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

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

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

So you're going to throw the book at someone who has a tire blow out and ends up side swiping someone ?

What about shared responsibility? Do you ban everyone involved?

What about some oil on the roadway do you get a lesser ban?

Why are you only throwing the book at people causing accidents on the M50 ? Can we throw the book at everyone breaking the law on the roads?

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

Why are you only throwing the book at people causing accidents on the M50 ? Can we throw the book at everyone breaking the law on the roads?

Let the punishment fit the crime. For the M50, I'd add an extra bit for blocking the road.

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

Let the punishment fit the crime. For the M50, I'd add an extra bit for blocking the road.

Your the one throwing books, you'll need to tell us how big it is

MJohnston

Let this thread die LeinsterDub, please!

cdaly_

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So you're going to throw the book at someone who has a tire blow out and ends up side swiping someone ?

I would say yes because tyres don't just 'blow out'. They need to be damaged first and preventive maintenance would mean that the damaged tyre would likely be replaced before it managed to blow out. Similarly, most breakdowns are down to inadequate maintenance. I properly maintained vehicle is unlikely to suffer a breakdown except in very exceptional circumstances.

LeinsterDub

cdaly_ wrote: »

I would say yes because tyres don't just 'blow out'. They need to be damaged first and preventive maintenance would mean that the damaged tyre would likely be replaced before it managed to blow out. Similarly, most breakdowns are down to inadequate maintenance. I properly maintained vehicle is unlikely to suffer a breakdown except in very exceptional circumstances.

Absolute nonsense , a tyre could have a manufacturing issue, have picked up a nick somewhere. Breakdowns are often electrical or completely unexpected. Jesus the alternative realities people invent to avoid having to accept the fact that the issue with the M50 is it has too many cars

MJohnston

cdaly_ wrote: »

I would say yes because tyres don't just 'blow out'. They need to be damaged first and preventive maintenance would mean that the damaged tyre would likely be replaced before it managed to blow out. Similarly, most breakdowns are down to inadequate maintenance. I properly maintained vehicle is unlikely to suffer a breakdown except in very exceptional circumstances.

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. Two years ago, on Christmas Eve as a matter of fact, I was driving to a relatives house, passed over an innocuous looking temporary sign that had been blown onto the road overnight by the wind. Apparently this sign must have have some nails or something sticking out of it because a mile or two later, both left tyres blew out. Had I been on the M50 at the time and moving at speed, and not simply starting off from stationary at a crossroads, I could have had a major accident for something I had no awareness of. And this was in a modern car with electronic tyre pressure sensors, that was barely 2 years old.

There are countless stories like this, and a great many of them will happen on the M50.

Not enforceable.
Not anyone's fault.
Not preventable.

First Up

MJohnston wrote:

Not enforceable. Not anyone's fault. Not preventable.

Its an exciting place by the sound of it. Does Bruce Willis star in the film version?

cdaly_

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Absolute nonsense , a tyre could have a manufacturing issue, have picked up a nick somewhere. Breakdowns are often electrical or completely unexpected. Jesus the alternative realities people invent to avoid having to accept the fact that the issue with the M50 is it has too many cars

Oh no, I'm quite aware that the M50 has too many cars.

In so many cases, there is some kind of warning. "The car's running a bit rough", "It's hard to start", "The battery goes flat if I leave the lights on for 10 minutes". "I'm too busy just now, I'll ask about it at the next service...".
Most breakdowns have had symptoms ignored because it's inconvenient. If every symptom was acted upon promptly, most breakdowns would become maintenance repairs done in the garage instead of on the roadside.

MJohnston wrote: »

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. Two years ago, on Christmas Eve as a matter of fact, I was driving to a relatives house, passed over an innocuous looking temporary sign that had been blown onto the road overnight by the wind. Apparently this sign must have have some nails or something sticking out of it because a mile or two later, both left tyres blew out. Had I been on the M50 at the time and moving at speed, and not simply starting off from stationary at a crossroads, I could have had a major accident for something I had no awareness of. And this was in a modern car with electronic tyre pressure sensors, that was barely 2 years old.

My one question there is did you notice the bump over the sign and did you stop and inspect your tyres?

I'm not saying that you should for every little bump in the road but things like walking around the car doing a visual check used to be a recommended practice but nobody does that. Checking oil and water used to be a regular thing, nobody does that. Everyone's too busy to be doing that stuff but it's that stuff that avoids breakdowns.

L1011

Checking oil and water frequently used to be required because of badly made engines with poor tolerance seals etc - and no indication except manual checks. My car will tell me if it's low on oil or coolant (and you don't use water anymore!)

Most breakdowns these days that leave a car incapacitated would be electrical.

Cars are vastly more reliable than in the past

tom1ie

MJohnston wrote: »

Let this thread die LeinsterDub, please!

Lol! It's comedy though.

Nijmegen

https://www.thejournal.ie/m50-crashes-4765574-Aug2019/?amp=1

Looking at the data in the above, there are an average of 1.7 crashes per day on the M50 but 3 breakdowns per day that require a response from motorway services (and an average of 2 cars running out of fuel per month.)

So breakdowns are definitely a major contributory source of incidents. But it’s difficult to see how you appropriately deal with them. Maybe every car without an NCT gets reported as it’s hauled off the road, but otherwise as ye note a blown tyre could be debris - I lost 3 tyres in one particularly fun 6 month period due to M50 debris a few years back, luckily run flats - and another problem, well who’s to say if it was a spontaneous or a pre existing problem you just ignored.

Maybe an unfair way to try get people to think twice is just to have hefty and well advertised mandatory rescue fees if you break down in a lane. Kinda like ambulance call out fees - you needed the ambulance and it sucks to get stung for the fee, but in the case of the motorway maybe it’ll deter some folks who are driving the “ah sure it’ll be grand” cars.

MJohnston

cdaly_ wrote: »

My one question there is did you notice the bump over the sign and did you stop and inspect your tyres?

I'm not saying that you should for every little bump in the road but things like walking around the car doing a visual check used to be a recommended practice but nobody does that. Checking oil and water used to be a regular thing, nobody does that. Everyone's too busy to be doing that stuff but it's that stuff that avoids breakdowns.

There was no bump - it was a flat sign. To avoid it entirely would have caused me to crash into an oncoming vehicle, so I didn't do that. There was no noise, no indication that anything was out of the ordinary.

Beside, had the same happened on the M50, I would have had to pull over onto the hard shoulder, causing the kind of distraction and concern to other drivers that would very soon lead to some accordion congestion.

MJohnston

The dance around the truth continues. You can't eliminate accidents. You can't eliminate breakdowns. Even if you could, it wouldn't eliminate M50 congestion.

Is everyone ready to accept these basic, inarguable truths yet? So that we can actually move on to solutions that might work?

First Up

MJohnston wrote:

Is everyone ready to accept these basic, inarguable truths yet? So that we can actually move on to solutions that might work?

Let me guess; none of which include personal responsibility?

MJohnston

First Up wrote: »

Let me guess; none of which include personal responsibility?

Personal responsibility like not driving a car to work because of the immediate damage it's causing to our bodies? Sure, I'd definitely include that kind of personal responsibility there.

Perhaps car commuters can also take personal responsibility for not blocking bus lanes too, that'd absolutely help with congestion.

Another piece of personal responsibility that should be involved is not travelling as a single-occupancy commuter - carpooling should be heavily encouraged and adopted by all car user as a priority.

First Up

Ah right, I suspected a hobby horse was in play.

MJohnston

What hobby horse would that be?

First Up

MJohnston wrote:

What hobby horse would that be?

Cars bad; buses/bikes good - that sort of thing.

MJohnston

How about you stick to debating the points, rather than attacking the poster hmm?

[Deleted User]

First Up wrote: »

Cars bad; buses/bikes good - that sort of thing.

Once you see the ‘single occupancy’ buzzwords mentioned then you know the agenda straight off.

Zebra3

First Up wrote: »

Cars bad; buses/bikes good - that sort of thing.

You make it sound like a bad thing?

[Deleted User]

Zebra3 wrote: »

You make it sound like a bad thing?

Not everyone wants to be on a bus or a bicycle. People complain about commutes all the time but maybe a bit of comfort can go a long way to making them bearable?

MJohnston

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Once you see the ‘single occupancy’ buzzwords mentioned then you know the agenda straight off.

Again, attacking the poster, not the post.

[Deleted User]

MJohnston wrote: »

Again, attacking the poster, not the post.

Stop fishing for cards. I couldn’t even tell you who posted it without scrolling up, I’m attacking the ‘single occupancy’ buzzwords regardless of who posted them. It’s like they’re the first thing taught in bus & bike school.
There’s more to alleviating congestion on the M50 than droning everyone onto a bus.

MJohnston

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Stop fishing for cards. I couldn’t even tell you who posted it without scrolling up, I’m attacking the ‘single occupancy’ buzzwords regardless of who posted them. It’s like they’re the first thing taught in bus & bike school.
There’s more to alleviating congestion on the M50 than droning everyone onto a bus.

Attacking the supposed use of buzzwords is just as petty. If you don't think carpooling would be effective in congestion reduction, instead just say so and say why. Otherwise you're not adding anything useful to this thread, only trolling.

[Deleted User]

MJohnston wrote: »

Attacking the supposed use of buzzwords is just as petty. If you don't think carpooling would be effective in congestion reduction, instead just say so and say why. Otherwise you're not adding anything useful to this thread, only trolling.

If you can’t see that wading into every thread about traffic with bike or bus bike or bus bike or bus doesn’t amount to anything more than trolling at this stage, then there’s little hope of you understanding what it means at all.

Zebra3

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Not everyone wants to be on a bus or a bicycle. People complain about commutes all the time but maybe a bit of comfort can go a long way to making them bearable?

Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but there's no longer enough space for all those seeking comfort while making the environment outside their metal boxes uncomfortable and, indeed, deadly for those outside their little cosy world.

Elmer Blooker

MJohnston wrote: »

The dance around the truth continues. You can't eliminate accidents. You can't eliminate breakdowns. Even if you could, it wouldn't eliminate M50 congestion.

Is everyone ready to accept these basic, inarguable truths yet? So that we can actually move on to solutions that might work?

I admire your persistence MJ, it can't be easy arguing with posters who think that the M50 congestion is caused by bad driving.

Thargor

Zebra3 wrote: »

Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but there's no longer enough space for all those seeking comfort while making the environment outside their metal boxes uncomfortable and, indeed, deadly for those outside their little cosy world.

If it's any consolation the air inside the metal box is worse...