[Article] Road deaths on pace for lowest figure since 1961

Victor

BluntGuy wrote: »

And I can bet you if fixed speed cameras are installed, they'll be PPP, so instead of the money you've been fined going back into the road (so that at least some good will come of it) it'll be going to some random private company instead. :mad:

No, they are being paid a fixed fee to operate X hours at locations instructed by the Garda.

transylman wrote: »

I think gaybo just wants to pepper the motorways with speed cameras.

The list is on the garda website - very few motorways AFAIK. http://www.garda.ie/sez/Speed_Enforcement_Zones.htm

Amtmann

Victor wrote: »

No, they are being paid a fixed fee to operate X hours at locations instructed by the Garda.The list is on the garda website - very few motorways AFAIK. http://www.garda.ie/sez/Speed_Enforcement_Zones.htm

Hm. Just looking at the Tipperary section, a few points are marked on the "N8", which no longer really exists. I wonder do they mean the R639 or the M8? Because they're using Google Maps, which hasn't been updated, confusion reigns.

Amtmann

The reduction in fatalities in recent years is staggering when you compare the noughties to the nadir that was the seventies: http://www.garda.ie/statistics98/rtastats_longterm.html

Victor

I imagine it was the old N8 - the list is a few months old.

Poking through the list, a lot of the sites seem to be near the motorway network, but not on it, e.g. the N8 just south of Portlaoise, and the roads from the N11 into Bray and Greystones.

L1011

Victor wrote: »

No, they are being paid a fixed fee to operate X hours at locations instructed by the Garda.The list is on the garda website - very few motorways AFAIK. http://www.garda.ie/sez/Speed_Enforcement_Zones.htm

That list is interestingly missing the one place I know they frequently get people - M4 just west of the Maynooth interchange; yet has the entire Straffan Road through Maynooth which while frequently peppered with breathalyser points, I've never seen a speed check on.

BrianD3

I wonder what effect safer cars are starting to have on the figures. In the last 10-15 years there have been major improvements. Cars now have
-better brakes, ABS, ESP etc. to help drivers avoid collisions
-much better crashworthiness due to EuroNCAP crash testing. Also tested for pedestrian safety
-features such as seatbelt warning buzzers that forces drivers to wear their belt or else listen to an annoying buzzer.

On the last point, my dad has been driving since the 1940s and never wore his seatbelt on short journeys (less than about 5 miles) until 2005 when he got a car with a seatbelt buzzer.

On the crash worthiness and how cars have improved, there are numerous videos on youtube that demonstrate this. Here are some:

Small modern Renault Modus hits big old Volvo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY

Recent car hits tree

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5wiXnExdm0

Older car subjected to a similar test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uGGvJjR5jw

mickoneill30

BrianD3 wrote: »

I wonder what effect safer cars are starting to have on the figures. In the last 10-15 years there have been major improvements.

You'd also have to take into account the increase of cars on the roads over the last 15 years too though. That's a changing variable too.

E92

mickoneill30 wrote: »

You'd also have to take into account the increase of cars on the roads over the last 15 years too though. That's a changing variable too.

Which makes it all the more significant that the numbers are going the way they are going.

The truth is that all the motorways and dual carriageways combined with random breath testing are the 2 reasons why fatalities have gone down so much.

After all the Government reckons that you are between 7 and 10 times less likely to die on Motorways/High Quality Dual Carriageways, so it's hardly surprising really.

And with the Inter Urban roads due for completion we will see the number of fatalities go down even further next year and in 2010. I would be disappointed if we don't see the fatality rate go to 260 next year, significant amounts of motorway was added to the national road network this year and next year will be the first full year that we will have this obvious and very important benefit.

With a recession and hence less traffic on the roads the target will be even easier still.

The Government should have no problem meeting their self imposed target of 250 fatalities per annum. If we get them down to this level then we will be in line with the European average.

But yet we get people objecting to the country building a decent road network because it might kill the odd polar bear or penguin here and there(yeah, because one really small country can do all that much damage especially when CO2 is something like not even 0.5% of the total gases in the atmosphere:rolleyes::rolleyes:)!

AugustusMaximus

E92 wrote: »

Which makes it all the more significant that the numbers are going the way they are going.

The truth is that all the motorways and dual carriageways combined with random breath testing are the 2 reasons why fatalities have gone down so much.

After all the Government reckons that you are between 7 and 10 times less likely to die on Motorways/High Quality Dual Carriageways, so it's hardly surprising really.

And with the Inter Urban roads due for completion we will see the number of fatalities go down even further next year and in 2010. I would be disappointed if we don't see the fatality rate go to 260 next year, significant amounts of motorway was added to the national road network this year and next year will be the first full year that we will have this obvious and very important benefit.

With a recession and hence less traffic on the roads the target will be even easier still.

The Government should have no problem meeting their self imposed target of 250 fatalities per annum. If we get them down to this level then we will be in line with the European average.

But yet we get people objecting to the country building a decent road network because it might kill the odd polar bear or penguin here and there(yeah, because one really small country can do all that much damage especially when CO2 is something like not even 0.5% of the total gases in the atmosphere:rolleyes::rolleyes:)!

IIRC, with 330 or so deaths last year, we ranked about average in the 27 EU states for road deaths. 250 would put us well above average.

IMO, the banning of L drivers from our roads has a lot to do with deaths going down too.

On the other hand, speed traps on motorways has just about nothing to do with the reduction.

E92

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

IIRC, with 330 or so deaths last year, we ranked about average in the 27 EU states for road deaths. 250 would put us well above average.

IMO, the banning of L drivers from our roads has a lot to do with deaths going down too.

On the other hand, speed traps on motorways has just about nothing to do with the reduction.

I agree with the proper enforcement of the L drivers. That definitely is a good idea.

However apparently young drivers are still the most likely to have fatalities and the deaths in this category haven't really gone down at all.

I firmly believe that all drivers should be re-made do the driving test every 5 years.

I also think that everyone on a learner permit should be made have at least 5 lessons by a RSA ADI approved driving instructor.

I had lessons with an instructor, and I have no doubt that because of those I am a much better driver than I otherwise would be.

I might be a BMW driver and apparently indicators are an optional extra for us because we think we're superior to everyone else(we don't think it - we know it because we're driving the finest cars money can buy:D:D), but I do actually indicate all the time, and I even do it properly as well:)!

Victor

BrianD3 wrote: »

I wonder what effect safer cars are starting to have on the figures.

Agreed. I think there are a few factors at play.

1. The rust buckets are gone - when was the last time you saw a car with serious corrosion problems?
2. SUVs aside, manufacturers have been designing cars to be less risky to their occupants and others.
3. People are actually wearing their seatbelts. It toook a 3 year old screaming "STOP! GRANDDAD YOUR SEATBELT" to make my father wear his.
4. There has been a steady reduction since the expansion of the Traffic Corp and the introduction of random breath testing.

mickoneill30 wrote: »

You'd also have to take into account the increase of cars on the roads over the last 15 years too though. That's a changing variable too.

While yes, car numbers have gone up substantially and people are driving more (they can afford to or need to), this isn't necessarily a good metric. Gun numbers are up - does this mean that gun deaths are more acceptable? More understandable yes, more acceptable no.

E92 wrote: »

I agree with the proper enforcement of the L drivers. That definitely is a good idea.

I wonder, was it the actual testing or was it people being forced to actually study and practice.

However apparently young drivers are still the most likely to have fatalities and the deaths in this category haven't really gone down at all.

I imagine it will always be like that - the trick is to reduce it. Young men are society's risk takers - it is they who de is other accidents, manslaughter and suicide.

I firmly believe that all drivers should be re-made do the driving test every 5 years.

Agreed, at some interval at least, even if is only a theory test.

I also think that everyone on a learner permit should be made have at least 5 lessons by a RSA ADI approved driving instructor.

Agreed. And everyone else could do with some advanced training.

I might be a BMW driver and apparently indicators are an optional extra for us because we think we're superior to everyone else(we don't think it - we know it because we're driving the finest cars money can buy:D:D), but I do actually indicate all the time, and I even do it properly as well:)!

I realise you are slightly joking, but everyone always blames the other guy. I've only run a red light once since I was 16 (at school, under instruction), but there have been times I've asked myself "Was that light actually green?".

monument

E92 wrote: »

Which makes it all the more significant that the numbers are going the way they are going.

Not if you factor in that more cars on the road have lead to heavier traffic and lowers speeds.

mike65

from times

A dramatic fall in the number of pedestrian casualties is the main reason why the number of fatalities on Irish roads in 2008 has been the lowest since records began.

With four days left, this year’s provisional figure of 275 deaths is 57 fewer than the previous low of 332 in 1961, when road fatalities were first recorded. The number is 63 below last year’s total of 338.

So far this year 46 pedestrians have died, well down on the figure of 82 killed in 2007. By contrast the number of drivers killed in 2008 was 132, just six fewer than last year.

The other big reduction was in the number of passengers who died, with the figure down from 70 in 2007 to 51 this year.

Brian Farrell, a spokesman for the Road Safety Authority (RSA), said there has been a “sea change in driver behaviour and attitudes” as well as an increased awareness of pedestrian safety. He also credited “engineering factors” with helping to make roads safer for users.

“There are still some days to go and hopefully people continue to be careful, but this is a big reduction. It is a good achievement given that the number of cars on Irish roads is about 2m now and in 1961 it would have been about 300,000,” he said.

The RSA’s official target is to reduce road deaths to a level of 60 fatalities per 1m people, which would equate to 252 deaths per year in Ireland. “We still have challenges ahead,” said Farrell.

The most recent road fatality, however, was a female pedestrian in Co Cavan. Therese McGowan, 29, from Oldcastle, Co Meath, was hit by a vehicle on the N3 yesterday. A man has been arrested in connection with the incident.

The AA has said a significant factor in the reduced number of road deaths has been the introduction of random breath testing in 2006, which it described as making a “major difference”.

L1011

A distinct lack of main road traffic bearing through Carlow, Kilbeggan, Moate, etc etc may have had some affect on the pedestrian figures...

professore

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Gaybo is talking through his arse.

I suspect that the reduction in road deaths has to do with two things

1. The banning of L drivers from driving on their own.
2. Various improvements to roads and the opening of new stretches of motorway.

You're forgetting the clampdown on drink driving and random breath testing. Lots of people have changed their habits since that was introduced.

AugustusMaximus

monument wrote: »

Not if you factor in that more cars on the road have lead to heavier traffic and lowers speeds.

Interestingly this completely condradicts Gay Byrne who thinks everyone is driving faster than ever.

It makes me wonder does Gay Byrne drive on our roads at all. I mean if he doesn't leave Dublin he should never get above 10kph.

mickoneill30

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

I mean if he doesn't leave Dublin he should never get above 10kph.

During peak times. Most of the major accidents that I see on the news aren't during peak times. It's not that hard to speed, even in Dublin.

monument

mickoneill30 wrote: »

During peak times. Most of the major accidents that I see on the news aren't during peak times. It's not that hard to speed, even in Dublin.

Indeed, my comment should have ended in "during peak times."

Ham'nd'egger

Reading through this thread, there is many valid points that weigh against the RSA adage.

However we still need to accept that that there is many variables involved in motoring fatalities and the only way to decrease the amount who die or are injured on the roads is to work on the factors that will cut down on crashes and their severity. The others such as road standards, car safety standards and quality, other drivers habits etc are out of yours and my hands so logic will follow that we can only do with factors at our own end; namely speed, drink driving and fatigue, driving skills and adhering to traffic sense and rules of the road. These are things we can choose to do something about and these are what the RSA wants us to do on a personal level.

Remember, everybody else on the road is somebody who can crash into you and to them, so are you:)

madaboutcars

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Interestingly this completely condradicts Gay Byrne who thinks everyone is driving faster than ever.

Well said.

It's clear from this thread the plenty of people don't listen to Uncle Gaybo though, and that is a good thing:)!

I find that people do 70 kph in town and 70 kph on an open road even though the speed limit in town is 50 kph and on the open road the limit is 100 kph.

Why oh why people feel the need to drive so slowly when the speed limit obviously permits a much higher speed is beyond me.

I really can't understand why people do it.

I reckon they do it to a)piss others off because they are high horses like oh I don't know cyclopath , b) they "don't know what the limit is", c) they could be like someone I know who is "afriad to use 5th gear" and d) grossly incompetant at driving.

orbital83

madaboutcars wrote: »

Why oh why people feel the need to drive so slowly when the speed limit obviously permits a much higher speed is beyond me.

I really can't understand why people do it.

I reckon they do it to a)piss others off because they are high horses like oh I don't know cyclopath , b) they "don't know what the limit is", c) they could be like someone I know who is "afriad to use 5th gear" and d) grossly incompetant at driving.

All of these four categories can be simply described as "incompetence", including Category A. You don't go out on the road to make a statement on your world views. You go out on the road to get from A to B in the safest manner possible and causing the least obstruction to other road users as possible.

The idea is that these incompetents are weeded out by the driving test. The test is supposed to assess your ability to make sufficient progress.
That doesn't mean bombing along at the limit all the time - it means choosing a sensible speed, equal to the speed limit if road conditions allow, or lower if road conditions dictate.

If someone is not fit to drive at 100km/h on a safe straight level single carriageway road with no hazards, they they themselves are a danger, and they shouldn't have a driving licence.

Of course, to assess these abilities, you need a test covering a variety of diffferent driving conditions: urban, rural, national road, dual carriageway, motorway.
The driving test has been a joke in this country for decades. And with a retired television presenter in charge who's never taken a test in his life, things are unlikely to change.

cyclopath2001

madaboutcars wrote: »

I reckon they do it to a)piss others off because they are high horses like oh I don't know cyclopath

The only thing I deliberately do to 'piss off others' is to stop on amber as required by law. That and, I stay stopped on red, behind the stop line (and on top of the sensors/in the beam) until the signal goes green. Sorry.

If you want to know why people drive at odd speeds, ask yourself why so many people don't indicate, go around roundabouts the wrong way, or park illegally.

AugustusMaximus

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The only thing I deliberately do to 'piss off others' is to stop on amber as required by law. That and, I stay stopped on red, behind the stop line (and on top of the sensors/in the beam) until the signal goes green. Sorry.

If you want to know why people drive at odd speeds, ask yourself why so many people don't indicate, go around roundabouts the wrong way, or park illegally.

Stop, but only if safe to do so. Driving through yellows is perfectably acceptable if it is not safe to stop. IE: If the traffic light just turned yellow before you passed.

E92

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Stop, but only if safe to do so. Driving through yellows is perfectably acceptable if it is not safe to stop. IE: If the traffic light just turned yellow before you passed.

If anything stopping in that situation is dangerous and you will get faulted in the driving test for doing so.

If you're going at a decent speed and stopping would involve you having to brake suddenly and sharply then you should keep going in this situation as well, unless of course the light went red, but a competant driver will not allow themselves to get into a situation where the only safe option is to drive through a red light.

Ham'nd'egger

E92 wrote: »

If anything stopping in that situation is dangerous and you will get faulted in the driving test for doing so.

If you're going at a decent speed and stopping would involve you having to brake suddenly and sharply then you should keep going in this situation as well, unless of course the light went red, but a competant driver will not allow themselves to get into a situation where the only safe option is to drive through a red light.

I believe it is called Anticipating in the Irish Driving Test, this expecting lights to change, kids running between cars at schools, cars backing out of gates that may require a slow down or stopping etc

AugustusMaximus

Hamndegger wrote: »

I believe it is called Anticipating in the Irish Driving Test, this expecting lights to change, kids running between cars at schools, cars backing out of gates that may require a slow down or stopping etc

How can you possibly anticipate a green turning to yellow ?

You would only be making a complete stab in the dark. If anything all you would be doing would be slowing up traffic behind you in an effort to be able to stop on yellow, which simply isn't a neccessary thing to do, considering traffic lights allow you to negotiate junction safely on yellow.

The whole point of having a yellow on traffic lights is so you don't have to make an unsafe stop for a red.

corktina

John J wrote: »

All of these four categories can be simply described as "incompetence", including Category A. You don't go out on the road to make a statement on your world views. You go out on the road to get from A to B in the safest manner possible and causing the least obstruction to other road users as possible.

The idea is that these incompetents are weeded out by the driving test. The test is supposed to assess your ability to make sufficient progress.
That doesn't mean bombing along at the limit all the time - it means choosing a sensible speed, equal to the speed limit if road conditions allow, or lower if road conditions dictate.

If someone is not fit to drive at 100km/h on a safe straight level single carriageway road with no hazards, they they themselves are a danger, and they shouldn't have a driving licence.

Of course, to assess these abilities, you need a test covering a variety of diffferent driving conditions: urban, rural, national road, dual carriageway, motorway.
The driving test has been a joke in this country for decades. And with a retired television presenter in charge who's never taken a test in his life, things are unlikely to change.

Id generally agree with your views there but i would like to add that not everyone is competnat to drive at the speed limit and some allowance must be made for age and frailty, you cant toss people off the road for this reason the second their facultys start to become impaird . So what OTHER drivers should do is view drivers like this as a hazard and react accordingly. Having said that ,it doesnt stop me being irritated by these guys who make driving a not very pleasant experinace at times

cyclopath2001

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

How can you possibly anticipate a green turning to yellow ?

Because they do, especially if the signal has been green for some time.

=AugustusMaximus wrote: »

If anything all you would be doing would be slowing up traffic behind you in an effort to be able to stop on yellow, which simply isn't a neccessary thing to do, considering traffic lights allow you to negotiate junction safely on yellow.

One reason to slow down is because it's a junction and traffic lights being green merely indicate priority, they don't guarantee safe passage. You still need to check for pedestrians and other traffic. There are more risks at junctions, so more care is needed.

=AugustusMaximus wrote: »

The whole point of having a yellow on traffic lights is so you don't have to make an unsafe stop for a red.

True, but not exactly. The regulations stipulate that you must stop on amber unless it's unsafe to do so.

But, we both know this rule is widely abused.

AugustusMaximus

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Because they do, especially if the signal has been green for some time.

One reason to slow down is because it's a junction and traffic lights being green merely indicate priority, they don't guarantee safe passage. You still need to check for pedestrians and other traffic. There are more risks at junctions, so more care is needed.

True, but not exactly. The regulations stipulate that you must stop on amber unless it's unsafe to do so.

But, we both know this rule is widely abused.

When I say slow down, I mean slow down to an unreasonable speed which would facilitate you being able to make a full stop at a yellow at very short distance.

Anticipating a yellow isn't technically possible as there are no give away signs from other lights on that junction. Its not like waiting for a green and seeing a yellow from another light on a junction. It would be all pure guesswork, trying to workout how long the light has been green and how long the junction gives a particular side on green.

cyclopath2001

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

When I say slow down, I mean slow down to an unreasonable speed which would facilitate you being able to make a full stop at a yellow at very short distance.

What I see is drivers speeding up at traffic lights or driving at low speeds in slow-moving traffic past amber lights even though they cannot see enough space to exit the junction and not cause obstruction.