Road deaths by age

Padraig Mor · 03-08-2006 5:37pm #1

Using the details on the RTE website, I decided to graph the road deaths for the year so far by age group. Just wondering what the people here think of them. While the 17-25 group are no doubt leading the death toll, I thought that their portion would be larger. I was quite surprised at how many were killed in the over 65 age group yet we never hear a word said about their safety record.

Note: this is from a list of those who died on the roads. RTE supply no info as to who was driving, passengers, pedestrians etc.

Fey! · 03-08-2006 5:40pm

Interesting stats.

I think a few of the older ones may have been pedestrians, if memory serves.

overdriver · 03-08-2006 5:41pm

Padraig Mor wrote:

Using the details on the RTE website, I decided to graph the road deaths for the year so far by age group. Just wondering what the people here think of them. While the 17-25 group are no doubt leading the death toll, I thought that their portion would be larger. I was quite surprised at how many were killed in the over 65 age group yet we never hear a word said about their safety record.

Note: this is from a list of those who died on the roads. RTE supply no info as to who was driving, passengers, pedestrians etc.

There's no money to be had from loading the over 65's. They have bus passes. Hence no coverage.

Anan1 · 03-08-2006 5:47pm

An older person is also presumably more likely to die in a given accident, whether in a car or being hit by one, than their younger counterparts.

ninty9er · 03-08-2006 5:54pm

Anan1 wrote:

An older person is also presumably more likely to die in a given accident, whether in a car or being hit by one, than their younger counterparts.

Not necessarily true. The more alert you are the more serious your injuries.

(i.e. if you anticipate a crash and tense up, you are medically more likey to cause yourself muscle and skeletal damage, which can cause internal bleeding)

Why doesn't RTE do a graphable survey on death toll by seatbel wearers vs. those who didn't have one on

gyppo · 03-08-2006 6:23pm

ninty9er wrote:

Not necessarily true. The more alert you are the more serious your injuries.

(i.e. if you anticipate a crash and tense up, you are medically more likey to cause yourself muscle and skeletal damage, which can cause internal bleeding)

Why doesn't RTE do a graphable survey on death toll by seatbel wearers vs. those who didn't have one on

I agree with you to a point. eg. a drunk/drugged/very relaxed person will incur far less damage than an alert person when falling off a ladder, say.

However, in the event of a serious car accident, the kinetic energy released is going to be at such a level that it won't make much odds whether the person is tense or not.

The survey on death vs. whether a seatbelt was employed or not is a good idea.

mike65 · 03-08-2006 6:48pm

I reckon youngsters who whine about insurance should just take a long look at that purple block - more than twice as many as my age group. Which is why I'm not paying 2000 a year I guess.

I suspect the over 65s are mainly pedestrians and farmer types.

Mike.

Robbo · 03-08-2006 6:56pm

I wonder could we compare this to another histogram from the provisional census info breaking down the general population by age?

mike65 · 03-08-2006 7:02pm

I just whizzed through the 2006 preliminary census figures and there is no age group breakdown.

2002 figs go to Table 3A.

Mike.

$Leon$ · 03-08-2006 7:07pm

Robbo wrote:

I wonder could we compare this to another histogram from the provisional census info breaking down the general population by age?

I think going on the last cencus somewhere in the region of 25-30% of the population were in this age bracket. I would imagine this proportion has got higher due to the recent influx of eastern europen workers who would also mainly be in this bracket.

mloc123 · 03-08-2006 8:13pm

I wish there wasn't a 17-25 group. 8 years is a big difference, especially at younger ages. I don't like being lumped in with 17 year olds :rolleyes:

unkel · 03-08-2006 11:04pm

Not all that meaningful on their own, those statistics. I would like to see much more detailed statistics on accidents myself

mloc123 wrote:

I wish there wasn't a 17-25 group. 8 years is a big difference, especially at younger ages. I don't like being lumped in with 17 year olds :rolleyes:

Fair point, especially if you've been driving since you were in your teens. Then again, these are statistics for road deaths, not drivers getting killed

R.O.R · 04-08-2006 8:29am

Personally I think it would be good if they published the road death figures broken down by licenced / Provisional / un-licenced drivers (not including pedestrians - obviously). Think it would be very interesting to see the percentage of un-licenced drivers involved in fatal road accidents, as I'd guess it's fairly high. Might provoke the Gardai to clampdown on provisional drivers!

Padraig Mor · 04-08-2006 9:11am

I would hazard a guess that the 'younger' age group would make up a - relatively speaking - low proportion of overall road users, making their 'slice' even scarier. e.g. a very large percentage of, say, 35 - 60 yr olds will drive but not nearly so high a percentage of 17 - 25 yr olds will be driving due to high insurance costs etc.

R.O.R wrote:

Personally I think it would be good if they published the road death figures broken down by licenced / Provisional / un-licenced drivers (not including pedestrians - obviously). Think it would be very interesting to see the percentage of un-licenced drivers involved in fatal road accidents, as I'd guess it's fairly high. Might provoke the Gardai to clampdown on provisional drivers!

AFAIK a lower percentage of provisional drivers are killed compared to their actual percentage of drivers, i.e. a prov. driver is less likely to be killed than a licenced driver.

heggie · 04-08-2006 10:32am

I would guess you're wrong there, I think there is much much more of a driving population in the age group of 17 - 25, especially taking into account our young population demographic

edit: also, as the vast majority of deaths are outside dublin (where it's cheaper to insure!?! -and dont give me that theft crap, how is a young persons car more likely to be stoeln?) and imo there seems to be even more younger drivers in some parts of the country than in dublin.

luckat · 04-08-2006 11:00am

They actually do publish statistics broken down by age - though I can't remember where the newspapers got them last time I saw them.

Maybe try the Dept of Transport and Dept of Justice press releases? Or the figures might be quoted by MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving).

As far as I remember, young men from 17 to 34 dominated the figures.

TempestSabre · 04-08-2006 11:13am

Padraig Mor wrote:

Using the details on the RTE website, I decided to graph the road deaths for the year so far by age group. Just wondering what the people here think of them. While the 17-25 group are no doubt leading the death toll, I thought that their portion would be larger. I was quite surprised at how many were killed in the over 65 age group yet we never hear a word said about their safety record.

Note: this is from a list of those who died on the roads. RTE supply no info as to who was driving, passengers, pedestrians etc.

Like others have said. You need to put those figures in context of % ownership of cars and licences etc. Otherwise you've no idea if theres more of one group on the road than another. I would have thought that the biggest group on the roads would be 30-65. They drive for work, and can afford to have one or more cars.

heggie · 04-08-2006 11:35am

yes but if a person has 50 cars, they can still only drive in one day, therefore number of cars owned would make no difference in stats

HelterSkelter · 04-08-2006 11:44am

mike65 wrote:

I reckon youngsters who whine about insurance should just take a long look at that purple block - more than twice as many as my age group. Which is why I'm not paying 2000 a year I guess.

I suspect the over 65s are mainly pedestrians and farmer types.

Mike.

People's insurance should be calculated relative to their experience, training and driving history (accidents, penalty points, etc). Age should not come into the equation at all. A 21 year old could have a 5 years no claims bonus yet pay a lot more than a 40 year old on a provisional who has never been in a car before.

TempestSabre · 04-08-2006 11:51am

heggie wrote:

yes but if a person has 50 cars, they can still only drive in one day, therefore number of cars owned would make no difference in stats

More likely to drive than some how doesn't own a car, and isn't even named on anyones insurance, but has a full licence.

HelterSkelter wrote:

People's insurance should be calculated relative to their experience, training and driving history (accidents, penalty points, etc). Age should not come into the equation at all. A 21 year old could have a 5 years no claims bonus yet pay a lot more than a 40 year old on a provisional who has never been in a car before.

Exactly. The current system is design to make profits rather than encourage better driving or penalise those who flaunt the rules, and drive dangerously.

Vegeta · 04-08-2006 12:33pm

definitely need to see that versus % road users by age

Also need to see it by driver not by person.

cos if a man of 40 crashes and kills one of his teenage kids the 17-25 bracket is being unfairly loaded with drivers and the kids of older drivers

Road deaths by age

Comments