Local Roads - New Speed Limits

I thought you must have missed the part where it says -

Who is responsible for setting speed limits?

Clearly, there are differences between countries in the way that speed limit setting is arranged. Generally, the national government decides on the general, national speed limits for different road types. The national government may also determine which exceptions to the general limits can be applied. It generally is the road authority that decides what speed limit is applied for a specific road or road section in their jurisdiction. This decision, of course, must fit within the national speed limit framework. It means, however, that local or regional road authorities have a large amount freedom in determining which speed limit would be applied where.

Having read that what makes you think the EU Commission would even be conversing with M Martin about our L road limits ?

Even less likely that he would be seeking their approval for something in which they have no competency.

What I notice personally driving on quite good empty roads at the new 60 kmh limit is that it will very likely lead to reduced driver concentration. It genuinely feels like you are going nowhere and I can see alot of drivers looking around them at these speeds where they otherwise wouldn't.

I also confidently predict that the younger generation will see fit to text even more when driving as these stupid speed limit almost encourage it, for those that way inclined.

Texting is just about the most dangerous thing a driver can be doing.

I frequently travel across Meath. Around 2019, they had a revamp of speed limits all the way across Meath on routes I take, adjustments that I thought were very sensible, including the raising of some silly low ones. I was thus surprised on Friday when the council I thought was sensible had seemingly went along with the new default of 60km/h along the pretty important local artery of Dunsany - Skryne - N2. There are some sections of this where that is ridiculous, and there will be widespread violation. I only hope it was either my misunderstanding or that this will be rectified.

The original sin here was the introduction of all those 80km/h signs back around 2004, just encouraged the thinking of 'target, not a limit'.

As other posters have noted, I think this is all a silly waste of time that misses the real issues. And the cited international evidence I read seemed to have a range of caveats that make it unclear if it applies here.

Thanks, it's a real eye-opener for me. Many of the roads marked as 80 are not safe at 80kmh in my opinion. Small stretches of them are fine, but you'd really struggle to do 80 without local knowledge, and not end up with a crash.

I can actually point to lots of corners where cars regularly skip the ditch.

If you tell people that "speed limits on rural roads are reducing", you'd be wrong. Or to put a more positive spin on it, you'd be only partly correct.

Speed limits on some rural roads are reducing - the L-roads for which Local Authorities haven't exercised the option to maintain them at 80 km/h. You could even say limits on many rural roads are reducing, or limits on the majority of rural roads are reducing, but a blanket statement of "speed limits on rural roads are reducing" is incorrect.

I have nowhere stated or even suggested that the speed limit for rural stretches of motorway is to drop to 60 km/h, and I don't know where anyone would even get that idea, unless they are as equally confused as you about the difference between rural roads and local roads.

On a road of varying quality, you should be slowing down (if not braking) and gear changing. Cruising at the same speed on the straight and through the bends is not especially good driving.

Where did I say that the EU Commision has any competency/role in setting Irish speed limits? However, the Commission may have to revisit its report as Ireland is now out of step with the Commissions simple summary that 80kph is the norm rural speed limit acroaas the EU

I said they have no competency.

They won't have to revisit anything because in their own words speed limits are set at national, regional and local level.

There is no "norm rural speed limit" across the 27 countries of the EU.

Hadn't actually spotted the earlier post by @NIMAN. You're correct in what you say in response. It's a common misconception that "the vast majority of our road deaths are caused by speeding", but a misconception it is.

The RSA hasn't published a detailed study into excessive speed as a contributory factor in fatal collisions since 2016, using data from even longer ago (2008 to 2012) - but from a statistical point of view, that actually helps, as it means there was a larger dataset available than there would be for a study on five more recent years. Anyway, findings were:

Far from a "vast majority".

More recently, this is from a 2023 report, covering fatalities between 2015 and 2019:

Note however that of the 26% who exceeded a "safe" speed, there is no breakdown of the proportion where speed was deemed to the sole cause, and the corresponding proportion where there were other contributory factors too.

Unfortunately, that document doesn't include a definition of "safe" (it's just a simple PowerPoint - they don't appear to have published the full report online). I expect that "safe" in this context means "at or below the speed limit". In a literal sense however, one could argue that the other 74% were not "safe" either, since they resulted in a fatality.

FWIW, the same report found that 37% of drivers who died had a positive toxicology result for alcohol. And shockingly, 40% were not wearing a seat belt at the time of the collision. Wearing a seat belt wouldn't of course prevent a crash, but it could prevent a fatality. It stands to reason therefore that a focus on either or both of these things may be more effective in reducing fatalities than a focus on reducing speeds.

But back to the main point - the published data shows that it's a misconception to say "the vast majority of our road deaths are caused by speeding".

The road was not of varying quality. It's pretty much a main road that serves dozens of hgv's daily, so it was twisty but with a decent surface and a consistent width.

I'm confused by your first line. From a purely logical point of view - if it would be "trivial" to say that driving slower would mean a less serious crash or no crash at all, then why the focus on expecting people to slow down at all?

Your second paragraph does however capture my point. In your example of 55km/h around a blind bend, any reasonable person would deem it unsafe, but it seems that in the RSA study, it would still be regarded as "safe" since it would be under the limit.

The terminology in these RSA reports is often very frustrating. An alternative choice like "obeying the speed limit" and "exceeding the speed limit" still wouldn't capture the nuances of what's "safe" or not, but at least it would be more clearcut.

On your last, I personally wouldn't dismiss or be sceptical of all forensics findings on the basis of one case (which, by the way, I have no knowledge of and which I can't find a link for either). I'm always inclined to believe the science.

Data on collisions are collected by the Gards, it is not being collated or released.

So you’re ok with inaccurate reports? Ireland should insist the report is revised to reflect how much safer we are here with our blanket 60kph speed limit. Given that is an evidenced based policy change we should be pleading with our EU neighbours to join us on this momentous journey

From the post by @magicbastarder above:

Départementales range in quality, from narrow country lanes right the way through to motorway standard dual carriageways.

They sound exactly like our rural roads. 😉

As an aside - I don't actually know how to quote just part of a previous post. Would be grateful if somebody could please explain it to me.