Plans to cut speed limits ‘will significantly improve road safety' – minister
irishnews.com
irishnews.com
The Garda then give statistics of 0.3% are speeding, but look how fast some people went (typically 160 in an 80 or similar). The RSA, when they did free flow analysis, found more than 50% speeding, and higher percentages in urban areas than rural motorway.
Meanwhile, small roads have slowly had their speed limits upgraded without corresponding infrastructure changes, such that 2 lane N roads over bogs with no shoulders can have 100kph (up from 80), in places where you can see the scrapes from frames hitting the pavement. The boundaries of towns have moved in, so that places that used to be 50 are now 60.
But it's obviously more difficult to implement, and more difficult for the speed camera management.
Yet, it would be better and certainly safer than the "one speed for those type of road fit all"
(to be honest, this proposal is more advanced than other countries where you hav three or four types of speed limit, and that's all)
Some country side roads are very narrow, surrounded by stone walls on both sides. There are no sidewalks obviously.
You'd be lucky to push 40 on the straight sections!
I'm based nearby so Dunloe/Black Valley/Molls is a regular cycle route for me
In Germany the police needs a specific reason for placing a speed camera. Like a statistic that there are a lot of accidents on that street at that particular spot, or that the street is exceeding noise levels. So, they already have to take into account every individual speed limit; and if the Germans can do this, the Irish can certainly too! :)
You kinda already have that, but you cannot make it too confusing for drivers.
German example for roads between cities: No sign at all, default speed limit 100. 70 sign (usually with a reason e.g. winding road, trees etc). 50 sign or even 30 sign, no overtaking sign, e.g. narrow road, pot holes, intersections. Works, but can be quite stressful to keep track of particularly for new drivers.
Issues with that: The locals who drive 80 will complain that there is no reason for a 40 sign and laws tend to require a reason (e.g. speeding tickets are cancelled retroactively if the state cannot justify why there needs to be a limit). Too many signs and cases confuse drivers and are easily missed. Installing, replacing, repairing and keeping track of signs is expensive. Too many rapid adjustments also don't work well with slowing down, accelerating, reading signs etc., so it cannot be too fine grained.
That is why there are "one speed for those type of road fit all" approaches: to keep matters simple.
And I, for one, I think it's great. It's not a popular position but I'm a speed limit enforcement maximalist. I think if you're going 31 in a 30, after accounting for measurement errors, there should be enforcement action. Driving is one of the most dangerous things we do so I'm not sure why we're all so blasé about breaking this particular law.
Encouraging everyone to break the law just means selective enforcement is a bigger problem. If safety depends on cars moving the same speed, then everyone else should slow down to the speed limit to match my speed.
I really don't get this brinksmanship stuff. "Oh it's just 5 MPH, it's just 10 MPH." A limit was posted. The negotiation process doesn't happen _after_ the sign is put up. It's very simple.
All that said, I don't like ALPRs. They're so bad for privacy. I just know that they'll be connected to the Internet and used to track people wherever they drive, many of them already are.
Some countries have, or used to have, regulations saying that the devices aren't allowed to record the number plate details unless a crime is detected. I don't know how well that works since you're relying on the police to self-enforce that.
The UK doesn't have any such regulations and has fully embraced ANPR. They are being deployed everywhere now, for speed limit and red light enforcement, implementing toll roads and zones, enforcing modal filters, detecting cars reported in crime, detecting cars without insurance/tax/inspection, etc. and much of it is being converted to report to the "National ANPR Data Centre".
I wouldn't say I'm pleased about the privacy implications, but most people here are fine with it and seem to derive more benefit from it than harm. Vehicle crime is one of the UK's biggest problems, and I know several people who've had their stolen cars recovered thanks to the system, and ~everyone supports cracking down on uninsured drivers. It's become more controversial lately due to low emissions zones and the potential future introduction of road pricing, but that isn't really a push back for privacy reasons.
I just think in the UK, people don't have a cultural expectation of privacy when driving.
Interesting, because in the states, similar infrastructure is being deployed specifically for road pricing. I assume then we can start working on the more sensible uses you describe, but don’t have high hopes that it will be easy or quick.
I echo the sentiments of the parents where limits should be absolutely enforced, but also your concern about privacy.
At the end of the day though, this is what the majority is asking for, by dint of consistently breaking the rules. If people obeyed the limits, there’d be no need to expand the vast quantities of resources to build all the infrastructure for these cameras. It certainly sucks for those who always obey the limits (probably a low single digit percentage of drivers) and will get caught in the dragnet.
I foresee IR dazzlers becoming more popular on license plates and windshield/window frames.
Sure, it is a limit rather than a recommendation. In terms of statute, anyway. Almost every social or legal convention in the UK pragmatically treats it as a recommended speed for some unknown reason and you could even pick up the attention of the police doing 40mph in a NSL on a bad day. (I even recall my driving instructor telling me I should "do the speed limit" unless I had good reason not to!)
Getting older, I'm in support of your idea, though. Stick the cruise control on at 50mph and see how big an entourage could be mustered with no easy way to overtake. It could almost be as fun as speeding was. I've long assumed this is the way lorry drivers keep things interesting..
My instructor very much taught me that it's a limit rather than a recommendation, however, that's also balanced out with the minor fault of "making progress". Obviously if someone just drives at 5mph everywhere then they're clearly not a competent driver, but there's definitely a grey area. My instructor said as a rule of thumb, on a clear day, clear straight road without any hazards, you should be within 5mph of the limit on the test, but that otherwise, examiners are relatively tolerant of driving below the limit.
As far as the police go, I think it's because people driving slow is generally suspicious of perhaps them being a drunk driver or some other issue with their competence or road worthiness. I was once driving at 40mph on a dual carriageway in Scotland and got pulled over, but I explained to the police that I was just low on fuel due to a number of closed petrol stations, so I'm trying to conserve fuel by driving at the speed I get the best economy otherwise I won't make it to Inverness. They were completely satisfied with that and let me on my way.
Nowadays I'm more like you described, and I prefer to just punch in the speed limit on the cruise control and enjoy my podcast/music. If the traffic ahead slows down, I slow down. I leave the outside lane to the angry BMWs.
(My belief may be biased by a certain person I used to know: he was driving one of two vehicles with me and my friends to an event that wouldn't start until both arrived; I asked why he was doing 98 mph (UK speed limit 70), and his answer was "If I was going faster I might have to waste time with a court case to prove I wasn't driving dangerously" rather than to slow down. The other vehicle was driven by someone who obeyed the speed limit, and we started at the same time and place).
Biggest one is just merging / changing lanes. Often you have to go 10 or 20 over the limit to merge without impeding a lane of traffic. I sometimes see people stopping(!) at the end of a merging lane when there was a perfectly good gap they could have gotten by just speeding up. Trying to merge from a dead stop onto an 80kph+ road is more dangerous than going 90 fore sure.
Another one is on 2-lane roads. You catch up to a truck/lorry and see a gap. The gap is big enough to get the overtake done, but you instinctively go faster to make the whole thing less of a close call. Is society really helped if every truck has a 20-car queue behind it because people are afraid they'll get fined if they help traffic flow?
On a more general note, I agree that there needs to better enforcement. However, better enforcement to me includes removing all the sneaky money-making schemes you see in the wild. They put a speed limit sign on the wrong side of the road, behind bushes or behind street-side parking (often making the limit non-enforceable legally), put up a speed camera and cash in on people that won't defend themselves.
That shit has to stop, put those ressources on deadly country roads, in front of schools and other accident hotspots instead. While we're at it, do more preventative traffic stops. It's not right that blind grandma or psychotic grandson have to seriously hurt someone before anything happens.
Little anecdote here: I passed my driving exam despite going 30kph over the limit while overtaking a tractor. I just told the examiner that I was trained to leave the opposite lane asap, slowed down as soon as I noticed how fast I was going and there was no issue.
Personally, I would imagine it's very unlikely to improve safety, and have seen near crashes result from it, so I think if you're needing to go 30 kph over the limit to make the overtake, then you probably should have just waited. However, I am completely willing to accept that this is a case where evidence should outweigh anecdotes, so if there was some study and reliable data to show that this sort of a tolerance is a good idea, then we should absolutely adopt it into the law under some objective criteria.
I do of course agree about malicious enforcement though. Again that's something that doesn't tend to be a big problem in the UK. Speed limits must be posted on both sides of the road to be enforceable, and if it's not the default limit (e.g. 30 in a built up area), there will be repeater signs every 200 metres or so. Plus we tend to also paint the limits on the road, and speed cameras are painted yellow and have a sign telling you that there are cameras, often with a reminder of the limit. You do occasionally get situations where the signs are obscured by trees, especially now that maintenance budgets have been cut, but you can use that to get out of the fine. My experience driving around the UK is that it's really rare that I don't know what the limit is, and if I don't, 99% of the time it's my fault for not paying attention.
Then i found myself backing into a hedge to avoid a large speeding tour bus in Ireland!
As strict enforcement without the leniency of warnings go: most rural areas in the States because city and county revenue heavily depends on speeding tickets and fining home owners for petty infractions.
The most essential enforcement is in the areas:
1) residential
2) residential/commercial
Another racket is HOV/toll-lanes (also known as yuppie-scofflaw lanes) because they create more traffic, create dangers of speed differentials, and penalize people by socioeconomic strata. I wished the US adopted day-fines. [1]
1. https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/constitutionali...
PS: I haven't driven around Ireland (yet). As a general principle, I don't drive in other countries because of the insurance liability and idiosyncrasies in driving conventions and laws. RHD<->LHD can also be a hurdle to some.
Typical swiss driver is anything but typical driver basically anywhere - polite, respectful, and just doesn't break rules in mormal situations. I really like it this way, and couldnt care less for the limit, saving 1-2 minutes is neglible every time.
That being said, anytime I cross the border to Germany there are these few first minutes of going faster, our roof box is basically the limit so somewhere around 160. Without it, maybe 220. After few minutes novelty wears off, you realize how dangerous and frustrating in actual traffic such speeds are, and go back to something closer to 130.
With fully automated driving, this wouldnt be a topic, I would be reading a book or sleeping. Looking forward to this.
My SUV gets better mileage at high speed cruising due to the gearing. As long as you’re not constantly accelerating/decelerating and going with the flow.
what model would that be?
> As long as you’re not constantly accelerating/decelerating and going with the flow.
this can save even more fuel, if your SUV still uses fossil fuels and you accelerate at the optimal engine load and then glide. It's called pulse and glide.
Once you start working the pedal, mileage drops ~20%.
That's a big safety and pollution problem in itself.
Honestly I feel that driving faster is safer for me, since I tend to zone out if I don't have to pay attention to overtaking trucks.
If you don't drive while being sleepy this is just a matter of getting used to it. I used to drive to family visits 160-170km/h, but switched to 110 km/h (or train+bike depending on the circumstances). It feels slow at first, but you get used to it. The same when you do it the way around.
Stay the hell out of the left lane, unless you’re passing. If you’re in the left lane and someone is in your rear-view, you move right. Otherwise, drive as fast as you feel like you can safely go, without having to worry about being pulled over and cited for doing something perfectly safe.
Driving on the Autobahn in Germany was one of the more liberating experiences of my life. I was genuinely sad when I got to the Netherlands and had to worry about keeping my speed below 130 when passing.
no, you finish overtaking as planned, except it is an emergency vehicle
There will be an upper speed limit somewhere, it might just be higher than cars can currently drive.
Also unrestricted parts of the autobahn have a pretty bad safety record.
I’ve never seen honking at 10kph under the limit, and I regularly drive longish trips to Germany for shopping on 80kph roads where you can often get stuck behind someone doing an indicated 72 (so about 69).
Also Swiss top up foreign fines - they apply the Swiss penalty based on amount by which the limit was exceeded, if there’s a data sharing agreement, as there is with Germany. Any enthusiasm is based on less enforcement rather than lower fines.
Once I hit Germany, I generally drive about 160kph on unrestricted motorway, but wander up towards 200kph if the lanes are clear. It is not stressful to drive fast as long as you’re not overtaking with a large speed difference. 130kph feels quite slow on the autobahn, it’s very noticeable when you’re on a restricted stretch.
Time savings add up on a 6+ hour trip, especially if you leave after work; +30kph is 180km after 6 hours, it can make the difference between needing a hotel or not.
When I ride my motorbike, I generally head to Germany, in large part because 80kph is so slow and Swiss enforcement is more eager. Of course speeding penalties are the same, since Swiss top up any German fines to Swiss levels.
There was a tragic case a few weeks back (on exam results day I think) when a speeding car was totalled in an urban area killing 3/4 occupants.
Reducing the speed from 100 to 80 won't change that behaviour.
> The limit on main arterial routes in towns and cities would be capped at 50km/h.
> On national secondary roads, the baseline would fall from 100km/h to 80km/h.
One thing I always wonder with changes like this is, why make such a dramatic change (a 40% reduction in urban areas) in a single step? It seems more sensible to make the the change more slowly and study the results. Or, even better, make the change in half the country and let it run for a year as an experiment. (This could be a multi-armed experiment when you compare to, e.g., increasing enforcement instead.)
The 50->30 (30->20 mph) is a well known baseline 0 change for built up areas. It's meant to be not for major roads, it's meant for neighborhoods and other areas with many pedestrians.
> It seems more sensible to make the the change more slowly and study the results.
That was already done locally and other countries exist. So you would have to argue what makes Ireland that unique that further experiments are needed.
[0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180092...
> the savings in people's time outweigh any extra fuel use.
opinion
Because speeding causes traffic congestion, there is a fair chance this would even be an economic win since tamer traffic moving consistent speeds is better for commercial drivers.
Speeding helps on very long trips through lightly trafficked areas: if you’re driving on a desert highway through the American southwest, sure, going 85 instead of 75 will shave an hour off of your all-day drive but the vast majority of trips are much, much shorter than that and the risks to others are much higher.
This won't do any good if this fact is not taken into consideration.
(edit: and It's not like everyone is cruising along at or above the limit. I pass a lot of cars in free flowing traffic when driving with cruise control on at 120)
The 80kph roads that are double track with grass down the center are a ... fixture of the Irish rural environment.
The only purpose is to be able to give tickets to take money from people.
Most traffic in Germany, even in the unlimited sections, tends to max out around 130. France tends to hit that 130 and not go above it.
I stand by 120 as a generally reasonable speed for a motorway with a speed limit.
Austria, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, Italy all have 130 km/h speed limit on highways.
Where I live the upper limit is 120. If you drive at 120 people won't stop overtaking you. It's done this way because they have those mobile car radars to give people tickets when they need money.
The limits were higher, then Carter made then 55, nationally. Montana used to have "Safe and Reasonable" as a daytime speed limit. During 55, it was forced to be that, but it was widely ignored and there was a $5 fine for "Excessively Utilizing Natural Resources". People would hold a $5 bill out the window when pulled over.
I don't even have a rebuttal for a statement so demonstrably untrue. Speed limits were in place for decades before the 70s gas shortages.
And the limit on backroads is reasonable considering that oncoming traffic is passing by you mere feet/meters away.
It seems entirely reasonable
But most of the rural 80km/h road strands are too dangerous.