The RSA STILL don't get it - slowing down is not the solution to all our problems.

E92

I see that there are new road safety advertisements airing tonight(haven't seen them yet) on RTÉ. Needless to say the head honco Mr Gabriel Mary Byrne was at the press conference. And instead of reminding us about the tragedy that happens when a friend/family member etc loses their life or they have a lucky escape (one of them was drink driving, another fell asleep at the wheel) Gay pronounces that he "hoped that people would get the message to slow down". What has any of these things got to do with speeding or driving?

I want to stress that I don't mean nor intend to offend and upset anyone who might know these people and if I have then I apologise but the RSA have their heads stuck so far up their proverbial they don't even realise it.

More info here

Rant over!

ninty9er

E92 wrote: »

I see that there are new road safety advertisements airing tonight(haven't seen them yet) on RTÉ. Needless to say the head honco Mr Gabriel Mary Byrne was at the press conference. And instead of reminding us about the tragedy that happens when a friend/family member etc loses their life or they have a lucky escape (one of them was drink driving, another fell asleep at the wheel) Gay pronounces that he "hoped that people would get the message to slow down". What has any of these things got to do with speeding or driving?

I want to stress that I don't mean nor intend to offend and upset anyone who might know these people and if I have then I apologise but the RSA have their heads stuck so far up their proverbial they don't even realise it.

More info here

Rant over!

I wholeheartedly agree.

I mean there is nothing unsafe about someone in a well maintained vehicle with more than 100bhp doing 170-180 on our Motorways.....this slow down crap does my head in

Owen

Slow down my arse. Tell you what Gay, put some form of lighting on all roads in the country, like even the very basic catseyes, and you'll decrease the number of deaths. Build a decent road network between towns and cities, and you'll reduce deaths. Train drivers properly and you'll reduce deaths.

I'm listening to 'slow down' for over 10 years now, and more people are being killed each year. Penalty points were introduced, and it made sweet f*ck all difference. The answer is not to slow down, it's to address the above problems, and then we will see a result.

ninty9er

ned78 wrote: »

Slow down my arse. Tell you what Gay, put some form of lighting on all roads in the country, like even the very basic catseyes, and you'll decrease the number of deaths. Build a decent road network between towns and cities, and you'll reduce deaths. Train drivers properly and you'll reduce deaths.

No such thing as roads causing deaths unless they're cliffs that fall into the sea.

Bad driving kills...speed has very little to do with bad driving

Owen

ninty9er wrote: »

No such thing as roads causing deaths unless they're cliffs that fall into the sea.

Oh boy do I disagree. The condition of country roads in terms of night time visibility in this country is a disgrace. You have no points of reference on some roads, no white lines as they've faded, no street lights, no reflective warning chevron signs at dangerous corners, and no catseyes. So you're literally watching the ditch and tarmac. Now try that in fog/heavy rain at night, and imagine the guesswork taking place.

caesar

ninty9er wrote: »

I mean there is nothing unsafe about someone in a well maintained vehicle with more than 100bhp doing 170-180 on our Motorways.....this slow down crap does my head in

Sometimes I wish I was in Germany.....*sigh*

niceirishfella

another thing is that years ago, road traffic accidents were called road traffic ACCIDENTS!

Now they are referred to as collisions or whatever.

Well - I'll tell ya all now - Its no accident that we in this country have stupid, **** for brains drivers going around killing others through drink,drugs or just the sheer inabilty to control a vehicle.
And the cops , what are they doing?- naaaaa, they are too busy chasing lads over VRT?!?!?

Speed is not always a factor. To me, its all about EDUCATION!!
and sending me a fooking book "the rules of the road" in the post will not save lives over xmas either. Teach the kids at school how to drive. Have skidpans, have fun showing them how to drive and behave and then we might see a difference in 10 years time on the roads.

Owen

niceirishfella wrote: »

Teach the kids at school how to drive.

Great idea! It was trialled by a school in Boherbue in Cork, and it was a great success. The kids learned quickly how hard it is to stop cars in the wet, etc.

tossy

it all comes down to the 3 E's

Eduacate - drive ed in schools this could be easily done make transition year compulsory and away you go.

Equip - Decent roads,decent signage,decent lighting

Enforce - get the guards out on the bad roads not the motorways or dual carraige ways - when is the last time you heard of someone losing their life on a motorway???

ninty9er

ned78 wrote: »

Oh boy do I disagree. The condition of country roads in terms of night time visibility in this country is a disgrace. You have no points of reference on some roads, no white lines as they've faded, no street lights, no reflective warning chevron signs at dangerous corners, and no catseyes. So you're literally watching the ditch and tarmac. Now try that in fog/heavy rain at night, and imagine the guesswork taking place.

Well then you do unfortunately have to slow down!!!

It's common sense...the road network is going to take time...we only have so much money!!

meglome

I rarely drive, don't need to. But I walk through town every day. Any issues with drivers I have are generally not anything to do with speed. Running red lights, illegal turns, driving in the bus lanes, driving into the yellow box junctions. And just general stupidity.

I'm standing at the corner of Georges Street and Exchequer street yesterday evening. You can either go straight on or turn right into Exchequer Street and at the bottom you can only turn left, the right lane is a bus lane. Guy comes around on the left trying to skip the line of traffic. But there's only one lane either side after the junction due to the pedestrian crossing so he can only go right. But instead he drives down the wrong side of the road, coming close to some pedestrians, into the bus lane and then turns right.

I'm not saying speed doesn't make things worse.

Owen

ninty9er wrote: »

Well then you do unfortunately have to slow down!!!

You're not reading my post, in poor visibility, on a bad country road with unexpected twists and turns, a poorly educated driver will have a bad crash. Install catseyes on those roads, and even the worst driver will have a point of reference in the corners!

ninty9er

ned78 wrote: »

Great idea! It was trialled by a school in Boherbue in Cork, and it was a great success. The kids learned quickly how hard it is to stop cars in the wet, etc.

In theory: yes...

In practice: no!!


We have an overcrowded school curriculum as is...even at TY level schools have their own programmes...I know the year after I did TY the lads did the Theory Test as part of the year.

But that was because there was a teacher willing to do it.

What we need is state driving schools....(i.e somplace you go at a set time every fortnight/month for a year between the age of 15-16...then do a theory test, then you go back and do 20 hours practical tuition)

Money is once again the issue. I have no idea what it would cost, but I imagine somewhere in the region of €200million to put the infrastructure in place and about the same every year to staff it with properly trained tutors

ninty9er

ned78 wrote: »

You're not reading my post, in poor visibility, on a bad country road with unexpected twists and turns, a poorly educated driver will have a bad crash. Install catseyes on those roads, and even the worst driver will have a point of reference in the corners!

apologies...I see it now.

I do get the catseyes point, but I suppose it's also a matter of how many of these roads are being decommissioned.

Mr.Boots

Of course speed kills.....Stupid to say otherwise.
Anyone with the slightest bit of cop knows that at 40mph you have a much higher chance of a fatal accident than you do at 30.
Now take higher speeds .....60/70/80/90 mph and think of the tiny chance of survival at those speeds.
It is a fact that for every single mile per hour you reduce your average speed, the likelihood of you being involved in a serious collision is reduced by 5%.
10mph reduction = 50% less chance.
To say high speed German autobahns are fast but safe therefore speed is safe is silly.....our roads cant be compared to them.
80mph on a smooth straight autobahn IS safe(ish)
80mph on a wet irish dual carrigeway is NOT safe
Speed and poor conditions kills.
Unfortunetly the average stupid Irish driver dosnt adjust his/her speed to suit the conditions, they just keep speeding....and crashing
I drive 50.000km a year....i see alot of poor driving and accidents.....speed always plays a huge roll.

ninty9er

Mr.Boots wrote: »

Of course speed kills.....Stupid to say otherwise.
Anyone with the slightest bit of cop knows that at 40mph you have a much higher chance of a fatal accident than you do at 30.
Now take higher speeds .....60/70/80/90 mph and think of the tiny chance of survival at those speeds.
It is a fact that for every single mile per hour you reduce your average speed, the likelihood of you being involved in a serious collision is reduced by 5%.
10mph reduction = 50% less chance.
To say high speed German autobahns are fast but safe therefore speed is safe is silly.....our roads cant be compared to them.
80mph on a smooth straight autobahn IS safe(ish)
80mph on a wet irish dual carrigeway is NOT safe
Speed and poor conditions kills.
Unfortunetly the average stupid Irish driver dosnt adjust his/her speed to suit the conditions, they just keep speeding....and crashing
I drive 50.000km a year....i see alot of poor driving and accidents.....speed always plays a huge roll.

I've been on Autobähne, they're not all that different from our dual-carriageways (the ones I was on anyhow)

Speed is a facto that can be adjusted, but it's really a house of cards waiting to collapse if alcohol, seat belts, tyres,tiredness, speed and distractions (phone etc..) meet and didsater strikes then!!

Mr.Boots

ninty9er wrote: »

I've been on Autobähne, they're not all that different from our dual-carriageways (the ones I was on anyhow)

Speed is a facto that can be adjusted, but it's really a house of cards waiting to collapse if alcohol, seat belts, tyres,tiredness, speed and distractions (phone etc..) meet and didsater strikes then!!

I agree about autobahns....thats why they have limits on all but a couple of sections.
The RSA are allready campaigning against drink driving, mobile phones ect ect
speeding is just part of their campaigne
I think the speed thing realy gets up peoples goats because its just so easy to get caught these days....my 80odd year old neighbour got 2 points for speeding recently!!!!!

Mr.Boots

ninty9er wrote: »

No such thing as roads causing deaths unless they're cliffs that fall into the sea.

Bad driving kills...speed has very little to do with bad driving

Inappropiate speed IS bad driving....therefore Speed Kills

ninty9er

Mr.Boots wrote: »

Inappropiate speed IS bad driving....therefore Speed Kills

was wondering how long it would take...I do agree...but 170-180 km/h isn't necessarily inappropriate on the M7, M1, M4....

Mr.Boots

For MR. Average driver yes, 170/180 is way to fast.
Speed limits have to be set to suit all driving styles and conditions.
Every single mile per hour you reduce your average speed, the likelihood of you being involved in a collision is reduced by 5%. This is an oficial figure taken from a oficial website.

ninty9er

Mr.Boots wrote: »

For MR. Average driver yes, 170/180 is way to fast.
Speed limits have to be set to suit all driving styles and conditions.
Every single mile per hour you reduce your average speed, the likelihood of you being involved in a collision is reduced by 5%. This is an oficial figure taken from a oficial website.

can we have a link...because that's utter twaddle....If I'm doing 130km/h or 160 km/h the likelihood of me being in an accident on the M7 isn't going to increase by 94%

Mr.Boots

ninty9er wrote: »

can we have a link...because that's utter twaddle....If I'm doing 130km/h or 160 km/h the likelihood of me being in an accident on the M7 isn't going to increase by 94%

Sure.....


http://www.gnn.gov.uk/content/detail.asp?NavigatedFromSearch=True&NewsAreaID=112&ReleaseID=168531

Niall1234

Boots, a survey from a few years showed that Autobahn with speed limits and those without had about the same crash and death rate.

To me, people should drive at an acceptable speed for according to the quality of road and weather conditions.

Dual Carriageways and Motorways are capable of 150 kph easily. We must be the only country in Europe with dual carriageways limited to 100 kph. Go anywhere else in EUrope these would be classified as Motorways and would have a 130 kph.

All this slow down stuff is quite clearly yet another cop out by the government. The state of our roads is a bloody disgrace as is education programmes for drivers and actual proper road enforcement regarding poor driving (and not just speeding). On the other hand, the government likes to tell us all to slow down, which in essance, is passing the buck and the blame to every drive. They are essentially telling us that our roads are crap and that slowing down will solve everything. This is the same as their "Power of One" campaign which is of course, blaming us for global warmning, instead of blaming themselves for not building more wind farms, etc to create green electricity.

Absolute rubbish.

Have to say the one that gets me is "Slow down, you'll get to your destination eventually". So, how slow do they want us to go. They claim that every life is worth saving.

Under this logic, driving around at 50 kph will save maybe 300 lives per year and hey, youl eventually get where your going to.

ToxicPaddy

Personally I think there are too many bad drivers out there and speeding just
has them using their bad driving skills at a faster pace.. so chances of them
doing some wrong and causing an accident are increased..

Yeah sure, slowing down will give them more time to react but if they cant
drive the car properly in the first place then unless ya take em out of the car
and make em walk, they are gonna cause accidents anyway.

There are thousands of accidents in the cities each year and thats when
traffic is going at a snails pace.. Most dont cause deaths as they arent going
at speed, however that doesnt mean they happen.

If they actually took statistics of the total number of accidents that Gardai
responded to, even if its just fender benders and they are there taking
insurance details and finding out who was in the wrong, it would scare the
hell out of the RSA and show them just how bad Irish drivers really are.

Then Mr Byrne would start preaching about safer driving, better driving techniques AND reducing speed!!!

Tox

craichoe

Niall1234 wrote: »

Boots, a survey from a few years showed that Autobahn with speed limits and those without had about the same crash and death rate.

To me, people should drive at an acceptable speed for according to the quality of road and weather conditions.

Dual Carriageways and Motorways are capable of 150 kph easily. We must be the only country in Europe with dual carriageways limited to 100 kph. Go anywhere else in EUrope these would be classified as Motorways and would have a 130 kph.

All this slow down stuff is quite clearly yet another cop out by the government. The state of our roads is a bloody disgrace as is education programmes for drivers and actual proper road enforcement regarding poor driving (and not just speeding). On the other hand, the government likes to tell us all to slow down, which in essance, is passing the buck and the blame to every drive. They are essentially telling us that our roads are crap and that slowing down will solve everything. This is the same as their "Power of One" campaign which is of course, blaming us for global warmning, instead of blaming themselves for not building more wind farms, etc to create green electricity.

Absolute rubbish.

Have to say the one that gets me is "Slow down, you'll get to your destination eventually". So, how slow do they want us to go. They claim that every life is worth saving.

Under this logic, driving around at 50 kph will save maybe 300 lives per year and hey, youl eventually get where your going to.

Dual Carriage ways do not have interchanges and have too many exits to be classified as a motorway

Niall1234

craichoe wrote: »

Dual Carriage ways do not have interchanges and have too many exits to be classified as a motorway

Sorry, should have said HQDC which are of course, built to motorway standard.

Still doesn't excuse the 120 kph speed limit on motorways compared to the general European standard of 130 kph. I'm all for increased speed limits in good driving considitions.

Its all about speed for the conditions. How about variable speed limits on motorways. 130 kph in good conditions. Electronic signs to indicated a 110 kph limit in heavy rain etc.

TwoShedsJackson

Mr.Boots wrote: »

For MR. Average driver yes, 170/180 is way to fast.
Speed limits have to be set to suit all driving styles and conditions.
Every single mile per hour you reduce your average speed, the likelihood of you being involved in a collision is reduced by 5%. This is an oficial figure taken from a oficial website.

And just about every driver out there thinks they're a great or at the very least above-average driver, no matter how bad they may actually be.

Riskymove

Niall1234 wrote: »

Sorry, should have said HQDC which are of course, built to motorway standard.

Still doesn't excuse the 120 kph speed limit on motorways compared to the general European standard of 130 kph. I'm all for increased speed limits in good driving considitions.

Its all about speed for the conditions. How about variable speed limits on motorways. 130 kph in good conditions. Electronic signs to indicated a 110 kph limit in heavy rain etc.

The problem I see with this is the lack of education in Irish drivers as referred to above. As the big pile up on the M7 showed a lot of irish drivers (yes a generalisation I know) do not change their driving to reflect conditions; as I think people react to a speed limit as the speed you are obliged to drive at!!

its all well and good to say speeding is not a problem on a motorway but it certainly is in a lot of scenarios, particluarly on non-motorways/dual carraigeways at night when it seems most fatal crashes occur.

I think until we can improve the standard of driving in ireland generally any increase in speed limit etc is asking for trouble!

bbability

Jesus will someone just get that man off the soap box. Its drivers around his age that I see every day making unneccessary and careless decisions on our roads.

Traumadoc

I spent last night dealing with the result of a speeding motorist, one dead one critically injured, one other injured.

I have had to tell parents that their child will be brain damaged for life.

I have had to tell parents that their child is dead.

I would not mind so much but these people were not speeding - its difficult for a 6 year old on a bicycle. but she was the victim of speeding.

I am not against speeding but not on our sh*tty roads.

NeMiSiS

Education is obviously a key to making people drive to a better standard, also the points about the rural roads that are badly lit with no cat eyes etc is very valid I think.

I do drive alot also.. all kinds of roads.. not just to and from work commutes, the main problem I see with peoples driving is simply awareness. What I mean is people are driving from A to B - they are not taking weather conditions into consideration, times of day, traffic volumes, other road users - pedestrians - all other traffic everything and anything that they should. People drive as if they are on autopilot oblivious to those around them, I continually meet lines of cars all driving at 60 KM/H in good conditions.. bt all tail gating one another refusing to overtake or facilitate anyone else over taking, this makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I also see people not being able to control their car at all... braking going round bends..I was allways taught to brake in a straight line.. I could rant all day.. but I've to go for a drive..

TK

Ger the man

ninty9er wrote: »

can we have a link...because that's utter twaddle....If I'm doing 130km/h or 160 km/h the likelihood of me being in an accident on the M7 isn't going to increase by 94%

Im sorry - but speeding is a direct cause of a lot of accidents , not all but a lot, along with drinking and driving, not paying attention etc.

God I'd love to be a traffic cop! I'd would be a ruthless son of a b***h!!

Watch the clips below and then think about if that was your child in the last one.....(still wanna speed)?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvja-PA5Egc


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipnJbSnmc24&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75GuzsGzoP0&feature=related

ballooba

Sigh. Uncle Gaybo always comes out with this toss. The statistics are there plain as day. Speed is not the problem on our roads. It is one of the problems. the others never get addressed because of this BS.

trellheim

Kinetic energy [ the amount of energy in your car as a result of your speed ]

= 1/2 * mass of the car * THE SQUARE OF THE SPEED

so if you drive at 10kph then speed up to 100kph

10* 10 = 100

100*100 = 10,000

10,000/100 = 100

you have 100 times more energy as a result of your speed.

In a crash that energy has to go somewhere to stop you.

This is physics and you cannot escape it.

BanzaiBk

My parents were approached by the RSA about appearing in the advertisement but declined as my father was ill. Their eldest child (my older brother) was killed whilst stopped at a junction by a 19 year old driving 40 kph over the speed limit who lost control after hitting a curb. He was 30 years old and left a fiancée and a 2 year old son. At the end of the day speed was a factor in the death of my brother and people need to start taking it seriously by copping on a bit. I'm sure there are lots of 30somethings on this part of the forums with partners/kids who value their lives as much as my brother did.

ballooba

Your physics argument would suggest that it is safer to have no velocity at all and thus no kinetic energy. It is down to the driver to use their discretion to decide on an appropriate velocity. in the event of a an accident a Garda will make a judgement on whether that velocity was a factor in the accident. In a minority of cases the accident investigator have judged it so according to the statistics.

BanzaiBk wrote: »

My parents were approached by the RSA about appearing in the advertisement but declined as my father was ill. Their eldest child (my older brother) was killed whilst stopped at a junction by a 19 year old driving 40 kph over the speed limit who lost control after hitting a curb. He was 30 years old and left a fiancée and a 2 year old son. At the end of the day speed was a factor in the death of my brother and people need to start taking it seriously by copping on a bit. I'm sure there are lots of 30somethings on this part of the forums with partners/kids who value their lives as much as my brother did.

I'm sorry for your loss but there are others (the vast majority of victims) whose loved ones road deaths did not result from inappropriate speed. These people are being neglected by the Speed Kills mantra.

peasant

trellheim wrote: »

Kinetic energy [ the amount of energy in your car as a result of your speed ]

= 1/2 * mass of the car * THE SQUARE OF THE SPEED

so if you drive at 10kph then speed up to 100kph

10* 10 = 100

100*100 = 10,000

10,000/100 = 100

you have 100 times more energy as a result of your speed.

In a crash that energy has to go somewhere to stop you.

This is physics and you cannot escape it.

yees ...let's bring back the man with the red flag !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_laws

BanzaiBk

ballooba wrote: »

I'm sorry for your loss but there are others (the vast majority of victims) whose loved ones road deaths did not result from inappropriate speed. These people are being neglected by the Speed Kills mantra.

Fair enough, I suppose:rolleyes:

E92

Motorways should have a speed limit of 160 km/h. Irish Motorways seem to be all but identical to me to their UK counterparts and UK Motorways have a design speed of 100 mph which equates to 160 km/h. The German Autobahn is also designed for speeds in excess of 160 km/h hence why the "safety" argument for a blanket limit is a pile of sh1te there. What is very interesting is that a blanket limit in Germany would reduce CO2 emissions by 2.5 million tonnes per annum, we pollute 70 million tonnes and in the words of Brian Cowen, "on a 24 hour clock Ireland's emissions amount to 7 seconds" so by that logic if there were speed limits on the German Autobahn there would be a difference of 0.25 seconds whicjh by my calculations would reduce the world's CO2 emissions by wait for it... 0.0002894% which is no difference really.

LuckyStar

The back roads between Maynooth, Leixlip and then out towards Clonsilla are very bad, really windy, and no lights!!! I have not driven on them yet myself and will be terrified when I do. Also there is a big long stretch of road between Leixlip and Maynooth with no lights either, there does be a good bit of traffic coming in the opposite direction so you can only see what your dips have lit up, which is feck all.

Mitch Connor

Ger the man wrote: »

Im sorry - but speeding is a direct cause of a lot of accidents , not all but a lot, along with drinking and driving, not paying attention etc.

God I'd love to be a traffic cop! I'd would be a ruthless son of a b***h!!

Watch the clips below and then think about if that was your child in the last one.....(still wanna speed)?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvja-PA5Egc


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipnJbSnmc24&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75GuzsGzoP0&feature=related

This is at the very heart of the disagreements regarding speedlimits.

In the past I have been quite vocal in my assertation that speeding is not automatically dangerous, and that the current usage of speed cameras, and the places where (in general) speed checkpoints are placed are incorrect.

I am not saying people should be allowed to do whatever speed they feel comfortable at in any given circumstance - i have always been saying that some limits are too low, while some are too high.

The three video's you link to are fatal 'accidents' in urban/sub-urban/residential areas with the main cause being speeding. These are EXACTLY the places that speed check points, cameras and any other type of enforcement should be at its strongest. Doing over the current speed limit on the M50, on a clear day with a clear enough road is completely different to speeding to residential or commercial areas (anywhere with high levels of population/pedistrians) and it should definately been seen as such.

Also, I know people will come back at this and say that a person who speeds on the M50 is likely to speed elsewhere, and that, in some cases is true; in others it is not. I would be known to speed the odd time down the M50 (not too excessively imo), but never through a residential area, to me they are different roads requiring different approaches. I would also argue that catching a speeding motorist (and informing them of this a month or so later) may not actually have an effect on their driving where it is needed most - in the populated areas.

Going over the speed limit is not always dangers, inappropriate speeding is always dangerous. To my mind, there should be a distinction between the two, and the enforcement of limits should be tailored to suit the real dangers of speeding, and not just speeding in general.

From discussions I have had with other people who are not in the 'Speed Kills - and thats it' camp, this reasoning is common.

Again, people guilty of causing the fatal accidents like in those vids should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - it simply is not on; but people who give out about the RSA are not (in general, imo) saying what the people in these videos are doing is in any way right.

TheBigLebowski

I still can not believe the amount of people who go on about the whole "speed doesn't kill, it's inappropriate speeding, bad driving blah blah". Speed is a factor in all accidents. That is a guarantee. That is to say if there was no speed, nobody would be moving and there would be no collisions!
So lets increase the speed to 20 miles an hour. There would be very few accidents and anything that happens unexpectedly, you will have a lot more time to react. I'm not suggesting that everyone should drive at 20 miles an hour because we wouldn't get anywhere. All I'm trying to say is the more you increase the speed on any road, the less time you have to respond to the unexpected and it is the unexpected which is the primary cause of accidents. There is trade off between speed and safety.

What is inappropriate speeding? Someone may be fine doing 140 kmh on a perfect dual carriageway and think 'no problems here'. But what happens when the unexpected happens, someone goes through a red light up ahead and because you're doing 140kmh, you plough into them and you're both dead. Had you been doing 80kmh, you would had a lot more chance of stopping in time. Now the primary cause of this accident is the bad driving of the person who went through the red light. But the fact that this drivers error becomes a fatal error is componded by the speed of the oncoming driver. Driver error will always exist and whether that error becomes a fatal error will come down to the speed of the cars involved. That too is a guarantee.

trellheim

Well I was expecting the oo slow down to 10 take the extreme case argument ...

the point I was trying to make is that people are not aware of the difference . it's not proportional its exponential

Most people [ me included ] are not aware they are driving at an inappropriate speed

for
the road
the weather
other cars


and that inconsiderate Mr.Random McChance up ahead .... yes we need to watch out for him too

hand on heart which drivers here's not broken the speed limit ever or felt the car's rear end starting to step out because you were a little 'too fast' round that bend

ballooba

BanzaiBk wrote: »

Fair enough, I suppose:rolleyes:

I don't know what the rolleyes is about? Do you think that those majority of people are unimportant because their deaths were not caused by speed? Are their deaths more sociallly acceptable because they were not caused by speed?

craichoe

I think the Anti-Speed brigade are phrasing it incorrectly.

I believe their against breaking the speed limit.

On the Autobahn I do around 160 - 180 kph with no problem. Once you hit Holland you bring your speed down to 120, thats the speed limit.

The worst drivers on German Autobahns are johnny foreigner

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ballooba

The whole Appropriate Speed Vs Speed Limit is one argument. "Speeding" as in breaking an arbitrary posted speed limit is not what causes accidents. Speed limits are there to limit the amount of discretion afforded to drivers in deciding what is an appropriate speed. They put an upper limit in place that may be legally allow one to travel at a speed that is completely unsafe. However it is deemed that travelling above this limit in any conditions is unsafe so the decision is made for the driver. Some people think it's important to understand appropriate speed, some think the focus solely on speed limits is acceptable. My position on this goes back to the recent pile up in heavy fog on the N7. This huge accident was caused by a combination opf ignorance and disrespect on the behalf of certain drivers as to what constitutes an appropriate speed for those conditions. Ignorance would lead these people to believe that travelling at the speed limit in those conditions was not speeding. The RSA does nothing to tackle this ignorance.

The other side of the coin is that the consistent message coming from the RSA is that speed kills. The only other significant message from them is that Drink Driving Kills. No other driver behvaiour is addressed. These two factors are quite significant and it's very often a combination of the two that results in loss of life. However, they occur in the minority of accidents. The factors that cause the majority of accidents are not addressed because they are considered too diverse and complicated to address. Some argue that they can be addressed by tackling ignorance through education and lack of repect through enforcement. I subscribe to this argument.

Wishbone Ash

ballooba wrote: »

The other side of the coin is that the consistent message coming from the RSA is that speed kills. The only other significant message from them is that Drink Driving Kills. No other driver behvaiour is addressed. These two factors are quite significant and it's very often a combination of the two that results in loss of life. However, they occur in the minority of accidents. The factors that cause the majority of accidents are not addressed because they are considered too diverse and complicated to address.

At last - a bit of reason!

The reason that the RSA encourage a reduction of speed and no alcohol is that these factors are directly under the control of the individual motorist.

Other posters have pointed out the infrastructural factors which contribute to road fatalities. These points have merit but they are beyond the scope of the ordinary motorist.

No motorist can illuminate all the roads of Ireland this Christmas.
No motorist can install cats eyes.
No motorist can get rid of 'bad bends'.
No motorist can improve signage.
No motorist can improve road surfaces.

However, all motorists can decide whether to drink and drive and to slow down!

Each motorist out there has a duty of care to themselves and others and must take responsibility for their actions. We have many problems with our infrastructure but it is up to individual drivers to adjust their driving habits to suit the conditions that they are presented with.

peasant

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

No motorist can illuminate all the roads of Ireland this Christmas.
No motorist can install cats eyes.
No motorist can get rid of 'bad bends'.
No motorist can improve signage.
No motorist can improve road surfaces.

every motorist gets shafted for VRT
every motorist has to pay very high motor tax
every motorist has to pay VRT on safety enhancing features of the car

However, all motorists can decide whether to drink and drive and to slow down!

suprisingly... many motorists do that already (i.e not drink and drive carefully)

Each motorist out there has a duty of care to themselves and others and must take responsibility for their actions. We have many problems with our infrastructure but it is up to individual drivers to adjust their driving habits to suit the conditions that they are presented with.

The governement / local authorities / the RSA also have a duty of care for the motorist ...t'would be nice to see them acting on it for a change instead of always putting the blame firmly into the motorists' court.

How about a nationwide standard for the erection and postitioning of signage (speed limit signage included)?

How about a fine for county councils that during "road repair" cake over the white lines and cats eyes and "forget" to put them back on?

How about funding for proper accident investigation / accident prevention measures? (and no ...an "accident black spot" sign accompanied by a 100km/h speed limit sign is not accident prevention)

We pay for all this ...supposedly ...and what we get is nothing, nothing but the patronising ....speed kills, drink kills ...mantra all the time.

Less empty phrases ...more action please!

BanzaiBk

ballooba wrote: »

I don't know what the rolleyes is about? Do you think that those majority of people are unimportant because their deaths were not caused by speed? Are their deaths more sociallly acceptable because they were not caused by speed?

Absolutely not, it's just the general attitude on this ONE area of car related deaths has to have a knock on effect to other areas.

ballooba

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

The reason that the RSA encourage a reduction of speed and no alcohol is that these factors are directly under the control of the individual motorist.

Other posters have pointed out the infrastructural factors which contribute to road fatalities. These points have merit but they are beyond the scope of the ordinary motorist.

Personally I am not sure if the RSA statistics with regard to poor engineering as a factor in deaths are accurate. The standard of engineering is very poor especially at the site of ongoing road works.

In any event, the number of accidents attributed to poor engineering by the RSA is quite low. The majority of accidents are caused by driver behaviour other than speeding or drink driving. Collectively they could probably be referred to as "bad driving".

BanzaiBk wrote: »

Absolutely not, it's just the general attitude on this ONE area of car related deaths has to have a knock on effect to other areas.

I'd rather say behaviour in this area is symptomatic of a wider problem. The attitude in this area is poor. It does need to be addressed. I believe the response should be proportionate though.

Personally I think there should be zero tolerance with regard to ALL penalty point offences. The sight of Traffic Corp cars pulling people over should be as common as it is in the UK.

The disproportionality of issuance of penalty points is scandalous. Go have a look and see how many points are issued for failing to wear a seat belt and failing to restrain a child. These two offences account for nearly as many deaths as speeding. Speeding attracts something like 80% of points issued.