Are Road Deaths Stats available by road name?

Bray Head wrote: »

The reports are of pretty poor quality which is a pity given the effort involved and the evident quality of the underlying dataset.

I wonder about the quality overall.

Many of the published reports are compiled from Garda data, a source not renowned for its reliability.

Recording fatalities and serious injuries is straightforward. Noting contributory factors and interpreting the resultant data is more tricky, especially with regard to analysing trends in context.

For example, the RSA points to an absolute reduction in the number of fatalities among child pedestrians and cyclists over a period of years, and interprets this as a positive outcome.

However, they make no attempt to take account of the parallel reduction in the number of children walking and cycling to school. It is therefore legitimate to ask (a) whether the absolute reduction in fatalities is really due to successful and sustainable road safety strategies, and not just to a significant drop in the number of children walking and cycling, and (b) whether the relative risk faced by child cyclists and pedestrians has also changed for the better.

I'm not aware of any attempt by the RSA or AGS to look at such figures in terms of relative risk. Only the absolute numbers are reported, as if these tell us all we need to know. Do they ever seek the services of a statistician?

In everyday terms, the reality is that, even while the RSA and AGS are claiming that the roads are safer than ever for children, many parents are terrified of letting their children walk or cycle down to the local shop, never mind travel on foot or by bike to the local school, 3-4 km away.

It is also my opinion the official mania for hi-vis is an example of where the RSA and AGS are giving a mixed message that reveals, at best, an ambivalence about road safety. It's as if they're saying to parents: "Take this hi-vis vest to protect you from danger on the road. Actually, the roads are safe now thanks to us, but whatever danger is there is your own responsibility, and if your child gets knocked down while walking or cycling without one of these Don't Kill Me Jackets it's your own fault."

One promotional poster says "We've made the roads safer than ever -- aren't we great?" and the other says to pedestrians and cyclists "Be afraid -- be very afraid."

Sam Russell wrote: »

I accept that, but it is not beyond them to publish the details of accidents in terms of cause(s). They give not wearing a seat belt as a major cause of fatalities, but the collision is already underway by the time seat belts come into play so what was happening before that? They should publish the alcohol levels of the driver for fatalities, at least as a table.

I think they do not do much analysis because it does not support their assertions as to causes of fatalities, or are they just lazy?

I would agree that it's not scientific enough, although it's better than it used to be. For example, crashes are now treated as potential crime scenes, and therefore the forensic analysis is more tightly controlled. Likewise, testing for intoxication is mandatory, afaik.


There is a difference, though, between reliably working out the precise cause of specific crashes versus the general evidence for overall crash risk.


Not wearing a seatbelt is a significant cause of fatalities for vehicle occupants when a crash occurs. Alcohol consumption increases the likelihood of a crash occurring.


These are well-established risk factors at a population level, but it is much more difficult in a lot of cases to pin down a precise cause. An unbelted car occupant may be killed in a collision, but there may be a cascade of factors leading to that fatal outcome. In any one case, is it always possible to identify with certainty THE cause of the fatality?

Bray Head wrote: »

For example are no stats on whether motoryclists were in dark clothing or not, or if cyclists were carrying lights, or indeed if pedestrians were intoxicated. I strongly suspect that these are all contributory factors to mortality for each of these three groups but it is very hard to know.

I doubt whether there is any routine collection of data on the colour of cars involved in collisions (ie dark shades such as black or grey), or whether the driver was paying attention at the time. What about systematic checking of mobile phone use by drivers at the time of collision?

There is no evidence to support the widespread belief that the wearing of hi-vis by pedestrians and cyclists reduces road casualties. In fact there was some evidence from New Zealand recently, suggesting the opposite could occur in certain circumstances.

I don't think we've reached peak public awareness at all, because myths and superstitions persist, complacency can set in and the science is being refined. Alcohol and speed are major factors, of course, but there may be limited gains to be had from detailed study of other specific factors which are relatively minor contributors to road fatalities.

Maybe the answer is to make 'black boxes' or drivecams standard in every vehicle? Apart from the fact that drivers might behave better when they know they're being watched, there would also be a reliable source of 'big data' that could be continuously mined to inform new refinements in safety standards.

Incidentally, data on pedestrian intoxication is collected, hence the RSA's "The Way Back" drunk pedestrians campaign. IMO alcohol is a very good example of where public (and institutional) awareness lags way behind the evidence. A favourite example of mine is the way the powers that be, and various vested interests, continue to engage in fear-mongering about cycle helmets, while ignoring the fact that up to half of all people hospitalised after suffering a traumatic brain injury are intoxicated at the time.