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

Victor

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

How can you possibly anticipate a green turning to yellow ?

Eventually, they all do :pac:

I think we might have crossed wires, so for clarity:

1. if the light is going to be red by the time you reach the stop line (not the junction), you are obliged to stop.

2. If you are across the stop line when the light turns orange, you should not stop, unless there is another reason to stop, e.g. exit of junction is blocked.

3. Act proportionately in between.

There are other cues for lights about to turn orange - a pedestrian pressing the button, traffic at a minor side road (these are often put on a constant red, short wait, short green) and experience - some junctions are linked.

cyclopath2001

Victor wrote: »

1. if the light is going to be red by the time you reach the stop line (not the junction), you are obliged to stop.

That's certainly the popular understanding, but let's be very clear - you're obliged to stop on amber:

(2) A driver of a vehicle approaching traffic lights in which a non-flashing amber light is illuminated, shall not drive the vehicle past the traffic lights, or past traffic sign number RRM 017 [stop line] when such sign is provided in association with the traffic lights, save when the vehicle is so close to the traffic lights that it cannot safely be stopped before passing the traffic lights or traffic sign number RRM 017.

Put another way - If the lights change to amber as you approach them, you must stop your vehicle before the stop line unless to do so would result in a loss of control.

L1011

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.

Was reading up on this today, theres actually decent enough (albeit rather aged) evidence that the higher car ownership, the lower the road deaths... "Smeeds Law" after Reuben Smeed, a British traffic researcher.

cyclopath2001

MYOB wrote: »

Was reading up on this today, theres actually decent enough (albeit rather aged) evidence that the higher car ownership, the lower the road deaths... "Smeeds Law" after Reuben Smeed, a British traffic researcher.

In essence, his view was:

Traffic will always average 9mph in London as quicker traffic will encourage more cars onto the road....People will drive recklessly until the number of deaths reaches the maximum they can tolerate.

I think that higher volumes of traffic lead to lower speeds leading to lower severity of injury. Also, previously vulnerable road users are now in heavily armoured cars.

We don't know if the reduction in road fatalities is coounter-balanced by cardiovascular disease promoted by a lack of exercise.

As for his latter conclusion, I don't sense that we're near that threshold in this country.

AugustusMaximus

MYOB wrote: »

Was reading up on this today, theres actually decent enough (albeit rather aged) evidence that the higher car ownership, the lower the road deaths... "Smeeds Law" after Reuben Smeed, a British traffic researcher.

I doubt the increase of cars over the last 2 or 3 years is enough to explain away the dramatic decrease in deaths over the same period.

Smeeds Law says there is a per capita reduction in road deaths. Road deaths as a total may still rise due to more road users.


Just wonder but are there any statistics out there for road deaths per total hours driven. Would be a much better and useful statistic in comparison to road deaths per capita which has far too many variables to be of any real value.

Victor

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Just wonder but are there any statistics out there for road deaths per total hours driven.

I don't think so. By that reckoning someone commuting from Navan to Dublin everyday by car is more valuable than someone who walks down the street. Now, sure, more km and more hours on the road will likely increase casualties, but that merely makes the figures more understandable, not more acceptable.

Imagine:

Country 1 - Population 1 million, dispersed, 100 road deaths per year, car transport dominant, 440 million hours commuting per year. 1 death per 10,000 population. 1 death per 4.4 million hours commuting.

Country 2 - Population 1 million, urbanised, 50 road deaths per year, public transport dominant, 110 million hours commuting per year. 1 death per 20,000 population. 1 death per 4.4 million hours commuting.

Country 1 looks good on hours, but bad on per capita and vice versa for country 2.

Would be a much better and useful statistic in comparison to road deaths per capita which has far too many variables to be of any real value.

No, ultimately road deaths per capita is the metric for road deaths*.



* You also need to consider injuries, national health, cost of travel, convenience, etc.

Amtmann

Wednesday December 31 2008

THE wearing of seatbelts became compulsory after the death toll on Irish roads climbed to 576 in 1977, writes Lorna Reid.

Ireland, the UK and Italy were the only states in the EU without such a law and the government hoped to get a 60pc compliance rate among drivers and front-seat passengers. A memo from the Department of the Environment said the number of drivers who had been killed in recent years could have been reduced by over 40pc if they had been wearing seat belts. Although new cars had been fitted with safety belts since 1971, the compliance rate was only 5pc, the memo noted.

In 1977, the Government began talking about the introduction of toll roads, with secretary to the Government Derek Nally telling Taoiseach Jack Lynch the fact that such a discussion was taking place was "an appalling commentary on the ability of the public authorities to manage the roads system properly".

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/seatbelt-law-introduced-as-death-toll-rises-to-576-1588573.html

Hard to believe today...such needless death.

KevR

When I was a kid our (as in my parents') car only had front seat seatbelts! No seatbelts in the back seats! Crazy when you think about it but there were a lot of cars like that at the time, some cars even had no seatbelts at all.

Rovi

KevR wrote: »

When I was a kid our (as in my parents') car only had front seat seatbelts! No seatbelts in the back seats! Crazy when you think about it but there were a lot of cars like that at the time, some cars even had no seatbelts at all.

I feel so old

L1011

The car my parents had until I was 7 also only had front belts... the initial thinking about belts was to prevent front seat occupants going through the screen; the damage from unbelted back seat passengers only got realised later really - anyone else remember the "force of an elephant" ad campaign in the 90s?

I remember that ad, I also remember my parants car not having any seatbelts at all.

I suppose rear belts only became an issue after a few deaths caused by unrestrained passengers killing belted up drivers & front seat passengers.

It's always the way, all safety features are there as the result of many deaths that could have been prevented!

Victor

So, up to 9am on 31 December 2008, only 11 people had died in December - compared to a usual 20-40. They may need to check / adjust that for Christmas week, but it looks good.

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