nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

M50 Congestion

First Up

I had to go from Dalkey to just off the N81 towards Blessington yesterday at about 5pm. The obvious (only?) route was via Cherrywood to the M50 and off at Firhouse. I expected it to be busy but nothing could prepare me for the experience.

No problems getting to the M50 but as I approached the Carrickmines junction the signs were flashing about delays and I could already see the tailback ahead. It then took well over an hour to cover the few miles to Firhouse. There was no sign of any accidents and the traffic programme on Dublin City FM just casually mentioned it was slow but it sounded like they considered this normal.

Is this normal? The motorway on that section is at least 2 and mostly 3 lanes and the only "complications" are a couple of exit and entry points. Is that all it takes to reduce traffic to 5k an hour in first gear? (It seemed to be equally bad further on.)

Do regular users have to put up with this every day?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

magicbastarder

re the use of cameras to catch misbehaving motorists, i haven't heard any more about this story other than the scrap of it that's not behind the paywall. seems quite odd, and without further detail it's hard to tell whether it only affects automated systems which proactively scan reg plates for issues, rather than ones being triggered by something like speeding:

Gardaí are told to switch off number plate ID cameras

https://www.businesspost.ie/ireland/gardai-are-told-to-switch-off-number-plate-id-cameras-5a0b7709

liamog

MJohnston wrote: »

Well, except that the only thing you can actually automatically capture on the M50 is speed enforcement. So you'd still need some way to enforce against tailgating, lane abuse, and anything else that's actually enforceable. Which could only be done with real people.

There have been trials of cameras that catch mobile phone usage whilst driving. It's similar tech to red light cameras. Put these on every gantry/overpass on the M50.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/hitech/drivers-using-mobile-phones-could-be-fined-without-even-knowing-theyve-been-caught/news-story/ecb141e8552b39560f7f395802e447d7

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

Not with you around by the look of it.

Those acts if god are pesky critters eh?

I know you think this is some kind of epic zinger but this is the exact point we've been making for ages. You can't legislate for everyone, you can't prevent all accidents or breakdowns

Irish Steve

Spent an hour on the side of the M50 this afternoon as a result of an injector failure, and it was eye opening. The number of people who don't indicate, or use the correct lane was significant, but the number of people that really should not be allowed near a motorway is insane. We were about 400 metres short of Junction 9 southbound (Red Cow), and I'd pulled off because even in limp mode, it was dangerous to continue at the speed I was able to get, and there was no hard shoulder just in front of me, and stopping in the carriageway wasn't an option.

The absolute insane moment was while I was sitting in the cab of the AA recovery truck while the car was loaded, a Dacia Duster in the second lane out stopped next to the truck with a left turn indication flashing, and basically brought 2 lanes of the motorway to a standstill until someone in Lane 1 let it in to the lane, and at that point, it crossed lane 1, and pulled up on the left, 50 meters in front of the breakdown truck, with the hazard warnings on, not really off the lane, as there was not a full hard shoulder at that point, a bridge, what was the hard shoulder had been lost when it was used as the widening lane during the most recent upgrade of that section.

It sat there for a good 10 minutes, and eventually pulled out again, almost causing another crash, due to the lack of space, so it fully joined Lane 1 (the Naas Road exit lane) at a standstill pace. We don't know what the reason for stopping was, the most likely is that the driver was lost, and trying to decide if they needed the next junction or not, or they just had to answer a phone call, so stopped. Either way, it was highly dangerous, and it was only luck that there wasn't a major accident as a result of total stupidity, HGV's were forced to move to their right partially into lane 2 to avoid hitting it.

Then, 15 minutes later, we were northbound at Blanchardstown, and there was an incident there, the northbound lane was almost at a standstill, as was the southbound, and on getting closer, there was nothing wrong on the northbound other than too many people rubbernecking a Garda incident on the hard shoulder of the southbound carriageway. Seeing an incident of that nature makes me think that the central barriers need to be updated to make it impossible for drivers to see what's happening on the other carriageway, there was absolutely no excuse for any sort of delay on the northbound lanes, as there was no incident of any sort on that side of the road.

These are the sort of reasons for the M50 not working as it should, and they are nothing to do with the design of the road, and everything to do with people who don't know how to drive on a motorway.

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

I know you think this is some kind of epic zinger but this is the exact point we've been making for ages. You can't legislate for everyone, you can't prevent all accidents or breakdowns

"Accidents" are caused by drivers doing something they shouldn't. Improve driver behaviour and you have less accidents.

It isn't that hard to grasp.

Captcha

Irish Steve wrote: »

Spent an hour on the side of the M50 this afternoon as a result of an injector failure, and it was eye opening. The number of people who don't indicate, or use the correct lane was significant, but the number of people that really should not be allowed near a motorway is insane. We were about 400 metres short of Junction 9 southbound (Red Cow), and I'd pulled off because even in limp mode, it was dangerous to continue at the speed I was able to get, and there was no hard shoulder just in front of me, and stopping in the carriageway wasn't an option.

The absolute insane moment was while I was sitting in the cab of the AA recovery truck while the car was loaded, a Dacia Duster in the second lane out stopped next to the truck with a left turn indication flashing, and basically brought 2 lanes of the motorway to a standstill until someone in Lane 1 let it in to the lane, and at that point, it crossed lane 1, and pulled up on the left, 50 meters in front of the breakdown truck, with the hazard warnings on, not really off the lane, as there was not a full hard shoulder at that point, a bridge, what was the hard shoulder had been lost when it was used as the widening lane during the most recent upgrade of that section.

It sat there for a good 10 minutes, and eventually pulled out again, almost causing another crash, due to the lack of space, so it fully joined Lane 1 (the Naas Road exit lane) at a standstill pace. We don't know what the reason for stopping was, the most likely is that the driver was lost, and trying to decide if they needed the next junction or not, or they just had to answer a phone call, so stopped. Either way, it was highly dangerous, and it was only luck that there wasn't a major accident as a result of total stupidity, HGV's were forced to move to their right partially into lane 2 to avoid hitting it.

Then, 15 minutes later, we were northbound at Blanchardstown, and there was an incident there, the northbound lane was almost at a standstill, as was the southbound, and on getting closer, there was nothing wrong on the northbound other than too many people rubbernecking a Garda incident on the hard shoulder of the southbound carriageway. Seeing an incident of that nature makes me think that the central barriers need to be updated to make it impossible for drivers to see what's happening on the other carriageway, there was absolutely no excuse for any sort of delay on the northbound lanes, as there was no incident of any sort on that side of the road.

These are the sort of reasons for the M50 not working as it should, and they are nothing to do with the design of the road, and everything to do with people who don't know how to drive on a motorway.

A special person buys a Dacia Duster

[Deleted User]

Captcha wrote: »

A special person buys a Dacia Duster

A person that can’t drive going by my experiences on the roads.

[Deleted User]

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

It’s worth noting a lot of things but we’re all just saying how they should improve things. Another thing is link the fault of an accident to a points penalty as well as the usual monetary one.

What monetary penalty is there for being at fault in an accident?

(unless you mean insurance premium increases?)

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

"Accidents" are caused by drivers doing something they shouldn't. Improve driver behaviour and you have less accidents.

It isn't that hard to grasp.

What's hard to grasp is how you'll enforce this improvement.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What monetary penalty is there for being at fault in an accident?

(unless you mean insurance premium increases?)

Yes that’s what I meant. If found to be at fault there should be a mechanism to apply points also.

Nijmegen

Delays and accidents are caused by a variety of contributory factors that each add some statistical grains of sand to the probabilities. There is no doubt that much congestion is simply caused by the volume of traffic; but equally there are a lot of unnecessary additional delays caused by, for example, crazy driving like that Steve witnessed; or breakdowns from poorly maintained cars (not picking on Steve, stuff happens - but there are folks who just run out of fuel or ignore warning lights on the M50 each year); or rubber necking slowdowns.

Control for what you can control for, I guess. Regular high quality cameras at regular intervals to get full coverage and a promise that if an accident occurs because you did something egregiously stupid (like swing into a lane without proper care) and hefty fines, loss of license, etc may follow. Of course you can't prosecute every case successfully, but perhaps the threat will stop it. Proper barriers between the north and southbound lanes to kill rubber necking, which has to be one of the thickest forms of collective driving we know. Major fines for people whose car breaks down on the motorway for lack of fuel, because there isn't really much excuse.

Like those grains of statistical sand they will prevent some delays and not others but it's worth a shot at trying to do something proactive.

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

What's hard to grasp is how you'll enforce this improvement.

Same way as all driving behaviour is enforced.

donvito99

First Up wrote: »

Same way as all driving behaviour is enforced.

i.e. no enforcement whatsoever?

First Up

donvito99 wrote:

i.e. no enforcement whatsoever?

Ever hear of fines or penalty points?

donvito99

First Up wrote: »

Ever hear of fines or penalty points?

So why is driver behaviour this bad when we already have 'enforcement'?

First Up

donvito99 wrote:

So why is driver behaviour this bad when we already have 'enforcement'?

Because it isn't enforced as well as it should (and could) be.

[Deleted User]

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Yes that’s what I meant. If found to be at fault there should be a mechanism to apply points also.

I can understand the point your making, but I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with it.

Generally speaking, people don't deliberately set out to cause accidents. They are just that - an accident. All it takes is a momentary lapse in concentration and you could be in major trouble.

Would also be unfair to those who find themselves unlucky enough to be victims of 'crash for cash' insurance claim attempts.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I can understand the point your making, but I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with it.

Generally speaking, people don't deliberately set out to cause accidents. They are just that - an accident. All it takes is a momentary lapse in concentration and you could be in major trouble.

Would also be unfair to those who find themselves unlucky enough to be victims of 'crash for cash' insurance claim attempts.

There’s no accidents, there’s people being careless and driving like they’re in a race.

LeinsterDub

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

There’s no accidents, there’s people being careless and driving like they’re in a race.

If there are no accidents we'll charge anyone involved in a crash with murder /attempted murder so

[Deleted User]

LeinsterDub wrote: »

If there are no accidents we'll charge anyone involved in a crash with murder /attempted murder so

I think you need to look up the old attempted murder definition there.

LeinsterDub

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

I think you need to look up the old attempted murder definition there.

Dangerous driving so. Sure you're saying you it's been done on purpose

[Deleted User]

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Dangerous driving so. Sure you're saying you it's been done on purpose

The dangerous driving is being done on purpose, hitting someone isn’t being done on purpose but is a result of the former. That’s hardly difficult to wrap your head around.

LeinsterDub

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

The dangerous driving is being done on purpose, hitting someone isn’t being done on purpose but is a result of the former. That’s hardly difficult to wrap your head around.

So there are accidents again? Okay good to know.

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

So there are accidents again? Okay good to know.

The Gardai (and your insurance company) will decide what definition of "accident" will apply.

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

The Gardai (and your insurance company) will decide what definition of "accident" will apply.

But you and ReginaldSmythV had eliminated accidents. It's very hard to keep track

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

But you and ReginaldSmythV had eliminated accidents. It's very hard to keep track

Yes, your struggles are obvious.

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

Yes, your struggles are obvious.

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

There’s no accidents, there’s people being careless and driving like they’re in a race.

First Up wrote: »

Decreasing the number of cars would help but not by nearly as much as cutting out the delays caused by bad driving.

Some peak time congestion is inevitable; its an important road doing an important job. Accidents and breakdowns are entirely avoidable and eliminating most of them is quicker, cheaper and more realistic than anything else that has been suggested.

I know i'm struggling because you and ReginaldSmythV keep eliminating accidents and then bring them back.

So let's all agree to the actual reality we live in. There are such things as accidents and they aren't entirely avoidable

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

I know i'm struggling because you and ReginaldSmythV keep eliminating accidents and then bring them back.

It depends what you mean by "accident". A collision may be unintentional but it still has a cause and a causer.

There could be accidents not caused by any of those involved but that would be very rare.

Almost all "accidental" collisions can be attributed to someone doing something they shouldn't - or not doing something they should. Improve that behavior and accidents will decrease.

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

It depends what you mean by "accident". A collision may be unintentional but it still has a cause and a causer.

There could be accidents not caused by any of those involved but that would be very rare.

Almost all "accidental" collisions can be attributed to someone doing something they shouldn't - or not doing something they should. Improve that behavior and accidents will decrease.

Okay so let's agree with the term collisions instead of accidents . Some collisions are avoidable, others aren't. Some breakdown are avoidable, others aren't. It's your contention that the avoidable collisions are in the main caused by drivers breaking the law or in your own words 'doing something they shouldn't' . I think most of us agree on these terms or can at least accept the premise , however were we disagree is you when contend that this law breaking is easily enforced. The type of behavior you wish to see punished is extremely difficult to enforce on a standard road let alone on 4 lane road with 100k cars on it

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

Okay so let's agree with the term collisions instead of accidents . Some collisions are avoidable, others aren't. Some breakdown are avoidable, others aren't. It's your contention that the avoidable collisions are in the main caused by drivers breaking the law or in your own words 'doing something they shouldn't' . I think most of us agree on these terms or can at least accept the premise , however were we disagree is you when contend that this law breaking is easily enforced. The type of behavior you wish to see punished is extremely difficult to enforce on a standard road let alone on 4 lane road with 100k cars on it

Just focus on the accidents. Identify who caused them and throw the book at them. Word will get out quickly enough.