11 dead and counting...

Danno

Victor, there are ten times more people on the road now than there were ten years ago.

Interesting to see that deaths have remained rather static...

Why have insurance costs not come down???

Victor

Danno wrote:

Victor, there are ten times more people on the road now than there were ten years ago.

Linky?

Danno wrote:

Why have insurance costs not come down???

They have changed, but realise that insurance claims are now more expensive (legal fees aside)

pH

registered vehicles on Ireland's roads:

1993 - 1,151,000
2005 - 1,850,000

That's a 61% increase in *roughly* 10 years - nearer to 1/2 as many again than doubling and certainly nothing like 10 times.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/motoring/2003/1126/1069806376637.html

Cormic

Saw lots of cops over the weekend. They were all sitting on the side of the dual carriageway between Cabinteeley and Loughlinstown shooting fish in a barrel. Why this new stretch of road is 60kph is beyond me.

pleba

ok. ignoring the fact that we cant get through the current backlog of driving tests (and havent been able to for years), lets presume the following suggestion would be under ideal conditions......

.....we are currently forced to have our cars undergo an NCT after 4 years and then every two years after that. This is my opinion is ludicrous as the majority of NCT 'failures' are for minor conditons and not because the car is dangerous to drive. Whilst I don't have any problem with the NCT I would much rather see these resources/money put to better use and ensure that every driver is forced to do a retest every 4 years.

I for one would have no problem doing a regular driving test if it meant that our roads were safer. Maybe a driver who fails could then be put off the road until they took a retest and passed. Its ridiculous that we allow people who fail their test to get straight back into their car and drive off.

Alun

pleba wrote:

.....we are currently forced to have our cars undergo an NCT after 4 years and then every two years after that. This is my opinion is ludicrous as the majority of NCT 'failures' are for minor conditons and not because the car is dangerous to drive.

From the NCT website

Top Three Failure Items:

Year 2003:
the main failure items were Bodywork, Headlight Aim and Registration Plates

Year 2002:
the main failure items were Brakes, Front Suspension and Bodywork (in pre 92 vehicles)

Year 2001:
the main failure items were Brakes, Front Suspension and Emissions.

In the year 2000:
43,000 pre 92 cars (1 in 6) were identified as having defective brakes.
34,000 pre 92 cars (1 in 8) were over the emissions limit set by the European Union.
32,000 pre 92 cars (1 in 9) had defective steering.

It does seem to be getting better, in as much as the seriousness of the faults causing the majority of fails is declining, but I'm sure that along with the questionable failures there are still plenty of potentially lethal cars being caught too. Take the 75,000 cars with defective brakes and/or steering in 2000, as an example ... well worth the money if you ask me. Anyway, the NCT test is a test of roadworthiness, where roadworthiness is, amongst other things, defined by the law surrounding cars and their use on the roads, and not exclusively whether a car is dangerous to drive or not, hence the silly number plate thing. If you want to challenge that, argue with the gaelgoirs who insisted it be put there, not the NCT testers who are merely doing their job properly.

pleba

maybe i shouldnt havce mentioned the NCT in my previous post. The main point I wanted to get across was that I think we should all do a driving test every 4 years. In my opinion there are more dangerous drivers on the roads than there are dangerous cars.

Rovi

I've been banging on for years that it should be necessary to pass the test in order to renew your licence, or get it back after a ban.
I reckon that this single thing would do more for road safety in this country than all the other finger wagging and empty threatening put together.

It would require an army of testers though, so I know it'll never happen :mad:

HelterSkelter

MT, it's the same in Dublin, the majority of people have no idea how to use roundabouts or how to indicate.

HelterSkelter

Rovi wrote:

I've been banging on for years that it should be necessary to pass the test in order to renew your licence, or get it back after a ban.
I reckon that this single thing would do more for road safety in this country than all the other finger wagging and empty threatening put together.

It would require an army of testers though, so I know it'll never happen :mad:

Yup I agree with you. How come we have to get our car tested every two years but we never have to have our driving skills re-tested?

mike65

Indeed I've often said it, imagine the mayhem if we did need to resit every 5 years say? Even if the system could cope and patienly it would'nt for the forseeble future, you'd have a whole new industry of "driving grinds".

Mike.

Dub13

We kill 12 people per 100,000 of our population compared to the some other European country's who kill 6 people per 100,000.So we have loads of room for improvement.

Rovi

mike65 wrote:

Indeed I've often said it, imagine the mayhem if we did need to resit every 5 years say? Even if the system could cope and patienly it would'nt for the forseeble future, you'd have a whole new industry of "driving grinds".

Which is exactly why I think it'd be a 'Good Thing'. If everyone had to do a refresher course on the rules of the road and good driving practice every so often, perhaps some of it might stick.:rolleyes:

Yeah, I know, it'll never happen.

galah

That's not enough, I think - we need a proper driver education system, abolish the L-driver system, make everyone take at least 20 driving lessons AND theory lessons by an authorized instructor, pass a test, and THEN let people drive on their own. You need to start at the base...

On top of that, I think resitting a test (or at least a compulory driving assessment) every 5 years or so would be great - for all the drivers who've been on the road for ages and still don't know where their indicator is or that lights need to be maintained (it seems that having only one working brake light/headlight is the norm these days...), and just to keep up to date...(I would gladly do this if it improves road safety...)

And you need to install respect in people again - respect for others, respect for the road, their car and their ability - and increase the presence of guards to enforce it. People here drive badly because they can...Noone there to check, and the fines you get if you are caught are a joke...

I could rant on forever....

r3nu4l

I agree that the cops should be targetting country roads late at night during the weekends and not sitting on the N4 or Stillorgan dual carriageways at three in the afternoon with their little radar guns!

I wonder if the CSO have any stats on whether those involved in fatal accidents were provisional or full license holders? I would bet there are far more fully licensed drivers responsible for deaths on Irish roads than provisional drivers.

It seems far too easy to blame young untested drivers although that does not excuse the fact that they are driving on their own when they shouldn't be (like I did! )!!

And yes, I have a full, clean license and have had for almost four years.

Capt'n Midnight

r3nu4l wrote:

I wonder if the CSO have any stats on whether those involved in fatal accidents were provisional or full license holders? I would bet there are far more fully licensed drivers responsible for deaths on Irish roads than provisional drivers.

It seems far too easy to blame young untested drivers although that does not excuse the fact that they are driving on their own when they shouldn't be

Stats on Alcohol would be interesting too.
Stats on garda investigations that reported what was to blame would be interesting.

In the paper I saw that 25 out of 126 killed this year are Foreign nationals. Sort of thing you expect from the Daily Mail, pity they can't give more relevant stats.

r3nu4l

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Sort of thing you expect from the Daily Mail, pity they can't give more relevant stats.

Don't get me started on the Daily Mail :mad: In the UK, it's all anti-EU and occasionally anti-Irish, I bet the anti-Irish articles aren't printed in the "Irish" Daily Mail!

Yep, I don't see the point in publishing the number of deaths at the end of each year without publishing the factors involved, alcohol, drugs, type of license held, worst locations, type of road (dual carriageway with fully lit versus, twisty bog road, no lights), time of day/night etc. That would probably answer a lot of questions for us!

idontknowmyname

A guy I went to school with became the first victim on Thursday...he'd been in a car accident 3 weeks previous and was on life support, he took a turn and died Thursday night, still in shock

galah

r3nu4l wrote:

I wonder if the CSO have any stats on whether those involved in fatal accidents were provisional or full license holders? I would bet there are far more fully licensed drivers responsible for deaths on Irish roads than provisional drivers.

It seems far too easy to blame young untested drivers although that does not excuse the fact that they are driving on their own when they shouldn't be (like I did! )!!

And yes, I have a full, clean license and have had for almost four years.

The problem is not the name of the license and linked to that the age of the driver, but the system in place to get that license! Wasn't there a time when the gov simply sent out licenses to clear the backlog? You can hardly call these people qualified! And the test itself is not that hard, with a bit of luck, anyone can pass it without proper training - that's not what I call qualified either...

And then there's the issue of people completely overestimating their abilities (all those single-car accidents - I bet most of them happen because people simply overestimate their speed, their reactions, their car, and the road conditions) - with proper training, I bet most of these accidents could be avoided!

mike65

idontknowmyname thats terrible, and puts the reality on the numbers.

Re factors in fatalities, I could be wrong but I'm fairly sure I heard someone In Charge saying that the 'story' behind each death would be published in the future.

Mike.

MT

I agree. idontknowmyname, that really is awful, talk about being unlucky. So sad.

On the issue of retesting drivers every 5 or so years, I can't see that ever coming in. Not in the Republic, the Uk or anywhere else for that matter. For while it might work in the long run think of the economic impact it would have in the first decade or so. The economy would simply collapse if huge numbers of people were stripped of their licences. It would be political suicide for any government to introduce such a measure.

No, I think the best hope is to improve training and testing for teenage beginners - when a fail won't impact on a yet to be established important career - and vast improvements in enforcement.

The American approach of zero tolerance should be the norm. Read a story about a British tourist in the US who decided not to stop at a stop sign as there were no other cars on the road - they just slowed down. Suddenly the was a roar of a siron and a highway patrol car pulled them over to issue a ticket and a stern warning on the recklessness of not obeying road signs. That sort of treatment would teach anyone to behave themselves.

r3nu4l wrote:

In the UK, it's all anti-EU and occasionally anti-Irish, I bet the anti-Irish articles aren't printed in the "Irish" Daily Mail!

Surely if they were anti-Irish they wouldn't set up in the much smaller Irish market and presumably employ Irish journalist and an Irish editorial team?! I don't read the paper so I can't be sure.

tinkerbell

pH wrote:

If we wanted to we could cut road deaths - safer roads, limit *all* cars to sensible speeds, enforce our L-driver regulatations, bring in a restricted category for young drivers.

In all fairness, it is not L drivers that cause accidents on the roads. The majority is fully licensed drivers. I see so many muppets on the roads every single day that nearly all cause accidents. In particular, on the motorways, there are many BMW / Merc drivers that frighten people on the road, they are the most aggressive I've ever seen. I'm not tarnishing all BMW / Merc drivers with the same brush, of course there are good ones.

E.g. The Irish consensus is that you can only drive in the right lane of a motorway if you are speeding. It is not okay to overtake the left lane while doing omg the limit of 120kph. You get some a**hole stuck to you while you are driving in the right lane because they are so impatient and stuck up that they don't want people driving in that lane unless they are breaking the limit.

There have been numerous occasions where I have been in the right lane overtaking a lot of cars in the left lane driving bang on at 120kph and then I get some fool behind me nearly having a stroke because I won't hurry up and move into the left lane (where there is no space to) but if I broke the law, I could go faster and get into the left lane again upahead.

On another note, the gardai have seriously ridiculous management. Why are they checking for tax and insurance in some of the quietest areas in Dublin? The absense or presence of tax and insurance isn't a cause of road accidents. Why aren't they outside pubs at the weekends, out in the early hours of the morning (when most accidents happen), on country roads, instead of most of the force being up in Dublin where the majority of accidents don't happen?

This country is just a total mess. It's not a wonder that there are so many accidents on the road. People here don't know how to drive. Three times in the space of a few hours did I see people who did not understand what a green left arrow was or what a yield sign meant. They just stopped and waited for the green circle to come on before they would turn left, or in the case of the yield sign they were waiting for a traffic light for the other lane to turn green, when they are in the Yield lane. Are these people thick?

Maybe if this country got their act together, then there would be less accidents. What about drunk drivers? They get off scot free as well. I heard of a lad from home who got so pissed drunk that he ended up killing three people. What was his jail sentence? Three years, and you can guarantee he'll be out sooner. How is that fair? Three years for killing three people because he was such a twat to drink drive.

Oh and one more thing, I was on my way back up to Dublin last during the week and there was a garda checkpoint. Two guards, the lad behind me got stopped by the first guard, and I got stopped by the second. The garda checks my tax / insurance, tells me to go on, I move off, and the thick in the car behind me nearly goes to overtake me just because he started moving off a split second before I did! He tries to overtake me at a garda checkpoint when I'm moving off, with the garda just after literally stepping away from my car. He was in a massive car. They think that just because they own a big car, they own the road.

And what are people's problems with obeying the 50 and 60 kph limits? It seems that if you actually stick to the limit, then you get a muppet driving about 2 centimetres behind you trying to frighten you because you are actually obeying the law and so they can't speed through the village / town / wherever.

Like I said before, I ain't saying all those car drivers are bad, but surely people can see that there are some drivers of those two makes of car that should not be allowed on the road. And there are plenty of other drivers in other cars that shouldn't be allowed on the road.

I think I've just seen to many bad drivers who happen to be in those cars

Re. insurance rates not going down - after 9/11, reinsurance companies had to give massive payouts, which dried up all their funds. They had to hike their premiums for insurance companies, which resulted in insurance companies having to increase their premiums as well (would particularly apply to general, e.g. motor insurance where a claim could amount to hugh money).

Capt'n Midnight

tinkerbell wrote:

Re. insurance rates not going down - after 9/11, reinsurance companies had to give massive payouts, which dried up all their funds. They had to hike their premiums for insurance companies, which resulted in insurance companies having to increase their premiums as well (would particularly apply to general, e.g. motor insurance where a claim could amount to hugh money).

This really irks me because AFAIK here and in the UK, insurance companies don't cover terrorist damage in normal policies. Governments pay out instead.
We are in effect subsidising the Yanks, because we don't benefit from the higher premiums since we aren't covered.

tinkerbell

Yah, I know but I think it's because of the reinsurance companies losing all their money. Say, for e.g., a reinsurance company gets business from US companies, Irish companies, UK companies. 9/11 happens, and the insurance companies start claiming off the reinsurance company. Reinsurance company had to pay out millions, all their funds dried up, then to increase their funds again, they have to hike up their premiums across the board, or how else will they increase their funds again. It wouldn't be in their best interest to only increase US premiums, because they need to get their funds up again as fast as they possibly can.

At least that's what I think is happening. Plus the fact that motor claims over here have gone mad anyway, with people suing for millions in compo.

I do think the motor insurance industry over here though is unfair. How can a general insurance company justify giving a premium of say €1,000 to an 18-year-old girl with no previous driving experience and charging €2,500 to a 23-year-old male with a year's no claims bonus? I can't remember the exact figures now but that's the general gist of it. I can't see how they justify it, surely the bigger risk they are taking is with the girl with no driving experience?

As a woman I do benefit from cheaper car insurance but I think it's dreadfully unfair on a man who wants car insurance and has to pay insane amounts just because he is a man.

I agree with what someone said here - people should be forced to take driving lessons when they start off. Then the next generation of drivers would be better. But as regards the driving test, it should probably be your driving instructor who decides if you should have a full license or not. After all, they have spent the most time driving around with you (e.g. if it's compulsory to take 25 hours of lessons). What does a tester know if he spends 20 mins driving with you? Sure they often pass dreadful drivers and fail great ones. The system baffles me.

corktina

that is a far saner approach.....but you would need strict controls on the instructers to prevent abuse......maybe they should be civil servants....

Victor

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

This really irks me because AFAIK here and in the UK, insurance companies don't cover terrorist damage in normal policies. Governments pay out instead.

Various schemes are in place.

After September 11th, the American governement covered all the personal injuries / deaths, but not property.

In the UK there is a scheme where the insurers have to cover the first STG500m either by themselves, with re-insurance or through a large not-for-profit mutual that the government set up. Then the government will cover anthing after that.

HelterSkelter

tinkerbell wrote:

Re. insurance rates not going down - after 9/11, reinsurance companies had to give massive payouts, which dried up all their funds. They had to hike their premiums for insurance companies, which resulted in insurance companies having to increase their premiums as well (would particularly apply to general, e.g. motor insurance where a claim could amount to hugh money).

That's rubbish. Insurance company profits have increased hugely since 2001. Claims paid out have been dropping every year since 2001. Their reserves have nearly doubled since 2001. They used 9/11 as an opportunity to rip us off even more.

MrPudding

Added to this insurance premiums dropped in America after 911.

MrP

MrPudding

tinkerbell wrote:

In all fairness, it is not L drivers that cause accidents on the roads. The majority is fully licensed drivers.

I have been looking for this information as it does not seem to be released. I think the license status of drivers in accidents would be interesting. Can you post the figures and the source please?

MrP

HelterSkelter

MrPudding wrote:

I have been looking for this information as it does not seem to be released. I think the license status of drivers in accidents would be interesting. Can you post the figures and the source please?

MrP

I don't rate the driving test at all, all you have to do is act like a good driver for 20 mins and you pass. It is more a test of your acting ability than anything else!!

I think it would be much more useful to compare the number of years driving experience of drivers involved in accidents. Have never came across this info though.