Motorway speed limits in Ireland

Commotion Ocean

After reading the thread about the lad who pretended to be driving 151 km/h without insurance and seeing the outrage from people about how "fast" he was going, I thought we could have a reasoned debate on increasing Ireland's Motorway speed limit. This doesn't seem to have been done in a while.

Ireland's motorways are among the newest in Europe. We really only began to get a proper motorway network in the noughties (I began driving in 2009). Our motorways are new, well-surfaced, have excellent drainage and are in excellent condition.

I've been on motorways in Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the UK, Hungary, Slovakia and Austria. Ireland's motorways are even better than some of the aforementioned countries, believe it or not!

It is my opinion that you can be "speeding" without breaking the speed limit and you can break the speed limit without "speeding".

Allow me to elaborate. In the former situation, imagine a small country road which passes by a rural school, the speed limit on the road is 80 km/h. If I drive at that speed past the school at 2.30 in the afternoon, I'm not breaking the speed limit, but it may be considered "speeding".

In the latter situation, there could be a stretch of a perfectly-good N-Road, where the speed limit drops arbitrarily from 100 km/h to 60 km/h. If I continue on at 100 km/h and go with the flow of everyone else, I'm not "speeding" but I am breaking the speed limit.

By the logic of the government, if you don't follow the posted speed limit, you are speeding. You can drive 100 km/h on the M50 and weave in and out of traffic in 5 inches of snow with driving sleet and visibility of only a few metres, but, hey .... you're under the limit, so you're grand ..... but if you dare do 121 km/h on a dry, open motorway, you'd better hand over your license.

It is my opinion as well, that a mismatch in speed also causes disturbances. Unless you are limited to a certain speed or there is a good reason not to, there is no reason why you shouldn't be travelling at 120 km/h.

It is my opinion, that if certain transgressions were eliminated from our roads, such as poor merging and bad lane discipline, our speed limits could be subject to a modest increase.

Guy:Incognito

The quality of the motorways is pretty irrelevant when the standard of drivers is poor.Everyone thinks they are a good driver but tbh, since I've been on the road all day for work the last few years it's glaringly apparent how bad quite a high percentage of drivers (Dublin and surrounding counties is where I am all day) are. Be it through ignorance , selfishness or just not having a clue what the hell they are at.

dfeo wrote: »

By the logic of the government, if you don't follow the posted speed limit, you are speeding. You can drive 100 km/h on the M50 and weave in and out of traffic in 5 inches of snow with driving sleet and visibility of only a few metres, but, hey .... you're under the limit, so you're grand ..... but if you dare do 121 km/h on a dry, open motorway, you'd better hand over your license..

Thats called dangerous driving. You know there are other traffic offences yeah?

ThisRegard

dfeo wrote: »

It is my opinion as well, that a mismatch in speed also causes disturbances. Unless you are limited to a certain speed or there is a good reason not to, there is no reason why you shouldn't be travelling at 120 km/h.

This is where your logic is flawed. Driving below 120 doesn't cause disturbances, and people don't require a reason to do so.

Atlantic Dawn

I think before we do anything there should be an overtaking lane blitz by the Gardaí, the amount of backward thick people who still assume it's the "fast lane" is frightening.

sdanseo

Raise to 140 km/h

Ì'd be up for an immediate raise to 130km/h on more rural motorways.

However any further rise - much and as though I am of the opinion that faster speeds on motorways are NOT inherently more dangerous if traffic is relatively light - should be preceded by a driver education blitz and a massive crackdown on poor behaviour which isn't necessarily "dangerous".

Unfortunately, we don't see the problems on the roads here. We just default to "speed kills" and leave it there.

Four Phucs Ache

Raise to 140 km/h

Im all for raising it to max 130 but I'm quite content if it stays at 120.

The issue for me would be driver awareness/ control . It's a big job for the avg driver to control a car safely and to know how to handle the weight shifting / direction a wheel should be when things go wrong.At any higher than 120 - 130 the laws of physics plays a tougher game.

Isambard

Raise to 130 km/h

i voted 120 because there are a lot of people out there incompetent that I don't want to see driving quicker than they are now.

dr.fuzzenstein

ThisRegard wrote: »

This is where your logic is flawed. Driving below 120 doesn't cause disturbances, and people don't require a reason to do so.

Surprisingly I find myself agreeing. It is perfectly possible to drive slower and swim along with trucks and buses. The problem arises when granny in her Micra drives along at 80 km/h and forces trucks and buses to overtake her, this does cause quite a disturbance. Anyone who drives like this should be taken off the road.

Arcade_Tryer

dfeo wrote: »

Unless you are limited to a certain speed or there is a good reason not to, there is no reason why you shouldn't be travelling at 120 km/h.

A few good reasons you shouldn't be travelling at 120km/hr:

1. Safety - Yes, you may be quite safe travelling at 120km/hr and above on a motorway but that does not take away from the fact that driving more slowly is still safer in general e.g. between 90km/hr and 120km/hr.

2. Stressing the engine - for many cars, driving at 120km/hr for half an hour or more is needless stress on the engine.

3. Fuel cost - Following on from above, far more efficient to keep the revs down and your bank balance up.

Commotion Ocean

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

A few good reasons you shouldn't be travelling at 120km/hr:

1. Safety - Yes, you may be quite safe travelling at 120km/hr and above on a motorway but that does not take away from the fact that driving more slowly is still safer in general e.g. between 90km/hr and 120km/hr.

2. Stressing the engine - for many cars, driving at 120km/hr for half an hour or more is needless stress on the engine.

3. Fuel cost - Following on from above, far more efficient to keep the revs down and your bank balance up.

If any of those concern you, then get off the motorway.

Arcade_Tryer

Isambard wrote: »

i voted 120 because there are a lot of people out there incompetent that I don't want to see driving quicker than they are now.

Four Phucs Ache wrote: »

Im all for raising it to max 130 but I'm quite content if it stays at 120.

The issue for me would be driver awareness/ control . It's a big job for the avg driver to control a car safely and to know how to handle the weight shifting / direction a wheel should be when things go wrong.At any higher than 120 - 130 the laws of physics plays a tougher game.

This sense of superiority and lack of self reflection shown above is why I'd like to see speed limits remain the same on motorways.

Arcade_Tryer

dfeo wrote: »

If any of those concern you, then get off the motorway.

No.

If safety doesn't concern you, get off the road.

Vic_08

dfeo wrote: »

If any of those concern you, then get off the motorway.

As bad as the slow is better brigade are on the motorway, they are an absolute menace on single carriage roadways.

artanevilla

dfeo wrote: »

If any of those concern you, then get off the motorway.

You ask for a reasoned debate and then post this?

Isambard

Raise to 130 km/h

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

This sense of superiority and lack of self reflection shown above is why I'd like to see speed limits remain the same on motorways.

hi Pot, it's me , the Kettle

pa990

Raise to 140 km/h

There is little or no speed enforcement on Irish roads.

100, 120, 130 , 150.

You're unlikely to be caught.

Take your chances


Last xmas eve, I aledegly drove cork to dub at a constant 160km/h+

Used a lot of fuel, and only met a garda speed van near rathcoole.
A quick dab of the brakes, and off I go again.

Similar return journey., but no speed van.

CiniO

Remove limit altogether with dynamic speed limit signs where necessary

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

A few good reasons you shouldn't be travelling at 120km/hr:

1. Safety - Yes, you may be quite safe travelling at 120km/hr and above on a motorway but that does not take away from the fact that driving more slowly is still safer in general e.g. between 90km/hr and 120km/hr.

2. Stressing the engine - for many cars, driving at 120km/hr for half an hour or more is needless stress on the engine.

3. Fuel cost - Following on from above, far more efficient to keep the revs down and your bank balance up.

What do you mean by that?
How exactly are you stressing the engine by driving at higher speeds?
To be honest, it can only do good for an engine if it runs at higher steady revs. In diesels it can clear out the soot and carbon residue, and allow DPF regen, and in petrols it can also clear out carbon residue from oil and possibly have other positive effects.

With fuel consumption - obviously true.
Generally in most cars fuel consumption rises very quick above 120km/h and pretty much skyrockets above 160km/h.

If I remember correctly my Civic diesel, was about 5l/100km at 100km/h, 5.5l/100km at 120km/h, 6.5l/100km at 140km/h, around 8l/100km at 160km/h, and around 12l/100km at 200km/h.
All those measured at steady speed driving on cruise control for longer periods, but I'm not sure if I got the figures right - I used to remember what they were.
But it's close to that anyway,

BTW - I voted for 160km/h limit. It's reasonable one.
I find driving above 160km/h very demanding and needing extreme concentration. An hour or two at 200km/h I'm more tired that 8 hours driving at 140km/h.

dr.fuzzenstein

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

A few good reasons you shouldn't be travelling at 120km/hr:

1. Safety - Yes, you may be quite safe travelling at 120km/hr and above on a motorway but that does not take away from the fact that driving more slowly is still safer in general e.g. between 90km/hr and 120km/hr.

2. Stressing the engine - for many cars, driving at 120km/hr for half an hour or more is needless stress on the engine.

3. Fuel cost - Following on from above, far more efficient to keep the revs down and your bank balance up.

1: agree to a point. If you force buses and trucks to overtake you on the motorway you are a danger and should stick to B roads. But slow does not equal safe. Paying attention is always better than simply driving slow.

2: Stressing the engine? What do you drive? A 1950's car? I drive the wife's car (a Chevy Spark) and my mother's car (Renault Twingo). Both are fine at 120 km/h (and no problem up to 140). If it's no problem in those juice boxes, you ain't got no excuse.

3: Fuel costs. My Cmax returned over 50 miles to the gallon at 130.

Again, I don't think 100 on the motorway is a bad thing but 80 is stupid and dangerous. And 140 is no problem whatsoever in the right circumstances.

jay93

Raise to 130 km/h

The speed limit is lower here in the US it's 112Km/h if you convert 70Mph not that many people follow that anyway..

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

150kph is perfectly fine on the motorways.... Just not with other drivers around you. The standard of Irish driving especially on motorways is scandalous. Can anyone merge properly...? Too many drivers sitting in the overtaking lane at 100kph. Unnecessary speeding up and slowing down. Trucks pulled into the hard shoulder... My list is endless.

Raise to 150 km/h

27% of us think it should be 140kmh.
Sensible.

_Kaiser_

Raise to 150 km/h

Voted for 140 myself. As someone who spends a lot of time on the motorway, it's a far more appropriate speed for the quieter stretches (not talking about the likes of the M50 or N7 here) and not as demanding as driving at higher speeds, so a decent compromise. Of course, a decent, well-maintained car that the driver knows the characteristics of is even more important.

As for the notion about stressing engines at 120, driving slower than that, and saving fuel... if those are your concerns and if you find yourself being overtaken constantly by cars and even trucks then you should stick to the secondary routes TBH because you're not qualified to be on a motorway as it is.

Ferrari3600

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

2. Stressing the engine - for many cars, driving at 120km/hr for half an hour or more is needless stress on the engine.

I really doubt this.

And no, contrary to what my user name might suggest, I don't drive a Ferrari 360. I drive a car with a decent block under the bonnet, but even for the average 1.1L Econoboxes, if the engine can't perform adequately at 120km/hr (only 75mph in old money), they shouldn't be on the market if you ask me. 20 years ago or so, I regularly drove a Mk1 1.0L Micra at a steady 80mph on the M50.

chicorytip

Decrease them to 110 km/h

120 K.P.H. or 75 M.P.H. is a dangerously high speed limit for roads such as the M7,M9 etc.which are, in effect, dual carriageways not motorways.
55 M.P.H. is a sufficiently progressive rate for all drivers to complete journeys on time and in a relaxed frame of mind.

Commotion Ocean

chicorytip wrote: »

120 K.P.H. or 75 M.P.H. is a dangerously high speed limit for roads such as the M7,M9 etc.which are, in effect, dual carriageways not motorways.
55 M.P.H. is a sufficiently progressive rate for all drivers to complete journeys on time and in a relaxed frame of mind.

LOL

_Kaiser_

Raise to 150 km/h

chicorytip wrote: »

120 K.P.H. or 75 M.P.H. is a dangerously high speed limit for roads such as the M7,M9 etc.which are, in effect, dual carriageways not motorways.
55 M.P.H. is a sufficiently progressive rate for all drivers to complete journeys on time and in a relaxed frame of mind.

You what now?

The motorways in this country are (for the most part) one of the few key pieces of infrastructure that we did right. They're good quality and statistically the safest types of road we have.

YOU may feel that 120 km/h is "dangerously high" but you are in the minority I'm afraid. I'll grant you though that it's a significant minority as I encounter like-minded individuals daily who dawdle along oblivious (usually in the incorrect lane) holding other traffic up and slowing things further when that other traffic has to move around them.

It doesn't help of course that learner drivers have no (structured) experience of motorway driving before they get their license but to suggest that we should all dawdle along at 85-90 km/h to make nervous, hesitant drivers feel "safer" is ridiculous.

As I said above, there's secondary routes where these folks can work away - although they often can't manager to even do the 80/100 there either!

Dartz

chicorytip wrote: »

120 K.P.H. or 75 M.P.H. is a dangerously high speed limit for roads such as the M7,M9 etc.which are, in effect, dual carriageways not motorways.
55 M.P.H. is a sufficiently progressive rate for all drivers to complete journeys on time and in a relaxed frame of mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvV3nn_de2k


Most people aren't suicidal idiots and will chortle along at whatever speed feels safe for them, regardless of what the limit is.

The ones that don't can still get nailed for dangerous, careless or reckless driving.

****canning the speed limit removes the ability to automate the 'service' however....

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

chicorytip wrote: »

120 K.P.H. or 75 M.P.H. is a dangerously high speed limit for roads such as the M7,M9 etc.which are, in effect, dual carriageways not motorways.
55 M.P.H. is a sufficiently progressive rate for all drivers to complete journeys on time and in a relaxed frame of mind.

55mph. Really. Elaborate please.

Four Phucs Ache

Raise to 140 km/h

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

This sense of superiority and lack of self reflection shown above is why I'd like to see speed limits remain the same on motorways.

Self reflection ?

If I come across a bit of debris on the m7 at night in a theoretical speed limit of 140 to 160 while driving alongside a car doing similar the sky would turn brown and no mans boxers need to see that sh1t

road_high

Remove limit altogether with dynamic speed limit signs where necessary

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

A few good reasons you shouldn't be travelling at 120km/hr:

1. Safety - Yes, you may be quite safe travelling at 120km/hr and above on a motorway but that does not take away from the fact that driving more slowly is still safer in general e.g. between 90km/hr and 120km/hr.

2. Stressing the engine - for many cars, driving at 120km/hr for half an hour or more is needless stress on the engine.

3. Fuel cost - Following on from above, far more efficient to keep the revs down and your bank balance up.

Is this for real? Scary to think you are out there somewhere with a full licence and driving...

Nelbert

Biggest stumbling block is driver education in my opinion.

I've driven a lot for work over the last 7-8 years (as well as driving for long trips on a couple of foreign holidays, west coast of states was fun!) and as a generalisation Irish motorists don't know how to use motorways (which we are lucky to have a good standard network of) properly....

The "fast lane" mentality etc. The simple idea of keep left unless overtaking is almost universally ignored. Use of indicators and merging is horrifically lacking and / or dangerous at times.
Unfortunately the end result is usually what we all see on the M50 at peak times in the right hand lane, 100+kph traffic closer to the car in front than some people can manage to park.

I'd be all for increasing to 140 but in general I think it would be unwise and unsafe because I don't think we've enough drivers competent enough.

toptom

Decrease them to 110 km/h

chicorytip wrote: »

120 K.P.H. or 75 M.P.H. is a dangerously high speed limit for roads such as the M7,M9 etc.which are, in effect, dual carriageways not motorways.
55 M.P.H. is a sufficiently progressive rate for all drivers to complete journeys on time and in a relaxed frame of mind.

There obsessed with speed you see, They dont think of the people who dont want or need to be speeding. Im on the m8 regularly as i live close to it and the stuff I see every time shocks me. They have no patience or manners on the road now.

Special Circumstances

Gold, pure gold. I guess the best of it is just out and out trolling rather than actual personal beliefs but it's funny stuff all the same.

"Stressing the engine" to run it at 50% of max rpm for more than 30 mins. Motorways not suitable for triple digit speeds...
Oool blow the injin if ooo merge at more than 70, never change out of top gear unless oo are shtopping. Classic stuff.

road_high

Remove limit altogether with dynamic speed limit signs where necessary

toptom wrote: »

There obsessed with speed you see, They dont think of the people who dont want or need to be speeding. Im on the m8 regularly as i live close to it and the stuff I see every time shocks me. They have no patience or manners on the road now.

Those that don't "want it need to speed" can happily stay out of everyone else's way either on the driving lane or better still the old roads. But instead they act like imbeciles blocking the "fast lane" and joining the motorway as if in a funeral courtege.

Arcade_Tryer

CiniO wrote: »

What do you mean by that?
How exactly are you stressing the engine by driving at higher speeds?
To be honest, it can only do good for an engine if it runs at higher steady revs. In diesels it can clear out the soot and carbon residue, and allow DPF regen, and in petrols it can also clear out carbon residue from oil and possibly have other positive effects
.

The higher the rpm you drive at, the more stress the engine will endure. When you drive a vehicle everyday you quickly become aware of its optimum level of performance and what it is consistently capable of without straining it. For my vehicle that optimum is between 90-110km/hr. I encounter very few problems on the road as a result of driving safely and predominantly below the speed limit. Apart from occasional tailgaters and bad over takers of course, of which I'm sure there are none in this thread full of above average drivers!

road_high wrote: »

Is this for real? Scary to think you are out there somewhere with a full licence and driving...

Scary to think you find what I said so objectionable i.e. driving below the speed limit, putting less strain on the car engine and saving money whilst doing so. Lock me up and take away my licence!

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

I bet you're one of those drivers who does 80kph on national roads and 100kph on motorways. More dangerous than doing 10-20kph OVER the speed limit IMHO.

Raise to 150 km/h

Ireland need to implement variable speed limits on all major routes and motorways. e.g. Driving from Galway to Athlone or Waterford to Naas could quite easily be done at 150km/h in good conditions and outside peak hours.
Variable speed limits would allow for reduced limits during peak hours or in adverse driving conditions.

road_high

Remove limit altogether with dynamic speed limit signs where necessary

Hugh Mungus wrote: »

I bet you're one of those drivers who does 80kph on national roads and 100kph on motorways. More dangerous than doing 10-20kph OVER the speed limit IMHO.

Sounds like an absolute head wreck of a driver tbh. No wonder he/she gets tailgated, usually only happens when you hold up people driving a lower than appropriate speed. Never happens me and if I see someone impatient behind I'll try my best to safely let them overtake and give them room. No point frustrating people if it can be avoided.

Arcade_Tryer

Hugh Mungus wrote: »

I bet you're one of those drivers who does 80kph on national roads and 100kph on motorways.

Not all the time.

More dangerous than doing 10-20kph OVER the speed limit IMHO

I'll go with the opinion of the RSA if that's alright with you.

Seth Brundle

pa990 wrote: »

Last xmas eve, I aledegly drove cork to dub at a constant 160km/h+

Used a lot of fuel, and only met a garda speed van near rathcoole.
A quick dab of the brakes, and off I go again.

Similar return journey., but no speed van.

160km/h+
Surely at those dangerous speeds you died a few times?

Odyssey 2005

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I think before we do anything there should be an overtaking lane blitz by the Gardaí, the amount of backward thick people who still assume it's the "fast lane" is frightening.

Well the cops should obey that one too. Have you EVER seen a squad car in any other and on a motorway except the overtaking lane. I know all the arguments about ****heads hoging the overtaking lane ....I'd be the first to execute the swines but expecting the poacher to become a gamekeeper...AD you know better than that...

Arcade_Tryer

road_high wrote: »

Sounds like an absolute head wreck of a driver tbh. No wonder he/she gets tailgated, usually only happens when you hold up people driving a lower than appropriate speed. Never happens me and if I see someone impatient behind I'll try my best to safely let them overtake and give them room. No point frustrating people if it can be avoided.

No excuse for tailgating. I often encounter slow cars and tractors doing 30/40 on 80/100km/hr roads. I don't tailgate them.

Stay well back and overtake when safe to do so. You should try it.

CiniO

Remove limit altogether with dynamic speed limit signs where necessary

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

The higher the rpm you drive at, the more stress the engine will endure.

Please provide any proof of that.
Because so far, it's only your own theory - which has nothing to do with real world.
Engines are designed to work at any RPM below red zone on your tachometer.
Driving it too often on red zone, might indeed cause problems, as well as driving it too often at too low rpm, which plenty of drivers do unfortunately, don't even realising they are doing harm to the engine.
I have a suspicion, you might be one of them.

When you drive a vehicle everyday you quickly become aware of its optimum level of performance and what it is consistently capable of without straining it.

My 1.2 Fiat Bravo, which I had for 7.5 years, had it's optimum between 3000 and 5500rpm. I've driven it mostly within that range, and engine was performing the best. On 5th gear, such RPM would give speeds of between 100km/h and 184km/h if I remember correctly.

For my vehicle that optimum is between 90-110km/hr. I encounter very few problems on the road as a result of driving safely and predominantly below the speed limit. Apart from occasional tailgaters and bad over takers of course, of which I'm sure there are none in this thread full of above average drivers!

Scary to think you find what I said so objectionable i.e. driving below the speed limit, putting less strain on the car engine and saving money whilst doing so. Lock me up and take away my licence!

So few facts.

By driving below speed limit you are:
1. not putting less strain on your engine. You won't prelong it's life that way.
2. not causing your driving to be safer - even opposite it causes more danger by encouraging other drivers to tailgate or overtake as you mentioned yourself.
3. indeed you might be saving money - fair play for that :cool:

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Well if you're getting tailgated and "dangerously overtaken" that often maybe you're going too slow... Ya know since 55mph is the correct speerd to be going at according to you...but 120kph on the motorway is "dangetously fast"


Nice how you can pick and chose what you want to from the R.S.A.

Follow your own rules. Judge other people at what speed theyre doing while holding up half a mile of traffic behind you, good man.

road_high

Remove limit altogether with dynamic speed limit signs where necessary

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

No excuse for tailgating. I often encounter slow cars and tractors doing 30/40 on 80/100km/hr roads. I don't tailgate them.

Stay well back and overtake when safe to do so. You should try it.

Where did I say I tailgate? I'm not stupid, I understand about stopping distances and the need for a big gap, regardless of how slow the fool in front is dawdling st. But I regularly see it occurring thanks to people that can't drive holding up traffic behind them, totally oblivious to the fact. It's pathetic that some people have so little regard for others they can't show some curtesy for others that may want to go a little faster than them.

Arcade_Tryer

CiniO wrote: »

Please provide any proof of that.
Because so far, it's only your own theory - which has nothing to do with real world.
Engines are designed to work at any RPM below red zone on your tachometer.
Driving it too often on red zone, might indeed cause problems, as well as driving it too often at too low rpm, which plenty of drivers do unfortunately, don't even realising they are doing harm to the engine.
I have a suspicion, you might be one of them.

It is a theory. But it's a theory based on my experience driving my car. Engines aren't designed to work at any RPM below the red zone over any sizable period of time. I suspect you know this too. Good point about the low rpm. That's why I used the word optimum i.e. around 2000rpm for my car.

By driving below speed limit you are:
1. not putting less strain on your engine. You won't prelong it's life that way.
2. not causing your driving to be safer - even opposite it causes more danger by encouraging other drivers to tailgate or overtake as you mentioned yourself.
3. indeed you might be saving money - fair play for that :cool:

I disagree. Driving below the speed limit is being a safer driver given all other things being equal. Tailgating is never condonable. I have no problem with overtaking. Which is why I said bad overtaking. Yep, save money and strain on my engine!

alan partridge aha

jay93 wrote: »

The speed limit is lower here in the US it's 112Km/h if you convert 70Mph not that many people follow that anyway..

Ya drove in the US this year, did a long journey from Detriot to Winston Salem NC and back. Speed limit 70 on highway but brother said stick cruise at 80 and you won't be stopped. I wasn't saw a few cop cruisers checking speed, no issues though. Also saw no speed camera vans. Think in built up areas they are a lot stricter 25-35 mph limits.

Arcade_Tryer

road_high wrote: »

Where did I say I tailgate? I'm not stupid, I understand about stopping distances and the need for a big gap, regardless of how slow the fool in front is dawdling st. But I regularly see it occurring thanks to people that can't drive holding up traffic behind them, totally oblivious to the fact. It's pathetic that some people have so little regard for others they can't show some curtesy for others that may want to go a little faster than them.

It's pretty clear from the tone of your posts, and the language you use, to decipher what kind of driver you are. I mean, "fool" and "can't drive" is your response to someone who drives slightly below the speed limit on average. Pathetic indeed.

Hugh Mungus wrote: »

Well if you're getting tailgated and "dangerously overtaken" that often maybe you're going too slow... Ya know since 55mph is the correct speerd to be going at according to you...but 120kph on the motorway is "dangetously fast"
.

Tailgating and dangerous overtaking is never acceptable. As I said, I do neither even when stuck behind tractors and other slow moving vehicles daily. I also don't drive too slowly. Nor does the RSA or the Guards say I do (I've asked). And I most certainly never said 120kph is "dangetously fast" on a motorway. Firstly, because I can spell dangerously. And secondly, because I have no problem with high speeds on motorways.

sdanseo

Raise to 140 km/h

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

It is a theory. But it's a theory based on my experience driving my car. Engines aren't designed to work at any RPM below the red zone over any sizable period of time. I suspect you know this too. Good point about the low rpm. That's why I used the word optimum i.e. around 2000rpm for my car.


I disagree. Driving below the speed limit is being a safer driver given all other things being equal. Tailgating is never condonable. I have no problem with overtaking. Which is why I said bad overtaking. Yep, save money and strain on my engine!

But all other things aren't equal. This is Irish motorways with Irish drivers.

#1 - for the most part we only have 2 lane motorways, and only one 4km stretch of 3 lane at full speed limit. Less overtaking room to get past the american octogenarian a few posts up with his 55mph nonsense, and then past the person overtaking him at 110km/h.

(Mind you, if we had 3 lanes, everyone would be in Lane 2 rendering Lane 1 non existent, because it's Ireland, and we don't choose to utilise any sort of common sense whatsoever when it comes to educating the mass of morons. I once wrote to the NRA at the time about a "keep left" message on the VMS, and was told sorry but it has to be part of an agreed national campaign. Which begs the question of who authorised such campaigns as "Less speed, less hurt - nonsense on a motorway when compared to the potential for rubbernecking, for example, to cause an accident - or "never drink, never drive" - you can do both. Just not at the same damn time.)

#2 - Irish drivers. Refer to above, but add in the stupidly slow, the stupidly dangerous, the "ah it'll be grand" factor applied by most people to most things they know nothing about, and so on.

#3 - Tailgating is never condonoable, but it is a completely predictable behaviour caused by driving too slowly or in the wrong lane. People should be able to expect to go at the speed limit, or slightly above it, when the volume of traffic isn't heavy enough to slow the whole road down. We don't live in a perfect world, unfortunately, and while there are many things you can legally do, it doesn't mean you should do them.

#4 - tractors, bicycles, travelers with horses, go karts, quads, wild animals and anything else that shouldn't be on the damn road to begin with. 10 times more here than anywhere else and I've driven on motorways in eight countries.

For those who wish to travel in a bubble of "relative safety" across the country at 75km/h while wrapped in a miniature bale of cotton wool, Gay Byrne and Liz O'Donnell have re-classified a whole rake of national primary routes as regional roads and lowered the speed limit to 80km/h. Just for you.

Arcade_Tryer

sdanseo wrote: »

#3 - Tailgating is never condonoable, but it is a completely predictable behaviour caused by driving too slowly or in the wrong lane.

Tailgating is caused by the tailgater being a dangerous driver. There is certainly a correlation between driving too slowly or in the wrong lane and tailgating.

People should be able to expect to go at the speed limit, or slightly above it, when the volume of traffic isn't heavy enough to slow the whole road down. We don't live in a perfect world, unfortunately, and while there are many things you can legally do, it doesn't mean you should do them.

On a motorway certainly. If the traffic flow allows, a person should be able to cruise along at +140kph. But there is no entitlement to always being able to drive at the speed limit or above it.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Nobody here is condoning tailgating.

And its really a dumb thing to pick on someone's spelling. Dyslexia.

Well done. You're literally showing yourself to be an ignoramus.

I'm out.