399 road deaths in 2005 leave us the worst in Europe

jimbling

The Atheist wrote:

The point is I believe they are the only causes that can be realistically tackled.

I just can't agree with you on this point. And please return to my point that even if you eradicated these completely (obv impossible) then you would still have had 300 deaths.

The Atheist wrote:

Where did that 20% spring from BTW?

I presume this comes from my post that 12% of accidents were caused by speeding and another 10 or so by Drink Driving - making approx 20/25%

The Atheist wrote:

Speed doesn't necessarily mean doing 110mph - it just means fast enough that you can't react. Virtually any situation can be avoided if you go slow enough. I'm dubious that 80% of road deaths had nothing to do with how fast the vehicle was travelling.

Naturally this is true - but by this note we can solve the problems by banning driving altogether.

100% of road deaths have something to do with how fast the vehicle was traveling, but when we talk about death caused by speeding we mean that the death would not have happened if this person was driving under the speed limit.

If someone drives around a hairpin corner on a country road (speed limit 60) doing 55. skids - flips the car and ends up dead. This death was not caused by speeding (ie breaking the speed limit). It was caused by inaccurately judging the speed he was safely able to take a corner.

Are we to change the speed limit on every corner... its nonsense - people HAVE to be able to decide for themselves. But people dont seem to know. More and more people are relying on signposts to tell them what to do. Some of the people who dont know are scared and go even slower - and some just dont care and try and find out.

The Atheist wrote:

You can raise the bar for the test as high as you like and keep some people off the road - but I don't suspect they are especially the ones that cause road deaths. Retesting everybody every 10 years might solve some problems but this is never going to happen. Will a stricter test slow down the large %'age of young adults who fly around the roads in the middle of the night?

It is not stricter tests and retesting that is most needed- it is the TEACHING that most requires change.

In saying that the test at the moment is just based on a simple rule book. People learn the rules, pass the test. Driving is more than just rules (and people dont seem to understand these either)

There is a lot of things that can be done to improve the system. Some of them are beginning already - bringing it more into schools - teaching how to drive (in a realistic fashion) / how not to drive - showing them how the deaths are caused / how they are avoided. Teach the destruction.

The Atheist wrote:

You can't legislate against stupidity. You can train people how to drive better, but it's not going to prevent them doing stupid things on the road. Once a test is passed people believe they can drive, and will continue to do so whether tired, or distracted by something within or without the car.

Do you realise that no matter what you do you wont prevent people from drink driving or speeding either? no matter what.

boardy

The Atheist wrote:

At worst, that information is complete rubbish, at best it is bad law on the part of whoever proposed it. There is no premeditation to murder someone unless it is your intent to go out and run someone over.

Would you tell the relatives of the victims it is complete rubbish. And it is not only a 'proposed' law. It is being used extensively. First result on google relating to drunk driving and murder charge:
http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1133432157291290.xml&coll=3

The premeditation is where you intentionally get into a car while you are drunk.

Dades

I just can't agree with you on this point. And please return to my point that even if you eradicated these completely (obv impossible) then you would still have had 300 deaths.

The problem is you're missing my point which is simply thus: I believe the only area where real improvement can be hoped for is in speeding and drink driving. As long as you allow people drive they will do other stupid, unpredicable things. Hense yes, of course we are left with a lot of road deaths according to your stats. This doesn't mean we ignore everything else - I just can't see too many ideas being effective.

jimbling wrote:

I presume this comes from my post that 12% of accidents were caused by speeding and another 10 or so by Drink Driving - making approx 20/25%

Since everything said so far hinges on your stats, I don't suppose a source other than your previous post is too much to ask?

Would you tell the relatives of the victims it is complete rubbish. And it is not only a 'proposed' law. It is being used extensively. First result on google relating to drunk driving and murder charge:

Calm down people, please! ps We aren't bound by the Alabama Judicial System.

Sleepy wrote:

You can train people properly so that they're aware their driving ability will be impaired if they drive when tired and alert them to the dangers of allowing themselves to be distracted.

In the same way that people are alerted to the dangers of drinking and speeding? Isn't the point that making people aware of the dangers doesn't seem to have much effect?

Sleepy wrote:

BTW, if you can't legislate against stupidity, what exactly is the purpose of speed limits? Only a stupid person will drive faster than the surrounding conditions make it safe to do so.

You are muddying the waters here for no reason.

Sleepy

The Atheist wrote:

In the same way that people are alerted to the dangers of drinking and speeding? Isn't the point that making people aware of the dangers doesn't seem to have much effect?

I think we need to change the way in which we make people aware of the dangers of drink-driving, driving too fast, driving carelessly, not knowing how to react to changing road conditions etc: by providing them with proper driving instruction.

If needs be, this could be extended to the point of getting students pissed, placing them behind the wheel of a car and making them complete an obstacle course where they're in no danger of damaging anyone other than a traffic cone. Extreme maybe, but far more effective than another Fleetwood Mac-scored television ad. I would contend that a proper instruction could be given without the need to go to this extremity though.

You are muddying the waters here for no reason.

jimbling put my argument forth much better than myself - it is not the breaking of speed limits that's to blame for the vast majority of car crashes: it's simply poor driving.

boardy

The Atheist wrote:

Calm down people, please! ps We aren't bound by the Alabama Judicial System.

I am completely relaxed - I am not the one using exclamation marks (meant in jest). Re-reading your previous post just to confirm but you did say that the information I provided was "complete rubbish"? I responded with a link to refute that claim. I was not making up the fact that drunk drivers involved in fatalities are being charged with murder. There are plenty of other examples out there.

Some jurisdictions outside of Ireland initiate murder charges in certain cases of drink driving fatalities. In my humble opinion, it should be a prosecuting option here too.

rubadub

boardy wrote:

Some jurisdictions outside of Ireland initiate murder charges in certain cases of drink driving fatalities. In my humble opinion, it should be a prosecuting option here too.

I was watching oprah (shut up!:o ) the other day and there was a woman in the US done for murder since she didnt use a child seat in a car, she was getting a lift from a friend and the car overturned, her 2 kids fell out and off a 50ft bridge, the baby died and they blame her, not sure if she got a full on sentence for it, but they did say "murder".
There was another guy racing another guy on the road who crashed into a car, he killed the driver who turned out to be his own mother. He was also done for murder and was in prison. (no mention of manslaughter or criminal negligence or something else, just murder)

Dades

boardy wrote:

Some jurisdictions outside of Ireland initiate murder charges in certain cases of drink driving fatalities. In my humble opinion, it should be a prosecuting option here too.

You'll recall I did give two options boardy - rubbish and bad law. I'm therefore surprised to see outside of Ireland it seems to be making headlines in certain jurisdictions. Personally I hope it does not become an option here as I see it as twisting the law. Calling vehicular manslaughter "murder" is dramatic but legislation is a better method of increasing the associated penalties (IMHO). I speak from a purely legal POV (I have an LLB) rather than a victim's POV which I understand is completely different.

Re the question of road deaths statistics, does anyone actually have any? I can't find any that break down the driver/passenger/pedestrian stats. Not that they are particularly relevant here anyway - we'd all surely agree that every area related to road death dererves debate.

jimbling

The Atheist wrote:

The problem is you're missing my point which is simply thus: I believe the only area where real improvement can be hoped for is in speeding and drink driving. As long as you allow people drive they will do other stupid, unpredictable things. Hence yes, of course we are left with a lot of road deaths according to your stats. This doesn't mean we ignore everything else - I just can't see too many ideas being effective.

I am not missing your point at all. That is exactly the way I saw your point. I just happen to disagree with you.

I didn’t post here to say that we shouldn't bother trying to reduce speeding and drink driving.
I posted to show people that these evils are not responsible for all the deaths on the roads (which the vast majority seem to believe). In fact they are not even responsible for the majority. People need to look to themselves to solve the problem. Some will do so, some will ignore it.
I posted to explain my belief that a huge amount would be gained from properly training a nation how to drive. And properly showing people the dangers of driving.


And I started debating with you because you believe that Drink Driving and Speeding are the only causes that can be realistically tackled.

The Atheist wrote:

Since everything said so far hinges on your stats, I don't suppose a source other than your previous post is too much to ask?

Well I did say that it was one of the major papers. You do not have to believe me. Surely someone else here saw it?

Anyhow, I did mean to check which last night, but didn’t actually make it home
Ill find out this evening.

The Atheist wrote:

In the same way that people are alerted to the dangers of drinking and speeding? Isn't the point that making people aware of the dangers doesn't seem to have much effect?

Are you for real. 30 years ago, almost everyone drank and drove. 15 years ago it was still a pretty standard.

It has had a massive effect. It is totally un cool to drink and drive. If you know someone who does it you berate him. The campaign has worked.
We are now at the stage however - where more and more campaigns won't improve it anymore - the people that still do it, just wont learn unless you catch them - and even then it rarely does any good.


Can you understand how much of an impact a campaign (including teaching practices) for the driver errors would have on the other 75% of deaths. I know some people are stupid. But we were all stupid once.
Do you think the nation incabable of learning? Do you think the extra teaching will have no effect on how people drive there cars.

I think that less people will be inclined to drive on when there eyes are shutting. That less people may play with there cd albums while driving. That less people will swivel around checking out some girl they just passed.
the list goes on -

jimbling

Also another thing to note Athiest. Really if you believe that the nothing can be done about all the other causes to road deaths. That would mean they will always be there.

By that logic we really only have 100 road deaths - since all others are un avoidable. - now thats not so bad is it?

Victor

jimbling wrote:

There is a problem with it - to do so would break the law. Its infringing on someones privacy. There is talks of changing the legislation to suit.

Random alcohol testing (perhaps we could extend it to boisterous pedestrians at 4:30am) if you are in a public place driving something that requires a licence - remember licence, not right.

JimmySmith

Its clear something drastic has to be done. The punishment isnt severe enough for drink drivers.

Ban drinking at all for driving.
More roadside breathelyser tests. Anyone caught should be banned for life.
If you are banned and caught again, a massive, and i mean massive €20,000 fine.

Sleepy

Sure, €20,000 is massive to me and probably most of the posters on these boards but all of us have friends or familiy-members to whom that would be a drop in the ocean...

Dades

In the same way that people are alerted to the dangers of drinking and speeding? Isn't the point that making people aware of the dangers doesn't seem to have much effect?

jimbling wrote:

Are you for real. 30 years ago, almost everyone drank and drove. 15 years ago it was still a pretty standard.

It has had a massive effect. It is totally un cool to drink and drive. If you know someone who does it you berate him. The campaign has worked.
We are now at the stage however - where more and more campaigns won't improve it anymore - the people that still do it, just wont learn unless you catch them - and even then it rarely does any good.

Hey you're jumping on my comment here and then make the very same one I was making.

Namely that the current drink drive ad campaigns are falling on deaf ears and that only a real fear of getting caught will change things. Of course things have change since the 70s - but in the last 5/6 years since the ads have started getting graphic things haven't got any better.

Do you think the extra teaching will have no effect on how people drive there cars.

Undoubtably it will have some effect - nobody can talk in absolutes here - but as I've said all along I simply don't believe the effect would be that great. That's just an opinion - you'll be glad to know I'm not the Minister for Transport in disguise.

The problem with our stats is there are so many other factors to take into account like the improving roads, more traffic, the fact that cars get better, the fact that cars get faster... It really is impossible to say where improvements or disprovements in road deaths occur without analysing them in detail.

If you are banned and caught again, a massive, and i mean massive €20,000 fine.

20K is a lot of cash - but thats not the point. People need to be truly afraid that they will get caught. Don't raise the stakes - lower the odds.

jimbling

okay.. I must make an apology to a few people as I am looking at the paper now, and I did misrepresent some figures.

Drink Driving statistics are not mentioned at all - I honestly don't know how I thought they were.

Even though I was using the DD as an example, It honestly does not change my argument. I see drink as just another impairment. I will write out the stats in a moment, and leave it at that. But just to say (as I dont think I've made myself too clear) that my point all along was not to avoid putting more cops on the road, catch more people drink driving / speeding, have harsher punishments for DD.

The only point I was trying to make was that more cops on the road was not the only answer - my belief is that the answer is to increase the awareness / knowledge of the drivers. Teach them properly, test them properly. There will still be deaths, there will still be drunk drivers, there will still be speeders. But I think that this is more important than just throwing more cops at the problem. They are fine for an immediate solution to a permanent problem - but we, as a country, must look at the future.

and for the stats:

Major causes of Fatal collisions in 2004:

40% Wrong side of the road / sleep
26% Other action
13% Exceeded speed limit
12% Drove through stop/yield
9% Improper overtaking
1% Drove through traffic signal

A total of 374 people died in 334 fatal accidents.

35 young drivers (18-24) died - 28 of them male.

70 pedestrian deaths

50 motorcyclists

11 cyclists


What I think is an interesting point is that driving through a stop/yield sign is cause of 12%. almost as much as exceeded speed limit, and more so than improper overtaking.




Another intersting part of the article is the comparison with other countrys

scale as follows:
per 100,000 pop 2003

Sweden: 5.9 (lowest)
UK
Netherlands
Finland
Germany 8.0
Denmark
IRELAND 8.4
France
Italy
Austria
Lux
Spain 12.8
Belgium
Portugal
Greece 19.3

JimmySmith

The Atheist wrote:

20K is a lot of cash - but thats not the point. People need to be truly afraid that they will get caught. Don't raise the stakes - lower the odds.

why not do both?

Victor

JimmySmith wrote:

Anyone caught should be banned for life.
If you are banned and caught again, a massive, and i mean massive €20,000 fine.

In Germany you can fire your crossbow on the main street of a town all day and provided you do not hit anyone, you only have to pay the €25 fine each time.

Increasing the fine in line with incomes may be a possibility, as they do in Finland.

boardy

Good work on the stats Jimbling.

So adding more cops, improving the infrastructure, teaching driver education in school, providing more safe driving ads, increasing fines, and changing the law for a more severe punishment for drink driving fatalites ..... will not make a difference to 40% of the people who will die on Irish roads this year, because they will be asleep at the wheel or driving on the wrong side of the road. That's shocking.

Dades

JimmySmith wrote:

why not do both?

Yeah whatever. Just not only the first one.

Nice juicy stats Jimbling, even if they don't elaborate of the booze element. It's seems people are even stupider than we feared. I wish I could believe that advanced driving instruction would stop people being people. I've driven when tired myself, but in recent years have avoided long motorway drives whenever possible for the simple reason that your life is not in your own hands.

jimbling

The Atheist wrote:

Yeah whatever. Just not only the first one.

Nice juicy stats Jimbling, even if they don't elaborate of the booze element. It's seems people are even stupider than we feared. I wish I could believe that advanced driving instruction would stop people being people. I've driven when tired myself, but in recent years have avoided long motorway drives whenever possible for the simple reason that your life is not in your own hands.

it won't stop people being stupid, but perhaps it will mean they will act stupid just a little less often.

The Atheist wrote:

for the simple reason that your life is not in your own hands.

When, pray tell, do you manage to have your life in your own hands?

boardy

The Atheist wrote:

...... your life is not in your own hands.

That is a good point. My biggest fear on the road is from other road users.

Dades

jimbling wrote:

When, pray tell, do you manage to have your life in your own hands?

Well I'm a lot more in control when my car is overheating in traffic than when drivers coming from where I'm going are kipping to their Norah Jones CD on the way back from a country wedding!

But I get your point

boardy

Please say it aint so!
From the Irish Examiner today:

A Co Clare councillor has said rural dwellers should be excused from drink-driving.

Fianna Fáil Councillor Flan Garvey said people who visit pubs as their only social outlet are familiar with local roads and drive more carefully and slowly, especially when they have had a few drinks.


The elected local authority member has appealed for a "special understanding" to be shown.

He insists he does not condone drink-driving, but wants allowances made for certain people, such as those who live alone, and who would travel just a few miles to the pub once or twice a week.


http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/story.asp?j=168103542&p=y68yx4z48&n=168104302

boardy

And how did they achieve this?

From the Independent today:

The head of road safety with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), Kevin Clinton, said education, training and enforcement, as well as road engineering measures, had worked successfully to cut the toll of death on roads in Northern Ireland and the UK.

gobdaw

Sleepy wrote:

3. Finally enforcement, and I put this last for a reason. Only when people know how to drive properly and have safe roads to drive on, is it fair to come down hard on those who drive unsafely.

Er, I think this is first. I don't want to meet someone on the road who doesnt know how to handle it.

Strict enforcement, with heavy penelties, is the way to go. But as you suggest, politicians dont seem to see any votes in this and any votes can be got by suggesting what they might do to improve road safety. The chief of the Road safety resigning because of government inactivity speaks for itself.

At this stage, any action has to be an improvement.

Dades

Originally Posted by Sleepy

3. Finally enforcement, and I put this last for a reason. Only when people know how to drive properly and have safe roads to drive on, is it fair to come down hard on those who drive unsafely.

gobdaw wrote:

Er, I think this is first. I don't want to meet someone on the road who doesnt know how to handle it.

I see where you get your name.
If your fear is meeting someone on the road who doesn't know how to handle it, then Sleepy's no.1 is yours too.

MrPudding

gobdaw wrote:

Strict enforcement, with heavy penelties, is the way to go.

How about we just try enforcement with the penalties we already have? There is no need for anymore legislation. There is no need for polititians to worry about votes.

The laws are already there. The penalties are already there. Why not leave the limited time the government has for passing legislation we actually need?

MrP

Victor

The head of road safety with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), Kevin Clinton, said education, training and enforcement, as well as road engineering measures, had worked successfully to cut the toll of death on roads in Northern Ireland and the UK.

They have also had the advantage of being able to transfer police resources from security to traffic.

TheBigLebowski

This seems like a simple question to me so maybe somebody can give me a simple answer. Why does the government allow cars to be imported that can do over 120 kmh when it is not legal to drive above 120 kmh on any road in the country? Obviously people will be able to tamper with the speed limiters, but they're very easy to spot, they're the ones breaking the speed limit. Being the law abiding person I am, it wouldn't bother me to have a speed limiter on my car.

boardy

I think that a dedicated traffic corp will make an impact and it’s ridiculous that we do not have one in this day and age (irrespective of the promise of it happening in the future).

The mindset at the moment (for drivers who brake the law by speeding, reckless/drunk driving etc.) is that ‘the Guards might be busy in town and will not be on the road’. With a dedicated unit, it should be guaranteed that there would be traffic cops somewhere within the vicinity. Each county (or region) should have their own traffic units; not just massed in the cities. Accountability would then come into play.

Litcagral

TheBigLebowski wrote:

This seems like a simple question to me so maybe somebody can give me a simple answer. Why does the government allow cars to be imported that can do over 120 kmh when it is not legal to drive above 120 kmh on any road in the country? .

It's not illegal to travel above 120kph on private roads! If it was illegal to import of cars that were capable of doing more than 120kph it would cause several problems. There is a great difference in power required to propel a 40kg driver at 120 kph downhill and that required to propel a similar car with five 100kg people in it uphill at the same speed. Similar problems regarding trailers, caravans etc. - car would get nowhere.