Terrible crash management on the M50

Schadenfreudia · 04-03-2015 9:42am #1

Yesterday morning the M50 was in gridlock both directions due to a single fender bender southbound between the Red Cow and Ballymount.

The accident was in the fast lane and the guards had closed the entire road. There were two fire brigade trucks and assorted police cars etc.

In the middle of this a guard was talking to the obviously uninjured drivers sitting at their steering wheels as he was writing stuff in his notebook.

On the northbound side where I was stuck the blockage was caused 100% by rubberneckers. When I got past the spot and looked back in the mirror there was suddenly a good 200m between me and the car behind - driver had his neck out on a stick - as if he hadn't already had enough time to take in the scene.

No police attempting to prevent drivers on my side effectively stopping in the middle of a motorway fast lane in the middle of rush hour.

I drive a lot in UK/Europe and I've never seen so little priority given to keeping the traffic moving, rather than staging a major costly production for every little tip.

Now on the radio this morning I hear of gridlock on the M50 again. I can picture the scene as someone's damaged bumper is costing the economy thousands of euros and man hours.

Maybe instead of waffling about putting additional tolls/restrictions on the M50 the authorities could first learn how to manage the traffic as it is?

bucketybuck · 04-03-2015 9:50am

I'm curious what you think police should be doing on the northbound lanes? How do they stop people rubbernecking?

papu · 04-03-2015 9:57am

bucketybuck wrote: »

I'm curious what you think police should be doing on the northbound lanes? How do they stop people rubbernecking?

Big signs saying don't look , keep going .

Op . The emergency response is always overkill because if they don't know what to expect they'll expect the worse , the real question is why are you having a fender bender on the motorway? I'd be quicker to critisize the drivers than the Emergency Services.

yipeeeee · 04-03-2015 10:00am

Totally agree with the op.

Every morning there is an accident and everything comes to a standstill, probably over a little tip.

The m50 was great up until bout a year ago.

Now i dread even looking at the thing.

Nunu · 04-03-2015 10:02am

I travel from Balbriggan - Dundrum last 3 years and it's getting worse for some reason? The first couple of years Sept - Oct were always really bad then it eased off. But the last few months is just constant deadlock almost everyday. I rarely use M50 in rush hour anymore which is quite unbelievable given my route.

MrWalsh · 04-03-2015 10:10am

The m50 has become a nightmare over the past 18 months. The volume of traffic is simply too large for the road and the entrance/exits are in some cases woefully badly designed (Im thinking of entrance ramps so short that its difficult for a driver to have enough time to get to speed to merge or the sad case of the missing junction 14 northbound leading to double the volume of traffic coming onto it at junction 13).

As for rubbernecking - cant they plant some dense hedging along the central reservation to block the view?

The whole thing is not policed properly anyway, the number of times Ive nearly crashed due to an idiot coming to a complete stop in front of me because he didnt get into the exit queue early enough so just sits there indicating waiting for a gap.

Crash management really is appalling. The order of priority should be to check on health and safety of occupants of cars then get the cars off the road. Of course some parts of the m50 have enough space either on the hard shoulder or by the central reservation to move cars out of the motorway - but typically, some dont.

The same places suffer from accidents daily too, so they know the black spots.

bucketybuck · 04-03-2015 10:10am

papu wrote: »

Big signs saying don't look , keep going .

So after a crash the guards land somewhere on the opposite side of the M50 carrying big electronic signs that when switched on will tell drivers to keep going. And none of this will cause any further rubber necking or slowdowns?

Or maybe the guards just stand at the side of the road with Father Ted style placards, is that what he meant?

Alun · 04-03-2015 10:11am

Over on the continent they often erect screens around crashes to try and prevent rubbernecking from the opposite carriageway, and also police or other personnel waving furiously at passing motorists to try to persuade them to move faster.

bucketybuck · 04-03-2015 10:15am

As to the other point in the OP, my suggestion would be to make it a driving red zone or something, with a rule that anybody who causes a crash within a red zone immediately loses their license/pays an extortionate fine.

I would also have 3/4 four traffic branch cars on the M50 at all times actively pulling in the multitude of idiot drivers who cause the trouble for everybody else. You can't tell me they wouldn't pay for themselves in fines.

bucketybuck · 04-03-2015 10:17am

Alun wrote: »

waving furiously at passing motorists to try to persuade them to move faster.

I would suggest that for the vast majority of people, a guard furiously waving at them will cause them to further slow down, not speed up.

nc6000 · 04-03-2015 10:19am

How about 9 penalty points and a 20K fine for causing a stupid accident on the M50 and delaying thousands of people? Would that encourage people to pay attention to what they are doing when driving and stop using their phones?

Alun · 04-03-2015 10:26am

bucketybuck wrote: »

I would also have 3/4 four traffic branch cars on the M50 at all times actively pulling in the multitude of idiot drivers who cause the trouble for everybody else. You can't tell me they wouldn't pay for themselves in fines.

I agree. However I don't think they'd ever get to travel more than a few km's a day if they stopped for every traffic violation they saw.

Kensington · 04-03-2015 10:30am

bucketybuck wrote: »

As to the other point in the OP, my suggestion would be to make it a driving red zone or something, with a rule that anybody who causes a crash within a red zone immediately loses their license/pays an extortionate fine.

I would also have 3/4 four traffic branch cars on the M50 at all times actively pulling in the multitude of idiot drivers who cause the trouble for everybody else. You can't tell me they wouldn't pay for themselves in fines.

Don't think you even need to make it a driving red zone, some basic enforcement of existing road traffic laws would clear up the vast majority of the root causes of these accidents, i.e. texting, on the phone, putting on make-up/ties/brushing hair/teeth, complete disregard for correct lane behaviour or road markings.

Blitz the place for just a week - bike cops at every entry/exit and I imagine there'd be a sea change within the week.

plodder · 04-03-2015 10:31am

I'd say a lot of scrapes are caused by the speed up, slow down concertina effect. Variable speed limits (that are enforced) on electronic signs will help with that. At busy times, you want the traffic moving slowly, with short gaps, using all lanes consistently. </edit> just to be clear, it's about maximising throughput (ie number of cars passing a point per second) as much as safety.

Irish Steve · 04-03-2015 10:33am

Rubberneckers?

Simple solution, used regularly in the UK. along with the cones needed to mark the area of an incident, the emergency response vehicles from the M50 concession should carry portable screens that can be put up to block the view. Couple of minutes to put up, problem with rubberneckers solved.

Nothing to see here, get the fcuk out of it

Other solutions.

Variable speed limits at peak periods with overhead enforcement cameras (as per M25 in UK). Use those same cameras for enforcement on things like tailgating offenders and lane blockers. Not massively expensive, and much more effective even than mobile patrols.

Check by Gardai on mobile phone number of involved drivers. Phone in use at time of accident, automatic disqualification. Forget a few penalty points, phone in use and involved in an accident, you're off the road. Harsh? Yes, because that's the ONLY way to get the attention of the people that think they can use the phone in their hand at 100+Kph in peak period traffic with safety. See it all the time on the M50, and had the pain of a trip with someone the other day that puts the smartphone on the seat in front of him as it's too big to hold one handed. Won't be going anywhere with him again any time soon!

Occasional blitz spot checks on Learners driving on the motorway.

Schadenfreudia · 04-03-2015 10:34am

Alun wrote: »

Over on the continent they often erect screens around crashes to try and prevent rubbernecking from the opposite carriageway, and also police or other personnel waving furiously at passing motorists to try to persuade them to move faster.

Correct. And they also move minor accidents off the road with extreme speed, not block the road while they chat with the drivers.

The Gardai here seem to make no distinction between minor crashes and major ones.

If nobody is injured they should stop the traffic just long enough to drag the cars off the road.

As for rubbernecking; on the M25 (London) they will position motorcycle cops on the unaffected side and wave cars on - I've seen a car followed and pulled in when it didn't move quickly enough - and it was in the slow lane trying to stare across 4 lanes of traffic to see a fireball on the other side, driver didn't even notice the motorcycle cop by his passenger window furiously waving him on - so intent was he on looking across the road!

MrWalsh · 04-03-2015 10:35am

bucketybuck wrote: »

As to the other point in the OP, my suggestion would be to make it a driving red zone or something, with a rule that anybody who causes a crash within a red zone immediately loses their license/pays an extortionate fine.

Accidents happen. I dont think people should lose their licence for an accident.

bucketybuck wrote: »

I would also have 3/4 four traffic branch cars on the M50 at all times actively pulling in the multitude of idiot drivers who cause the trouble for everybody else. You can't tell me they wouldn't pay for themselves in fines.

^^This. Cops on motorbikes. Enforce it very very strictly for a couple of months then when the change has happened it could be backed down a bit.

SpaceTime · 04-03-2015 10:38am

You hardly ever see traffic cops in Ireland though.

I've driven Cork to Dublin about 12 times this month and not seen a single Garda patrol, speed check, police presence anywhere.

I've seen them doing checks in Cork and in Dublin but nothing on the motorway that's visible anyway.

bucketybuck · 04-03-2015 10:38am

MrWalsh wrote: »

^^This. Cops on motorbikes. Enforce it very very strictly for a couple of months then when the change has happened it could be backed down a bit.

Enforce it very very strictly for a couple of months then when the change has happened continue to enforce it very very strictly.

Greyian · 04-03-2015 10:56am

Irish Steve wrote: »

Check by Gardai on mobile phone number of involved drivers. Phone in use at time of accident, automatic disqualification. Forget a few penalty points, phone in use and involved in an accident, you're off the road. Harsh? Yes, because that's the ONLY way to get the attention of the people that think they can use the phone in their hand at 100+Kph in peak period traffic with safety. See it all the time on the M50, and had the pain of a trip with someone the other day that puts the smartphone on the seat in front of him as it's too big to hold one handed. Won't be going anywhere with him again any time soon!

The fact that the phone was in use doesn't prove that any laws have been broken. Many cars have bluetooth connections to phones, and controls on the steering wheel for answering/making phone calls. If I get a phone call while driving, I press a single button and the call is answered and the car's speakers and microphone handle the conversation. No holding of the phone whatsoever.

Likewise, in my old car, which didn't have that, it wasn't uncommon for me to ask my passenger to make a phone call on my phone (e.g. if I wanted them to call a family member etc to let them know I'd be home in 15 minutes). Whenever I got into the car, I'd take my phone out of my pocket, and place it in the area between the seats, so if needed my passenger could get at it with no issues. Again, no laws broken.

The only way such a system would work is if you can actually prove the person was breaking a law. You can't assume, because the phone was in use, that the person was breaking a law. If someone in an old car, with no handsfree, was in an accident tomorrow, while in the car alone, while receiving a phone call, would you charge them with using their phone while driving? Well, surely you'd start by checking if they even answered the phone. I receive phone calls from time-to-time while in the car alone. In my new car, I press 1 button on steering wheel, and can converse. In my old car, I'd just wait until I reached a petrol station or something to call them back (or, would pull into a residential road and park, and then call them back, if I had some reason to believe that the call would be important news).

Alkers · 04-03-2015 10:57am

If the incident is in the outside lane and either vehicle is not driveable, it is a pretty major operation to recover the vehicle, requiring closure of that lane and quite possibly the adjacent lane so that the recovery company has a safe area in which to work. This obviously requires a certain amount of traffic management and emergency vehicles to implement which is why the response can look overkill if there are no injuries.

thebullkf · 04-03-2015 10:59am

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Yesterday morning the M50 was in gridlock both directions due to a single fender bender southbound between the Red Cow and Ballymount.

The accident was in the fast lane and the guards had closed the entire road. There were two fire brigade trucks and assorted police cars etc.

In the middle of this a guard was talking to the obviously uninjured drivers sitting at their steering wheels as he was writing stuff in his notebook.

On the northbound side where I was stuck the blockage was caused 100% by rubberneckers. When I got past the spot and looked back in the mirror there was suddenly a good 200m between me and the car behind - driver had his neck out on a stick - as if he hadn't already had enough time to take in the scene.

No police attempting to prevent drivers on my side effectively stopping in the middle of a motorway fast lane in the middle of rush hour.

I drive a lot in UK/Europe and I've never seen so little priority given to keeping the traffic moving, rather than staging a major costly production for every little tip.

Now on the radio this morning I hear of gridlock on the M50 again. I can picture the scene as someone's damaged bumper is costing the economy thousands of euros and man hours.

Maybe instead of waffling about putting additional tolls/restrictions on the M50 the authorities could first learn how to manage the traffic as it is?

See this is part of the problem- lack of driver education- thee is no fast lane. its an overtaking lane, ( not having a go at OP btw)

Its just that a lot of accidents are caused by lack of driver education. This is a part of it.
If we minimise accidents to begin with, it will stop this nonsense at source.
The amount of folks who site in the overtaking lane is just bonkers. I have driven in at least 6 other countries on both sides of the road and have only witnessed this behaviour in Ireland.

SpaceTime · 04-03-2015 11:01am

There's an amazing number of people who don't get the concept of overtaking lanes.

I think part of the problem is that we don't accept the reality : we had no motorways really until a few years ago and at least 60% of drivers seem to be unaware of motorway driving rules.

I constantly encumber people incapable of completing a merge, they sit in the wrong lane etc

I also think Irish drivers are too polite. If you sit in the overtaking lane in any continental country you'll be flashed at, then if that doesn't produce a response you'll be beeped at, flashed at and you'll have someone on your bumper!

You wouldn't do it twice.

Here people sit there driving behind the obstruction then dangerously undertake making it worse as the slow driver then gets blocked into the overtaking lane with faster moving traffic passing them on the left.

plodder · 04-03-2015 11:05am

thebullkf wrote: »

See this is part of the problem- lack of driver education- thee is no fast lane. its an overtaking lane, ( not having a go at OP btw)

Its just that a lot of accidents are caused by lack of driver education. This is a part of it.
If we minimise accidents to begin with, it will stop this nonsense at source.
The amount of folks who site in the overtaking lane is just bonkers. I have driven in at least 6 other countries on both sides of the road and have only witnessed this behaviour in Ireland.

Fast lane/overtaking lane. It means much the same thing. When conditions are congested though, it's just another lane. If anything, it's this idea that people are entitled to overtake/go faster in the outside lane, that causes a lot of the problems. Fine, when conditions are relatively calm, keep it for overtaking, but at peak times, it's a different situation and you want all space to be utilised as efficiently as possible (eg with a speed limit of 80km/h, or sometimes less)

Irish Steve · 04-03-2015 11:13am

Greyian wrote: »

The fact that the phone was in use doesn't prove that any laws have been broken. Many cars have bluetooth connections to phones, and controls on the steering wheel for answering/making phone calls. If I get a phone call while driving, I press a single button and the call is answered and the car's speakers and microphone handle the conversation. No holding of the phone whatsoever.

Likewise, in my old car, which didn't have that, it wasn't uncommon for me to ask my passenger to make a phone call on my phone (e.g. if I wanted them to call a family member etc to let them know I'd be home in 15 minutes). Whenever I got into the car, I'd take my phone out of my pocket, and place it in the area between the seats, so if needed my passenger could get at it with no issues. Again, no laws broken.

The only way such a system would work is if you can actually prove the person was breaking a law. You can't assume, because the phone was in use, that the person was breaking a law. If someone in an old car, with no handsfree, was in an accident tomorrow, while in the car alone, while receiving a phone call, would you charge them with using their phone while driving? Well, surely you'd start by checking if they even answered the phone. I receive phone calls from time-to-time while in the car alone. In my new car, I press 1 button on steering wheel, and can converse. In my old car, I'd just wait until I reached a petrol station or something to call them back (or, would pull into a residential road and park, and then call them back, if I had some reason to believe that the call would be important news).

If the vehicle has been involved in an accident, then the legality or otherwise of handsfree is irrelevant. The accident proves that the vehicle was not fully being managed and operated appropriately. Very few incidents are unavoidable, and the "normal" fender bender on a motorway is very much avoidable if the drivers concerned are truly paying attention to the task in hand.

If the phone was in use, regardless of bluetooth or handsfree, then it IS a contributory factor to the INCIDENT that has occurred, regardless of who is actually holding the phone.

Larbre34 · 04-03-2015 11:26am

At a guess, I would do 12,000 kms purely on the M50 every year. I figure I have run out of time statistically for someone to crash into me, even though I drive as defensively as possible on it. Touch wood it hasnt happened yet anyway.

We are the WORST motorway drivers in the western world, and the lack of motorway instruction in the driver education programme is mostly to blame. A lack of common sense and attention on the part of drivers is the rest. Blind overtaking, undertaking, going too fast, going too slow, weaving, merging across hatch markings, the list is endless. The lack of enforcement on mobile phones is a joke, I could give you 5 reg numbers a day of people I see on handheld phones on the M50 alone.

Rubbernecking is another matter. On the continent, and particularly in mountainous areas, you see wind deflectors on motorways which double as visible barriers to the opposite carriageway. Fitting them on the M50 would cost a fortune, and should have been done when it was widened, but I think they should still look to erect them in problem areas, such as near slip and merge ramps where conflicts and collisions often occur.

Greyian · 04-03-2015 11:28am

Irish Steve wrote: »

If the vehicle has been involved in an accident, then the legality or otherwise of handsfree is irrelevant. The accident proves that the vehicle was not fully being managed and operated appropriately. Very few incidents are unavoidable, and the "normal" fender bender on a motorway is very much avoidable if the drivers concerned are truly paying attention to the task in hand.

If the phone was in use, regardless of bluetooth or handsfree, then it IS a contributory factor to the INCIDENT that has occurred, regardless of who is actually holding the phone.

Is radio a contributing factor? Would air conditioning/heating be contributory factors? Heated seats? All of these things distract you in some way/make you more relaxed/comfortable (and, as such, less alert).

And, you originally said Gardai should check the phones of any drivers involved. Now, you're saying if the phone is in use, regardless of who is holding the phone etc, it is a distraction. That would suggest any phone is a distraction. Should a passenger in the back seat not be allowed make a phone call/text?

Honestly, it seems like you thought you'd come up with an idea that would be foolproof for punishing people using their phones illegally while driving, and are now defending your idea regardless of the gaping holes in it.

Schadenfreudia · 04-03-2015 11:30am

thebullkf wrote: »

See this is part of the problem- lack of driver education- thee is no fast lane. its an overtaking lane, ( not having a go at OP btw)

I merely used the term 'cos everyone will know where I'm talking about! There are two overtaking lanes on the M50 - so I guess slow, middle and fast is what everyone understands

ThisRegard · 04-03-2015 11:35am

Irish Steve wrote: »

Check by Gardai on mobile phone number of involved drivers. Phone in use at time of accident, automatic disqualification.

Unworkable as there's no way of knowing how it was being used.

Irish Steve wrote: »

If the vehicle has been involved in an accident, then the legality or otherwise of handsfree is irrelevant. The accident proves that the vehicle was not fully being managed and operated appropriately. Very few incidents are unavoidable, and the "normal" fender bender on a motorway is very much avoidable if the drivers concerned are truly paying attention to the task in hand.

If the phone was in use, regardless of bluetooth or handsfree, then it IS a contributory factor to the INCIDENT that has occurred, regardless of who is actually holding the phone.

Should the same apply to every driver with a passenger?

SpaceTime · 04-03-2015 11:38am

Irish Steve wrote: »

If the vehicle has been involved in an accident, then the legality or otherwise of handsfree is irrelevant. The accident proves that the vehicle was not fully being managed and operated appropriately. Very few incidents are unavoidable, and the "normal" fender bender on a motorway is very much avoidable if the drivers concerned are truly paying attention to the task in hand.

If the phone was in use, regardless of bluetooth or handsfree, then it IS a contributory factor to the INCIDENT that has occurred, regardless of who is actually holding the phone.

Not if it's being held by a passenger and there is nothing illegal about using a phone connected by Bluetooth without holding it.

Using the radio, sneezing, setting the air conditioning could cause it.

I think we're getting a bit paranoid about mobiles. They shouldn't be used as handhelds or for texting, emailing, posting on forums etc but in vehicle safe mode they're not an issue any more than anything else.

Crashes on motorways here are rare enough but the dangers here are mostly bad driving, hesitant driving, inability to use lanes, bad merging, tailgating and absolute idiocy like driving the wrong way on a motorway.

I've seen people reverse up the hard shoulder as they missed an exit!

MrWalsh · 04-03-2015 11:42am

SpaceTime wrote: »

I've seen people reverse up the hard shoulder as they missed an exit!

I saw someone at a dead stop in the centre lane just past the southbound exit ramp of the firhouse exit with a large map out over the steering wheel trying to get their bearings. Traffic was flowing around them like they were a rock in a river.

Schadenfreudia · 04-03-2015 11:46am

SpaceTime wrote: »

I've seen people reverse up the hard shoulder as they missed an exit!

Yep, I've seen it several times on the M50, usually with the hazard lights flashing - proof that the clown in the driver seat knows he's a hazard?!

Nino Brown · 04-03-2015 11:50am

bucketybuck wrote: »

I'm curious what you think police should be doing on the northbound lanes? How do they stop people rubbernecking?

Place one Garda at the barrier, with a sign saying free NCT and Tax inspections. Watch the traffic moving then!

SpaceTime · 04-03-2015 11:54am

I was on M50 near M1 and this guy pulled out of the exit slipway (think he suddenly realised he was in the exit lane), then drove into lane 1 of the motorway and then halfway across lane 2 where I was driving! No indicators, no hint he was going to cut me off. Just suddenly drove straight under me ...

I flashed and beeped and he slammed on brakes and gave me the arms thrown up in air gesture!

I nearly went into him. It was only that the next lane was clear that allowed me to swirve and go around him. He then continued into the 3rd lane behind me and starts flashing his lights!

Drivers like that should have their licences torn up. It's not a rally!

Irish Steve · 04-03-2015 12:22pm

Greyian wrote: »

Is radio a contributing factor? Would air conditioning/heating be contributory factors? Heated seats? All of these things distract you in some way/make you more relaxed/comfortable (and, as such, less alert).

And, you originally said Gardai should check the phones of any drivers involved. Now, you're saying if the phone is in use, regardless of who is holding the phone etc, it is a distraction. That would suggest any phone is a distraction. Should a passenger in the back seat not be allowed make a phone call/text?

Honestly, it seems like you thought you'd come up with an idea that would be foolproof for punishing people using their phones illegally while driving, and are now defending your idea regardless of the gaping holes in it.

No, what I'm saying is that there is a fundamental problem with an attitude towards mobile phones usage in vehicles that has to be changed. The majority of commuter drivers are alone in the car, and if they are using their phone, (based on regular observations) there is a strong likelihood that it's NOT hands free, or bluetooth, it's in hand, and possibly also being used to text. That attitude in fast moving high density traffic is a major contributory factor in the sort of shunt that happens several times every day on the M50, someone looks down to read a line of text, or look for a number in the contacts list, and the vehicles in front of them hit the brakes, and suddenly, there's yet another rear end shunt. If a phone was in use, regardless of hands free, at the time of the INCIDENT, then there should be appropriate stronger sanction against the person responsible,

There needs to be a differentiation between an accident, where there is no real blame attributable to a driver, and an incident, where it is clear that there were specific contributories to it.

A hands free phone that auto answers is no more or less of a distraction than another person talking, but there are times when ANY conversation is not helpful, and fast moving high density traffic at peak time on the M50 is one of them, not helped by crazy drivers that do totally inappropriate things, like stop in Lane 2 because they can't get into Lane 1 and wouldn't join the queue at the right time, or cut across 3 lanes to make a late exit.

I've been driving for a long time, in a lot of different places, not just Ireland, and in vehicles that were a lot larger and heavier than a car, and in over 40 years, I can count the number of incidents that I've been involved in on the fingers of one hand. Some of those incidents were not of my making, if I've stopped to make a right turn, and someone else rear ends me, then I don't have a lot of responsibility for that, but if I rear end someone else, then maybe I did something wrong. Yes, it is that simple, and some of it does have to be learnt, no amount of reading or theory will make it clear.

Greyian · 04-03-2015 12:34pm

Irish Steve wrote: »

If a phone was in use, regardless of hands free, at the time of the INCIDENT, then there should be appropriate stronger sanction against the person responsible.

There needs to be a differentiation between an accident, where there is no real blame attributable to a driver, and an incident, where it is clear that there were specific contributories to it.

A hands free phone that auto answers is no more or less of a distraction than another person talking, but there are times when ANY conversation is not helpful.

No, there's a reason why hands free systems are legal, whereas holding a phone in your hand isn't. You say there's a "fundamental problem with an attitude towards mobile phones usage in vehicles", but you're talking about punishing people who do not have that attitude problem.

If conversation is distracting, we should probably ban passengers in cars. People, travelling in a car together, are highly likely to be familiar with each other. It's reasonable to assume that people who know each other well are likely to encourage in friendly conversation. Should we, therefore, in the event of an accident occurring, assume that any cars with passengers were responsible, because they must have been conversing irresponsibly? No, because that's ridiculous, as is punishing people who are legally using their phones in a safe manner.

If someone forgot to take their phone out of the pocket, and someone called it, and the driver was in an accident while it was ringing/vibrating (without answering/removing it from pocket etc), should the driver be held responsible? What you're suggesting is ludicrous.

People are innocent until proven guilty, yet you're suggesting charging/punishing people on the suspicion that they may be guilty.

rrpc · 04-03-2015 12:57pm

plodder wrote: »

I'd say a lot of scrapes are caused by the speed up, slow down concertina effect. Variable speed limits (that are enforced) on electronic signs will help with that. At busy times, you want the traffic moving slowly, with short gaps, using all lanes consistently. </edit> just to be clear, it's about maximising throughput (ie number of cars passing a point per second) as much as safety.

I can give a number of reasons for the amount of accidents on the M50 and the speed limits would be very low on the list:

1. People not keeping their distance for the speed they are travelling.
2. People not being prepared for their exit and braking heavily in the overtaking lane to cross two lanes and get off.
3. People not joining the motorway at the correct speed. Regularly you see cars coming down the on-ramp at less than 80kph
4. People on the motorway not moving out to the overtaking lane to allow traffic merge from on-ramps.
5. General stupidity, not paying attention and driving dangerously.

SpaceTime · 04-03-2015 1:09pm

d

Larbre34 wrote: »

Rubbernecking is another matter. On the continent, and particularly in mountainous areas, you see wind deflectors on motorways which double as visible barriers to the opposite carriageway. Fitting them on the M50 would cost a fortune, and should have been done when it was widened, but I think they should still look to erect them in problem areas, such as near slip and merge ramps where conflicts and collisions often occur.

Those should actually be fitted on ALL Irish long-distance motorways where the centre concrete barriers are used.

When they're not in place, it makes using full headlights almost as problematic as using them on a single carriageway as you will blind oncoming traffic.

I noticed, that what makes it even worse is that you often cannot see the cabs of trucks on the opposite carriageway because the headlights are below the crash barrier, but the cab is actually raised above. If it doesn't have lights at the top, it's basically not visible from the opposite side of the road and I've definitely had a few cases where I had full heads on and I've suddenly seen aggressive flashing from a truck on the opposite side which had been almost entirely invisible to me until he started flashing.

They should have been fitted when the motorways were built in the first place.

On the M50 and also the N40 in Cork both of which are distributor roads with tightly spaced junctions, they really need to do something about the lane behaviour though. The single biggest issue is people driving in the wrong lanes.

I no longer buy the 'bad signage' excuse. There are very good gantry signs on all of those roads at this stage. It was a valid excuse a decade ago though.

I'm sure something like clever use of electronic gantry signage could help though.

I do think though on signage they need to make destinations clearer.

For example on the M7 it should say something like

Portlaoise South
Portlaoise Central
Portlaoise North

Variable speed limits would be useful too on the M50, N7 and N40 and a few others, and possibly different speed limits on different lanes might work, although I haven't seen that done elsewhere so I'm unsure how it might play out.

The other issue on both the M50 and N40 is that there are incidences of escape lanes being used as parallel roads / short circuits between two exits.

In Cork the Rochestown / Douglas entrance onto the N40 (tunnel bound) and the Mahon Point exit start to operate as a parallel road when the main carriageways get busy. The result of this can be that it's impossible to merge and lethal to exit as people are shooting along between the two junctions at much higher speed than the traffic flow on the main carriageways.

In a situation like that, there should be a variable speed limit imposed of say 50 or 60km/h on the escape lane that trips into play when the main carriageways are not moving.

The M50 has a few of these too.

When the traffic isn't flowing on the next lane, the variable speed signage would kick in with flashing lights around it and this could be enforced by automatic speed cameras issuing fines.

They're not thinking these things through at all!

rrpc · 04-03-2015 1:34pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

When they're not in place, it makes using full headlights almost as problematic as using them on a single carriageway as you will blind oncoming traffic.

You should only use full beams on a motorway when there's no other traffic. Too many people use them regardless of what's in front of them on either carriageway.

SpaceTime · 04-03-2015 1:46pm

There was no other traffic in my carriageway and the truck on the other side of the barrier in the dark was basically 100% invisible, the cab's sitting (dark) above the barrier.

You can't see their lights, so you can't see them at all.

Where exactly did you get the impression I was driving around with full heads on when there was other traffic in view?!

(Lots of lecturing on this forum)

rrpc · 04-03-2015 2:00pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

There was no other traffic in my carriageway and the truck on the other side of the barrier in the dark was basically 100% invisible, the cab's sitting (dark) above the barrier.

You can't see their lights, so you can't see them at all.

Where exactly did you get the impression I was driving around with full heads on when there was other traffic in view?!

(Lots of lecturing on this forum)

Because you actually said you did.

It's not impossible to see a truck in the opposite carriageway rgardless of where their lights are situated. On an unlit road there's plenty of reflection from them and on a lit road, you don't require high beams anyway. Most trucks have small running lights on the roof of the cab.

Larbre34 · 04-03-2015 2:10pm

Ive mentioned this on other threads before, but it was the most frightening eye opener I ever had about driver behaviour in Ireland.

6 or 7 years ago I went for a spin with a mate in a highly marked Garda Traffic patrol car, V6 Mondeo, hit 200 kph on various motorway sections. On various bits of the N4 and M50 drivers dawdling in the overtaking lane were totally unaware of us being behind them despite the flashing roof bar and strobing headlights along with the siren of course. Ive heard it called the 'menopausal haze' but it applies equally to men and to all ages at times. The lack of attention people are giving to being in control of a ton and half of steel doing 100kph is just incredible.

Del2005 · 04-03-2015 2:19pm

Schadenfreudia wrote:

In the middle of this a guard was talking to the obviously uninjured drivers sitting at their steering wheels as he was writing stuff in his notebook.

Isn't it great that you driving on the opposite side of the road without rubber necking can tell that the driver is OK.

The problem is that once a person in a crash complains of pain it has to be treated as spinal injury, even a low speed crash has a lot of energy, and some of our motorists think that a crash is easy money.

Rubber necking is a huge problem in every country not just here.

Guy:Incognito · 04-03-2015 2:20pm

rrpc wrote: »

I can give a number of reasons for the amount of accidents on the M50 and the speed limits would be very low on the list:

1. People not keeping their distance for the speed they are travelling.
2. People not being prepared for their exit and braking heavily in the overtaking lane to cross two lanes and get off.
3. People not joining the motorway at the correct speed. Regularly you see cars coming down the on-ramp at less than 80kph
4. People on the motorway not moving out to the overtaking lane to allow traffic merge from on-ramps.
5. General stupidity, not paying attention and driving dangerously.

If you're doing 1 correctly theres no need to do 4.

Problems arise because for some reason people refuse to keep in the left lane of the 2 that most on ramps have. In most cases the right lane terminates a short distance after the bend. The left lane continues all the way to the next exit. But all the idiots bunch in the right lane and then all have to try merge at the same time , a few feet from each others bumper from a gap about 2 cars lengths . Its ridiculous. Stay left and you've the whole distance to the next junction to merge properly.

Irish Steve · 04-03-2015 2:46pm

Greyian wrote: »

No, there's a reason why hands free systems are legal, whereas holding a phone in your hand isn't. You say there's a "fundamental problem with an attitude towards mobile phones usage in vehicles", but you're talking about punishing people who do not have that attitude problem.

If conversation is distracting, we should probably ban passengers in cars. People, travelling in a car together, are highly likely to be familiar with each other. It's reasonable to assume that people who know each other well are likely to encourage in friendly conversation. Should we, therefore, in the event of an accident occurring, assume that any cars with passengers were responsible, because they must have been conversing irresponsibly? No, because that's ridiculous, as is punishing people who are legally using their phones in a safe manner.

If someone forgot to take their phone out of the pocket, and someone called it, and the driver was in an accident while it was ringing/vibrating (without answering/removing it from pocket etc), should the driver be held responsible? What you're suggesting is ludicrous.

People are innocent until proven guilty, yet you're suggesting charging/punishing people on the suspicion that they may be guilty.

On the basis of the number of near misses I have seen on a regular basis over many years on the M50, if an incident occurs, and a mobile phone was in use by the driver at the time, I don't care if it was being used legally or illegally, the incident occurring means that the vehicle was not being appropriately driven by the driver.

Your example of a phone in pocket seeking attention is irrelevant, it is not IN USE at the time of the incident, my definition of IN USE is that a call, or text, is being processed, so the attention of the driver is being distracted.

And yes, there are times when the other occupants of the vehicle ARE a major distraction, and a partial cause of the problem.

The emphasis I am looking for is to get to the point where using a mobile while driving in heavy traffic becomes the exception rather than the rule, or the norm, it's been clearly shown by many research projects that the use of the phone is way more distracting that a simple conversation, or changing channels on a radio, or adjusting the heater, and the harsh reality is that if the driver is not capable of that level of multi tasking, then there is a doubt about the validity of letting them drive at all.

There's been mentions of drivers stopping to read maps in the middle of the road, a while back I passed a line of traffic on the other carriageway that was exiting the M2 the wrong way down an "on ramp" because of an accident further down the road, reversing back the hard shoulder, all of these sorts of things should be a ban, regardless of the number of points on the licence, for sheer total stupidity. Stopping in a carriageway lane to force an entry into a queue should also be a mandatory ban, if there's no way off, then the ONLY solution is to continue to the next intersection.

And yes, I'd also make it a requirement that after the ban, the driver has to pass a test before resuming driving. Harsh? Too darn right, driving is not a right that everyone gets automatically, it requires a certain level of skill and respect for the rules that are in place to make it safe for everyone.

The American concept of lane blocker barriers to prevent multiple lane changes close to junctions would be a big help, I'd have no problem if the right hand 2 lanes from Valleymount to Blanchardstown were barrier locked so that only through traffic could use them, but that would need some other changes to improve the access slips at some of the existing junctions, as they're not fit for purpose as they stand now, it's impossible to join the traffic lanes at a suitable speed at present.

Schadenfreudia · 04-03-2015 2:48pm

Del2005 wrote: »

Isn't it great that you driving on the opposite side of the road without rubber necking can tell that the driver is OK.

Yes it was. I find it is difficult to advance when the cars in front of and beside me are stationary.

In that situation an observant chap like me can take in a lot of detail.....

SpaceTime · 04-03-2015 2:50pm

rrpc wrote: »

Because you actually said you did.

It's not impossible to see a truck in the opposite carriageway rgardless of where their lights are situated. On an unlit road there's plenty of reflection from them and on a lit road, you don't require high beams anyway. Most trucks have small running lights on the roof of the cab.

Actually, in some cases it is.

Some trucks don't have small running lights on the roof of the cab, and those are the ones that are basically invisible, especially if you add in slight drizzle to the mix.

But, then again, I suppose I'm supposed to have some kind of radar-based eye sight...

(Gives up!)

The NRA are perfect, and road design is never ever an issue in Ireland.

/end sarcasm.

Depending on your driving position, the position of the barrier and the intensity of the truck's headlights, if they do not have roof-mounted lights, in some cases they are basically invisible.

bucketybuck · 04-03-2015 3:07pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

But, then again, I suppose I'm supposed to have some kind of radar-based eye sight...

You don't need radar vision to see a fecking truck coming towards you on a motorway at night. Invisible my arse.

SpaceTime · 04-03-2015 3:12pm

bucketybuck wrote: »

You don't need radar vision to see a fecking truck coming towards you on a motorway at night. Invisible my arse.

I'll post dash cam footage of it next time.

You absolutely cannot see them in a lot of cases.

Your lights are much brighter than the lighting on the opposite side of the road anyway (unless you're driving a car with particularly dim headlights). The concrete barrier is at exactly the right height to block the beam from the truck's lights and if they've no roof lights, you basically see nothing at all as the pool of light (even with dips) completely blinds you to any dull change of light on the other side of a barrier.

I think you're forgetting that these new stretches of motorway basically have a concrete wall up the middle. They're not open barriers.

Sam Russell · 04-03-2015 3:31pm

Hino trucks used to have three green lights over the cab which was very useful when driving narrow country roads as you got the idea the vehicle approaching was a bit bigger than a car. Very useful on a dark drizzly night.

rrpc · 04-03-2015 4:22pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'll post dash cam footage of it next time.

You absolutely cannot see them in a lot of cases.

Your lights are much brighter than the lighting on the opposite side of the road anyway (unless you're driving a car with particularly dim headlights). The concrete barrier is at exactly the right height to block the beam from the truck's lights and if they've no roof lights, you basically see nothing at all as the pool of light (even with dips) completely blinds you to any dull change of light on the other side of a barrier.

I think you're forgetting that these new stretches of motorway basically have a concrete wall up the middle. They're not open barriers.

All the data you've given us about this situation suggests that you were in the overtaking lane, with your high beams on, on a lit stretch of motorway with a central barrier no higher than the roof of a car... and it was a very twisty section of motorway too.

Otherwise I can't see how you couldn't have seen a truck coming from a mile off.

Terrible crash management on the M50

Comments