Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Uncle Pierre
    Registered Users Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭Uncle Pierre


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    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.

    Anyway, hopefully we can have a sensible talk here. :)

    Would suggest that an issue with your idea is that at 100 km/h, a two-second gap equates to a distance of a little over 55 metres. At 80 km/h, it's a little short of 45 metres.

    If you're to leave approx. 50 metres between every two vehicles on the road, then you've got a serious problem developing when it comes to overtaking a slow-moving vehicle like heavily laden lorry at 60 km/h, or a tractor at maybe 40 km/h, particularly on two-lane roads (and by that I mean the sort of road with one lane in each direction).

    You'd be in the lane of oncoming traffic for much longer, thereby greatly increasing the chance of a head-on collision. It's either that or expect everybody to slow down to the speed of the very slowest vehicle on the road and never move to overtake, and that's hardly desirable either.


  • Options
    #63
    athlone573
    Registered Users Posts: 726 ✭✭✭athlone573


    Uncle Pierre wrote: »
    Anyway, hopefully we can have a sensible talk here. :)

    Would suggest that an issue with your idea is that at 100 km/h, a two-second gap equates to a distance of a little over 55 metres. At 80 km/h, it's a little short of 45 metres.

    If you're to leave approx. 50 metres between every two vehicles on the road, then you've got a serious problem developing when it comes to overtaking a slow-moving vehicle like heavily laden lorry at 60 km/h, or a tractor at maybe 40 km/h, particularly on two-lane roads (and by that I mean the sort of road with one lane in each direction).

    You'd be in the lane of oncoming traffic for much longer, thereby greatly increasing the chance of a head-on collision. It's either that or expect everybody to slow down to the speed of the very slowest vehicle on the road and never move to overtake, and that's hardly desirable either.

    I don't think that the "2 second rule" is excessive and would even leave more in wet conditions.

    Google gives a stopping distance of 98m at 100kph,in dry conditions, that's taking into account reaction time and braking distance.

    Now I might pull a bit closer if I was about to overtake but the other drawbacks of getting too close are that you lose visibility of what's ahead, and you'll get some yahoo flying up behind you and trying to take 2 or 3 vehicles at once.

    Furthermore, very slow moving traffic such as agricultural vehicles, will often facilitate passing maneuvers by making use of the hard shoulder where appropriate.


  • Options
    #64
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,394 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Uncle Pierre wrote: »
    Would suggest that an issue with your idea is that at 100 km/h, a two-second gap equates to a distance of a little over 55 metres. At 80 km/h, it's a little short of 45 metres.
    yes, but with stated reaction times (from a quick google) being between 0.5 seconds (for a motorist primed to expect an issue) to up to two seconds for a motorist not expecting one; it's important to acknowledge that that 55m only remains that distance if the vehicle in front does not slow dramatically.


  • Options
    #65
    Uncle Pierre
    Registered Users Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭Uncle Pierre


    athlone573 wrote: »
    I don't think that the "2 second rule" is excessive and would even leave more in wet conditions.

    Google gives a stopping distance of 98m at 100kph,in dry conditions, that's taking into account reaction time and braking distance.

    Now I might pull a bit closer if I was about to overtake but the other drawbacks of getting too close are that you lose visibility of what's ahead, and you'll get some yahoo flying up behind you and trying to take 2 or 3 vehicles at once.

    Furthermore, very slow moving traffic such as agricultural vehicles, will often facilitate passing maneuvers by making use of the hard shoulder where appropriate.

    Yeah, the more I think about it (did say I'm in a contemplative mood!), the more I reckon I'm probably wrong in how I'm picturing a 50-metre gap between vehicles, and that 50 metres is probably fairly typical all right. Can admit when I'm wrong. :o

    And obviously wouldn't pull right up behind somebody before overtaking anyway. You need to be able to see around them.

    On your last point....I'm an occasional tractor driver meself. :)

    Will keep in wherever possible to let others past, but it's not always possible, particularly where there's no hard shoulder.


  • Options
    #66
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,394 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Uncle Pierre wrote: »
    If you're to leave approx. 50 metres between every two vehicles on the road, then you've got a serious problem developing when it comes to overtaking a slow-moving vehicle like heavily laden lorry at 60 km/h, or a tractor at maybe 40 km/h,
    but the two second rule would imply 33m at 60km/h and 22m at 40km/h, which is a lot short of the 50m you mention.
    that's probably seven car lengths at 60, and 5 at 40km/h. which is not unreasonable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    eggy81
    Registered Users Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭eggy81


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Speed increases the likleihood of an incident and makes the incident worse than if it occurred at a lower speed.

    Overly slow driving increase the likelihood of accidents. That and woefully bad drivers.


  • Options
    #68
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,394 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Uncle Pierre wrote: »
    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.
    distance wise, i drive more than i cycle. it certainly has been the case that in the last year that time-wise, i also drive more than i cycle.
    i used to drive all over the country in a previous job too - before the motorway network was built if that's at all relevant.

    and also FWIW, there are multiple indicators that motorists who are cyclists are better motorists than non-cyclists. which is not surprising, the more modes of transport you expose yourself to give you a better overall view of what it's like to be other road users.


  • Options
    #69
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,394 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    eggy81 wrote: »
    Overly slow driving increase the likelihood of accidents.
    link? or personal opinion?


  • Options
    #70
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 7,794 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    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.

    For a given road where you want to limit the possibility of an incident and the impact of it, what mechanism would you use to decide on a suitable speed limit?


  • Options
    #71
    CoBo55
    Registered Users Posts: 8,772 ✭✭✭CoBo55


    Jeremy Sproket wrote: »
    In one year alone, 90,000 speeding fines were issued.
    That's an offence of one every five minutes of every hour of every day. A disguising statistic.

    There are 2,820,528 driving licences in Ireland so this works out at roughly one offence per 30 people per year. How many are speeding and not being caught?

    This rubbishes the claim that they are revenue generators.

    Speeders need stricter punishments, including jail time.

    https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-tranom/to2016/dvt/

    https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/sinn-fein-questions-high-profits-made-by-speed-camera-operator-as-gardai-pay-out-e14m-1146154.html

    I'm not meeting them anyway. Every road I'm on lately has the ubiquitous Toyota at the head of the 10 car queue doing 80 in the 100 zone....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    eggy81
    Registered Users Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭eggy81


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    link? or personal opinion?

    Apologies. It’s IMO. I do a couple of hours a day commuting on motorway for about 80% of it and most of the hairy situations come from people either driving far too slow on the motorway or not knowing how to use the motorway at interchanges or when other traffic is joining. The guy pushing 140 normally fly’s along. I don’t think there should be an increase in motorway limits. Just a minimum limit that’s punished similarly to speeding. Say no less than 100 kph.
    Obviously there are lads who completely take the piss on the motorway too and they should be taken to task.


  • Options
    #73
    Uncle Pierre
    Registered Users Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭Uncle Pierre


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    but the two second rule would imply 33m at 60km/h and 22m at 40km/h, which is a lot short of the 50m you mention.
    that's probably seven car lengths at 60, and 5 at 40km/h. which is not unreasonable.

    Yup. Another flaw in my earlier post. I'm obviously not being contemplative enough!


  • Options
    #74
    Uncle Pierre
    Registered Users Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭Uncle Pierre


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    distance wise, i drive more than i cycle. it certainly has been the case that in the last year that time-wise, i also drive more than i cycle.
    i used to drive all over the country in a previous job too - before the motorway network was built if that's at all relevant.

    and also FWIW, there are multiple indicators that motorists who are cyclists are better motorists than non-cyclists. which is not surprising, the more modes of transport you expose yourself to give you a better overall view of what it's like to be other road users.

    Sound. :)

    And wouldn't disagree with your last point either. While I'm usually driving a car while on the road myself, I'm also an occasional tractor driver, an occasional cyclist, and a regular runner on country roads where I sometimes have the sort of close pass that cyclists quite rightly get annoyed about too. I like to think that doing all those other things gives me a better understanding of others and a greater awareness of them while driving the car too.


  • Options
    #75
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,647 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    More power


  • Options
    #76
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,394 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    eggy81 wrote: »
    Apologies. It’s IMO. I do a couple of hours a day commuting on motorway for about 80% of it and most of the hairy situations come from people either driving far too slow on the motorway or not knowing how to use the motorway at interchanges or when other traffic is joining.
    the highlighted text is a different scenario, though; inserting yourself into a lane in front of another driver with a noticeable speed difference, is a different kettle of fish to already being in that lane doing that speed.

    anyway
    https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/speed-crash-risk.pdf
    More recent studies confirmed the higher crash risk of drivers driving above the average speed. In Australia this conclusion was based on case-control studies (Kloeden et al. 1997, 2001, 2002). In Great Britain, a similar conclusion arose from a self-report study (Taylor, Lynam & Baruya, 2000). However, these recent studies did not find evidence for a higher crash risk for driving below average speeds. This is most likely due to the fact that the older studies also included manoeuvring vehicles. Manoeuvring vehicles are more at risk and have, per definition, a low speed.


  • Options
    #77
    Economics101
    Registered Users Posts: 1,623 ✭✭✭Economics101


    Good luck with arguing that speed limits are too low: the control freaks want to make them lower, like 30kph on many roads. Actually the big problem with Irish speed limits is that they bear so little relation to road conditions: I could give loads of examples.
    But we must be doing something right. Apparently our road accident fatality rate is the second-lowest in the EU: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ireland-has-second-lowest-rate-of-road-deaths-in-the-eu-latest-data-shows-40576141.html


  • Options
    #78
    timeToLive
    Registered Users Posts: 283 ✭✭timeToLive


    some roads have a speed limit of 50 where 60/80 would be more reasonable


  • Options
    #79
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,394 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Economics101 wrote: »
    But we must be doing something right. Apparently our road accident fatality rate is the second-lowest in the EU: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ireland-has-second-lowest-rate-of-road-deaths-in-the-eu-latest-data-shows-40576141.html
    we also have an astoundingly low rate of vulnerable road users using those same roads though.
    to use a tired cliche, if no-one is injured as a result of swimming in a pool with man eating sharks, it doesn't mean swimming in a pool with sharks is safe, it just means no-one does it.


  • Options
    #80
    Wilmol
    Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭Wilmol


    seamus wrote: »
    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.

    Ok boomer.


  • Options
    #81
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,647 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    If people were held accountable for their actions then we wouldn't need any of these 30km/h stupid limits....

    The child that died, of course extremely shocking sad and something one wouldn't wish on anyone but he was allowed out without supervision as many I see daily are and playing on roads when there is a field right beside them ....

    Imo since these limits in Dublin I've had more near serious collision with pedestrians then ever before as they either don't look or just step out or run out at the last second because to them the vehicles are hardly moving...

    Use crossings, put phone down and look....

    On the bikes and scooters just leave sage space it's not difficult but of course they in many cases could do better too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    killbillvol2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,178 ✭✭✭killbillvol2


    Jeremy Sproket wrote: »
    In one year alone, 90,000 speeding fines were issued.
    That's an offence of one every five minutes of every hour of every day. A disguising statistic.

    There are 2,820,528 driving licences in Ireland so this works out at roughly one offence per 30 people per year. How many are speeding and not being caught?

    This rubbishes the claim that they are revenue generators.

    Speeders need stricter punishments, including jail time.

    https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-tranom/to2016/dvt/

    https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/sinn-fein-questions-high-profits-made-by-speed-camera-operator-as-gardai-pay-out-e14m-1146154.html

    So roughly one offence per 10,950 drivers per day. So roughly 10.949 drivers aren't caught speeding every day.

    Sounds disgusting alright.


  • Options
    #83
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 19,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    timeToLive wrote: »
    some roads have a speed limit of 50 where 60/80 would be more reasonable

    Conversely Some roads have limits of 80/100 where 40/50 would be the only reasonably safe speed.


  • Options
    #84
    Uncle Pierre
    Registered Users Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭Uncle Pierre


    timeToLive wrote: »
    some roads have a speed limit of 50 where 60/80 would be more reasonable

    That's true. But conversely, the majority of our roads have an 80 limit, where 60 or even 50 would be more reasonable.

    I'm talking L roads in rural areas, where the default 80 limit applies, and there are more of those in the country than any other type of road.

    The road outside my own house, for example, is barely four metres wide. There's hardly room for two oncoming vehicles to pass by each other unless one or both goes onto the grass verge. Yet legally, I could drive at the same speed there as on that part of the former N11 outside Enniscorthy that I mentioned at what seems to be a long time ago now. Makes no sense.

    Anyway...getting late. Goodnight!


  • Options
    #85
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,394 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Wilmol wrote: »
    Ok boomer.
    2019 called, it wants its misused meme back.


  • Options
    #86
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,394 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    killbillvol2 wrote: »
    Sounds disgusting alright.
    who said it was disgusting?


  • Options
    #87
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,647 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    Weepsie wrote: »
    Conversely Some roads have limits of 80/100 where 40/50 would be the only reasonably safe speed.

    Plenty in the country like this, but any sane person wouldn't even try, blind bends, terrible surface, obstacles etc etc... Of course single lane roads too .. deathwish


  • Options
    #88
    Economics101
    Registered Users Posts: 1,623 ✭✭✭Economics101


    You can never fine-tune speed limits to the conditions on every little stretch of road or to every bend. But you can set suitable limits for significant stretches of road, and the problem is that local authorities do it badly and inconsistently. One example (at least before lockdown kept me at home) was the Kilkenny bypass: single carriageway, frequent roundabouts, heavy traffic, 100kph, given the conditions should be 80; then Waterford bypass, mostly dual carriageway, often long distances between roundabouts, less traffic, limit was 60, should have been 100 (it may recently have been raised to 80 in places).
    Are people ever taught to drive (a) not exceeding the limit and (b) at a speed which is safe for the prevailing conditions (weather, visibility, traffic, etc)? You can't legislate for (b) which is often a lot less than (a).


  • Options
    #89
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,153 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    who said it was disgusting?
    The OP.

    (Well, he said it was disguising, but that's presumably a typo)


  • Options
    #90
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,806 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Jeremy Sproket wrote:
    Speeders need stricter punishments, including jail time.

    ... So build more jails, that should be cheap! I ll continue speeding thanks


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    athlone573
    Registered Users Posts: 726 ✭✭✭athlone573


    Let's ask Jeremy whether he meant disguising or disgusting, both kinda make sense.
    I think he was stirring the pot and it doesn't really matter though.


Advertisement