Sneaky speedcheck on M1 today

Andrew Duffy

Just to answer two things above:

delly wrote:

The plans for this interchange were around before this section of the M1 was completed a couple of years back. So why oh why couldn't it have been done then instead of wasting more money to have it sone subsequent to the main roadworks finishing?

I beleive the interchange is being paid for by a private developer; this may of course be incorrect.

delly wrote:

The same goes for the M50, they have been talking about putting the third lane in for years and have said that it'll be done eventually, so why couldn't they have put it in while completing the sections past the Tallaght junction, instead of tearing it all up again later.

There aren'y any plans to widen the road south of Sandyford (it's really the M11 from there on anyway). The Southern Cross section between Tallaght and Sandyford was designed and approved before it became clear that the road would have to be widened.

delly

Andrew Duffy wrote:

There aren'y any plans to widen the road south of Sandyford (it's really the M11 from there on anyway). The Southern Cross section between Tallaght and Sandyford was designed and approved before it became clear that the road would have to be widened.

The people who design these roads always seem to have an unrealistic view of future traffic counts, a bit like guide prices for auctions. I would bet that it will have to be widenend at some stage in the future.

Paul (MN)

delly,

I fyou were 22 and buying your first car would you think

a) I have €5000. I will buy as sporty a car as possible within my insurance bufget

b) I have €5000. But I might be married and have kids in 10 years. So I will borrow another €10000 and buy a family car

I think (a). Roads are expensive. It alwasy amazes me that people trot out the line "why don't they plan ahead". They probably do plan ahead, but sometimes it's just too damn expensive! You could be talking hundreds of millions to future proof. And while the arguement exists that it might cost twice as much to do it later, you still have to find that extra money now. It's not pennies we are talking about.

Would you like to have your taxes raised so that all road projects are future proofed?

ambro25

krinDar wrote:

On all too many occasions I have seen people supply vastly incorrect information and some poor mug accept it as truth - this was one such occasion. If I am a pedant for correcting something as simple as
that then so be it.

Explain to me how:

"And Courts will enforce the law with applying it to the finding of fact: i.e. was speeding against local limit or was not, black/white - unless mitigating factors explicitly catered for by RTAct apply, e.g. overtaking at the time, if at all applicable and proved by supporting evidence (a finding of fact to counter another)."

constitutes "vastly incorrect information".

I fear you are being rather obtuse

krinDar wrote:

My problem is that you originally suggested that the RTA allowed you to exceed the speed limit to overtake, even if it was your opinion it you were obiviously basing it on something. You were wrong and have
admitted to being wrong, well done.

End of story.....but wait!

krinDar wrote:

- but what else are you wrong about ?

Relevance, to the thread or this herein 'tiff'?

krinDar wrote:

Perhaps you think you are allowed by law to drive on the right on the fifth
Friday of February ?

Weed is something you mow, not something you smoke, pet

delly

Paul (MN) wrote:

delly,

I fyou were 22 and buying your first car would you think

a) I have €5000. I will buy as sporty a car as possible within my insurance bufget

b) I have €5000. But I might be married and have kids in 10 years. So I will borrow another €10000 and buy a family car

I think (a). Roads are expensive. It alwasy amazes me that people trot out the line "why don't they plan ahead". They probably do plan ahead, but sometimes it's just too damn expensive! You could be talking hundreds of millions to future proof. And while the arguement exists that it might cost twice as much to do it later, you still have to find that extra money now. It's not pennies we are talking about.

Would you like to have your taxes raised so that all road projects are future proofed?

Thats a bit of an Irish atitude tbh, basically meaning that we won't make it right from the start because of budget restrictions, so we'll do what we can and sure won't it be grand.

Most things we do are based on the future and any decent manager of a company or a family household will have the future in mind when making decisions. Going on your theory, we'd all buy one bedroom apartments when we first leave home, and increase it by a bedroom every time we have a kid.

And in answer to your question, no matter what car i buy, it'll still have 5 seats.

Paul (MN)

I would argue that when the cost difference on something you plan could run into the 100s of millions or billions, and that money is coming from taxpayers, that you might just decide to not go ahead.

To continue the analogy anybody can choose a 5 door car over a 3 door but it's pretty damn hard to say you have a "choice" between a 2billion 2 lane motorway with crappy rounadabout junctions and a 5 billion 3 lane motorway with cloverleaf junctions. Perhaps you could take the 3 billion you need from healthcare!?

I'm not having a go at you. I'm just trying to point out that it's quite to say plan ahead but it might be just a tad more difficult than you think.

delly

Points duly noted.

MrPudding

Paul (MN) wrote:

To continue the analogy anybody can choose a 5 door car over a 3 door but it's pretty damn hard to say you have a "choice" between a 2billion 2 lane motorway with crappy rounadabout junctions and a 5 billion 3 lane motorway with cloverleaf junctions. Perhaps you could take the 3 billion you need from healthcare!?

For me the issue is not so much the inability to plan correctly for the future, but the inability to deviate form that plan once you have seen it is incorrect.

What I mean by that is this:

The M50 was planned at at time when Ireland was an ecomonic basket case. Capacity planning was based on the only thing it could be, experience and the data that they had available to them. I do not think you can really fault them for not seeing the massive explosion in car ownership that Ireland experienced.

Also, clover leaf junctions are great. But the same thing applies, why put in something, at huge expense (I heard a clover leaf junction need 35 acres of land) when it is simply not required.

For me these are not unforgivable mistakes due to bad planning. They are mistakes due to something beyond the planners control. Explosive economic growth way beyond anything that was expected.

What I do not like is when they see that the plans are not going to cut it they cannot change. That is pure government crap.

MrP

DubTony

MrPudding wrote:

For me the issue is not so much the inability to plan correctly for the future, but the inability to deviate form that plan once you have seen it is incorrect.

A simple example of this is the traffic lights on the M50 / Ballymun roundabout. If ever there was a set of un-needed traffic lights, it's those. They were in place for months without actually being turned on. But they were in place so on they went.

Paul (MN)

I would guess that efficient operation of crossroads, roundabout, and cloverleaf junctions all hinge on the volume of traffic. Each one has its limits. So, when the roundabout becomes "clogged", especially when it's in one direction and then another section never gets a chance, they have to either make it a cloverleaf or alternate priority, which is a junction again.

Also, sometimes traffic lights are introduced to "spread the load" on a number of junctions. Take the lights off that junction and it might free up, but cause havoc elsewhere on one or more of the major traffic routes coming from it.

is_that_so

Just got 2 points from that camera today from 15th May, under section 11 of the 2004 Road Traffic Act. No complaint about that just the manner of it - 103 kph and slowing down rapidly as I hit a temporary 80 kph zone. Being an enthusiastic penalty points supporter I am well hacked off seeing as the sole purpose of the camera was to make money. The van and camera were deliberately set behind some cones on the hard shoulder (Is this legal?) inside a temporary 80 kph zone and looked broken down. All it did was test how quickly people could brake.

Letters are wending their way to various departments, TDs etc. to outline my disgust with this money making exercise.

It may be legal, but it

- does nothing to improve road safety and prevent accidents
- allows Gardai and Ministers to improve statistics
- ignores the real offenders
- is a lazy exercise to prove that the Gardai are actually doing anything.
- just p***** people off
- is not a random test (to do that they should take a few trips up and down the M1 or the N2, N51 etc.) :mad: :mad: :mad:

drdre

garda are aloud to put a checkpoint anywhere they wish,so its legal.

is_that_so

drdre wrote:

garda are aloud to put a checkpoint anywhere they wish,so its legal.

It was a Gatso van - not a check point. My point is not legality although I raised it. Legality in this case would revolve around whether the County Council got permission to introduce a "special speed limit" on that stretch in the first place. That's what the speed check was based on.
If a "special speed limit" has not been properly approved then the speed limit reverts to whatever the prevailing speed limit is, in this case 120 kph. Road signs in this case can only provide "guidelines" but are usually grounded in common sense.