any extra resources on the high quality roads.

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.

A senior Garda was on RTE news several years ago, when the site first got noticed by the whine line crowd. He said he had no problem with the site if it slowed drivers down on these roads, as they where dangerous roads and if people though they would be done speeding then they would drive slowly. Which is supposed to be the whole point of speed cameras

bigbadbear

garancafan wrote: »

That would seem to be a contradiction in terms.

This is the whole point. Maybe you, garancafan, can take initiative and represent the argument on the side that thinks the speed limit on the M50 is correct. Nobody has given any valid reasons why it is actually a true reflection of the road conditions.

Even Gaybo is on an ad on the Radio now talking about how local and regional roads are where almost all the accidents occur. "Don't let local become lethal" is the phrase they use.

Please justify the speed limit though because maybe all you people know something that we don't. Seriously

garancafan

Maybe you, garancafan, can take initiative and represent the argument on the side that thinks the speed limit on the M50 is correct.

The stretch to which the 100 km/h limit applies caters for arguably the greatest vehicle density and the greatest number of intersections of any motorway in the country. In my view a limit of greater than 100 km/h would increase risk to an unacceptable level.

beeno67

bloke wrote: »

Yes because drivers going around the M50 staring intently at their speedos while trying to do maths in their head is much safer :rolleyes:

I hate this kind of crap. If you are such a poor driver that you cannot keep within the speed limit without "staring intently at your speedo" then get off the road. It means you are an incompetent driver.

The rest of us find it very easy to keep to the speed limit, and even know the speed we are doing, without constantly checking the speedo. I would regard this ability as one of the most basic parts of driving. Please get off the road and get some more lessons.

beeno67

garancafan wrote: »

The stretch to which the 100 km/h limit applies caters for arguably the greatest vehicle density and the greatest number of intersections of any motorway in the country. In my view a limit of greater than 100 km/h would increase risk to an unacceptable level.

Yeah. The 100km limit is a traffic calming measure. It is to stop idiots speeding from traffic jam to traffic jam. If everyone kept to 100km then traffic would move faster. Speeding makes you slower in many situations and especially on busy roads like the M50. This has been known for years but little boy racers refuse to believe it.

beeno67

knipex wrote: »

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 ?

Sorry to break it to you but you are wrong.
As per 2008 deaths per billion KM in UK 5.0
In 2008 Deaths per Billion KM in Ireland 5.7

http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/irtad/pdf/risk.pdf

jkinsel

aphex™ wrote: »

Saw one Northbound between Sandyford and Ballyboden. Markings done, camera live soon it seems.

Does anyone know if they are live yet?

vincenzolorenzo

The one on the M50 northbound at Firhouse isn't running yet. No camera, just lines on the road. Think its the same story with the lines up near the airport

kasper

it is more than likely the marks for the private speed camera company for when they start operation

Martron

beeno67 wrote: »

I hate this kind of crap. If you are such a poor driver that you cannot keep within the speed limit without "staring intently at your speedo" then get off the road. It means you are an incompetent driver.

The rest of us find it very easy to keep to the speed limit, and even know the speed we are doing, without constantly checking the speedo. I would regard this ability as one of the most basic parts of driving. Please get off the road and get some more lessons.

its also 100km/h because the lanes are narrower.

bigbadbear

garancafan wrote: »

The stretch to which the 100 km/h limit applies caters for arguably the greatest vehicle density and the greatest number of intersections of any motorway in the country. In my view a limit of greater than 100 km/h would increase risk to an unacceptable level.

Fair observation but I don't feel the density is an issue though because if the road is busy you cant drive through the car in front of you. (Although some absolute rashers try to do so) You have to slow down if the road is busy. That's just a given for anyone that has any respect or common sense.

Forgetting the law part of it, would you think then that it is safe to do a higher speed at night when the road is empty?

beeno67 wrote: »

Yeah. The 100km limit is a traffic calming measure. It is to stop idiots speeding from traffic jam to traffic jam. If everyone kept to 100km then traffic would move faster. This has been known for years but little boy racers refuse to believe it.

This point is invalid as you are quoting the phrase in bold out of context. It is definitely correct on normal roads and I find it hilarious when some shmaaad-lad red-lines his mitsubishi colt from one set of lights to the next while I'm meeting him again a few seconds later at the next set of lights everytime:pac:

beeno67 wrote: »

If everyone kept to 100km then traffic would move faster. Speeding makes you slower in many situations and especially on busy roads like the M50.

This bit is wrong because..... well it just is. Fast is faster than slow is the logic I applied here

beeno67 wrote: »

I hate this kind of crap. If you are such a poor driver that you cannot keep within the speed limit without "staring intently at your speedo" then get off the road. It means you are an incompetent driver.

The rest of us find it very easy to keep to the speed limit, and even know the speed we are doing, without constantly checking the speedo. I would regard this ability as one of the most basic parts of driving. Please get off the road and get some more lessons.

I agree with this. It was a stupid argument

Martron wrote: »

its also 100km/h because the lanes are narrower.

The lanes are the same as other small median motorways at 3.5m. The Hard shoulder is 2.5m they appear smaller because of the extra lane and lack of a grass central median.





Somebody mentioned sightlines earlier and this is a valid argument as there are sections where the bends are actually too quick for high speeds but are, in fact, still long enough for 120km/h. This still leaves the camera at ballymun on a straight section of road. IMO out of the €300million for the M50 upgrade they should have spent an extra shilling actually dividing the different sections into applicable speed limits. ranging from 100km/h up to 150km/h. This would have cost in or around an extra €10,000 maximum

beeno67

bigbadbear wrote: »

This point is invalid as you are quoting the phrase in bold out of context. It is definitely correct on normal roads and I find it hilarious when some shmaaad-lad red-lines his mitsubishi colt from one set of lights to the next while I'm meeting him again a few seconds later at the next set of lights everytime:pac:



This bit is wrong because..... well it just is. Fast is faster than slow is the logic I applied here

First of all, the M50 is about 40KM long. If you were to do the entire length at 120KM per hour you would do it in 20 mins. If you do it at 100KM per hour it will take 24 mins. On the section of road we are talking about, it means going at 100km per hour will cost you about 30 seconds at most.

However no one averages 120km on the M50 during the day, and what dictates your average speed is not you but the traffic around you. What is the point of going at 120km when a few miles ahead of you the cars are all going at 60kph. Doing 120kph just means you reach the slower traffic quicker thus worsening the slower traffic. If everyone slowed down then the actual speed would be faster. Hence going slower means you go faster.

Stark

beeno67 wrote: »

However no one averages 120km on the M50 during the day. What is the point of going at 120km when a few miles ahead of you the cars are all going at 60kph. Doing 120kph just means you reach the slower traffic quicker thus worsening the slower traffic. If everyone slowed down then the actual speed would be faster. Hence going slower means you go faster.

I've been able to do 100km/hr consistently on the M50 during peak times since the mainline upgrade was completed. Also, the drivers speeding by me in the overtaking lane haven't slowed me down.

naoise80

beeno67 wrote: »

First of all, the M50 is about 40KM long. If you were to do the entire length at 120KM per hour you would do it in 20 mins. If you do it at 100KM per hour it will take 24 mins. On the section of road we are talking about, it means going at 100km per hour will cost you about 30 seconds at most.

However no one averages 120km on the M50 during the day, and what dictates your average speed is not you but the traffic around you. What is the point of going at 120km when a few miles ahead of you the cars are all going at 60kph. Doing 120kph just means you reach the slower traffic quicker thus worsening the slower traffic. If everyone slowed down then the actual speed would be faster. Hence going slower means you go faster.

This has been proven on the M25 in London.

When they reduced the speed limit around Heathrow (the busiest section ) the average speeds increased.

It prevents the "Catterpillar" effect, where speeding traffic slows quickly coming up to slower moving traffic, it has a knock on effect where each car behind slows a fraction more, until eventually the traffic comes to a complete standstill.

Stark

The M25 has variable speed limits that they can adjust when the M25 becomes congested though. It doesn't make sense to have a low speed limit 24 hours a day for dealing with congestion that might only occur for an hour or two within the day.

Btw, report by the UK National Audit Office that argues against the case for applying the variable speed limits elsewhere: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0405/tackling_congestion.aspx

beeno67

Stark wrote: »

I've been able to do 100km/hr consistently on the M50 during peak times since the mainline upgrade was completed.

Which was kind of the point I was making

Stark wrote: »

Also, the drivers speeding by me in the overtaking lane haven't slowed me down.

Well of course they wouldn't. However they are more likely to come across slower moving traffic meaning they have to slow down.

beeno67

Stark wrote: »

The M25 has variable speed limits that they can adjust when the M25 becomes congested though. It doesn't make sense to have a low speed limit 24 hours a day for dealing with congestion that might only occur for an hour or two within the day.

But as I said a 100kph limit for the entire M50 would add a max of 4 mins to traffic doing the entire journey. Assuming that the traffic doing 120kph never comes across traffic that causes it to slow down. It is a bit pointless adding variable speed limits that would be of significant benefit to very few drivers. M25 is a much longer road about 4 or 5 times longer.

Stark

beeno67 wrote: »

Which was kind of the point I was making

But no-one pays attention to the speed limits on the M50 so it's an irrelevant point. The capacity of the road has significantly increased since the days when you were stuck doing 60km/hr on it and that's what allows you to maintain a consistent speed. There's no justification for installing speed cameras in order to maintain traffic flow.

testarossa40

beeno67 wrote: »

I hate this kind of crap. If you are such a poor driver that you cannot keep within the speed limit without "staring intently at your speedo" then get off the road. It means you are an incompetent driver.

The rest of us find it very easy to keep to the speed limit, and even know the speed we are doing, without constantly checking the speedo. I would regard this ability as one of the most basic parts of driving. Please get off the road and get some more lessons.

It's soooper that the amount rattling off your Daewoo Matiz's dashboard gives you adequate notice that you're about to hit 80ks, but the rest of us in our torquey teutonic tiddly-eyes do like to steal a glance downwards now and again and admire the view. It's just de rigeur in speed-limited society.

Otherwise in all seriousness - ten out of ten for one of the most histrionic posts I've read in a while. Hilarious actually. Not :rolleyes:

jock101

beeno67 wrote: »

I hate this kind of crap. If you are such a poor driver that you cannot keep within the speed limit without "staring intently at your speedo" then get off the road. It means you are an incompetent driver.

The rest of us find it very easy to keep to the speed limit, and even know the speed we are doing, without constantly checking the speedo. I would regard this ability as one of the most basic parts of driving. Please get off the road and get some more lessons.

Sadly the Irish seem to think speed limits are just there to be broken, and it only seems to be death or serious injury to them, that gets the message through! But then its the Cowboys that are ment to run this LALA land, have no interest in road safety!:rolleyes:

SGKM

jock101 wrote: »

Sadly the Irish seem to think speed limits are just there to be broken, and it only seems to be death or serious injury to them, that gets the message through! But then its the Cowboys that are ment to run this LALA land, have no interest in road safety!:rolleyes:

Ah excellent, you're back! I'm looking forward to you reeeming out the same old sh1te again... about how you follow speed limits meticulously and never question them because the gimp of a civil servant who has no grasp of driving in reality has to be right. Gay Byrne is great, we need more RSA advertising and speed cameras on motorways because speeding is the only factor in road accidents and we're all incapable of deciding on what speed is appropriate to drive at with all factors considered... Wonderful stuff!

jock101

SGKM wrote: »

Ah excellent, you're back! I'm looking forward to you reeeming out the same old sh1te again... about how you follow speed limits meticulously and never question them because the gimp of a civil servant who has no grasp of driving in reality has to be right. Gay Byrne is great, we need more RSA advertising and speed cameras on motorways because speeding is the only factor in road accidents and we're all incapable of deciding on what speed is appropriate to drive at with all factors considered... Wonderful stuff!

Perfect example of the Mentality of the Irish Driver!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

garancafan

bigbadbear wrote: »

You have to slow down if the road is busy. That's just a given for anyone that has any respect or common sense.

Forgetting the law part of it, would you think then that it is safe to do a higher speed at night when the road is empty?

The laws exist because of the, unfortunately high, number of people who do not have the qualities of respect and common sense.

I accept that it is safer to drive at higher speeds on empty roads than on busy ones. There is a lot of merit in the idea (as has been suggested elsewhere) of variable speed limits. I am particularly attracted to that one that operates in France that decrees a lower limit for wet roads,

Del2005

jock101 wrote: »

Sadly the Irish seem to think speed limits are just there to be broken,

I agree with entirely with you.

and it only seems to be death or serious injury to them, that gets the message through!

Or maybe putting speed traps on dangerous roads where people are being killed and seriously injured instead of placing them on high quality roads.

I'm seeing loads more 30km/h signs going up outside schools. When I drive at this speed when the lights are on all the cars ahead of me disappear into the distance. Would it not be better to place speed cameras here so lives can be saved then on the M50?

Or an even better idea, have Gardaí patrolling them so that illegal parking and speeding can be tackled.

tmcw

This thread went waaaaaaaaaaay off-topic after the first page - have any cameras been put up yet at the locations mentioned in the first page? Or are they due for when the roadworks are completed?

kasper

probably just the private speed camera operators preparing and waiting for their contract to start

tmcw

Yeah, ta kasper. Had a bit of a sift through a couple of the more recent pages, and it seems the cameras aren't in yet.

Guy:Incognito

Del2005 wrote: »

I agree with entirely with you.


Or maybe putting speed traps on dangerous roads where people are being killed and seriously injured instead of placing them on high quality roads.
.

People keeping coming with this.

How many countries put cameras on dangerous twisty country roads?

As I said earlier in this thread, have a look at the traffic on the M50 now at the very lines being discussed here. What a mockery of peoples intelligence a few lines painted on a road makes. We dont even need the camera.

As I said, I moved out of the drivign lane to overtake some idiot doing under 70kmph into another line of idiots in the middle lane doing 88 . Then we come up to the lines and what happens? They all bloody brake. Absolute retarded monkys.

Now apply that situation to twisty country roads.

It doesnt really matter that the person that runs in to the back of you is in the worng in the eyes of the law if your mashed in to your steering wheel or a ditch.

As for schools, I'd imagine plety of them will have cameras outside when the private company comes in.

Speeding is one of the few law that can be fully automated and thus free up the gards from spendign hours sitting in a car leanign out the window. I doubt anyone would have issues about cameras that automatically catch burglers, but then that wont affect most people so they dont moan about it.

kasper

its the pedestrains school kids that end up fatalities and the dont cross the m50 the urban areas are where people are getting kiled put the cameras there