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

artanevilla · 25-06-2021 10:06AM

Speed is a factor in 100% of accidents.

There has yet to be a case of two stationary cars crashing into each other.

Wanderer78 · 25-06-2021 10:07AM

artanevilla wrote: »

Speed is a factor in 100% of accidents.

There has yet to be a case of two stationary cars crashing into each other.

...are you sure of that, have you evidence of this?

25-06-2021 10:12AM

The limits on most of the motorways and dual carrigeways should be raised, make it 140 on the motorway and 80 for the dualler
Can leave the other national roads the same

Wanderer78 · 25-06-2021 10:20AM

Batrachotox wrote: »

The limits on most of the motorways and dual carrigeways should be raised, make it 140 on the motorway and 80 for the dualler
Can leave the other national roads the same

i think limits are just fine, by raising them, we ll just raise our speeds

magicbastarder · 25-06-2021 10:40AM

Batrachotox wrote: »

The limits on most of the motorways and dual carrigeways should be raised, make it 140 on the motorway and 80 for the dualler

it'd make a massive difference of about 10 minutes driving from dublin to galway. while increasing emissions, noise, and a probable increase in accidents. i don't see it happening.

AndrewJRenko · 25-06-2021 10:43AM

Batrachotox wrote: »

The limits on most of the motorways and dual carrigeways should be raised, make it 140 on the motorway and 80 for the dualler
Can leave the other national roads the same

What benefit would arise?

mickuhaha · 25-06-2021 10:48AM

There are two roads near me that before the m9 was built were 100kmh speed limits. Once the m9 was built they dropped the limit to 80kmh. I just don't understand why. The road has less traffic now.

magicbastarder · 25-06-2021 10:52AM

i know of a stretch which was treated similarly, between finglas and coolquay on the old N2, which dropped to 60km/h. possibly trying to entice people to use the M2, they've a much faster option only a few hundred metres away.
it's a classic road for having people driving up your gooter when you stick to the limit.

lawrencesummers · 25-06-2021 10:53AM

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Not a particularly serious suggestion (!), but here goes....

The one thing that encourages drivers to slow down more than any other is when somebody coming in the opposite direction flashes their lights at them.

How about if the Government paid people to drive around randomly flashing at oncoming drivers, whether or not there's actually a speed check ahead?

An excellent idea.

Then when there is an incident and you flash oncoming traffic they ignore it because they are aware of the half baked government idea and continue on their current speed only to crash into an ambulance as it’s loading a RTA victim into the back.

Jenius

liamog · 25-06-2021 10:55AM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i think limits are just fine, by raising them, we ll just raise our speeds

Any particular problem with this, the stopping distance of a 2020 car at 150km/h is the same as the stopping distance of a 1980's car at 120km/h. If the road is designed to handle traffic with certain safety parameters then shouldn't the road speed match the safety requirements?

Does it not make sense to use engineering principles to set speed limits and design requirements, or can we only use science to justify the blocking of road building and the pedestrianisation of cities?

seamus · 25-06-2021 10:57AM

Wilmol wrote: »

Ok boomer.

Funnily enough you'll find that the majority of drivers who whinge about road space being used for walking, cycling and eating, who want speed limits to remain the same (or go higher) and complain about drink-driving laws being too strict, are boomers.

Younger people are less car-obsessed and value safe public spaces over the ability to drive everywhere quickly.

These people starting campaigns in Malahide and Sandymount to keep road space for cars are bored people aged 60+ with an enormous sense of entitlement when it comes to their cars.

Jeremy Sproket · 25-06-2021 11:10AM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What benefit would arise?

Duuuuhhhh ...

Get there earlier!

On a stretch of motorway 200 km long driving at 120 km/h it'd take you 1.666666666666667 hours, driving at 140 km/h it'd take you 1.428571428571429 hours saving you a whopping 14 minutes.

Meanwhile, emissions increase and noise pollution thus forcing more egregious measures on motorists which'll give them even more reason to complain.

Slow down, take it easy and get there alive. Some countries, notably Nordic ones have even lower limits.

duffman3833 · 25-06-2021 11:17AM

I think increase motorway speed to match France, review speed limits and updated accordingly (e.g Slane which is 30kmh. Not a single car does that speed because its stupid slow for a main road. 30kmh should be estates only. Also dual carriageways that do 80kmh when can safely do 100 etc). Also i think ramps on main roads, which are normally around schools, should be reduced to 2. One each side of the school, not several. Castlebellingham a good example, too many ramps too close together

liamog · 25-06-2021 11:22AM

Motorways to 130km/h with 110km/h when raining (like France), and require that roads redesignated to 30km/h implement engineering measures (e.g. carriageway narrowing) within 18 months of the drop in speed limit. Safe speeds are a function of road engineering not magic signposts.

Seth Brundle · 25-06-2021 11:28AM

duffman3833 wrote: »

I think increase motorway speed to match France, review speed limits and updated accordingly (e.g Slane which is 30kmh. Not a single car does that speed because its stupid slow for a main road. 30kmh should be estates only. Also dual carriageways that do 80kmh when can safely do 100 etc). Also i think ramps on main roads, which are normally around schools, should be reduced to 2. One each side of the school, not several. Castlebellingham a good example, too many ramps too close together

1. Irish weather conditions are very different to those in France. Would drivers here really slow down to 110km/h for every shower they encounter? Anyhow, drivers will just travel at 150km/h
2. The road approaching Slane has seen several fatalities over the years. In addition, there are plenty of vulnerable road users along there.
If you don't like those speed limits then use the M1 or M3.
3. Dual carriageways that allow 80km/h are often held at those speeds to manage traffic which is often combined with vulnerable road users. The N4 Lucan by-pass being an example.
4. You think removing speed reducing ramps around schools is a good idea? Have you considered why they were put there in the first place? If selfish drivers will pass a school with no consideration for the children there then they should not be allowed drive - full stop!

NoviGlitzko · 25-06-2021 11:35AM

130kph on motorways should have been brought in years ago. Motorways are much safer than standard roads as stated already in this thread and the majority of people are doing over the 120 anyway.

AndrewJRenko · 25-06-2021 11:42AM

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

130kph on motorways should have been brought in years ago.

liamog wrote: »

Motorways to 130km/h with 110km/h when raining (like France),

duffman3833 wrote: »

I think increase motorway speed to match France,

Again, why? What benefit would arise from these increases?

Suvarnabhumi · 25-06-2021 11:44AM

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

Duuuuhhhh ...

Get there earlier!

On a stretch of motorway 200 km long driving at 120 km/h it'd take you 1.666666666666667 hours, driving at 140 km/h it'd take you 1.428571428571429 hours saving you a whopping 14 minutes.

Meanwhile, emissions increase and noise pollution thus forcing more egregious measures on motorists which'll give them even more reason to complain.

Slow down, take it easy and get there alive. Some countries, notably Nordic ones have even lower limits.

If only people would realise raising the speed limit won't make the slightest bit of difference to most journeys.

duffman3833 · 25-06-2021 11:53AM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

1. Irish weather conditions are very different to those in France. Would drivers here really slow down to 110km/h for every shower they encounter? Anyhow, drivers will just travel at 150km/h
2. The road approaching Slane has seen several fatalities over the years. In addition, there are plenty of vulnerable road users along there.
If you don't like those speed limits then use the M1 or M3.
3. Dual carriageways that allow 80km/h are often held at those speeds to manage traffic which is often combined with vulnerable road users. The N4 Lucan by-pass being an example.
4. You think removing speed reducing ramps around schools is a good idea? Have you considered why they were put there in the first place? If selfish drivers will pass a school with no consideration for the children there then they should not be allowed drive - full stop!

1. It makes no difference what speed is, whether its 120 or 130, yes drivers will do what they want without enforcement but motorways are so safe and with proper enforcement and more education with driving on motorways, such as lane discipline, driving too low speed when joining motorways etc, can be perfectly safe

2. I'm from Slane and i know all about it. Its more an inconvenience than anything, even for locals, especially from from Dublin rd. There is no reason to have it drop to 30kmh 1km from the village. It should only drop to 30 once you reach the peak of the hill just before the cross roads.

3. The road i was thinking of is not near Dublin, its actually Navan bypass. I must apologize tho, its actually 100kmh but i know there are others that need to be reviewed

4. I didn't say remove the ramps completely, just not have as many. Why have several ramps a few meters apart. I get it slows cars down and is good for schools but not have several. Especially bad when the ramp are quite big.

magicbastarder · 25-06-2021 12:03PM

motorways are pretty much moot in this debate anyway? it's already been established that the higher the limit, the less violation of the limit anyway; and i don't recall seeing many speed checks at all on motorways.

but anyway, i said it before, the 'speed is not a factor in most crashes' line strikes me as impossibly dumb. yes, you can argue that excess speed was not the ultimate cause for a crash, but you can be damn sure that it plays a large role in how avoidable crashes are, and how severe they are. so it's a massive factor, even when it's not a cause.

NoviGlitzko · 25-06-2021 12:13PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Again, why? What benefit would arise from these increases?

Getting from A to B quicker.

liamog · 25-06-2021 12:13PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Again, why? What benefit would arise from these increases?

Why is 120km/h the magic number for a motorway?

I don't see any downside to splitting speeds on the motorway into a slightly higher limit for good conditions and a lower limit for bad conditions. It will help to train drivers to tailor their driving to road conditions.

A number had to be picked to account for both good and bad conditions, I think variable speed limits are a better idea.

Seth Brundle · 25-06-2021 01:02PM

duffman3833 wrote: »

1. It makes no difference what speed is, whether its 120 or 130, yes drivers will do what they want without enforcement but motorways are so safe and with proper enforcement and more education with driving on motorways, such as lane discipline, driving too low speed when joining motorways etc, can be perfectly safe

If there's no difference, why increase the speed limit?
Why not just have better movement of traffic on the motorways through increased enforcement?

duffman3833 wrote: »

2. I'm from Slane and i know all about it. Its more an inconvenience than anything, even for locals, especially from from Dublin rd. There is no reason to have it drop to 30kmh 1km from the village. It should only drop to 30 once you reach the peak of the hill just before the cross roads.

Have you contacted your local authority and asked them to reconsider the location of the speed limit change?
I'm guessing but given the queues up the hill that used to exist there just beyond the last bend, there was a risk of a car ploughing into the back of a queue.

duffman3833 wrote: »

3. The road i was thinking of is not near Dublin, its actually Navan bypass. I must apologize tho, its actually 100kmh but i know there are others that need to be reviewed

This is a route through a town centre - 80km/h is too fast! Use the M3 motorway if you want to go faster!
Having something like this separates the sides of the town. You're recommending making that divide even more dangerous for residents, for kids heading to school, etc.

duffman3833 wrote: »

4. I didn't say remove the ramps completely, just not have as many. Why have several ramps a few meters apart. I get it slows cars down and is good for schools but not have several. Especially bad when the ramp are quite big.

If several were introduced, it was because of a problem. Councils generally don't waste money on ramps for no reason.
If you're angry for the inconvenience then direct it towards the drivers who drive like pricks.

Duckjob · 25-06-2021 01:21PM

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

Getting from A to B quicker.

It's been found that speed limits barely factor in journey times though. The main predictors of journey times are junctions frequency and design and various driver behaviors.

Also, leaving aside motorways, increasing limits on roads also used by non-vehicular road users makes those roads unnecessarily hostile for anyone not in a car, which leads to more people piling into cars for journeys they should be able to complete by other means, which leads to more congestion, more pollution, more costly road maintenence, higher public health bill etc.etc.

liamog · 25-06-2021 01:54PM

Duckjob wrote: »

Also, leaving aside motorways, increasing limits on roads also used by non-vehicular road users makes those roads unnecessarily hostile for anyone not in a car, which leads to more people piling into cars for journeys they should be able to complete by other means, which leads to more congestion, more pollution, more costly road maintenence, higher public health bill etc.etc.

The only change I'd require on non motorway/high quality dual carriageway is to require that speed limit changes were tied to engineering changes in the road.
Slapping a new sign with a lower number does not increase safety and has been shown to be ignored by the majority of people. The cycle lanes installed in Hartstown have done more to reduce vehicle speeds than the ramps ever did, the fixed kerb protected lanes have narrowed the roadway in a manner that has very effectively slowed down vehicles.

seamus · 25-06-2021 03:43PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

so it's a massive factor, even when it's not a cause.

This is what most people don't realise.

The vast, vast majority of accidents could be avoided and/or made far less severe if the vehicles were travelling slower. That doesn't mean for every accident, everyone was travelling illegally fast, but it does mean that speed is nearly always a factor.

liamog · 25-06-2021 03:51PM

seamus wrote: »

The vast, vast majority of accidents could be avoided and/or made far less severe if the vehicles were travelling slower. That doesn't mean for every accident, everyone was travelling illegally fast, but it does mean that speed is nearly always a factor.

It's a massive over simplification, every collision would be avoided if all objects were at rest. You would not therefore set a speed limit of 0km/h to eliminate all collisions. Far too often our road safety is reduced to the speed of the parties involved. If you run a red light at 51km/h and t-bone another car it's not the 1km/h that made the difference.

GerardKeating · 25-06-2021 03:52PM

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

Speeders need stricter punishments, including jail time.

Snipers in the back of the Speed Camera Vans would "eliminate" most speeders in a few months.

liamog · 25-06-2021 03:55PM

GerardKeating wrote: »

Snipers in the back of the Speed Camera Vans would "eliminate" most speeders in a few months.

I think sniping drivers at 121km/h will cause more issues than driving at that speed will.

seamus · 25-06-2021 04:02PM

liamog wrote: »

It's a massive over simplification, every collision would be avoided if all objects were at rest. You would not therefore set a speed limit of 0km/h to eliminate all collisions. Far too often our road safety is reduced to the speed of the parties involved. If you run a red light at 51km/h and t-bone another car it's not the 1km/h that made the difference.

Yeah, but if you were travelling at 50km, you might miss the car completely.

You've missed my point anyway. Speed is always a factor. Whether it's a primary factor or not is irrelevant. It is always a core component, but people don't think about it that way. Like you say, objects at rest do not collide, therefore once you start moving the vehicle, you create the potential for a collision, and you should be on the lookout for that, constantly.

There is no such thing as a "safe" speed. Only higher or lower risk speeds. But we don't train drivers to think like that. People think, speed limit == safe speed.

If an object appears in your path and you cannot stop in time to avoid it, then you have materially erred, regardless of what your speed is or what anyone else has done. If that requires driving 5km/h down a narrow road in case a child appears from behind a car, so be it.

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

Comments