Speeding is endemic in this country, what can be done about it?

magicbastarder · 24-06-2021 2:33pm

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Finally, just anecdotally

and that's an incredibly specific anecdote. everyone knows speed limit violations increase considerably the lower the speed limits are. picking the highest speed limit zones is cherry picking.

liamog · 24-06-2021 2:48pm

A Danish study conducted in 2007 found that up to 90km/h safe braking distances remained consistent with their older guidelines, but as speed increases braking distances are now much shorter, for instance a car at 130km/h can now safely stop in 25% less distance compared to when guidelines were set.
If we believe that speed limits should be correlated to effective reaction and stopping distances, then it means that a modern car at 150km/h is as safe as a 1980's car travelling at 120km/h.

whisky_galore · 24-06-2021 3:08pm

timmyntc wrote: »

As with all things its a trade off. But I think our speed limits err too much on the side of caution.

And that's bad because....?

Uncle Pierre · 24-06-2021 3:16pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

but what if i don't believe that stat? and i don't, not for a second. did you believe the gardai when it came to the number of breathalyser tests they 'performed'?

Off to the Conspiracy Theory forum for you, then.

magicbastarder wrote: »

and that's an incredibly specific anecdote. everyone knows speed limit violations increase considerably the lower the speed limits are. picking the highest speed limit zones is cherry picking.

Yes, it's just one anecdote. But surely starting a reply with "everyone knows...." is venturing into anecdote theory too?

Anyway, I'm out of here. I deliberately avoid the threads that just turn into yet another tiresome cyclist v motorist debate. Was afraid this would become one of them, and it's looking that way now.

magicbastarder · 24-06-2021 3:17pm

the argument that 'we should increase speed limits because cars have better braking distances' is a pretty much open admission that you're happy with more crashes.
because if safe braking distances were the only factor in play, there wouldn't be any crashes. increasing speeds would result in more crashes and more significant crashes.

magicbastarder · 24-06-2021 3:18pm

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Anyway, I'm out of here. I deliberately avoid the threads that just turn into yet another tiresome cyclist v motorist debate. Was afraid this would become one of them, and it's looking that way now.

you're the first person to mention cycling?

seamus · 24-06-2021 3:22pm

More fixed cameras, widespread use of average speed cameras on N-roads and in urban areas, 6 points on your licence should get 6 month ban.

It's absurd that someone has to be caught speeding 4 times in 3 years before something is done about it.

Nobody speeds by accident. It happens due to carelessness or recklessness. Neither of which are OK to ignore 3 times in 3 years.

yoke · 24-06-2021 3:27pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Since I was bored I decided to work out the difference in kinetic energy between a Ferrari travelling at 100 km/h and a Fiesta travelling at 50 km/h

Ferrari kinetic energy at 100 km/h

604,000 J

Ford Fiesta kinetic energy at 50 km/h

116,000 J

The Ferrari has just over five times the kinetic energy compared with the Fiesta. Or expressed in terms of a percentage. The Ferrari has 420% more kinetic energy than the Fiesta*.

The weights of both cars were taken from Wikipedia and the Ferrari in question is a 420 model.

My original post was meant to be a bit cheeky alright, but it turns out I probably wasn’t far wrong:

Ferrari braking distance from 60mph : Ferrari F2004 16 m

Fiesta braking distance from 60mph: 32m
according to https://www.which.co.uk/news/2012/05/best-and-worst-supermini-braking-distances-285596/

Braking distance for average fiesta sized car from 30mph is about 14m (couldn’t find fiesta itself).

I didn’t say a Ferrari CRASHING at 100kmh, I said a Ferrari DRIVING at 100kph was probably as safe as a fiesta DRIVING at 50kph. Driving (not equal to) crashing

Anyway you made your point, next time I’ll pick an even worse handling car to compare against ðŸ˜† maybe a Chevrolet Aveo

whisky_galore · 24-06-2021 3:30pm

Paul_Mc1988 wrote: »

But the cars are not as frial. Reaction times are dependent on the person and were probably not tested indept in the 70s. The limits are too tight on motorways IMO. Everywhere else they should stay the same.

People still get killed in modern cars, they're not indestructible.

liamog · 24-06-2021 3:30pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

the argument that 'we should increase speed limits because cars have better braking distances' is a pretty much open admission that you're happy with more crashes.
because if safe braking distances were the only factor in play, there wouldn't be any crashes. increasing speeds would result in more crashes and more significant crashes.

Roads are given a speed limit based on expected stopping distances for a given design of road and the hazards that are expected to be on it. The speed limits that dictate the design speed and broadly based on studies conducted in the 1950's in the US.

If modern cars have better capabilities (as shown in research) then shouldn't we update the restrictions to match the science. The studies show that braking distances only improve at higher speeds, so any change would only be on the current 100km/h and 120km/h roads. The RSA's own incident stats show that these roads are much safer than any other.

I have a problem with people doing 60km/h in a 30km/h zone. I do not see a problem with increasing the speed limit to 150km/h on a 120km/h if the stats and science show that it would not cause a reduction in safety.

24-06-2021 3:30pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

the argument that 'we should increase speed limits because cars have better braking distances' is a pretty much open admission that you're happy with more crashes.
because if safe braking distances were the only factor in play, there wouldn't be any crashes. increasing speeds would result in more crashes and more significant crashes.

But you're blaming speed for crashes. When it's not the big issue it's made out to be. It's just the one that involves the laziest/easiest policing.

Mobile Phone use without a doubt is the cause of more accidents. When someone offers you factual information and you respond with "well i choose not to believe that" then what's the point of posting?

TheRef · 24-06-2021 3:31pm

I have absolutely no doubt that if the limits were raised, people would still be exceeding them by up to 10% and complain and moan about the slow drivers who stick to the limit.

magicbastarder · 24-06-2021 3:51pm

Deleted User wrote: »

But you're blaming speed for crashes. When it's not the big issue it's made out to be. It's just the one that involves the laziest/easiest policing.

no, i'm saying increasing speeds would lead to more crashes. i reckon this is a trivial statement to make.
yes, you say that mobile phone use is a significant factor, and i agree - but if people are driving faster while looking at their mobile phone - more crashes, more significant crashes.

Paddigol · 24-06-2021 4:44pm

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Finally, just anecdotally:

Happened to drive to Dublin and back yesterday from where I live in North Wexford, for the first time in ages. It's motorway most of the way to the Loughlinstown Roundabout.

I had cruise control set to 120 km/h for the motorway and 100 km/h for the stretches were the lower limit applies (and yes, before anybody asks, I slowed down while going through Kilmac too! )

I'd say that in the whole way there and back, no more than four or five vehicles overtook me, of what must have been hundreds I saw altogether. This also suggests that the overwhelming majority of drivers stick to the limit or drive underneath it.

Am not denying there's a problem with small minority driving at excessive speeds, but that's a different thing to claiming that speeding is endemic.

That's gas. Cos I drive Ashford to Greystones on that route every weekday and do the exact same thing (god bless cruise control). Except on that short (20k) stretch I have at least 20 cars overtake me each way. And that's even when I throw an extra kmph or two onto the cruise control setting. I must do an exact count this evening and report back.

The real problem with speeding is on our secondary/ 'country' roads where the likelihood of encountering walkers/ runners/ cyclists/ horses is much higher and the margins for error much smaller.

iColdFusion · 24-06-2021 4:47pm

I would say far more accidents are caused by people not paying attention, not driving to the weather conditions and drink/drugs than actual speeding but that's not as sexy as being able to say you are catching x0,000 people speeding every year and shur there's nothing more you could be doing for road safety like say actually properly resurfacing and leveling roads or installing proper drainage so cars arnt dodging potholes and getting pulled left and right by every hump, dip, camber, botched repair and flood :rolleyes:

magicbastarder · 24-06-2021 4:50pm

here's a strange idea - maybe we need speed limits the way they are *because* people don't pay enough attention.
speed limits are not just about preventing crashes, they can also be about limiting their extent.

liamog · 24-06-2021 4:59pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

here's a strange idea - maybe we need speed limits the way they are *because* people don't pay enough attention.
speed limits are not just about preventing crashes, they can also be about limiting their extent.

How would you limit there extent, would you perhaps use a system where a vehicle was expected to react and stop within a given time?

Peregrine · 24-06-2021 5:18pm

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

And just to show you can prove anything with statistics, here's a Garda tweet from what I believe to be the last "National Slow Down Day":

https://twitter.com/gardatraffic/status/1375725086657875968?lang=en

Just 994 vehicles detected speeding out of a total of 150,605 checked. That's just 0.66%. Or in other words, at any given time, more than 99% of drivers are obeying the speed limit.

If you just took that stat by itself, it hardly suggests that speeding is endemic?

I can't believe I have to explain this but data collected from a speed survey conducted from high-viz vans on 'National Slow Down Day' which is accompanied by a media campaign and its own hashtag is not in any way representative of normal road conditions.

The RSA free speed surveys are conducted inconspicuously in free flowing traffic. It shows that drivers are speeding on most types of roads.

Uncle Pierre · 24-06-2021 7:12pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're the first person to mention cycling?

Happened to browse back in here after all. Couldn't help myself!

I didn't mention cycling itself. I mentioned that I generally stay away from threads that descend into the same old tired going-round-in-circles cyclists v motorists debate, that's happened here countless times before. That's not the same thing.

Uncle Pierre · 24-06-2021 7:17pm

Paddigol wrote: »

That's gas. Cos I drive Ashford to Greystones on that route every weekday and do the exact same thing (god bless cruise control). Except on that short (20k) stretch I have at least 20 cars overtake me each way. And that's even when I throw an extra kmph or two onto the cruise control setting. I must do an exact count this evening and report back.

Yup, mine was just a personal anecdote, and I made that clear. Wasn't intended to be taken as a serious scientific study, or anything!

For the sake of full disclosure, I drove up mid-afternoon when the road was relatively quiet, and it was about 9.30 p.m. before I started the trip home, when it was even quieter. I'd say if you're travelling at peak commuting times, the number of vehicles going past you would be greater all right.

But remember, it's the proportion of all vehicles that's the important thing, not just the number of vehicles. So if somebody else were to say that 40 or 50 cars went past them on the same journey, then that stands to reason if there's ten times as many cars on the road at the time.

Uncle Pierre · 24-06-2021 7:25pm

Peregrine wrote: »

I can't believe I have to explain this but data collected from a speed survey conducted from high-viz vans on 'National Slow Down Day' which is accompanied by a media campaign and its own hashtag is not in any way representative of normal road conditions.

The RSA free speed surveys are conducted inconspicuously in free flowing traffic. It shows that drivers are speeding on most types of roads.

And finally....think you missed some important key words of my post.

i.e. "Just to show you can prove anything with statistics", and "if you took that stat by itself".

The point was more to do with the effects of somebody selectively quoting stats to suit their own agenda.

For what it's worth, I've actually seen the stats you quote before, and to be honest, think you'd have to be sceptical of some of them too.

Hard to believe, for example, that:
- the average speed of 700 vehicles on 100 km/h dual carriageway was exactly 100 km/h
- the average speed of 140 vehicles on 50 km/h regional roads was exactly 50 km/h
AND (!)
- the average speed of 757 vehicles on 80 km/h regional roads was exactly 80 km/h

Again, not denying there's an issue with some people speeding, and some of them dangerously so.

But also again, just pointing out the pitfalls of relying only on one set of statistics.

athlone573 · 24-06-2021 7:25pm

In fairness I think the M11/N11 at a quiet time isn't the best gauge of the levels of speeding - try the N roads in Donegal/Mayo where you'll have someone up your hole at every opportunity and overtaking(and even double overtaking) on white lines is a common occurrence.

For what it's worth I think the current limits are a reasonable balance but I would like to see AGS focusing more on mobile phone usage which is endemic.

Uncle Pierre · 24-06-2021 7:39pm

athlone573 wrote: »

In fairness I think the M11/N11 at a quiet time isn't the best gauge of the levels of speeding - try the N roads in Donegal/Mayo where you'll have someone up your hole at every opportunity and overtaking(and even double overtaking) on white lines is a common occurrence.

It's a fair point. But on the other hand, it could probably also be argued that a motorway or dual carriageway with a good surface and very little traffic, and where some cars could probably manage 150 km/h or more, is the sort of place where you'd actually be most likely to see excessive speeding.

As regards the Donegal/Mayo thing - that N59 example I gave earlier on runs into Mayo too. I'd consider it a road where the appropriate limit would be 80 km/h, but instead, it's 100 km/h along most of it.

The "up your hole" people probably aren't actually breaking that limit if the people whose hole their up (sorry for being so crude - but you started it!

) are driving around that 80 mark.

But just because they're not actually breaking the limit is not to excuse them from reckless and stupid driving. I'd join with others here in liking to see more of a crackdown on reckless stuff in general, rather than so much focus always being on just speeding, when in certain limited circumstances, breaking the limit might not be so reckless after all.

And before anybody jumps down my throat on that last point, I'm thinking specifically of that road outside Enniscorthy I also mentioned earlier on, where even Government guidelines say the appropriate speed limit would be 100 km/h, but the County Council has decided on an 80 km/h limit instead.

Driving at 90 or even 85 km/h there wouldn't be reckless, but it would still be speeding, whereas the "up your hole" lad in Mayo wouldn't be speeding at 90, but would still be reckless. Which is worse?

Isambard · 24-06-2021 7:50pm

there's no way limits will be increased, to reduce emissions and increase safety, it's likely they will be reduced.

I don't think speeding is a huge problem. If you cruise on the limit on a major road you will pass far more cars than pass you. Speeding in built up areas needs to be addressed, but that's not where the Vans are parked.

athlone573 · 24-06-2021 7:50pm

Apologies for the choice of words.

Yeah there is that distinction between "exceeding the speed limit" and "reckless driving".

I would probably be driving at 90-100 on those twisty n roads and 120-125 depending how much of a rush I'm in on motorway. I'm not going out of my way to obstruct people but I'm not going to drive on the hard shoulder for them either.

I certainly think that the tailgating and aggressive driving is more dangerous than a few km's over the speed limit on motorways. However the people who seem to be in a rush aren't going to magically slow down to 100 once they pass you. As I said, I think the current limits are generally fair but if it was feasible for the gardai to focus on the more reckless behaviour we see, I'd be happy.

Wishbone Ash · 24-06-2021 8:24pm

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

....Just 994 vehicles detected speeding out of a total of 150,605 checked. That's just 0.66%. Or in other words, at any given time, more than 99% of drivers are obeying the speed limit.

If you just took that stat by itself, it hardly suggests that speeding is endemic?

Going by your own post, that was on National Slow Down Day - hardly a valid example.

magicbastarder · 24-06-2021 8:33pm

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Happened to browse back in here after all. Couldn't help myself!

I didn't mention cycling itself. I mentioned that I generally stay away from threads that descend into the same old tired going-round-in-circles cyclists v motorists debate, that's happened here countless times before. That's not the same thing.

i am a motorist. i've been driving for over 25 years. if anyone was turning this into the debate you were decrying, it was you.

magicbastarder · 24-06-2021 8:37pm

liamog wrote: »

How would you limit there extent, would you perhaps use a system where a vehicle was expected to react and stop within a given time?

not sure i understand the question, but i have often thought it could be possible with modern technology to design a doohickey into a car which warned you if you were violating the two second rule - all the car would need to calculate this is the speed of the car and the distance to the car in front.

admittedly, on twisty roads, the issue could be false positives, with it reading walls etc. as other cars.

Uncle Pierre · 24-06-2021 9:34pm

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Going by your own post, that was on National Slow Down Day - hardly a valid example.

See explanation above on why I chose to highlight that particular stat, and why I used certain phrases in doing so.

Uncle Pierre · 24-06-2021 9:48pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

i am a motorist. i've been driving for over 25 years. if anyone was turning this into the debate you were decrying, it was you.

With the greatest of respect, I think it's fair to say that your posting history suggests that you're an avid cyclist too, and that cycling is probably your preferred mode of transport.

And nothing wrong with that. I used to mainly cycle myself too back when I used to live in Dublin too, mainly because trying to drive there would drive you mad.

Which leads me onto a side note - I sometimes wonder why it is that when people who are primarily cyclists say "I'm a motorist too", they expect to be taken seriously by others who are primarily motorists. Yet when somebody who's primarily a motorist says "I'm a cyclist too", they often get short shrift from others who are primarily cyclists.

Am not saying you do that yourself, and it's not one for this thread anyway. Am just in a bit of a contemplative mood at the moment.......

Speeding is endemic in this country, what can be done about it?

Comments