New speed limit signs planned for rural roads

AugustusMinimus

It says it all about this country that virtually everyone on here and everyone I've talked to about this decision think its beyond stupid, yet the Government, Gaybo, the RSA and the AA think its a fantastic idea.

All we need now is for SIMI to wade in behind it. :rolleyes:

The AA at this stage needs to be replaced with an organisation which does actually represent the Irish motorist. That Conor Faughnan does nothing but agree with every decision made by the Government and the RSA. Truly awful.

MrDerp

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

You are just a bad driver. It is not the business of the government to tell you what speed is safe to travel, other than legal maxima, you are supposed to read the road in front of you.

This attitude of "the speed limit is x, I am entitled to do this regardless" stinks.

What they need are continental style end of built up area signs

Didn't say it was good driving did I? I still had L plates at the time and so it was a good lesson, one of many (thankfully crash free lessons) I have learned as a driver.

My point is that if by default there is an 80 sign at the beginning of an 80 zone, but that sign is stupidly placed, then drivers who lack experience with bad country roads might start to speed up, as they would upon encountering an 80 zone leaving a 50 in the city.

It's disingenuous to say that drivers should know better, of course they should, but that's no argument against improving safety for the naive, the learners, the idiots etc. going by your logic we shouldn't spend money on traffic calming, because it's not the governments business to make you slow down in a built up error, or on barriers, because everyone should follow the lines on the road to the letter do the law. These measures aid all drivers in reading the road, and allow for tiredness, poor concentration, inexperience etc

etchyed

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

It says it all about this country that virtually everyone on here and everyone I've talked to about this decision think its beyond stupid, yet the Government, Gaybo, the RSA and the AA think its a fantastic idea.

Has it occurred to you that the government, Gaybo, the RSA and the AA might know more about this issue than you, your mates and a bunch of keyboard warriors on an internet forum?

tonc76

MrDerp wrote: »

These measures aid all drivers in reading the road, and allow for tiredness, poor concentration, inexperience etc

No they don't! Tiredness & poor concentration should result in drivers pulling in and resting.

etchyed wrote: »

Has it occurred to you that the government, Gaybo, the RSA and the AA might know more about this issue than you, your mates and a bunch of keyboard warriors on an internet forum?

There has been a facility for Local Authorities to readdress speed limits since the coverall switch from imperial to metric speed limits, but as far as I know very few limits have been changed. A system which will now offer the public a process to request a speed limit change seems daft, in that it appears to be the same process that has been there all along, bar the input of the public.

The use of the sign with the black band across a circle is also a bizarre choice as this signs meaning before the switch to metric limits meant something completely different.

Basically they have managed to complicate an existing process rather than request LA's to address the issue (which they will now need to do anyway) and will confuse motorists with the "new" signs.

mackerski

etchyed wrote: »

Has it occurred to you that the government, Gaybo, the RSA and the AA might know more about this issue than you

(My emphasis)

It's far from clear what expertise he brings to the table and his public utterances don't inspire confidence.

L1011

I even got an apologetic email from Noel Brett admitting that Gaybo had made an unsourced and inaccurate pronouncement (some gibberish about engine sizes) back in '08.

AugustusMinimus

I take it as an insult that you might think Gaybo knows more than me, my mates or the other keyboard warriors who have posted on this thread.

This is the man who was clamping down on learner drivers, driving unsupervised, while the man himself acquired his own licence without sitting a driving test. The hypocrisy just boggles the mind.

MrDerp

tonc76 wrote: »

No they don't! Tiredness & poor concentration should result in drivers pulling in and resting.

You're missing my point. It's not about how everybody should behave. If everyone behaved there wouldn't be a problem. It's about reducing the number of unsafe situations that arise due to driver ignorance, fatigue, distraction, or any other mitigating factor.

We all know a tired driver should pull in, but you still mitigate for them drifting. Ever driven on the yellow line at the side of the motorway? Do you reckon that rumble is there for the craic? Do you think it's a worthwhile aid? or should we not waste money on such measures since tired drivers should pull in?

crc

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

This is the man who was clamping down on learner drivers, driving unsupervised, while the man himself acquired his own licence without sitting a driving test. The hypocrisy just boggles the mind.

I fail to see how this is hypocritical; Gay Byrne got his licence at a time when the government of the day decided to issue licences without requiring a test (for various reasons, but they aren't especially salient here). Byrne's view on learner drivers driving unaccompanied is in no way invalidated by the method that the government decided it was going to issue licences at that time. What was he supposed to do (in the 1960s or 70s or whenever it was), turn around and say "actually no I don't want a full driving licence; I insist on sitting a driving test, even though it doesn't appear to be possible for you (the government) to organise that right now". :rolleyes:

Red Nissan

crc wrote: »

and say "actually no I don't want a full driving licence; I insist on sitting a driving test, even though it doesn't appear to be possible for you (the government) to organise that right now". :rolleyes:

In hindsight, actually, yes, just exactly that.

etchyed

mackerski wrote: »

(My emphasis)

It's far from clear what expertise he brings to the table and his public utterances don't inspire confidence.

Well, yes.

spuddy

Any sign of these yet?

http://rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Rural-Speed-Limits/

smncnnr

Pretty sure I've seen some off the R448 (ex N9).

marno21

N72 Rathmore to Killarney has them done, as does the N22 from Farranfore to Killarney

All these roads have new GoSafe areas too so signage is well up to date on these roads

flazio

Seen them off the Galway - Clifden Road. Have yet to see them off any 80km/h road to bog road though.

Saw one on a side road off the Mullingar to Slane road with a "go mall" under it!

PoolDude

I read that Councils also have empowerment to increase 80kph speed limits where the road is over 7m wide - has anyone seen any changes yet from any councils?

Carawaystick

PoolDude wrote: »

I read that Councils also have empowerment to increase 80kph speed limits where the road is over 7m wide - has anyone seen any changes yet from any councils?

In Louth the R132 is 100 limit and most of the road out to carlingford is too

In Galway the old n6 is 100

marno21

Carawaystick wrote: »

In Louth the R132 is 100 limit and most of the road out to carlingford is too

In Galway the old n6 is 100

There's non-detrunked roads with a 100km/h limit too. The R585 Cork to Bantry road and the R563 Killarney - Kenmare road are two. To be fair it would be ludicrous if the R563 which is WS2 in places had a lower limit than the N71 which has a tunnel, several hairpins & 90' turns and very narrow alignment along its length (not wide enough for a white line in parts)

PoolDude

Is that new since the recent changes or has it always been that way?