Speed Limits, Accident Rates etc

Niall1234

Just a few comments and questions from myself and I'd just like to see what people here think.

1. Excess speed (within limits) on HQDC and Motorways is not dangerous and does not pose a serious risk to other drivers. Section on the Autobahn which have no speed limits have the same accident rate as section which have a 130 kph speed limit.

2. Ever loss of life on our roads clearly doesn't matter. If this were true, speed limits would universally be reduced to 50 kph to completely eliminate road deaths. The real truth is that there is an acceptable rate of deaths on our roads. This is something that no government would admit to but almost certainly be the truth.

3. Speed limits on certain roads should be adjusted to match the state of the road in question. Have a too slow speed limit on certain roads can actually increase the accident rate due to the frustration of faster drivers which leads to reckless driving including reckless overtaking.

4. If I do my maths right, 2006 had the lowest deaths per number of drivers on our roads since something like the mid 60's. Now, the media claim there is a national crisis on our roads regarding road deaths. Does this also mean there was a crisis on our roads from 1965 to present also. If there was (and there should have been considering a high death rate) they why weren't the media reporting this.

5. Can our high death and accident rate on our roads simply be pointed to the fact that we have the highest rural population to total population rate in all of Europe. This essentially means that more of our population has to use more by roads more often than most of Europe. Have a higher population also means that we have more Byroads in comparison to our total GDP hence we have a higher spend each year to keep all our roads in good order. Due to more people driving on byroads, then surely we have to have a higher death and crash rate.

6. Is the crash rate among Learner Drivers clearly higher than the crash rate among drivers with full licences or are there any good statistics on this ?

7. When most of the accidents are happening on byroads, why are almost all speed traps on HQDC and Motorways ? Sure, this is making money for the Gov but its doing absolutely nothing to help lower road deaths.

Chris_533976

Autobahns tho are designed differently with shallower gradients and less curves, allowing higher speed. Insurance companies wont pay if you have a smashup above a certain speed, and you have to have special tyres above a certain speed also.

HQDC/motorways/etc here are designed for a certain speed, usually 120kmh.

Alun

Chris_533976 wrote:

Autobahns tho are designed differently with shallower gradients and less curves, allowing higher speed.

Whilst the newer sections may be designed that way, I've seen more severe bends and gradients on some of the older sections of autobahn than I've seen on any motorways or dual-carriageways in Ireland.

Zoney

Alun wrote:

Whilst the newer sections may be designed that way, I've seen more severe bends and gradients on some of the older sections of autobahn than I've seen on any motorways or dual-carriageways in Ireland.

Some sections of Autobahns have lower speed limits - although I don't know if these two cases always coincide.

Alun

Zoney wrote:

Some sections of Autobahns have lower speed limits - although I don't know if these two cases always coincide.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

_Kaiser_

Niall1234 wrote:

Just a few comments and questions from myself and I'd just like to see what people here think.

1. Excess speed (within limits) on HQDC and Motorways is not dangerous and does not pose a serious risk to other drivers. Section on the Autobahn which have no speed limits have the same accident rate as section which have a 130 kph speed limit.

2. Ever loss of life on our roads clearly doesn't matter. If this were true, speed limits would universally be reduced to 50 kph to completely eliminate road deaths. The real truth is that there is an acceptable rate of deaths on our roads. This is something that no government would admit to but almost certainly be the truth.

3. Speed limits on certain roads should be adjusted to match the state of the road in question. Have a too slow speed limit on certain roads can actually increase the accident rate due to the frustration of faster drivers which leads to reckless driving including reckless overtaking.

4. If I do my maths right, 2006 had the lowest deaths per number of drivers on our roads since something like the mid 60's. Now, the media claim there is a national crisis on our roads regarding road deaths. Does this also mean there was a crisis on our roads from 1965 to present also. If there was (and there should have been considering a high death rate) they why weren't the media reporting this.

5. Can our high death and accident rate on our roads simply be pointed to the fact that we have the highest rural population to total population rate in all of Europe. This essentially means that more of our population has to use more by roads more often than most of Europe. Have a higher population also means that we have more Byroads in comparison to our total GDP hence we have a higher spend each year to keep all our roads in good order. Due to more people driving on byroads, then surely we have to have a higher death and crash rate.

6. Is the crash rate among Learner Drivers clearly higher than the crash rate among drivers with full licences or are there any good statistics on this ?

7. When most of the accidents are happening on byroads, why are almost all speed traps on HQDC and Motorways ? Sure, this is making money for the Gov but its doing absolutely nothing to help lower road deaths.

My thoughts:

1. First off, speed doesn't kill. INAPPROPRIATE speed for the conditions (where conditions = road surface quality, traffic volume, weather/visibility) kills.

2. Accidents and fatalities on the road will always happen. It's certainly unfortunate and something which government, road authorities, Gardai and - perhaps most importantly - drivers themselves need to focus on. The problem however is the inconsistent and half-hearted measures being taken to do so. It's all about being seen to be doing something rather than ACTUALLY doing something (constructive) to address the problems.

3. Agree, but just as there are some roads with limits that are too low for the conditions, equally there are many roads where it'd be even more dangerous to do the posted limit.

4. Open to correction on this, but the generic figures reported by the media don't seem to reflect that we have an ever higher number of road users with each passing year. Proportionally then, are the fatalities increasing, decreasing or static?

5. The state of our secondary roads certainly has a part to play. Even the quality of our National/N-roads can vary drastically (even the same stretch of road), depending on which county council owns it.

6. I've never seen any fgures on this, but it's a valid point. Additionally, how many accidents/fatalities involving Learner drivers were such that the driver was (illegally) driving unaccompanied.

7. This one's easy. Referring back to my 2nd point, it's about being SEEN to be tackling the problem without actually doing so. It's also purely a revenue/statistics exercise at the moment Don't forget there's an election this year, and the government will no doubt point to the number penalty point convictions as "evidence" of success.

In fairness however, the average Garda themselves recognises that the problems aren't on the Motorways, but on the Regional roads but their superiors are the ones ordering these "fish in a barrell" traps we have now (as reported by poster GTC/Garda Traffic Corps over on the Motors forum recently).


What's needed in this country is a complete overhaul of the entire system...

- Start by improving driver education and testing, not just initially but on an ongoing basis through a person's driving life. Introduce testing to cover motorway driving, driving in adverse conditions/at night, parallel parking, emergency stops etc - all the things that people will actually encounter on the roads.

- Remove or drastically change the current Provisional system. 400,000 people have never passed a test (such as it is), and yet they're on the roads daily, and the Gardai turn a blind eye to it. Whilst the ridiculous waiting lists is part of it, a lot of these people are just taking the piss. Take for example how many Learners you see on motorways. There's no reason/excuse for this as alternative (legal) routes are available. Sure it may take longer, but that's part of the incentive to get a test and pass it surely - it certainly was for me.. I never used motorways when I was on a Provisional.

- Standardise the enforcement policies of the Gardai. Right now we have a situation where "it depends who you get", and whilst it's a good thing that a bit of common sense is used, the current system means it's seen as "hard luck" if you get done, regardless of how justified it may have been.


However, of course this being Ireland, these things will probably never happen as it's a lot easier to take the easy/cheap way out, and unfortunately that's something we Irish excel at as a nation. Disagree? How many people here will raise these issues with the TD's that call to the door, rather than just complain about it to our mates in the pub! Change (just like charity) begins at home people, and we ALL have a part to play.

Capt'n Midnight

In Germany, you have to do a real driving test before they let you out on the motorways. If you drive any commercial vehicle it will have the speed limit on the back of it on a round symbol. They enforce road traffic laws over there. Drivers don't hog the "fast lane"

2006 might be the lowest in overall numbers, but we are still twice as bad as our neighbours.

Best to compare our stats with NI especially improvements in road safety , similar population density, similar culture.

Lennoxschips

You wouldn't see this in Germany:



Insanity! :eek:

In cases like these, it's the government's (whatever level of government) job to set safe speed limits, and in this case, and in the case of most secondary roads and many primary roads in Ireland, they have failed miserably.

Lennoxschips

Lennoxschips wrote:

You wouldn't see this in Germany:



Insanity! :eek:

In cases like these, it's the government's (whatever level of government) job to set safe speed limits, and in this case, and in the case of most secondary roads and many primary roads in Ireland, they have failed miserably.

Just because it states 80 is the limit, you don't have to have to achieve it!! unless you want to commit suicide (& murder an oncoming driver).

What is insane is having a long straight HQDC with a limit of 100 on it! and then setting up a speed trap on it.

seamus

Niall1234 wrote:

2. Ever loss of life on our roads clearly doesn't matter. If this were true, speed limits would universally be reduced to 50 kph to completely eliminate road deaths. The real truth is that there is an acceptable rate of deaths on our roads. This is something that no government would admit to but almost certainly be the truth.

I don't think there's any such think as an "acceptable rate", but it is accepted that there will always be road deaths, no matter what you do. As you allude to in your third point, reducing speed limits wouldn't have a huge effect - studies have been done that show that when the speed limit is appropriate for the road, x% (I think it's 85%) will drive at or below this figure. If you begin to drop the limit, the number of drivers who obey it, drops - there is a point at which people drive at the speed they feel comfortable, not the posted limit.
The 60km/h limit on the M50 has illustrated this beautifully.

4. If I do my maths right, 2006 had the lowest deaths per number of drivers on our roads since something like the mid 60's. Now, the media claim there is a national crisis on our roads regarding road deaths. Does this also mean there was a crisis on our roads from 1965 to present also. If there was (and there should have been considering a high death rate) they why weren't the media reporting this.

Our media were quite late in joining the rest of the world in the sensationalist style of reporting. Road deaths are reported because young men die, and housewives and builders can then tut and shake their heads over their morning tabloid.
A good example of this is suicide. It's another issue that the papers like to go mad over. Young men hanging and poisoning themselves is at quite a high rate, but did you know that pensioners are as likely, if not more likely to commit suicide than young men? I don't think I've ever seen that reported in the media. In fact in France, over 65's account for one-third of suicides, despite only making up 16% of the population.

Can our high death and accident rate on our roads simply be pointed to the fact that we have the highest rural population to total population rate in all of Europe. This essentially means that more of our population has to use more by roads more often than most of Europe. Have a higher population also means that we have more Byroads in comparison to our total GDP hence we have a higher spend each year to keep all our roads in good order. Due to more people driving on byroads, then surely we have to have a higher death and crash rate.

Except that we don't. We're middle of the table in the EU when it comes to road deaths. You know when you go to certain countries in mainland Europe and think, "Jaysus, their driving is atrocious"? You're right. The media would have the whole country believe that no other countries in Europe suffer from road deaths. Here's a simple comparison from 2001:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7254
Assuming that our population stayed static between 2001-2006 (even though we know it didn't), then that rate dropped to 9.5 deaths per 100,000 last year.
So we *are* winning the battle on road safety. There's lots more to do, but don't let the media fool you into believing that we're getting worse.

Is the crash rate among Learner Drivers clearly higher than the crash rate among drivers with full licences or are there any good statistics on this ?

I'm fairly sure this question was asked before, but there are no good statistics on it. The licence of the driver in question isn't noted on the statistics. If I had to take a stab at it, I would say the bulk of fatal accidents involve fully-licenced and unlicenced (or banned) drivers. Provisional drivers would probably make up an unproportional chunk of minor accidents, but not deaths.

Niall1234

Seamus: I'm imply amazed. If you listen to our media you would believe that we have the same crash rate as Greece which is obviously a complete lie.

Also add in the fact that we prob have a high number of drivers compared to population which only favours our figures even more.

Incredible stuff.

Stark

Deleted User wrote:

Just because it states 80 is the limit, you don't have to have to achieve it!! unless you want to commit suicide (& murder an oncoming driver).

Of course. But it does highlight the "ah sure, stick whatever number on that road" approach to setting speed limits in the country. You have to rely on your own sense when they're too high, but you can't do that when they're too low and that's where the frustration sets in.

tonc76

Lennoxschips wrote:

You wouldn't see this in Germany:



Insanity! :eek:

In cases like these, it's the government's (whatever level of government) job to set safe speed limits, and in this case, and in the case of most secondary roads and many primary roads in Ireland, they have failed miserably.

Speed limits are a maximum speed that can be driven at. They are not a target. The problem goes back to the changeover to metric speed limits. All non national roads were designated to have a speed limit of 80km/h. It is up to the individual councils to reclassify speeds on roads that are deemed to be unfit for the speed limit assigned. The councils have to apply to the minister for the environment to change a speed limit. The final decision then rests with the department.

talkingclock

even if those speed limits are max speeds and no targets they implicate that it is safe enough to drive with 80kmh on a single lane rural road with a sharp s-bend with limited views by hedges and trees on both sides. i bet there are enough idiots out there that see this 80kmh as an invitation for speeding and sliding!

Capt'n Midnight

Similar view on the road north of Nobber ( North County Dublin )
uphill section to a dangerous bend , with the words VERY SLOW on the road.

you'd think they'd have moved the 80 Kph section back past the corner..

antoinolachtnai

First of all, the appropriate measure for accidents is accidents divided by total distance driven (for example, fatalities/million km, not fatalities/driver or accidents/driver).

Fast driving also has an environmental impact in terms of increased emissions.

cyclopath2001

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Fast driving also has an environmental impact in terms of increased emissions.

Not just emissions, but also noise and also, more importantly and ignored by the "fast-driving by skilled drivers (us) is safe, slow drivers cause crashes by frustrating fast drivers" lobby is the general atmosphere of fear and intimidation generated by speeding drivers.

People are afraid to allow their children cross the road and elderly and movement impaired people take little comfort that smug speeders are highly skilled and have anti-lock brakes.

Collision statistics do not measure the whole negative impact of speed culture.

fricatus

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Fast driving also has an environmental impact in terms of increased emissions.

Let me add to that a certain amount of traffic congestion on side roads (believe it or not). Ever notice how an exit onto a fast road always backs up, even where there's not that much traffic? Drivers pulling out tend to be more cautious because they have difficulty in correctly judging the speed of approaching traffic. Slowing down the traffic improves the flow, because those coming from side roads can pull out and get up to speed quickly, and the capacity of the road is increased as a result. Also the distance that drivers need to keep from the car in front is reduced, which increases road capacity too.

fricatus

fricatus wrote:

Let me add to that a certain amount of traffic congestion on side roads (believe it or not). Ever notice how an exit onto a fast road always backs up, even where there's not that much traffic? Drivers pulling out tend to be more cautious because they have difficulty in correctly judging the speed of approaching traffic. Slowing down the traffic improves the flow, because those coming from side roads can pull out and get up to speed quickly, and the capacity of the road is increased as a result. Also the distance that drivers need to keep from the car in front is reduced, which increases road capacity too.

What I notice is that when I leave the side road, is that there is often a (very) long snake of vehicles coming from one direction (after a long section of single carriagway - with limited overtaking) and from the other direction fairly short snakes of vehicles (not long after the end of the dual carriagway).

The worst of it is that, one way is often clear and the other way has continous traffic. Not really speed related, but certainly capacity related. A real pig if you want to turn right!

Sometimes it's easier to turn left then right & right again (U turn at the next minor road).

Capt'n Midnight

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Fast driving also has an environmental impact in terms of increased emissions.

40mph / 60kph is the speed at which roads have maximal capacity. Slower you get less cars through. Faster and the gaps between cars increases, again you get less cars through.

The M40 should be like the UK motorways and have variable speed signage on gantries over the lanes. During "rush hours" the speed limit would be 60Kph. Also at this speed motorists would be allowed use the hard shoulder as a driving lane. When the traffic dies down the limit would go up and the hard shoulder wouldn't be usable again. Stopping and starting and using brakes all have an energy cost compared to constantly moving at a modest speed.

I'll say it again, we are on an island, all we need to do is harmonise our excise rate on fuel with the north and then all motorists can be on a pay per use system. Hey we could even do like they do in Oz and have basic third party insurance funded by fuel tax, or at least the €50million paid out to cover accidents by uninsured drivers.

Victor

antoinolachtnai wrote:

First of all, the appropriate measure for accidents is accidents divided by total distance driven (for example, fatalities/million km, not fatalities/driver or accidents/driver).

I would go with something like this:

Social cost / capita ......... most desireable
Social cost / million km
Social cost / driver
Social cost / vehicle ......... least desireable

Where social cost represents fatalities, injuries and material damage on a weighted basis.

Niall1234

Accidents per miles driven is prob the best stat.

Accidents per capita is meaningless. A country with more cars per capita will have a higher Accident rate per capita.

With Ireland being the most car dependant country in the Europe, it is skewing our figure.

Victor

Niall1234 wrote:

Accidents per capita is meaningless. A country with more cars per capita will have a higher Accident rate per capita.

I understand your point, but you are missing mine. You are failing to realise that while understandable, those deaths are not acceptable.

Take two countries. Which country is it safer to live in?

Country A: 1m people. 100,000 cars. 100 road deaths.
Country B: 1m people. 10,000 cars. 10 road deaths.

cyclopath2001

Niall1234 wrote:

Accidents per miles driven is prob the best stat.

I disagree, that's like measuring the quality of life in an area by measuring the number of assaults while ignoring problems like intimidation.

Niall1234

Victor wrote:

I understand your point, but you are missing mine. You are failing to realise that while understandable, those deaths are not acceptable.

Take two countries. Which country is it safer to live in?

Country A: 1m people. 100,000 cars. 100 road deaths.
Country B: 1m people. 10,000 cars. 10 road deaths.

Equally as safe. Statistically in both instances you name, you are have an equal chance of dying in a car accident if you are driving.

Its like saying that per capita, more Irish people get sun burned compared to people in Nigeria, completely ignoring the fact that Irish people with pale skin would burn more easily.

Victor

Niall1234 wrote:

Equally as safe. Statistically in both instances you name, you are have an equal chance of dying in a car accident if you are driving.

Ah, you're just trying to be smart now. Only a third of road deaths are drivers.

http://www.garda.ie/angarda/statistics98/nroadstats.html

Niall1234

Victor wrote:

Ah, you're just trying to be smart now. Only a third of road deaths are drivers.

http://www.garda.ie/angarda/statistics98/nroadstats.html

Fair point.

D'Peoples Voice

seamus wrote:

Except that we don't. We're middle of the table in the EU when it comes to road deaths. You know when you go to certain countries in mainland Europe and think, "Jaysus, their driving is atrocious"? You're right. The media would have the whole country believe that no other countries in Europe suffer from road deaths. Here's a simple comparison from 2001:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7254
Assuming that our population stayed static between 2001-2006 (even though we know it didn't), then that rate dropped to 9.5 deaths per 100,000 last year.
So we *are* winning the battle on road safety.

Seamus, I must admit I am someone who clearly has been completely mislead by the media, I thought road safety, like everything else, had got worse under this government (a barrister was on the radio yesterday saying that crime in Ireland is not as bad as Los Angelos, something the media would have you think different under this government).
But after reading your post, I checked out page 45 of 64 of this publication, and my opinion of the Government has changed completely. Yes they are still gobsh1tes, but at least not incompetent. We are ahead of Spain, that's something I would never have even dreamed of, can't see why the Government aren't highlighting this, this is an excellent result. Spain have excellent road safety standards!
http://www.erf.be/images/stat/ERF_stats2006.pdf
Although it must be said this survey is a few years out of date:(

Victor

Of note, road deaths are coming down in most of Europe, but increased over the last two years in Ireland.

Thanks for finding that report.

Victor

Victor wrote:

I understand your point, but you are missing mine. You are failing to realise that while understandable, those deaths are not acceptable.

Take two countries. Which country is it safer to live in?

Country A: 1m people. 100,000 cars. 100 road deaths.
Country B: 1m people. 10,000 cars. 10 road deaths.

Or indeed, take three countries. Which country is it safer to live in?

Country A: 1m people. 100,000 cars. 100 road deaths.
Country B: 1m people. 10,000 cars. 10 road deaths
Country C: 1m people. 100,000 cars. 10 road deaths (most people use other means of transport).

ednwireland

just back from driving round scotland and orkney what astounded me was the quality of the road surface compared to here none of these multiple bumps coming into an unsigned sharp bend which unsettle the car making it much more likely to lose control. any newly surfaced road was tarred properly and had a smooth road surface making braking and cornering much much safer we drove a lot of single track roads all had passing spaces every 100 yards with big visible signposts. i honestly think the gov doesnt care about road safety when you look at the road quality here anyone that comes on holiday here cant beleive the state of all the roads even the roads (roaund donegal anyway) have appallingly rough surfaces negative cambers etc etc. why arent R roads esp fixed to a decent level even when they are resurfaced or widened the state the road is left is unbeilivable.
i really think this inappropriate speed thing is right but if you dont know the road and come on a bumpy unsigned bend on an 80 road that is inappropriate speed yes but i think the sober driver is prob only 33% responsible for an accident in those circumstances. i think the gov/councils are literlly getting away with murder in some cases.