Ramps Speed Ramps

miller50841

Hi does anybody notice that speed ramps are getting Higher, Sharper, and more frequent(more of them). I drive a selection of large/ small vehicles and have noticed that most of the time it just makes cars speed up inbetween and they are in alot of cases on roads that have'nt even got houses on.

EMERGENCY Tenders have a huge problem with them also it causes them to nearly stop just to go over them I really think that something should be done with them as it is a matter of Life or Death.

Also people who steal cars or just for whatever reason want to escape the Gardai/ Police have no problem with flooring it over them and a lot of the time this gives them a huge lead and chance to escape being captured.

All the ramps that were layed with the fake red brick(poured concrete mix then stensiled over) have now all crumbled and are a hazard to all road users.

I honestly think there should be huge changes and improvements to how ramps are positioned and layed.

Irish and Proud

miller50841 wrote: »

Hi does anybody notice that speed ramps are getting Higher, Sharper, and more frequent(more of them). I drive a selection of large/ small vehicles and have noticed that most of the time it just makes cars speed up inbetween and they are in alot of cases on roads that have'nt even got houses on.

EMERGENCY Tenders have a huge problem with them also it causes them to nearly stop just to go over them I really think that something should be done with them as it is a matter of Life or Death.

Also people who steal cars or just for whatever reason want to escape the Gardai/ Police have no problem with flooring it over them and a lot of the time this gives them a huge lead and chance to escape being captured.

All the ramps that were layed with the fake red brick(poured concrete mix then stensiled over) have now all crumbled and are a hazard to all road users.

I honestly think there should be huge changes and improvements to how ramps are positioned and layed.

Would certainly agree that much more robust controls are needed in relation to traffic calming. IMO, the following regulatory mechanisms should apply:

1) Traffic calming should only be applied where appropriate - dangerous road characteristics, pure residential roads, centres of major social activity etc;

2) All traffic calming measures should be subject to strict templates and independent safety audits;

3) All traffic calming measures should be subject to proper aesthetic design standards;

4) All traffic calming measures should be eco-rated - affect on traffic emissions (engine revs etc), emissions caused by extra necessity for maintenance;

5) All traffic calming measures should incorporate proper drainage.

I'm sure there's more, but I'll leave it at that!

Regards!

galwaycyclist

Yes ideally what is needed is some form of gps based speed limiting system fitted to all cars. Why should the state be bearing the cost of traffic calming measures when the problem can be fixed at source?

DaCor

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Yes ideally what is needed is some form of gps based speed limiting system fitted to all cars. Why should the state be bearing the cost of traffic calming measures when the problem can be fixed at source?

1 word - privacy

SeanW

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Yes ideally what is needed is some form of gps based speed limiting system fitted to all cars. Why should the state be bearing the cost of traffic calming measures when the problem can be fixed at source?

You're absolutely right

After all, it's not like motorists are not taxed and regulated to the hilt already! :rolleyes: (If you exclude the car tax, carbon tax on fuel, duty on fuel, vat on the taxes on fuel, VRT, VAT on VRT, speeding fines, insurance, insurance levies to pay for Quinn, arbitrary annual NCTs for poor drivers, multitudes of tests and regulations needed to get a tightly monitored license etc. etc. etc.)

But your logic is so flawless I think it should be extended to cyclists as well.
How about GPS tracked monitors that are connected to the bikes brakes so that the bike can be stopped the second some twat mounts a footpath or runs a red light? And the cost should be paid for by several thousand euros a year in a byzantine array of new cycling taxes. After all, why should the State (i.e. the motorists that are being used as milk cows to keep it afloat) be bearing the cost of enforcement measures when the problem can clearly be fixed to the source?

How would you feel about being charged big €€€s to have a Big-Brother law enforcer attached to your bike? Would you like it?

I didn't think so.

PseudoFamous

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Yes ideally what is needed is some form of gps based speed limiting system fitted to all cars. Why should the state be bearing the cost of traffic calming measures when the problem can be fixed at source?

Genius. Now lets just hope that no one ever has to disobey a speed limit to get out of a dangerous environment, and that all speed limits are entirely reasonable.

But seriously, there's a ton of speed ramps on the emoclew and coolgreany roads on Arklow, and they seem to have been designed by the stupidest person in Ireland.
One of the ramps in particular is positioned on an incline, and the constructors (I say this, as either no engineer, or the worlds most inept was involved) didn't allow for this, resulting in every vehicle bar high clearance ones scraping the bumper off the ground after the ramp when climbing, or the bumper hitting the ramp itself when descending the hill, even at a crawl.

miller50841

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Yes ideally what is needed is some form of gps based speed limiting system fitted to all cars. Why should the state be bearing the cost of traffic calming measures when the problem can be fixed at source?

That system would end up to expensive.
What the Irish usually do is copy the UK but only make it worse..
If you cycle you will notice the ramps are very sharp and can sometimes nearly or have thrown you or someone off.
For the likes of schools a camera system should be set up outside as to defo slow vehicles down and in major blackspots I am for that but the way its done in Ireland lets go put the camera and speed gun on roads that are straight or very wide or motorways especially where there actually has being no death or serious crash.

I really would like to see the RAMPS issue go further, I do understand there are other problems out there but I feel this is IMPORTANT.

HAVE A LOOK AT THE NEXT FIRE ENGINE OR AMBULANCE OR COP CAR RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND SEE WHAT RAMPS ARE ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTING TO...:(:(:(

L1011

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Yes ideally what is needed is some form of gps based speed limiting system fitted to all cars. Why should the state be bearing the cost of traffic calming measures when the problem can be fixed at source?

GPS speed limiting systems are completely unworkable for more reasons than can possibly be listed. Doesn't stop them being the fantasy of woefully ill-informed "road safety gurus" though, but they aren't going to be workable for a generation.

I have yet to see a set of speed ramps in Ireland which are passable to all vehicles at the posted speed limit anyway. Might be able to do them in a Citroen C5 with its suspension, but not your average car; or any emergency vehicle at that.

Buffman

There was a thread about these on motors recently, the regs were posted, and most of them would appear to be illegal.

From here

smash wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1988/en/si/0032.html

5. Each ramp shall—

( a ) be constructed of hot rolled asphalt,
( b ) extend across the width of the roadway between channels,
( c ) be 3.7 metres in length in the direction of the roadway,
( d ) have a maximum height at the centre above the road surface of 10 centimetres,
( e ) be properly secured so as to prevent movement, and
( f ) be painted with reflectorised white paint.

L1011

Those regs would make "speed cushions" as beloved by the Dublin authorities illegal (not full width), make the most annoying ramps in Maynooth illegal (bus services) and make KCC's fake-brick ones illegal (not hot rolled asphalt).

Time to start complaining...

monument

Might reply to other points later, but...

MYOB wrote: »

Those regs would make "speed cushions" as beloved by the Dublin authorities illegal (not full width), make the most annoying ramps in Maynooth illegal (bus services) and make KCC's fake-brick ones illegal (not hot rolled asphalt).

Time to start complaining...

Not sure about speed ramps and remember that the road traffic laws are a bit of a jumble, there could be other speed bump refrences.

But even if there isn't they'll just change the law.

They've been marking cycle lanes on footpaths for years when they have no legal right to, and there's no legal backing for shaired use, nor is there any for any normal with flow bus lane without a bike in the sign (which makes loads of bus lanes non-legal, but people still get finned in them!).

galwaycyclist

MYOB wrote: »

GPS speed limiting systems are completely unworkable for more reasons than can possibly be listed. Doesn't stop them being the fantasy of woefully ill-informed "road safety gurus" though, but they aren't going to be workable for a generation.

I have yet to see a set of speed ramps in Ireland which are passable to all vehicles at the posted speed limit anyway. Might be able to do them in a Citroen C5 with its suspension, but not your average car; or any emergency vehicle at that.

If GPS systems are unworkable as you indicate then what is your alternative? (Your argument appears to favour traffic calming of some description).

If your argument is with inappropriate speed limits being used that are not remotely applicable to the geometry of the road then I agree wholeheartedly.

The "Irish" speed limit regime is a sick joke. Other countries make widespread use of Tempo 30 or 30km/h zones. In Graz, from memory, 30km/h applies on 80% of the city's streets. The Netherlands goes further with thousands of schemes where a speed limit of "walking speed" applies.

galwaycyclist

SeanW wrote: »

You're absolutely right

After all, it's not like motorists are not taxed and regulated to the hilt already! :rolleyes: (If you exclude the car tax, carbon tax on fuel, duty on fuel, vat on the taxes on fuel, VRT, VAT on VRT, speeding fines, insurance, insurance levies to pay for Quinn, arbitrary annual NCTs for poor drivers, multitudes of tests and regulations needed to get a tightly monitored license etc. etc. etc.)

I don't know where you are getting your tightly monitored licence - I would have thought that was the whole point? Speed ramps are viewed as necessary because the manner in which drivers use their licences is not being adequately monitored or policed. How do you propose to replace speed ramps otherwise?

I am not clear as to the relevance of taxation policy? I suspect they might already have their own threads.

But your logic is so flawless I think it should be extended to cyclists as well.
How about GPS tracked monitors that are connected to the bikes brakes so that the bike can be stopped the second some twat mounts a footpath or runs a red light? And the cost should be paid for by several thousand euros a year in a byzantine array of new cycling taxes. After all, why should the State (i.e. the motorists that are being used as milk cows to keep it afloat) be bearing the cost of enforcement measures when the problem can clearly be fixed to the source?

How would you feel about being charged big €€€s to have a Big-Brother law enforcer attached to your bike? Would you like it?

I didn't think so.

If speed ramps were being put in as a response to the behaviour of people on bicycles then I don't see how I could object? At least not if I also wanted the speed ramps taken out.:D

The other issues you raise are in my view off topic so I don't propose to engage with them in this thread.

dubhthach

GPS technically has an accuracy of about 6metres. Of course as it's a US military system they can increase the accuracy over a specific point while causing major degration elsewhere. This is one reason why in 2003 that GPS's all over the place were reporting people to be couple km's from where they actually were. Though if you were in Iraq at the time the accuracy was down to 1metre.

L1011

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If GPS systems are unworkable as you indicate then what is your alternative? (Your argument appears to favour traffic calming of some description).

If your argument is with inappropriate speed limits being used that are not remotely applicable to the geometry of the road then I agree wholeheartedly.

My argument is purely technical.

There is no mapping company with an accurate set of road maps for Ireland. There is no mapping company with an accurate set of speed limit data either.

Even if such a system existed, there is not the mobile network capacity to ensure that the in-car units were kept up to date.

I don't need to provide an alternative, much as I don't need to provide an alternative for any other harebrained schemes people dream up.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Speed ramps are viewed as necessary because the manner in which drivers use their licences is not being adequately monitored or policed. How do you propose to replace speed ramps otherwise?

Replacing them with ramps which function to the speed limit of the road they're placed on, rather than 10km/h on a 50km/h road would be a first start.

galwaycyclist

MYOB wrote: »

Replacing them with ramps which function to the speed limit of the road they're placed on, rather than 10km/h on a 50km/h road would be a first start.

Your comment invites the conclusion that you are the type of motorist who treats the speed limit as a "target" to be reached regardless of the purpose of the road, eg residential street or housing estate, school route, high street busy with shoppers on foot, minor country lane.

In short, if that is your attitude, then that perfectly demonstrates why many communities feel that speed ramps are necessary.

bk

While I disagree with the idea of GPS speed limits, I have to point out some factual inaccuracies in the responses.

DaCor wrote: »

1 word - privacy

GPS only has a receiver, GPS never transmits your location.

A GPS system can monitor your location and then transmit your location via an alternative method such as the 3G mobile network or other radio network, but that isn't actually part of the GPS system.

In order to protect peoples privacy, such a system could be designed that it only receives the GPS location and matches that against speed maps and limits the speed of the car based on it's location.

I'm not saying it should be done, just that it could be done while preserving privacy.

MYOB wrote: »

There is no mapping company with an accurate set of road maps for Ireland. There is no mapping company with an accurate set of speed limit data either.

The OSI has such maps, however unfortunately they charge ridiculous money for their commercial usage (despite the fact that the Irish Tax Payer already paid for their creation), which is why the mapping companies create their own inaccurate maps instead.

However under such a scheme the OSI mapping data would obviously be used.

MYOB wrote: »

Even if such a system existed, there is not the mobile network capacity to ensure that the in-car units were kept up to date.

Again, you don't need a 100% perfect, always on network. You just need the vehicle to pass through the network and get updated speed maps. Every car is going to be able to hit the mobile network probably every day.

You just design the system in such a way that it advertises changes in speed limits a good month in advance. So the vehicles receive the updates when they hit the mobile network anytime in the month in advance and then only apply the new speed limit on the date.

Again not saying it should be done, just that it could be done.

L1011

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Your comment invites the conclusion that you are the type of motorist who treats the speed limit as a "target" to be reached regardless of the purpose of the road, eg residential street or housing estate, school route, high street busy with shoppers on foot, minor country lane.

In short, if that is your attitude, then that perfectly demonstrates why many communities feel that speed ramps are necessary.

You interpretation of my comment is wildly incorrect and is nothing but an attempt to avoid dealing with the actual issue.

If the council feels traffic should go below the limit, lower the limit. If there is a problem with too many people breaking the now apparently appropriate limit, look at calming.

bk wrote: »

Again, you don't need a 100% perfect, always on network. You just need the vehicle to pass through the network and get updated speed maps. Every car is going to be able to hit the mobile network probably every day.

You just design the system in such a way that it advertises changes in speed limits a good month in advance. So the vehicles receive the updates when they hit the mobile network anytime in the month in advance and then only apply the new speed limit on the date.

Again not saying it should be done, just that it could be done.

There still isn't the overall network capacity to provide updates to the entire vehicle fleet in the country on a monthly basis. Even using atomic updates barely deals with the issue.

Also won't work with temporary limits, which is where many of the speed related accidents happen in the first place.

tharlear

GPS does not take account of topology, easily (4 sat needed with good line of sight)

galwaycyclist

tharlear wrote: »

GPS does not take account of topology.

Hmm last time I checked GPS actually calculates your position in three dimension (it actually gets two positions being the intersections of spheres but discards one because its in outer space).

But why restrict ourselves to gps? What about roadside transponders instead?

SeanW

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Your comment invites the conclusion that you are the type of motorist who treats the speed limit as a "target" to be reached regardless of the purpose of the road, eg residential street or housing estate, school route, high street busy with shoppers on foot, minor country lane.

In short, if that is your attitude, then that perfectly demonstrates why many communities feel that speed ramps are necessary.

I think you will find very few drivers with that attitude, most people drive according to the conditions of the road and the prevailing weather.

Sometimes that means a normal cruising speed is below the posted limit, e.g. in inclement weather or bad roads being some examples, but it also means that a safe cruising speed can be above the posted limit. An example is this HQDC outside Ennis, 50kph the whole way. Or the N3 crossing the M50 going into Dublin, where the 30kph posted limit bears no relationship at all, whatsoever, to the conditions of the road.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I don't know where you are getting your tightly monitored licence

Compared to cyclists, motorists are quite strongly regulated. Licenses, difficult to obtain and easy to lose, registration plates, NCTs, none of this applies to cyclists, and given how I see cyclists behave as a matter of routine, it clearly shows.

I am not clear as to the relevance of taxation policy? I suspect they might already have their own threads.

You brought costs into the question with your GPS "contribution" about why "the State" shouldn't be paying for the enforcement that you seems obsessed with.

If speed ramps were being put in as a response to the behaviour of people on bicycles then I don't see how I could object? At least not if I also wanted the speed ramps taken out.:D

Again, you are arguing with points I never made, nice strawman there, I was responding to your "contribution" :rolleyes: on the topic of GPS speed enforcement.

The other issues you raise are in my view off topic so I don't propose to engage with them in this thread.

I rather imagined you would say that, in fact I was sure of it, and I'll tell you why:

One thing that extremist cyclists have in common is their very aggressive, borderline hateful view of how motorists should not be allowed to use the road. To do a little paraphrasing of 3 of you on this board.

you wrote:

Motorists aren't regulated enough. They need GPS watching them everywhere 24/7 as Big Brother

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Motorists should be instantly disqualified for a single speeding offense, even if it is "racing" down an HQDC at 55kph.

Iwannahurl wrote:

New housing estates should be built with narrow streets and no on street parking so that evil motorists cannot park outside their doors. "Essex Design" FTW. The fact that such an estate was built in Portlaoise was built and has been shown to be an abject failure is proof that Irish motorists are unique among the world as being vile, evil, lawbreaking scumbags who did not respect the estate designers intentions

And so on, and so on.

Another thing that unites most of you is a much less forthright view about cyclist lawbreaking, of which there is also plenty of - just ask any pedestrian and many motorists. With your answer, you have proven that you are no different.

I push this point because there is a saying "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander" or, if you're the religious type, "Do unto others what you would have done you."

In short, I want to know if you, as an obvious motorist hater, would object to the same measures you have demanded for motorists were to be imposed on all cyclists?

SeanW

galwaycyclist wrote: »

But why restrict ourselves to gps? What about roadside transponders instead?

Thank you so much for making my point for me

How about we put roadside transponders at city junctions, put wireless receivers on the national fleet of bicycles, which slam on the bikes brakes whenever a roadside transponder detects that a bicycle is going through a red light?

Or a similar setup for 'cyclopaths' who cycle on foothpaths?

That would be great

monument

SeanW wrote: »

I think you will find very few drivers with that attitude, most people drive according to the conditions of the road and the prevailing weather.

Rolling around laughing is the only response to that.

Not sure what it's like down the county but on the M50 and M1 very few people leave extra stopping distance when it's wet and that's on top of those who don't leave space in any condition -- so that's not driving for conditions.

In the city centre when it starts to rain any way heavy a huge percentage of drivers seem to go crazy -- blocking more ped crossing and junctions than usual and breaking more red lights than usual.

SeanW wrote: »

Compared to cyclists, motorists are quite strongly regulated. Licenses, difficult to obtain and easy to lose, registration plates, NCTs, none of this applies to cyclists, and given how I see cyclists behave as a matter of routine, it clearly shows.

Sure, many cyclists break the law as routine -- there's no defending it. Cyclists should not be breaking light or cycling on footpaths -- I hate it when they do, very annoying while on foot and sometimes even more so when cycling. There needs to be better enforcement.

But you're trying to make motorists out to be some sort of angles when they also break the law routinely. Any day here in Dublin you'll see motorists breaking lights, blocking junctions and ped crossings, parking on footpaths, driving on footpaths (a requirement to be able to park a car/van/etc on a footpath), speeding in the 30km/h zone, driving in bus lanes, not yielding at unsignaled crossing where pedestrians have the right of way, being completely blind to clear ways and near schools doing things like speeding and parking on footpaths. There needs to be better enforcement.

Here, prove you're not an extremist motorist and answer this honestly: Compared to cyclists, is there any reason why motorists should be more strongly regulated?

SeanW

monument wrote: »

Here, prove you're not an extremist motorist and answer this honestly: Compared to cyclists, is there any reason why motorists should be more strongly regulated?

Motorists already are WAY more strongly regulated, and I have no problem with that, within reason.

I only want sensible limitations on what new mandates can be imposed on motorists. galwaycyclists suggestions cross that line, and he's not the only one.

There needs to be better enforcement.

By all means if there are specific issues, then better enforcement OF EXISTING LAWS is needed, especially in particularly troubled areas, like schools. I just want proportionality, not hare-brained overkill over-reactions.

bk

MYOB wrote: »

There still isn't the overall network capacity to provide updates to the entire vehicle fleet in the country on a monthly basis. Even using atomic updates barely deals with the issue.

Actually technically speaking there is easily more then enough bandwidth to transmit this data to all vehicles.

The mistake you seem to be making is that you seem to think actual maps need to be transmitted to the vehicles.

No, you just need to transmit metadata files containing coordinates of roads and the speed limit.

Such a file, even if it needed to be transmitted in it's entirety would take up relatively speaking very little space. It would be a fraction of the size of videos some people stream on 3g networks.

Also the best way to transmit it wouldn't even be a 3g network. Instead better off to broadcast it to all vehicles via FM radio. Just like how Traffic Message Channel (TMC) is transmitted over FM radio to cars and GPS systems to let them know of traffic events.

MYOB wrote: »

Also won't work with temporary limits, which is where many of the speed related accidents happen in the first place.

Could be easily transmitted to vehicles via FM radio, just like TMC. This is very much a technically solved problem.

However I don't think it should be done, as it encourages people to drive faster then they should. Remember a speed limit is the maximum speed allowed in perfect conditions, it isn't a target and you should drive slower if the conditions called for it (e.g. rain). I would fear that such a system would lull people into driving at the max speed.

But technically it really isn't difficult to do.

tharlear wrote: »

GPS does not take account of topology.

With enough satellites viewable at different, sufficient angels, you can certainly plot your position in 3d space.

And you wouldn't just use GPS either, you would also use accelerometers, gyroscopes and could optionally be tied into the vehicles speedometer.

Not forgetting A-GPS, which uses the position of 3G mobile phone masts and wifi spots to give even faster and more precise location information.

Non of this is rocket science or expensive. All this tech is built into normal smartphones that cost as little as €150.

Again not saying it should be done, but don't kid yourselves, technically it could be very easily and cheaply done.

L1011

galwaycyclist wrote: »

But why restrict ourselves to gps? What about roadside transponders instead?

How do you handle the inevitable deaths when a car doing 100km/h on the N7 suddenly picks up and reacts to a rogue 30km/h signal from the part time zone at the school at Kill? Which is well within the limited range of such a system.

This system is even less workable than a GPS one. You may as well stop trying to imagine ways of controlling cars and maybe work on ways of controlling cyclists.

L1011

bk wrote: »

No, you just need to transmit metadata files containing coordinates of roads and the speed limit.

You seem to be underestimating the road network in this country. Some counties have more public roads than a country our size would elsewhere in Europe. "just" the metadata is still going to be a substantial size.

And 2M+ vehicles isn't quite the same as a small number of consumers streaming netflix.

monument

Re data transfer -- if the Kindle can offer G3 wireless connectivity without any fees or contracts to sign, then a GPS speed system could work. The privacy issue could be sorted by only allowing your data to be sent to the gardai when it detects the car

I'd suggest that a system like this could be trialled with repeat speeding offenders, all more serious offenders like dangerous drivers, and learner drivers (all temporary units for the driver, rather than the car). It could be also be used to keep learners off motorways.

SeanW wrote: »

By all means if there are specific issues, then better enforcement OF EXISTING LAWS is needed, especially in particularly troubled areas, like schools. I just want proportionality, not hare-brained overkill over-reactions.

Not to be too pedantic, but GPS enforcement would not be enforcement of new laws, but just what you are looking for enforcement of existing speeding laws.

MYOB wrote: »

How do you handle the inevitable deaths when a car doing 100km/h on the N7 suddenly picks up and reacts to a rogue 30km/h signal from the part time zone at the school at Kill? Which is well within the limited range of such a system.

IF that school-time 30km/h is set up poorly (ie lacking a step down from 100km/h, or any other problem) than it should be fixed now regardless of proposals for the future.

MYOB wrote: »

You may as well stop trying to imagine ways of controlling cars and maybe work on ways of controlling cyclists.

As I've already asked somebody else;

Prove you're not an extremist motorist and answer this honestly: Compared to cyclists, is there any reason why motorists should be more strongly regulated?

But re cyclists anyway: On the spot fines need to be brought in ASAP -- this is promised in the national cycle policy but as with many of the other measures in the policy, the department is dragging its feet. Serious or repeat offenders could also be brought to court and given mandatory cycling training (to be paid for by the offender) and after that bicycles should be taken off people who keep offending.

bk

MYOB wrote: »

You seem to be underestimating the road network in this country. Some counties have more public roads than a country our size would elsewhere in Europe. "just" the metadata is still going to be a substantial size.

The metadata would be highly compressible as it is pure text. Trust me I know how this works technically.

MYOB wrote: »

And 2M+ vehicles isn't quite the same as a small number of consumers streaming netflix.

Again, you don't seem to understand the technology behind this. If it is transmitted by FM radio, then all 2m+ vehicles receive the file at the same time. It is a one to many broadcast and it would be very efficient.

Think of it like how satellite broadcasting works, satellite can easily transmit 200 HD video channels at the same time to millions of people. You don't have to transmit it to each car individually, you just transmit it over FM radio (or satellite if you prefer) repeating constantly and the vehicles pick it up when they tune in.

Again this is exactly how TMC works, which does exactly what we are talking about here all over the world.

TMC broadcasts traffic congestion and event updates for every road in Ireland to every car in Ireland over FM radio.

L1011

bk wrote: »

Again, you don't seem to understand the technology behind this. If it is transmitted by FM radio, then all 2m+ vehicles receive the file at the same time. It is a one to many broadcast and it would be very efficient.

Think of it like how satellite broadcasting works, satellite can easily transmit 200 HD video channels at the same time to millions of people. You don't have to transmit it to each car individually, you just transmit it over FM radio (or satellite if you prefer) repeating constantly and the vehicles pick it up when they tune in.

Again this is exactly how TMC works, which does exactly what we are talking about here all over the world.

TMC broadcasts traffic congestion and event updates for every road in Ireland to every car in Ireland over FM radio.

TMC broadcasts at a minuscule bitrate. Even if the entire country compressed in to a few hundred kb there is no guarantee that every car would get a full, uncorrupted data set every month.

I understand the technology behind this very well, I know what each further suggestion is and why it still won't work.

monument wrote: »

IF that school-time 30km/h is set up poorly (ie lacking a step down from 100km/h, or any other problem) than it should be fixed now regardless of proposals for the future.

Its on a road BESIDE the N7. A car legally doing 100km/h on the N7 S/B could very easily pick up the 30km/h transponder signal under galwaycyclist's proposals.

monument wrote: »

Prove you're not an extremist motorist and answer this honestly

Providing an answer you don't agree with does not make someone an "extremist motorist"

Motorists need regulation, as do cyclists. Motorists have a huge amount already and now we have cyclists suggesting fantastical, improbable further regulation why they still have none.

galwaycyclist

MYOB wrote: »

Motorists need regulation, as do cyclists. Motorists have a huge amount already and now we have cyclists motorists suggesting fantastical, improbable further regulation policing why they still have none.

Fixed your post for you there. I don't believe anyone here has suggested new types of traffic regulation what we are discussing is speed management. The purpose of speed ramps is to manage the speed of vehicles on the treated road. If this is not an acceptable means of speed management then what is?

Also for the record, in terms of the traffic regulations, there is no distinction drawn between persons driving motor vehicles or persons driving pedal cycles. The law also defines minimum standards of mechanical servicability for pedal cycles which the Garda are empowered to enforce.