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

Go Metric: Go Safe and other oxymoronic statements

2

Comments

  • #32
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Victor wrote:
    Lies, damed lies and statistics. The author conveniently omits the twenty something percent of people who were on the wrong side of the road. I wonder, what were they doing there? Overtaking at speed perhaps?

    Something like only 1% of speed checks are on motorways.

    That 1% detects the vast majority of speed detections where the tiny minority of accidents are happening. (ie a cash cow wtih no relevance to reducing fatalities)
    Magpie is correct is his analysis of how neglectful the Garda are in enforcing the speed limits in country roads where the vast majority of deaths occur.
    Just drive down the country on the secondary routes where you have lotto luck in spotting a garda enforcing the speed limit law.
    I have travelled on these roads many times and almost every car travels over 60mph when the oppurtunity arose, its the lesser known shame which should be highlighted by our so-called caring garda/politicians.

    Things will never change unless they start policing the roads properly and not criminalising motorists who go over the limit by as little as 2mph on safe motorways.
    Urban drivers and those on motorways across the land are penalised unfairly.
    'If I wanna speed, I just go on secondary roads', thats the mindset of almost every driver I bet out there.


  • #33
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Victor wrote:
    Lies, damed lies and statistics. The author conveniently omits the twenty something percent of people who were on the wrong side of the road. I wonder, what were they doing there? Overtaking at speed perhaps?
    /me makes that vaguely-hissing, biting-the-lip motion.

    That's an entire debate extra. For the purpose of statistics, where should certain types of accidents go? Does a drunk driver crashing his vehicle at speed go into drink driving or speeding or both? Does a dead joyrider go into speeding, young driver, or crime statistics or all three?

    As you say, there are lies and damned lies. Statistics take the form of one or the other.


  • #34
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Things will never change unless they start policing the roads properly and not criminalising motorists who go over the limit by as little as 2mph on safe motorways.

    That is hearsay. You have no documentary evidence that this is the case. Few motorists will get stopped or ticketed for doing 72mph on a motorway. Urban myth.

    What need to see is universal policing on all roads. I recall driving in Australia, where there is a high level of enforcement, where you would drive at 100km/h for hours and not a soul would overtake you. This is the case in both urban and rural environments.


  • #35
    magpie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,643 ✭✭✭magpie


    The author conveniently omits the twenty something percent of people who were on the wrong side of the road. I wonder, what were they doing there? Overtaking at speed perhaps?

    Possibly, but as I'm sure you are aware this is not 'speeding' per se as speed limits do not count when overtaking.

    Also, these overtaking-based accidents are not happening on dual carriageways, which is where the tickets are being handed out, but on poor 2 lane country roads which are not policed in any meaningful way.


  • #36
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    magpie wrote:

    Now you're resorting to that old reliable sanctimonious argument that you should 'just obey the speed limits'.

    Well pardon me for saying you should obey the law. I know some laws are stupid. I also know that some speed limits in some areas seem slow to *me*. That does not mean they are inappropriate, there may be a reason I am not aware of for the slower speed. Of course, they may well be inappropriate. As far as I know the local authorities now have the power to change speed limits in areas under their control. If you feel a speed limit is too slow or indeed too fast you can lobby them to have it changed.
    magpie wrote:

    Clearly you either a) live in denial, b) do not drive or c) honestly believe that every driver who goes above 30mph in a built up area is a 'criminal' and should be punished. Incidentally, this is all drivers without exception in my experience.

    No. No & maybe. Although I try not to I do, like most people I do speed occasionally. I even got caught once, on a road that I think has an inappropriately low limit. Who was to blame? Me. I made the decision to go faster than the posted limit. Am I happy? No, it stinks. Am I am criminal?
    www.dictionary.com wrote:

    4 entries found for criminal.

    crim·i·nal ( P ) Pronunciation Key
    adj.



    1. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse.
    2. Relating to the administration of penal law.
      1. Guilty of crime.
      2. Characteristic of a criminal.
    3. Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent.
    n.

    One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.

    It would appear so.
    magpie wrote:

    Surely you can acknowledge that there is a problem whereby the vast majority of road users are criminalised without there being any corresponding reduction in road fatalities?

    They are being criminalised because they break the law. They may not agree with the law but that is irrelevant.
    magpie wrote:

    Do you believe that the law is infallible?

    Not even close. What I do believe is that some laws are simple. For example. If you go over a certain speed on a certain road, you have broken the law. Simple. Even an idiot should be able to understand that. (By the way, I am not calling anyone here an idiot. I am merely pointing out that this is not a difficult concept.)
    magpie wrote:

    Yes, karma-based speeding tickets. What a brilliant idea. Let me know any of your other stunning insights into how the system 'all works out in the end'

    Interesting term. I still however feel backroads would be quite hard to police safely. Also, I know it is not even close to being ideal but you have to admit that people that speed on country road probably do speed on better roads too. And before anyone starts, I do not believe this is an proper solution.
    magpie wrote:


    Meanwhile, back in reality, I'd welcome your comments on this http://www.irishlimits.com/hardpoints.htm, especially the statistics from the NRA and the information regarding the Cambridgeshire Police's decision to publish locations of speed traps to actually reduce speeds.

    Some interesting points here also http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/01/18/story411670553.asp




    And



    Does this sound familiar Mr P?

    I’m sorry I don’t believe this. Are you trying to say that when the police publicise the exact location of all their speed traps less people get caught speeding? NO WAY.rolleyes.gif

    Policing is a very strange and difficult thing. Crime changes. Increase police in the inner city and crime moves to the suburbs. Advertise the locations of your speed traps and guess what? Less people will speed in those locations. This does not *cure* people from the desire to speed. It simply means that they will speed elsewhere where they feel they may not get caught. Although it would be hard to prove I would guess that there is still speeding. It’s a bit like that old chestnut “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make any noise?” If a driver speeds and there is no speed detection equipment or policemen around is he really speeding?

    One of the English police forces actually did away with all their gatso cameras. The commander felt that the more cameras that were installed the more apathetic the police on the ground got towards road safety and traffic law enforcement. With the reduction in cameras came an increase in police on the ground. His area of responsibility has seen a reduction in road deaths. This is an important point. What you mention above is a reduction in the detection of speeding. This does not necessarily mean that less people are speeding, simply that less people are speeding though the cameras that they know about and getting caught.

    When the traffic corp finally gets going we should see a sharp increase in the number of people caught speeding. This does not mean more people are speeding or that the corp is crap. It will simply mean that more of the people that would have been speeding anyway are being caught than would have normally.

    What I would like to see is an increased number of gatso cameras in accident blackspots and crappy country roads. I would like to see them clearly marked and have warning signs well in advance. Ideally I would like them never to catch a single person speeding. I do believe that cameras are used as revenue generators here, to a certain extent, and I think this is wrong. They should be used to reduce speed. I think on this point we probably agree.

    I would also like to see the traffic corp out in force and enforcing the laws that are there.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,746 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    gurramok wrote:
    That 1% detects the vast majority of speed detections where the tiny minority of accidents are happening. (ie a cash cow wtih no relevance to reducing fatalities)
    Apologies, that was 1% of tickets, not 1% of garda time spent / other metric.


  • #38
    mackerski
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,295 ✭✭✭mackerski


    BrianD wrote:
    And yes speed does kill and there is no such thing as safe speeding. Speeding is dangerous driving.

    The law defines a separate offence of dangerous driving, so it doesn't seem to agree with you there. Then again...
    BrianD wrote:
    I travel 100km on a R road. It used to take me 1 hour now it takes me an extra 15 min.

    Funny thing - the law used to allow you to do 60mph, so you did, and it was quite safe. Now the law says you can go no faster than 80km/h, and you appear to be complying. Hardly surprising, since it would now be dangerous driving and far more liable to kill someone than it was before.

    There is far too little emphasis in modern driving theory on "using your loaf". More's the shame.

    Dermot


  • #39
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    mackerski wrote:
    There is far too little emphasis in modern driving theory of "using your loaf". More's the shame.

    Dermot
    Most people seem to ignore any kind of driving theory let alone a modern one.

    MrP


  • #40
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,446 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    MrPudding wrote:
    Most people seem to ignore any kind of driving theory let alone a modern one.

    MrP
    comparing the rules of the road / driver theory test to what most drivers do on the road means that driving theory is an oxymoron


  • #41
    magpie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,643 ✭✭✭magpie


    Are you trying to say that when the police publicise the exact location of all their speed traps less people get caught speeding? NO WAY.

    Policing is a very strange and difficult thing. Crime changes. Increase police in the inner city and crime moves to the suburbs. Advertise the locations of your speed traps and guess what? Less people will speed in those locations. This does not *cure* people from the desire to speed. It simply means that they will speed elsewhere where they feel they may not get caught. Although it would be hard to prove I would guess that there is still speeding. It’s a bit like that old chestnut “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make any noise?” If a driver speeds and there is no speed detection equipment or policemen around is he really speeding?

    One of the English police forces actually did away with all their gatso cameras. The commander felt that the more cameras that were installed the more apathetic the police on the ground got towards road safety and traffic law enforcement. With the reduction in cameras came an increase in police on the ground. His area of responsibility has seen a reduction in road deaths. This is an important point. What you mention above is a reduction in the detection of speeding. This does not necessarily mean that less people are speeding, simply that less people are speeding though the cameras that they know about and getting caught.

    When the traffic corp finally gets going we should see a sharp increase in the number of people caught speeding. This does not mean more people are speeding or that the corp is crap. It will simply mean that more of the people that would have been speeding anyway are being caught than would have normally.

    What I would like to see is an increased number of gatso cameras in accident blackspots and crappy country roads. I would like to see them clearly marked and have warning signs well in advance. Ideally I would like them never to catch a single person speeding. I do believe that cameras are used as revenue generators here, to a certain extent, and I think this is wrong. They should be used to reduce speed. I think on this point we probably agree.

    I would also like to see the traffic corp out in force and enforcing the laws that are there.

    I pretty much agree with this, with the exception that you refer to curing people who have a desire to speed.

    Surely the whole purpose of this is to reduce road fatalities? If so have highly visible cameras at blackspots and patrol the country roads where the fatalities are happening, as you suggest. If people 'speed' in completely safe locations then who cares?

    If, on the other hand, you think exceeding stated speed limits is a dangerous criminal act that needs to be stamped out, then we must agree to differ. I would maintain that this is a completely inappropriate allocation of police time and resources and serves to do nothing more than increase the public perception of the guards as cynical bullies who like nothing more than lording it over the people who pay their salaries.

    We all know going metric and handing out speeding tickets on dual carriageways have absolutely nothing to do with increasing road safety, so why does the government maintain that they are part of their road safety campaign?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    It is being used as part of a safety campaign though perhaps the safety element is "a side effect". As part of the metric chaneover it is encouraging drivers to check their speed.

    Though that was pretty obvious!!!!


  • #43
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    magpie wrote:
    I pretty much agree with this, with the exception that you refer to curing people who have a desire to speed.

    Surely the whole purpose of this is to reduce road fatalities? If so have highly visible cameras at blackspots and patrol the country roads where the fatalities are happening, as you suggest. If people 'speed' in completely safe locations then who cares?

    If, on the other hand, you think exceeding stated speed limits is a dangerous criminal act that needs to be stamped out, then we must agree to differ. I would maintain that this is a completely inappropriate allocation of police time and resources and serves to do nothing more than increase the public perception of the guards as cynical bullies who like nothing more than lording it over the people who pay their salaries.

    We all know going metric and handing out speeding tickets on dual carriageways have absolutely nothing to do with increasing road safety, so why does the government maintain that they are part of their road safety campaign?
    I think we are actually closer in our views than it may appear. I do not think that people who speed are necessarily hardened criminals that should be put away, of course some are. My point is simply that whether you agree with it or not going over the speed limit is a criminal act. You can choose whether or not you break that law. No one else is to blame, you make the choice.

    MrP


  • #44
    magpie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,643 ✭✭✭magpie


    You can choose whether or not you break that law. No one else is to blame, you make the choice.

    True. The Government can also choose which laws it is going to enforce. It's against the law for your dog to sh1t on the pavement, but I don't see Guards out on Dunlaoghaire Pier with sh1t-detector guns handing out doo-doo tickets, though this would probably have the same impact on road deaths as handing out speeding tickets on a dual carriageway.
    I think we are actually closer in our views than it may appear

    So it would seem!
    It is being used as part of a safety campaign though perhaps the safety element is "a side effect". As part of the metric chaneover it is encouraging drivers to check their speed.

    Though that was pretty obvious!!!!

    By this logic constant random changes in speed limit and/or the unit used to measure speed/distance would increase road safety by maximising the amount of time people have to spend checking their speed. We could possibly bring in a system of "fathoms per second" measurement and issue drivers with an in-car abacus with which to calculate their speed. This would eradicate road deaths entirely, no doubt.


  • #45
    gerrydublin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 49 ✭gerrydublin


    lomb wrote:
    honestly think it was an error to put up distance signs in km. they should have duel signed them in miles.
    its the liam lalwors and charlie haugheys of the world to blame never took a stand and lined there own pockets.

    the idea of a changeover to a measurement which is easier to uderstand, I think is something beyond policitians. Personally I'd say it came from the National Roads Authority or the National Safety Council or the Irish Society of Motoring. Lets look at the reasons

    1. Metres are an easier measurement to work with.
    We know the length of a metre, hence 1000 metres or a "kilometre" is very easy to picture. compare that with the length of a yard, and then trying to explain to someone the length of a mile given the length of a yard. Likewise a 1000th of a metre or a "millimetre" is easier to picture, but do the same with yards and inches. (Don't get me talking about 6 yard boxes or 18 yard lines in football.)

    2. More europeans will be coming over to Ireland as the EU gets bigger, therefore as they use metric, to save accidents, we should also. Lets not forget that anyone who uses miles- namely the UK and its former british colonies will know that once they go abroad, more than likely the unit of measurement will be metric. therefore its no problem to them, they are used to being awkward.

    3. Cars will be "ever so slightly" cheaper now in Ireland because the manufacturer, of which most will be outside the Uk and its former colonies, use the kilometre speedometer so they don't have to change it for us.

    4. As for the excuse of not changing because the Brits across the border are not changing, well we are in the euro and they are not. Has that been a problem, I think not. They still manage to cross the border into Ireland for gaelic football games. Yes it can sometimes cause a problem for some drivers who when they get to our toll bridges are shocked when we don't accept foreign currency, like what toll bridge in europe does?

    5. Should we change over to the correct side of the road. Yes, and I can see this happening in the future. Not just because we will save a load of money on the cost of cars, because car manufacturers will be able to supply Ireland with part of their stock for continental europe and not part of the traditional stock for the Uk market. And we all know how economies of scale work!
    But as I said previously, we will have more europeans coming over here each year, and our accident rate will increase otherwise.
    will that mean we will have a massive amount of accidents when we do. Probably, but bear this in mind, by 2014, we should have all the intercity routes up to motorway standard, these roads that make up to 8% of our road network, carry at least 50% of the traffic. These roads by their very nature are relatively easy to switch direction, it worked in Sweden.
    Then we come to local roads, if county Cork is anything to go by, people drive in the middle of the road because they are so narrow, so switching the sides of the road will have little effect. the problem will be in the cities. This is where public transport may have a roll to play.
    6. To finish, KM/h is not metric anyway.
    hour is not metric, seconds are. but who heard of a millisecond, or a kilosecond. After all there are not 100 seconds in a minute, nor are there 100 minutes in an hour, hence an hour is not metric by defintion. However every other country ignore this pedantic point, so we can also :)


  • #46
    magpie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,643 ✭✭✭magpie


    More europeans will be coming over to Ireland as the EU gets bigger, therefore as they use metric, to save accidents, we should also

    Once again, the fascinating idea of the metric system increasing safety. What accidents will this prevent?
    Cars will be "ever so slightly" cheaper now in Ireland because the manufacturer, of which most will be outside the Uk and its former colonies, use the kilometre speedometer so they don't have to change it for us.

    Erm, no. Cars are expensive in Ireland because of VRT, and because our government chose to find a way around the EU legislation designed to harmonise car prices throughout europe by bringing in the 'under the counter' measure of charging VRT.
    Lets not forget that anyone who uses miles- namely the UK and its former british colonies will know that once they go abroad, more than likely the unit of measurement will be metric. therefore its no problem to them, they are used to being awkward.

    Former colonies? Like Ireland? Are you saying we're used to being awkward because we used the British (imperial) rather than the French (metric) system? What's your point?
    Should we change over to the correct side of the road. Yes, and I can see this happening in the future. Not just because we will save a load of money on the cost of cars, because car manufacturers will be able to supply Ireland with part of their stock for continental europe and not part of the traditional stock for the Uk market. And we all know how economies of scale work!

    See point above about car prices. And why is driving on the right hand side of the road 'correct'?
    Then we come to local roads, if county Cork is anything to go by, people drive in the middle of the road because they are so narrow, so switching the sides of the road will have little effect. the problem will be in the cities. This is where public transport may have a roll to play.

    You are either a lunatic or a comic genius. I'm not sure yet.


  • #47
    Crossley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 75 ✭✭Crossley


    gerrydublin wrote:
    3. Cars will be "ever so slightly" cheaper now in Ireland because the manufacturer, of which most will be outside the Uk and its former colonies, use the kilometre speedometer so they don't have to change it for us.

    Not so. Ireland will now be the only market in Europe into which manufacturers will have to supply right-hand drive models with km speedometers. So instead of being a subset of UK spec cars (albeit with many extras removed to make them affordable here with the punitive VRT rates) Irish cars will now be a specification of their own which no doubt will give rise to another price differentiation.


  • #48
    ambro25
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,985 ✭✭✭ambro25


    The short of it is... Ireland was Imperial because of the Brits, who were and remain Imperial because Napoleon didn't win - and Ireland (alone in the EU with the Brits) drive on the left for the very same reason.

    Ireland is now Metric and Euro'ed (and the Brits aren't), because Napoleon's descendants got their way 200 years on! :D

    Seriously - no, cars won't be cheaper (to you and me), they'll provide better returns to the manufacturers and dealers - you didn't really, seriously think they'd pass the localization savings on, did you?

    And no, the left-driving thing will not happen anytime soon: can you imagine the size of the installed park to replace? 99.99%, to put it bluntly. Too much money at stake, for all parties involved. And I can just see insurances rubbing their hands from here, having a mix of RHD and LHD on Irish roads (OMG , the thought :eek: ).

    If anything, metric speed limits will increase accidents, as most cars -including modern cars- already include kph equivalents on speedos, but those are far too small for the 'quick-glance' check afforded by bigger-sized mph numbers - whereby limit sticklers (from this Forum, there seems to be quite a few in Eire) will take twice as long to check the speed, e.g. pay half as much attention to what's going on outside their car (not that they seemed to be paying much attention before that, anyhow :D:p )


  • #49
    mackerski
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,295 ✭✭✭mackerski


    Crossley wrote:
    Not so. Ireland will now be the only market in Europe into which manufacturers will have to supply right-hand drive models with km speedometers. So instead of being a subset of UK spec cars (albeit with many extras removed to make them affordable here with the punitive VRT rates) Irish cars will now be a specification of their own which no doubt will give rise to another price differentiation.

    The first part of this is true - however, there are plenty of manufacturers (the majority of mass-market ones?) for which there should be no price issue. Opel, for instance, already treats Ireland as a separate market - the UK gets Vauxhalls instead. Because of VRT, the mix of engine sizes and models pushed for the Irish market is often different (poorer) than the UK equivalent.

    In any case, in a world where most purchasers of brand new cars get to customise all manner of paintwork, upholstery, bum warmers, navigation systems and all the rest of it, the fact that the manufacturers have to jump one way of t'other on the instrument cluster shouldn't matter a whole lot.

    Dermot


  • #50
    mackerski
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,295 ✭✭✭mackerski


    ambro25 wrote:
    The short of it is... Ireland was Imperial because of the Brits, who were and remain Imperial because Napoleon didn't win - and Ireland (alone in the EU with the Brits) drive on the left for the very same reason.

    *cough* Malta *cough*
    *cough* Cyprus *cough*

    Dermot


  • #51
    ambro25
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,985 ✭✭✭ambro25


    *cough* car market size? *cough*
    *cough* car market value? *cough*
    ;):p


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    mackerski
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,295 ✭✭✭mackerski


    ambro25 wrote:
    *cough* car market size? *cough*
    *cough* car market value? *cough*
    ;):p

    Accepted 100%. I don't even know if those countries get RHD cars. But the point is, we lefties now have company in the EU.

    Dermot


  • #53
    ambro25
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,985 ✭✭✭ambro25


    Fair point.

    However, it's worth remembering that -though not colonies (I don't think)- both islands have always had strong ties with the Brits, particularly since WWII.

    Having spent a near-equivalent amount of experience-formative driving years on the Continent and in the UK, thus being able to and used to drive LHD/kph & RHD/mph (& happily hot-seating from one car to the other, as I have done inummerable times already), it's all a bit of a non-debate as far as I'm concerned.

    I can appreciate the upset experienced by most people, particularly the 'generational' gap (a bit like going from Punt to €, or FRF to GBP to € for me), particularly as I just can't see the point of implementing metric speeds so long as 99.9% of the car market is still labelled in mph.


  • #54
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    mackerski wrote:
    *cough* Malta *cough*
    *cough* Cyprus *cough*

    Dermot

    And actually Europe was only LHD as far as Germany until WWII. I think that Russia, Poland, Check republic (sp) etc and everything to the east was RHD until the Germans came along.


  • #55
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Magpie wrote:
    By this logic constant random changes in speed limit and/or the unit used to measure speed/distance would increase road safety by maximising the amount of time people have to spend checking their speed.

    Magpie if you can't do the above while driving, you need to get off the road fast!!! There is no constant changes no more than there is anywhere else in the world.

    There is no logical objection to any speed limits that have been enforced. The only reason people in Ireland object to them is because of the low standard of driving and they don't like being caught. They are careless and don't observe speed limits, they object to them because if they whinge enough they might be raised or abolished so it minimises their chances of being hauled in by the law. NRA stats indicate that Irish people seem to drive at a constant speed irrespective of the road conditions. how often do you hear some one say "I'm all for speed traps but I feel sorry for the guy caught doing 40 in a 30 zone". Blah Blah

    As the ad say observe the signs and check your speed. It;s that simple. So simple that millions of other drivers do it around the world every day.

    You are also misinterpreting the entire objective of the changeover. It is not a safety campaign as you seem to think. Its metriculation, nothing more. The powers that be are simplying using the opportunity to get a safety message accross - look at the signs and adjust your speed as required.


  • #56
    magpie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,643 ✭✭✭magpie


    There is no logical objection to any speed limits that have been enforced.

    Rubbish. I've already given the example of the National Road (N7) which has been designated a 60 km/ph zone (38mph) as opposed to the 100km/ph of other National Roads, while you can go from Sallins to Clane at 80km/ph on a winding, potholed country track. And oddly not a guard to be seen on the country road, while on my way home I counted 7 guards on the N7, and saw another 4 on my in today. Like I keep saying, the bulk of fatal accidents don't happen on dual carriageways, so why enforce the limits there? For more examples of ludicrous limits see this thread.
    As the ad say observe the signs and check your speed. It;s that simple. So simple that millions of other drivers do it around the world every day.

    Thanks for that insight. If it's "that simple" then why spend €2.5 million of our money on an 'awareness campaign'?
    Its metriculation, nothing more.

    Actually, it's metrification, or metrication. Perhaps you have got it confused with 'Matriculation'.

    In general, I'm a little surprised at the sanctimonious tone of your post given that you spent this thread complaining about people who beep you when you illegally undertake by zooming up the inside lane and then cut into a stream of traffic in order to get 3 cars ahead. But then you're a 'safe' driver right?


  • #57
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Magpie wrote:
    In general, I'm a little surprised at the sanctimonious tone of your post given that you spent this thread complaining about people who beep you when you illegally undertake by zooming up the inside lane and then cut into a stream of traffic in order to get 3 cars ahead. But then you're a 'safe' driver right?

    Perhaps you might re-read my post. I carried out no illegal move as I moved from the left lane to the overtaking lane and back again. As you may or may not know, this is a perfectly legitimate move. You may recall that the speed limit on a m-way in 70mph which I was travelling at, while other motorists decide to travel at a constant 65mph in the overtaking lane. Some motorists seem to believe that you need a mile to the front or rear of them before such a manoever takes place.

    Am I a safe driver? One could never be so presumptious as it may lead to complacency. I heed the posted speed limits at all times - sure I might find myself a little over or under an adjust accordingly. Your read of my original posting suggest that you would be one of those motorists sitting in the overtaking lane at 65mph who will continue at the same speed intoa 40 zone and then into a built up area.

    You can metrify the above at your own leisure. Matriculation, ah those were the days!
    Magpie wrote:
    Thanks for that insight. If it's "that simple" then why spend €2.5 million of our money on an 'awareness campaign'?

    You do know that we have changed from miles KM, don't you??? (Though I'd ask just in case). It is not a safety awareness campaign its too inform the public about the changeover. Having said that it would appear that a secondary objective is to encourage motorists to be more aware of what speed that they are travelling at.

    Magpie wrote:
    Rubbish. I've already given the example of the National Road (N7) which has been designated a 60 km/ph zone (38mph) as opposed to the 100km/ph of other National Roads, while you can go from Sallins to Clane at 80km/ph on a winding, potholed country track. And oddly not a guard to be seen on the country road, while on my way home I counted 7 guards on the N7, and saw another 4 on my in today. Like I keep saying, the bulk of fatal accidents don't happen on dual carriageways, so why enforce the limits there? For more examples of ludicrous limits see this thread.

    If I am correct the section that you are referring to is between Rathcoole (thereabouts - maybe Kill) and the start on the M7 at Naas. This stretch of road is currently being widened to 3-lanes with a number of grade separated junctions to be constructed. 60Km/h through a building site makes perfect sense to me under those conditions.


  • #58
    gerrydublin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 49 ✭gerrydublin


    magpie wrote:

    You are either a lunatic or a comic genius. I'm not sure yet.

    I’m serious about the local roads in Cork. :) It would do you no harm to experience it. It’s not unusual to be about to take a bend (bending around to the left) and meet a car coming in the opposite direction on the inside of the bend. The local authorities don’t bother to even put down white lines, they fear it would give drivers the false illusion that there is room for two cars to pass.
    This is how accidents occur, drivers think the road was specifically built for cars, they don’t realise that it just descended from a road once used by a horse and cart and has had some tarmacadam put down(or at least some was put down in some parts of the road by a man and shovel it looks like at times).

    Anyway as regards metrification, it ever there is a need for it, it’s in the drinks industry.
    Last month, I got screwed by a pub (that shall rename anonymous) in Donnybrook. In my local off licence, a 500ml bottle of Erdinger is the same price as a 500ml bottle of Miller,
    however a 500ml glass of Erdinger in this pub costs about 40cent more than a 568ml (or a pint) glass of Miller. Only in Ireland. Do you think I could convince the barman of the insanity of their pricing.

    But it seems it’s an Irish thing. :D Only recently in a petrol garage (again that shall remain anonymous), a guy in his twenties asked for a pint of milk. The man behind the counter gave him a half litre of milk, which I suppose is close enough, and this guy never questioned it. Although where yer man thought he was, looking for a pint a milk, as far as I can remember Avonmore or Premier Dairies never made a pint cardboard CARTON of milk, they only made ½ a litre, 1 litre and 2 litre cartons.
    As regards the price difference between the ½ litre carton and the 1 litre carton, well to be fair I suppose we’d all try to screw people if we thought they wouldn’t cop it. :rolleyes:

    I can’t wait for the day I can go into a restaurant and be able to see steak quoted in grams. Ounces, who the hell uses ounces. If ever people are out to screw the foreigners and us born after decimalisation, it’s the restaurant owners. We know what a 1kg box of cornflakes is, a 100g packet of Denny ham, a 20g bag crisps, a 200g tub of butter is, and millions others, so why do they think that we may have trouble understanding a 200g or a 400g steak. We won’t, hence by putting it in a unit of measurement that we can’ t relate it to anything else, they can screw us. :mad:


  • #59
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    I regularly go up to the meat counter in the local supermarket and ask for 450g of minced beef. What's even funnier is that they look oddly and then proceed to weigh it on their metric scales. While they are doing this I get to rant on about the ridiculous 5mph speed limit in the car park.


  • #60
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,746 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    magpie wrote:
    On brand spanking new 3 lane roads there are nonsensical 60 km/ph speed limits,
    Where?
    magpie wrote:
    This leads me to believe that the Gardai are merely filling quotas
    But the Garda doesn't set limits.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,746 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    gerrydublin wrote:
    But it seems it’s an Irish thing. :D Only recently in a petrol garage (again that shall remain anonymous), a guy in his twenties asked for a pint of milk. The man behind the counter gave him a half litre of milk, which I suppose is close enough, and this guy never questioned it. Although where yer man thought he was, looking for a pint a milk, as far as I can remember Avonmore or Premier Dairies never made a pint cardboard CARTON of milk, they only made ½ a litre, 1 litre and 2 litre cartons.
    As regards the price difference between the ½ litre carton and the 1 litre carton, well to be fair I suppose we’d all try to screw people if we thought they wouldn’t cop it. :rolleyes:
    When that particular set of rules changed, pints were only allowed for re-usable containers - primarily milk bottles and beer glasses.


Advertisement