Motorway speed limits in Ireland

Jayop · 04-11-2016 09:29PM

Raise to 150 km/h

Like these HGV's and busses have speed limiters, so forcing them to pass when they can only go 100kmph thus the overtaking maneuver will take ages due to the length of the vehicle and the fact they can't pass that speed is a hold up for anyone coming behind them. To say otherwise is quite remarkable.

Odyssey 2005 · 04-11-2016 09:32PM

Ginger83 wrote: »

Have you the same attitude if the leading vehicle is a truck limited to 90km/hr.
Adjust your speed and join the lane i good time.

I can only assume your trolling now. An eventless is capable of speeds WAY in excess of 90 kph and whilst on a motorway the driver should keep up,not cause a backlog of traffic or else fuk off the road.

Ginger83 · 04-11-2016 10:02PM

Decrease them to 110 km/h

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Quite remarkable after god knows how many posts you still deem it acceptable to drive 10kph lower than HGVs and think it has no knock on effects. Surely you're more intelligent than this or you're just being deliberately obnoxious.

Everyone would hold you in a much higher regard if you even admitted that action alone was a mistake and you have learnt from this thread. I'd see you as a bigger person if you just said " you know what, from now on i'll try and keep at 95kph or higher, 80 is just too low".

I never said it had no knock on effects. I admitted I drive mostly at 100km/hr on a motorway which I believe is a safe speed, some believe 160km/hr is safe whereas my opinion is that its too fast.

Ginger83 · 04-11-2016 10:13PM

Decrease them to 110 km/h

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

I can only assume your trolling now. An eventless is capable of speeds WAY in excess of 90 kph and whilst on a motorway the driver should keep up,not cause a backlog of traffic or else fuk off the road.

Trolling? for what? giving my opinion. What gives you the right to tell a taxed,insured and nct'd motorist to 'fuk off the road' because they drive 20km/hr below a motorway speed limit?

No where does it state 'the limit is 120km/hr, failure to drive at this speed will result in a penalty'. Would you cop on. What if you came across a Honda 50? Is he/she supposed to 'fuk off the road'?

Odyssey 2005 · 04-11-2016 10:16PM

There ya go.. Nuff said.
And 90kph is 30 under the speed limit not 20..!!

dr.fuzzenstein · 04-11-2016 11:02PM

Wow, I joined Boards n 2010 and these discussions haven't changed a bit. I'm gonna crack open another beer and just let it be for today.

drunkmonkey · 04-11-2016 11:13PM

Remove limit altogether with dynamic speed limit signs where necessary

Has anyone suggested Open Zone speed limits, where the responsibility is put on the drivers rather than the nanny state approach of transits hiding behind ditches.

I don't think speed limits make any difference in certain places or situations, in fact they make things worse. Motorways are a typical example, you can see the people with fear, people with god complex and people who just want to get where there going. Remove the speed limit from the overtaking lane to stop these part time speed enforcers.

I got a fine for speeding when overtaking, one of the most stupid things i've ever seen a Garda do and I let him have it at the time, even rang his boss to give out, no points in that day, had to pay the fine but wanted to lamp the Garda.

CiniO · 04-11-2016 11:15PM

Remove limit altogether with dynamic speed limit signs where necessary

I'd say increasing speed limit on Irish motorways, wouldn't change much at all.
Still 95% of drivers would drive below 120km/h exactly the same as they do now.

Only a fraction of drivers would actually benefit from driving faster due to increased speed limit.

I doubt there would be any effect on safety, neither negative or positive.

drunkmonkey · 04-11-2016 11:28PM

Remove limit altogether with dynamic speed limit signs where necessary

CiniO wrote: »

I'd say increasing speed limit on Irish motorways, wouldn't change much at all.
Still 95% of drivers would drive below 120km/h exactly the same as they do now.

Only a fraction of drivers would actually benefit from driving faster due to increased speed limit.

I doubt there would be any effect on safety, neither negative or positive.

It would stop the guys who think it's there job to control the speedliits themselves by sitting there blocking other road users, I think anyone who uses cruise control a lot will understand where I'm coming from. Or maybe they just rename it an overtaking lane not somewhere to hang out like a lot drivers see it.

I don't get the mentality of people who don't use it as an overtaking lane, my thinking on it is get in and out of it as quick as possible as if there's a bad crash on the other side you'll be taken out first if they cross sides, your safer on the inside lane.

Special Circumstances · 05-11-2016 12:11AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Wow, I joined Boards n 2010 and these discussions haven't changed a bit. I'm gonna crack open another beer and just let it be for today.

Ginger83 · 05-11-2016 12:15AM

Decrease them to 110 km/h

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

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.

I think you should reread the rules of the road to see what law this granny is breaking. And to say people should be taken off the road for instances stated above is appalling.

road_high · 05-11-2016 12:27AM

Remove limit altogether with dynamic speed limit signs where necessary

Ginger83 wrote: »

I think you should reread the rules of the road to see what law this granny is breaking. And to say people should be taken off the road for instances stated above is appalling.

Well then the rules need updating don't they. If certain behaviour is causing danger and a menace on our motorways then it should be looked at imo. Driving like a slow imbecile can be just as dangerous if not more than speeding at 200 kmh

Ginger83 · 05-11-2016 12:54AM

Decrease them to 110 km/h

road_high wrote: »

Well then the rules need updating don't they. If certain behaviour is causing danger and a menace on our motorways then it should be looked at imo. Driving like a slow imbecile can be just as dangerous if not more than speeding at 200 kmh

Thats your opinion, maybe the limit needs reducing, thats mine.

FishOnABike · 05-11-2016 12:59AM

The numpty crawling along the overtaking lane of an otherwse empty N40 late one evening deserves a special place in hell. Despite being behind them for nearly two miles with my indicator on and the occasional flash to try and get their attention, they remained totally oblivious.

I was half tempted to overtake them in the driving lane but thought it better to give the ifiot a wide berth and stay back. Sure enough they sailed across the driving lane to take the Bloomfield interchange exit without indicating or looking.

There's a lot more to safe driving than speed (or lack of it)

road_high · 05-11-2016 01:09AM

Remove limit altogether with dynamic speed limit signs where necessary

Ginger83 wrote: »

Thats your opinion, maybe the limit needs reducing, thats mine.

The limit defo doesn't need reducing any ways! ...and here's why and it's not my opinion- the current limit is born of the UK limit introduced in the 60s based on ancient braking limits. Cars have advanced so much since then but still we are tied to the same ridiculous limits. It makes no sense and that's why it needs to be upped to at least 140kmh.

allthedoyles · 05-11-2016 01:13AM

Keep them at 120 km/h

Reduced speed increases fuel economy and this may be a reason why some drivers remain 10 below the limit .
I am as conscious of the RPM as the speedometer and drive under 3,000 revs at all times

drunkmonkey · 05-11-2016 01:19AM

Remove limit altogether with dynamic speed limit signs where necessary

allthedoyles wrote: »

Reduced speed increases fuel economy and this may be a reason why some drivers remain 10 below the limit .
I am as conscious of the RPM as the speedometer and drive under 3,000 revs at all times

Thats complete and utter bull crap , lower revs does not equal better fuel economy.
A lot depends on the car but if your trying to keep under a certain rpm to save a few cent your coddling yourself.

Ginger83 · 05-11-2016 01:24AM

Decrease them to 110 km/h

allthedoyles wrote: »

Reduced speed increases fuel economy and this may be a reason why some drivers remain 10 below the limit .
I am as conscious of the RPM as the speedometer and drive under 3,000 revs at all times

Thats a fair point, doing 120km/hr as opposed to 90-100km/hr must result in 20-25% more fuel usage.

A driver doing a 20-30 miles journey wouldn't save 5 minutes.

Ginger83 · 05-11-2016 01:31AM

Decrease them to 110 km/h

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Thats complete and utter bull crap , lower revs does not equal better fuel economy.
A lot depends on the car but if your trying to keep under a certain rpm to save a few cent your coddling yourself.

Lower speed does

drunkmonkey · 05-11-2016 01:33AM

Remove limit altogether with dynamic speed limit signs where necessary

Ginger83 wrote: »

allthedoyles wrote: »

Reduced speed increases fuel economy and this may be a reason why some drivers remain 10 below the limit .
I am as conscious of the RPM as the speedometer and drive under 3,000 revs at all times

Thats a fair point, doing 120km/hr as opposed to 90-100km/hr must result in 20-25% more fuel usage.

A driver doing a 20-30 miles journey wouldn't save 5 minutes.

Why do you think an engine uses 25% more fuel at 120 as opposed to 100?
You didn't learn it, you just assumed it and therefore it most be true.

drunkmonkey · 05-11-2016 01:36AM

Remove limit altogether with dynamic speed limit signs where necessary

Ginger83 wrote: »

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Thats complete and utter bull crap , lower revs does not equal better fuel economy.
A lot depends on the car but if your trying to keep under a certain rpm to save a few cent your coddling yourself.

Lower speed does

Would you mind backing that up? True an engine is most efficent at 0rpm but that does not mean driving at 2000rpm on the motorway is more efficent than 2500rpm.

Ginger83 · 05-11-2016 01:41AM

Decrease them to 110 km/h

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Do you think there is some magical force going to happen when you hit 160? Controlling a vehicle? I have driven at over 250 and it's not like you enter another dimension.

There's very few drivers trained or experienced to drive at 100MPH+, they certainly don't cover it in driving lessons, but you want to grant people permission to drive at whatever speed they wish. Why don't you licence them a gun to carry too to shoot people outa their way. Jesus the amount of numpty's on this thread.

Thats all well any good if you have experience but what about some chap just after passing his test.

Ginger83 · 05-11-2016 01:45AM

Decrease them to 110 km/h

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Would you mind backing that up? True an engine is most efficent at 0rpm but that does not mean driving at 2000rpm on the motorway is more efficent than 2500rpm.

I'm not talking about rpm, i'm talking about speed...90km/hr as opposed to 120km/hr.

Are you saying both speeds have the same MPG

drunkmonkey · 05-11-2016 01:48AM

Remove limit altogether with dynamic speed limit signs where necessary

It all depends on what car your in. 100mph may be very fast in one car with the revs up full while another car is barley over 2000rpm at 100mph.

You should drive at a speed you feel comfortable with and your car can brake safely at.

The speed limits are 50 years old, cars have come a long way.

drunkmonkey · 05-11-2016 01:51AM

Remove limit altogether with dynamic speed limit signs where necessary

Ginger83 wrote: »

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Would you mind backing that up? True an engine is most efficent at 0rpm but that does not mean driving at 2000rpm on the motorway is more efficent than 2500rpm.

I'm not talking about rpm, i'm talking about speed...90km/hr as opposed to 120km/hr.

Are you saying both speeds have the same MPG

No I've said it arseways, what I was trying to say was 120km may not be fuel efficent in one car but could be in another. Engine decides economy and some cars are more economical at faster speeds than others.

Ginger83 · 05-11-2016 01:58AM

Decrease them to 110 km/h

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It all depends on what car your in. 100mph may be very fast in one car with the revs up full while another car is barley over 2000rpm at 100mph.

You should drive at a speed you feel comfortable with and your car can brake safely at.

The speed limits are 50 years old, cars have come a long way.

I do agree with you.

75% of the poll votes for an increase, maybe i'm wrong thinking it'd be too fast, maybe the country's gone speed mad. But if it is increased in the future something would want to be implemented in driver training. There's a huge step up from someone nipping around a town and passing a test to hopping onto a 140/160km/hr road.

polan · 05-11-2016 02:00AM

Raise to 140 km/h

Ginger83 wrote: »

Lower speed does

then all cars should be much more economical at 50kph!

truth is they're not, well done.

Ginger83 · 05-11-2016 02:02AM

Decrease them to 110 km/h

polan wrote: »

then all cars should be much more economical at 50kph!

truth is they're not, well done.

I'd say your 0.8L would be

polan · 05-11-2016 02:06AM

Raise to 140 km/h

Ginger83 wrote: »

I'd say your 0.8L would be

It was a loaner thank God :pac: I have a 2.2 6 cylinder

One_Of_Shanks · 05-11-2016 02:06AM

Raise to 130 km/h

I drive the M9, N7, M50 every day and for long periods you could set the limit at 300km/hr and it wouldn't matter because you're stuck in a car-park for most of it.

But ok, outside of that is it worth altering limits? No.

120 is enough. As a nation we are awful drivers. 3 lanes and everyone who passes their test heads for the motor-way and God calls them to migrate towards the middle lane. It's an innate, instinctive feeling to go for that sacred middle lane.
If you aren't in the middle lane then you're not Irish.

So what happens is you get people under-taking and zipping into the left hand land when the overtaking lane isn't free. And then moving back out again and then into the over-taking lane often without indicating because indicators aren't popular here either.

So even when it's 2 lanes and 120 limit you are guaranteed to meet someone doing 90 and holding people up so you get someone uncomfortable over-taking at speed so they move out and start doing 95 and you have to wait about 4 minutes before they go back in.
And thats when you get the guy tail-gating and flashing because its a 120 zone so WTF are you doing holding him up?
Solution.... Increase it to 140/hr ? How does that help? He gets 15% more annoyed?

The limits are fine. It's the morons not knowing how to behave on motor-ways that are the problem.

In order to pass your driving test you should have to spend 5 mins of your test on a motor-way. Not pass your test without ever having driven on one and head out to the middle lane to celebrate.

Motorway speed limits in Ireland

Comments