80kph Speed Limit on Country Roads dropped for "At discretion" guideline.

Iranoutofideas

Can't believe what I'm reading online today. The Minister for Transport has decided to replace the already ludicrous 80kph speed limit on country roads with a new "at motorists discretion" limit which will be indicated by a round black sign with a white line through it.

FFS the back roads are dangerous enough as it is without drivers now given a free pass to drive like maniacs and justify it as their "discretion"

A totally backwards idiotic move.

Hunterbiker

Link to source?

Iranoutofideas

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/big-changes-to-speed-limits-on-country-roads-668127.html

Hunterbiker

Sounds crazy.
Doesn't mention if there will be a maximum accepted limit. Hopefully not more than 80kph anyway...

Internet Friend

independent.ie/irish-news/politics/drivers-can-use-judgment-on-rural-roads-but-new-30kph-limit-in-estates-31078866.html

can post links properly yet but here's the article from the Independent yesterday, no pun intended, but this is flat out insane!

Chips Lovell

I think you're misinterpreting the intention behind the move. It's not to give motorists carte blanche to drive even faster on back roads, but encourage them to slow down when appropriate.

From what I can gather, the plans haven't been published yet, but the Indo said:

Under the plans, seen by the Irish Independent, the controversial 80km speed limit signs seen on many rural roads will be replaced by a new black circle with diagonal line.

The sign, which is an international standard for such roads, means that drivers must now use their judgment. However, they may not exceed 80km.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Iranoutofideas wrote: »

Can't believe what I'm reading online today. The Minister for Transport has decided to replace the already ludicrous 80kph speed limit on country roads with a new "at motorists discretion" limit which will be indicated by a round black sign with a white line through it.

FFS the back roads are dangerous enough as it is without drivers now given a free pass to drive like maniacs and justify it as their "discretion"

A totally backwards idiotic move.

Its a silly move really but it doesn't give people a free pass, the speed limit stays at 80kph.

A retro step none the less

ThisRegard

Hunterbiker wrote: »

Link to source?

He was on Newstalk Breakfast this morning saying it.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think you're misinterpreting the intention behind the move. It's not to give motorists carte blanche to drive even faster on back roads, but encourage them to slow down when appropriate.

From what I can gather, the plans haven't been published yet, but the Indo said:

But that's how things currently go. Unless you're a moron, and there's many out there, you drive at the speed you find suitable for the rural road you're on anyway.

Iranoutofideas

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think you're misinterpreting the intention behind the move. It's not to give motorists carte blanche to drive even faster on back roads, but encourage them to slow down when appropriate.

From what I can gather, the plans haven't been published yet, but the Indo said:

Do you have faith that the majority of motorists will slow down when appropriate on country roads? I don't. Since the 80kph limit was introduced the backroads have become lethal for cyclists. It's insanity.

Hunterbiker

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think you're misinterpreting the intention behind the move. It's not to give motorists carte blanche to drive even faster on back roads, but encourage them to slow down when appropriate.

From what I can gather, the plans haven't been published yet, but the Indo said:

You are right. Phew....

Chips Lovell

I think it'll go some way towards changing the mindset that a speed limit isn't a target that needs to be held. But it isn't going to be a magic bullet that will rein all the idiots in.

Chips Lovell

ThisRegard wrote: »

Unless you're a moron, and there's many out there, you drive at the speed you find suitable for the rural road you're on anyway.

Correct. The issue is that we've lots of morons.

Long story short, it's a bid to convince some of the morons to be more responsible.

Lumen

This is about changing behaviour of morons at the margin.

Total morons and non-morons will ignore speed limits.

Marginal morons will use the limit as a target.

godtabh

I cant find it now but there was a chart going around awhile ago showing the impact of speed on cyclist fatalities. 30k/h the outcome was 10% death, 40km/h 50% (or something). Any one remember/have a link to it?

Iranoutofideas

You only have to listen to the way this is being reported on the radio today as to how it will be interpreted - "Motorists can now decide what speed etc"

Only at the tail end of the report are they mentioning the limit is still 80kph. Which as it stands, is too high for most of these roads.

happysunnydays

Iranoutofideas wrote: »

Can't believe what I'm reading online today. The Minister for Transport has decided to replace the already ludicrous 80kph speed limit on country roads with a new "at motorists discretion" limit which will be indicated by a round black sign with a white line through it.

FFS the back roads are dangerous enough as it is without drivers now given a free pass to drive like maniacs and justify it as their "discretion"
.

You need to chill the beans and stop getting all fiery steam and big show time dramatic. This isn't a free pass to drive like a maniac and well you know it! This is a level headed approach to dealing with roads where we can't keep changing the speed limit. The alternative is to spend millions sticking down thousands more signs. Praise for common sense.

ThisRegard

happysunnydays wrote: »

You need to chill the beans and stop getting all fiery steam and big show time dramatic. This isn't a free pass to drive like a maniac and well you know it!

The point is that this is how it appears to some by the way it's being reported, although the Indo story is gone so maybe they realised that they also misinterpreted it.

Skatedude

sounds good. muppets & no speed limit = natural selection.

Macy0161

I don't see it as a big deal, but it's hardly progress either. It's just going to mean that you don't see the ridiculous 80kph signs at the start of little more than dirt tracks. Those signs came in with the reduction of the speed limit from 100kph to 80kph. As far as I'm aware councils had, and will still have, the power to lower speed limits.

A moron is going to drive at inappropriate speeds regardless of the posted limit imo. You could have these roads at 30kph, and they wouldn't obey, and the cops wouldn't enforce on some lane that hardly anyone uses.

Renegade Mechanic

Hang on hang on hang on.... The max permissible limit is still 80, no? Why bother spending all that money changing road signs for no reason whatsoever when the roads they're changing them on are starting to look like something you'd need a lunar module to land on!?! :mad:

quozl

"It will see the speed limit in residential areas reduced to 30 kilometres per hour, while further rules later this year will give the option of a 20 kilometre limit.

It seems like these are positive changes. 30 kph by law for residential areas with an option for 20kph. Sounds good to me.

Lumen

They could just add a sign below saying "THIS IS NOT A TARGET".

But you'd then have farmers with an overdeveloped sense of irony and an appreciation for Magritte firing shotguns at them.

Iranoutofideas

happysunnydays wrote: »

You need to chill the beans and stop getting all fiery steam and big show time dramatic. This isn't a free pass to drive like a maniac and well you know it! This is a level headed approach to dealing with roads where we can't keep changing the speed limit. The alternative is to spend millions sticking down thousands more signs. Praise for common sense.

The thing about common sense is that it is not that common. So "chill" with the condescension.

mackerski

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

From what I can gather, the plans haven't been published yet, but the Indo said:

"New"? Nothing new about that sign - until 2005 all special speed limit zones were terminated with that exact sign. It was the abolition of that sign that led to all those boreens that commence with an 80km/h sign, you know, like everybody complains about. The reintroduction of the sign (whose meaning is "national speed limit applies") would be a very good thing.

Boskowski

Are they saying that people will tend to drive 80 no matter what if the sign says 80? Even if the road is only fit for 50? That's a totally crazy idea.

That's the fundamental 'rule' of the road. You drive at the appropriate speed not exceeding the limit. And appropriate speed may change with road conditions, traffic, weather all sorts of stuff. I didn't think that needed pointing out.

ZiabR

Iranoutofideas wrote: »

Can't believe what I'm reading online today. The Minister for Transport has decided to replace the already ludicrous 80kph speed limit on country roads with a new "at motorists discretion" limit which will be indicated by a round black sign with a white line through it.

FFS the back roads are dangerous enough as it is without drivers now given a free pass to drive like maniacs and justify it as their "discretion"

A totally backwards idiotic move.

Thats not how it is going to work.

For example if a road at the moment has a limit of 80kph. Under the new rules, they will change the sign from the 80kph to the new dot but the limit of 80kph is still applicable to the road. Their argument is that if you see a sign for 80kph, you will try to get to 80kph and stay at that speed. Whereas, if you dont see the 80kph, you may end up driving a little slower in sections.

The speed limits on the roads are NOT changing.

ted1

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Hang on hang on hang on.... The max permissible limit is still 80, no? Why bother spending all that money changing road signs for no reason whatsoever when the roads they're changing them on are starting to look like something you'd need a lunar module to land on!?! :mad:

People see 80 as a target as its in their face. If they don't see 80 they don't see the target

Renegade Mechanic

ted1 wrote: »

People see 80 as a target as its in their face. If they don't see 80 they don't see the target

But... but everyone knows It's 80 even if the sign now won't say it. It'll still be there in the minds eye? Mabye I'm seeing this from the wrong angle..

ThisRegard

Boskowski wrote: »

Are they saying that people will tend to drive 80 no matter what if the sign says 80? Even if the road is only fit for 50? That's a totally crazy idea.

You constantly have people complain about signs for 80kph on crappy roads. Well don't drive at 80kph on those roads if you feel they're not suitable you clowns.

Renegade Mechanic

ThisRegard wrote: »

You constantly have people complain about signs for 80kph on crappy roads. Well don't drive at 80kph on those roads if you feel they're not suitable you clowns.

Something I never understood.. If the sign said 120 and it was a boreen with green underbody cleaner in the middle, I'd potter along at 30/40/whatever speed was safest. Though with me, that swords been known to cut the other way

gctest50

ted1 wrote: »

People see 80 as a target as its in their face. If they don't see 80 they don't see the target

probably based somewhere on this ? :

Segregation reduces drivers’ perception of accident risk, he argued. Motorists who encounter uniform, predictable, highly-regulated streets drive accordingly: faster and less cautiously or considerately. This is known as the ‘risk compensation effect’ - if streets look like highways, people drive as if on highways.


http://knowledge.allianz.com/mobility/transportation_safety/?1841/risker-streets-reduce-accidents

Lumen

ThisRegard wrote: »

You constantly have people complain about signs for 80kph on crappy roads. Well don't drive at 80kph on those roads if you feel they're not suitable you clowns.

Those people are usually complaining that other people are driving too fast.

diomed

Is today 1st April?

ThisRegard

Lumen wrote: »

Those people are usually complaining that other people are driving too fast.

True, but you also have those questioning how are you ever so supposed to do that speed.

ted1

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

But... but everyone knows It's 80 even if the sign now won't say it. It'll still be there in the minds eye? Mabye I'm seeing this from the wrong angle..

No that's not right. Peoples mentality doesn't work like that.

If you tell someone that there is chocolate in the cupboard and put out the chocolate right in front of another person. I can gurantee you that the one in sight will be gone first.

buffalo

A lot of this thread already feels like this:

lennymc

ted1 wrote: »

If you tell someone that there is chocolate in the cupboard and put out the chocolate right in front of another person. I can gurantee you that the one in sight will be gone first.

Brian?

Heavenly Rough Scoop wrote: »

Its a silly move really but it doesn't give people a free pass, the speed limit stays at 80kph.

A retro step none the less

I think it's actually a good idea. The majority of roads with an 80km/h speed limit are almost impossible to do 80km/h on. It places to onus on drivers to think about what they're doing and hopefully slow down.

More rules don't work, it's consistently been shown that new rules will simply be ignored as an Gardaí simply don't have the resources to police every road in the country. Responsibility should be placed squarely on the drivers. Let's see how it works before righting it off.

CramCycle

Boskowski wrote: »

Are they saying that people will tend to drive 80 no matter what if the sign says 80? Even if the road is only fit for 50? That's a totally crazy idea.

And often over it, a common encounter is that the limit is 80 but a muppet will think, its been tested to 80, I am a great driver or there must be an allowance of X%, surely they never would have 80 if it can't be done.

Some people are stupid, crazy stupid.

That's the fundamental 'rule' of the road. You drive at the appropriate speed not exceeding the limit. And appropriate speed may change with road conditions, traffic, weather all sorts of stuff. I didn't think that needed pointing out.

I think you'd be surprised

Brian? wrote: »

I think it's actually a good idea. The majority of roads with an 80km/h speed limit are almost impossible to do 80km/h on. It places to onus on drivers to think about what they're doing and hopefully slow down.

I think that's the plan, and to the intelligent people in the world, that makes sense. Unfortunately, with papers claiming its a removal of a speed limit, you may see a smaller number of speeders doing stupider things. I heard PK on Newstalk saying it this morning, "the removal of speed limits from rural roads", FFS, there are members of the media in this country who deserve a slap with the stupid stick.

More rules don't work, it's consistently been shown that new rules will simply be ignored as an Gardaí simply don't have the resources to police every road in the country. Responsibility should be placed squarely on the drivers. Let's see how it works before righting it off.

I hope it does, they are going to need a decent marketing campaign for it now (a website explaining it all, due to be available today, is now delayed for "a few weeks") as the number of people who are to young to remember those signs thinking it means free for all on the roads.

That said, alot of people thought they meant a free for all years ago as well.

Tenzor07

Well, my 2cents is that speed limits in Ireland are pretty much notional anyways...
People break speed limits regularly knowing that the chances of being caught are very small anyways... No enforcement = "at discretion" speed limit signs are as good as any...

mackerski

Can we fix the thread title given that it bears no relation to what is proposed? My suggestion: "That old National Speed Limit sign might be coming back".

Cakewheels

This isn't exactly the same topic but not sure if it worth starting another thread on the same main topic/report.

Looking at the new guidelines, it appears they are saying that rural roads wider than 7.0m (the main/first criteria to be considered) should be changed to 100km/hr. There are a number of secondary criteria and one of these is 'level of use by pedestrians and cyclists'. But what will this mean in practice? Cycling is growing but since most clubs and individuals vary their spin routes, any one route in a low population area and that can't be used for commuting might not have a 'high' usage by cyclists, but that doesn't mean that cyclists who use the road occasionally on a Sunday spin or whatever deserve to be put in more danger. I can think of quite a few regional roads I have been cycling on that would meet their criteria to be changed.

In a following section, the report seems to be proposing that many of the old national roads (Reclassified Single Carriageway Roads) which changed to 80 when they lost the 'national' designation (i.e. were replaced by something better, such as the national roads replaced by new motorways), should revert from 80 to 100km/hr, if they were constructed 'to a high standard'. However, this doesn't seem to consider the fact that long distance motorists have been catered for by the new alternative road already, and where this is the case should other users such as cyclists not now be prioritised more than they previously were on the 'old' road? I'm also not sure if their definition of a 'high standard' of construction is proofed for cycling safety, or only driver safety.

At a training day a few weeks ago our club was told that cycling clubs should stay off national roads with 100km/hr speed limits and stick to the local and regional roads. But now instead of us just going to the 100km/hr roads of our own accord, the higher limits might be coming to us instead!
I would love to know whether Cycling Ireland were consulted on this? Is it also something that cycling clubs should be getting in gear to make submissions on once local authorities start making changes?

BoatMad

loughgill wrote: »

This isn't exactly the same topic but not sure if it worth starting another thread on the same main topic/report.

Looking at the new guidelines, it appears they are saying that rural roads wider than 7.0m (the main/first criteria to be considered) should be changed to 100km/hr. There are a number of secondary criteria and one of these is 'level of use by pedestrians and cyclists'. But what will this mean in practice? Cycling is growing but since most clubs and individuals vary their spin routes, any one route in a low population area and that can't be used for commuting might not have a 'high' usage by cyclists, but that doesn't mean that cyclists who use the road occasionally on a Sunday spin or whatever deserve to be put in more danger. I can think of quite a few regional roads I have been cycling on that would meet their criteria to be changed.

The report also seems to be proposing that many of the old national roads (Reclassified Single Carriageway Roads) which changed to 80 when they lost that designation (i.e. were replaced by something better, such as the roads replaced by motorways), should revert to 100km/hr, if they were constructed 'to a high standard'. However, this doesn't seem to consider the fact that motorists have been catered for by the new alternative road, and where that is the case should other users such as cyclists not be. I'm also not sure if their definition of a 'high standard' is proofed for cycling safety, or only driver safety.

At a training day a few weeks ago our club was told that cycling clubs should stay off national roads with 100km/hr speed limits and stick to the local and regional roads. But now instead of us just going to the 100km/hr roads, the higher limits might be coming to us instead!
I would love to know whether Cycling Ireland were consulted on this? Is it also something that cycling clubs should be getting in gear to make submissions on once local authorities start making changes?

Its a nonsense that a national primary route one day is seemingly safe , yet another day is reduced to 80. These roads should retuned to their former speed limits , arguably there is much less traffic on these now and hence are even safer at the original speed.


You cannot determine road speeds by the fact that a few cyclists might decide on this Sunday to use it for a spin

The removal of the 80Kmh sign on rural roads is a good idea. Its a return to the previous situation , where you where told you are now off the speed marked road and that while national limits apply, you should use your discretion, its a recognition of what actually happens.

What seriously needs to be looked at is inappropriate low speeds, glen of the downs being a classic

Victor

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Hang on hang on hang on.... The max permissible limit is still 80, no? Why bother spending all that money changing road signs for no reason whatsoever when the roads they're changing them on are starting to look like something you'd need a lunar module to land on!?! :mad:

Perception.

See what Bertie had to say about voting: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ahern-embarrassed-by-pencils-poll-307920.html

Lusk_Doyle

Lumen wrote: »

Those people are usually complaining that other people are driving too fast.

Do you remember the time that you drove a bicycle too fast on a crappy, windy, gravelly road in NCD?

Boskowski

Just looking over on the Motors thread what that sign looks like. In Germany this sign means no speed limit. End of speed limit area from previous speed limit sign. Whatever. It means at your discretion. Engage.

ThisRegard

I'm surprised that original sign is unfamiliar to so many people, it wasn't that long ago when it was in use here.

lennymc

bloody whipper snappers

(I didnt even notice that it was gone!)

mackerski

Boskowski wrote: »

Just looking over on the Motors thread what that sign looks like. In Germany this sign means no speed limit. End of speed limit area from previous speed limit sign. Whatever. It means at your discretion. Engage.

No, that's not what it means in Germany. It means that the default speed limit for the class of road applies, just like it did here and would again. It so happens that on some German roads the default is a matter of driver discretion with a recommendation of no more than 130.

Lumen

I like the weather-dependent speed limits on the continent.

tomasrojo

I imagine down the line that more speed limit signs will be "dynamic" and change to suit current conditions.

Be nice if your car ratted you out to your insurer every time you broke the speed limit too , with lower premiums for people who keep below the limit. Given that enforcement has more or less been abandoned except when someone is really flouting the law.