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

M50 Congestion

Options
1…1314161819…22

Comments

  • Options
    #452
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    First Up wrote: »
    How does congestion cause accidents?

    Imbeciles constantly, and badly, changing lanes the second they see a different one moving marginally faster.


  • Options
    #453
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    donvito99 wrote:
    This question asked in a thread about the M50, ladies and gentlemen.

    Have you an answer?


  • Options
    #454
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    ReginaldSmythV wrote:
    Imbeciles constantly, and badly, changing lanes the second they see a different one moving marginally faster.


    So is it congestion or imbeciles causing them?


  • Options
    #455
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    First Up wrote: »
    So is it congestion or imbeciles causing them?

    Too many cars causes congestion and then these idiots cause accidents which leads to more congestion.


  • Options
    #456
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    ReginaldSmythV wrote:
    Too many cars causes congestion and then these idiots cause accidents which leads to more congestion.

    So are you attributing blame for the accidents to the idiots or the congestion?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #457
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    First Up wrote: »
    So are you attributing blame for the accidents to the idiots or the congestion?

    Mostly the idiots. They’ll do the crazy lane changes in light or heavy traffic.


  • Options
    #458
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    ReginaldSmythV wrote:
    Mostly the idiots. They’ll do the crazy lane changes in light or heavy traffic.


    Correct.


  • Options
    #459
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    First Up wrote: »
    Correct.

    The heavy rush hour traffic just increases the chances of their stupid manoeuvres causing an accident as they have less room.


  • Options
    #460
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    ReginaldSmythV wrote:
    The heavy rush hour traffic just increases the chances of their stupid manoeuvres causing an accident as they have less room.

    Of course but all accidenta are caused by driver behaviour and nothing else.

    The sad reality is that a significant number of drivers on Irish motorways don't know how to drive properly on motorways.


  • Options
    #461
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    First Up wrote: »
    Of course but all accidenta are caused by driver behaviour and nothing else.

    The sad reality is that a significant number of drivers on Irish motorways don't know how to drive properly on motorways.

    A significant number just don’t give a crap. But yeah, definitely the biggest problem on the roads here is the people in a lot of cars.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #462
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    ReginaldSmythV wrote:
    A significant number just don’t give a crap. But yeah, definitely the biggest problem on the roads here is the people in a lot of cars.


    It would help if people accepted that most M50 delays are directly caused by driver behaviour. Then we could move on to doing something about it, instead of just looking for billions to be spent on new road or rail links - or riding hobby horses about bicycles.


  • Options
    #463
    DaveyDave
    Registered Users Posts: 6,199 ✭✭✭DaveyDave


    Anytime I'm driving the M50 and it's busy enough to have all 3 lanes moving near enough the same I don't even bother changing lanes, might as well just ride it out. Then you see some clown weaving between lanes and cutting it close just to get 1 car ahead. Then you end up passing them when your lane picks up...


  • Options
    #464
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    First Up wrote: »
    It would help if people accepted that most M50 delays are directly caused by driver behaviour. Then we could move on to doing something about it, instead of just looking for billions to be spent on new road or rail links - or riding hobby horses about bicycles.

    I’d agree. Even the authorities don’t seem to care as they could have it blanketed with cameras within months if they really wanted to sort things out.


  • Options
    #465
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    ReginaldSmythV wrote:
    I’d agree. Even the authorities don’t seem to care as they could have it blanketed with cameras within months if they really wanted to sort things out.

    Education, surveillance, enforcement and eye watering sanctions.

    Then lets see how the M50 perfoms when used properly before looking to do anything else.


  • Options
    #466
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,290 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Basically, any excuse so I don't have to get out of my car...


  • Options
    #467
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    Basically, any excuse so I don't have to get out of my car...

    Work don’t let me sit in the car park so I have to get out at some stage. And you really shouldn’t be getting out on the M50.


  • Options
    #468
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,506 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    First Up wrote: »
    Education, surveillance, enforcement and eye watering sanctions.

    Then lets see how the M50 perfoms when used properly before looking to do anything else.
    +1
    You have to laugh at the idea that some of these ecomentalists have that people will give up their cars if X,Y,Z happens.
    Sure, some might, but the vast majority wont.


  • Options
    #469
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Personally I'm laughing more at the idea that the M50 will be 'fixed' with "Education, surveillance, enforcement and eye watering sanctions"

    But then, it's a dozen times now we've been over the fact that most congestion causing driving behaviour isn't anywhere near illegal.

    Perhaps someone can explain to me how you give eye watering sanctions to someone who brakes more cautiously than anyone else? Are we going to give sanctions to the rain? Maybe summary executions for everyone whose car breaks down on the road? Hilarious stuff lads.


  • Options
    #470
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,506 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Personally I'm laughing more at the idea that the M50 will be 'fixed' with "Education, surveillance, enforcement and eye watering sanctions"

    But then, it's a dozen times now we've been over the fact that most congestion causing driving behaviour isn't anywhere near illegal.

    Perhaps someone can explain to me how you give eye watering sanctions to someone who brakes more cautiously than anyone else? Are we going to give sanctions to the rain? Maybe summary executions for everyone whose car breaks down on the road? Hilarious stuff lads.
    Lets all float to work on cows with picture of Greta on the side of them.
    Of course they'd have to be special non-farting cows for emissions rules.


  • Options
    #471
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,496 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Personally I'm laughing more at the idea that the M50 will be 'fixed' with "Education, surveillance, enforcement and eye watering sanctions"
    ye of little faith. there's obviously a linear relationship between enforcement and road capacity. if you have enough enforcement, you can cram as many cars as you want onto the road, driving literally bumper to bumper at 60km/h because enforcement engenders human reaction times measured in nanoseconds.

    or;
    i'll mention this again - the standard yardstick for safe driving is a two second gap to the car in front. given that there are four lanes on most of the M50, in each direction, if you stuffed it to the gills and had cars occupying lanes to this level 24 hours a day, it has a theoretical capacity at any one point of 172,800 cars a day, in each direction. that's basically saying the M50 would be permanently full to safe capacity morning, noon and night, to maintain that capacity.

    what we're continually expected to believe is that we can engineer out the issue of driving conditions or human reaction time with driver education and enforcement.

    it's quite simple - the more cars you stuff on the M50, the more likely collisions are, and the greater the impact of those collisions on traffic.

    and the M50 is not like the cork or the galway road, where many people will join it and stay on it for 100km; it's a road where cars are constantly leaving and joining. lane changing is a given.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #472
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    ye of little faith. there's obviously a linear relationship between enforcement and road capacity. if you have enough enforcement, you can cram as many cars as you want onto the road, driving literally bumper to bumper at 60km/h because enforcement engenders human reaction times measured in nanoseconds.

    or;
    i'll mention this again - the standard yardstick for safe driving is a two second gap to the car in front. given that there are four lanes on most of the M50, in each direction, if you stuffed it to the gills and had cars occupying lanes to this level 24 hours a day, it has a theoretical capacity at any one point of 172,800 cars a day, in each direction. that's basically saying the M50 would be permanently full to safe capacity morning, noon and night, to maintain that capacity.

    what we're continually expected to believe is that we can engineer out the issue of driving conditions or human reaction time with driver education and enforcement.

    it's quite simple - the more cars you stuff on the M50, the more likely collisions are, and the greater the impact of those collisions on traffic.

    and the M50 is not like the cork or the galway road, where many people will join it and stay on it for 100km; it's a road where cars are constantly leaving and joining. lane changing is a given.

    I was ready to leap on your first paragraph, I’m glad you were being sarcastic!

    I agree, enforcement as a means of congestion control is almost physically impossible, never mind the fact (and I’ll say it again, because most posters keep ignoring it) that most congestion causing behaviour is not enforceable.


  • Options
    #473
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Yeah ANPR will fix this. Nothing to do with all the cars

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/m50-traffic-between-6am-and-7am-increases-by-86-in-five-years-1.4106783?mode=amp


  • Options
    #474
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    MJohnston wrote:
    Perhaps someone can explain to me how you give eye watering sanctions to someone who brakes more cautiously than anyone else? Are we going to give sanctions to the rain? Maybe summary executions for everyone whose car breaks down on the road? Hilarious stuff lads.

    The person who is braking doesn't get sanctioned. The idiot who rear ends him does.

    Good driving involves adapting to the conditions.


  • Options
    #475
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    First Up wrote: »
    The person who is braking doesn't get sanctioned. The idiot who rear ends him does.

    Good driving involves adapting to the conditions.

    You're so single-minded about accidents being the only possible cause of M50 congestion.

    I asked about the overly cautious braker, not because that would lead to an accident, but because it will lead to the cautious braker behind them braking a little bit harder, and so on and so on...this is a specific, well-measured phenomenon called accordion effect traffic - and it is very frequently the cause of gridlock on motorways. Here's a good demonstration of how the slight, unexpected braking of one car can cause standstill for a dozen cars:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M&feature=emb_title

    Now multiply that by the tens of thousands of cars that use the M50.

    That's the kind of thing that causes regular congestion on the M50, along with breakdowns, debris, weather, and plenty of other things that are simply not preventable.

    If you've hypothetically gotten rid of all accidents somehow, you're still going to have a frequently gridlocked M50.


  • Options
    #476
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,130 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    ELM327 wrote: »
    +1
    You have to laugh at the idea that some of these ecomentalists have that people will give up their cars if X,Y,Z happens.
    Sure, some might, but the vast majority wont.

    Tax breaks for pt use and increased tolls charges on private vehicle usage should be introduced after a viable pt system is introduced both in the Dublin area within the m50 and along the radial routes for the commuters outside the m50.
    The pt system upgrades will never be introduced, IMO, so car users don’t really need to worry-unfortunately :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #477
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    tom1ie wrote: »
    Tax breaks for pt use and increased tolls charges on private vehicle usage should be introduced after a viable pt system is introduced both in the Dublin area within the m50 and along the radial routes for the commuters outside the m50.
    The pt system upgrades will never be introduced, IMO, so car users don’t really need to worry-unfortunately :rolleyes:

    A viable PT system can't be achieved without these in place first. This argument is a classic motorist red herring


  • Options
    #478
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 7,815 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    A viable PT system can be created without pricing poor people off the road.

    I want to see much stricter enforcement of bus lanes and red lights. That way we can increase the capacity and speed of our largely bus based PT.


  • Options
    #479
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    liamog wrote: »
    A viable PT system can be created without pricing poor people off the road.

    I want to see much stricter enforcement of bus lanes and red lights. That way we can increase the capacity and speed of our largely bus based PT.

    We can price both rich and poor off the road! Win win ;)


  • Options
    #480
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 7,815 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    We can price both rich and poor off the road! Win win ;)

    You don't price the rich off the road, you close the road for non public transport!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #481
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    liamog wrote: »
    A viable PT system can be created without pricing poor people off the road.

    Go take a look at the car ownership maps from the BusConnects reports - people from less-wealthy areas are significantly less likely to use cars to travel to work.


Advertisement