Road deaths so far in 2010!

cooltown

[Provisional Fatal Collision Statistics 2010

Total Persons Killed: 140

Summary for the year up to 9.00 am August 30th 2010

Road Users Killed
Pedestrians 26 Passengers 36
Drivers 63 Pedal Cyclists 2
Motorcyclists 12 Motorcyclist Pillion Passengers/others 1
Daily Comparison 2009 - 2010
Total Killed to 30/08/09 160 Total Killed to 30/08/10 140
Total Collisions to 30/08/09 147 Total Collisions to 30/08/10 122


Monthly Comparisons 2001 - 2010

YEARJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Totals
2001 30 38 31 22 40 24 41 34 42 32 40 37 411
2002 35 33 34 32 20 34 42 35 36 31 23 21 376
2003 20 21 33 23 38 37 32 26 20 34 30 21 335
2004 32 36 25 27 26 36 38 35 34 22 29 34 374
2005 33 37 26 23 41 23 41 24 31 44 35 40 397
2006 40 31 27 37 30 32 38 17 23 32 27 31 365
2007 22 25 34 31 24 29 31 28 28 26 23 39 339
2008 25 32 20 19 19 28 26 28 19 22 22 19 279
2009 18 15 24 20 28 15 20 21 14 22 25 18 240
2010 15 14 12 20 28 13 22 16 140



I felt that we were doing very well up until the crash in Donegal and then the one in Kerry last week and there's being alot of accdients over the last few days as well. I just wonder are we going to end up with more people killed on our roads iin 2009. From what I know September is meant to be one of the safest months on our roads and July and October are meant to be the worst. When you tink of the accdients that have clamed the lives of young people in the last year. There was the accdient in Mayo last november that claimed the lives of 4 young NUIG students, the Donegal accdient and the one in Kerry on top of these there are all the accdients that have claimed the lives of just one or two people. These are nearly all forgotten about by people but these peoples family and driends never forget. I am 18 myself now and learning to drive. I've being in friends cars as well and you witness them doing dangerous things and you just wonder are people ever going to learn.

Conor_M1990

cooltown wrote: »

you just wonder are people ever going to learn.

Sad truth is No people hear about these crashes and wat not and go "ah thats terrible" and then go on with there daily lives people its not that people dont care its just a case of life goes on. I think its just more in the Media at the minute because its Summer time and the Dails out.

The whole System has to be looked at in the long run and not some knee jerk policies which seem to be coming out now. Penalaising Young drivers isnt the answer to the problem

seamus

cooltown wrote: »

I've being in friends cars as well and you witness them doing dangerous things and you just wonder are people ever going to learn.

Yes and no. People will always do stupid things, that's human nature. No country in this world has zero fatalities on the road, and none ever will. However, attitude does play a big part in it, and Irish attitudes have been changing a lot over the last ten years. People are now far less accepting of minor and major law-breaking on the roads than they were previously and parents are much more likely to instill fear in their kids when they first get into a car - previously you got the keys and your barely-covering insurance and were told not to come home if you crash it.

Young people will always be young people, there will be bravado and idiocy and there's little we can do about that except to clatter them hard when they're caught.

As it stands, road deaths are down 12.5% on last year. If this trend continues, only 210 people will die on Irish roads this year. That's a death rate of 49 deaths per million people. That's actually up there with the safest countries in the world - the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands.

Per million vehicles, it's a little higher than those, but still in the top 5-10 in the EU, and the same again per 100 million km. In all cases though, we are well under the EU average.

Yes, road deaths are tragedies, but don't believe the hype. We're not dying en masse on our roads and we are in fact one of the safest countries in the world in which to drive.

ardmacha

In fact the road accident rate is not so bad, although a bit higher than the very best, given that Ireland has a more rural population than the Netherlands or the UK. The accidents in Kerry and Donegal might not have been fatal in an urban area.

Alun

I suppose the next question is whether severe injuries are coming down equally as fast as deaths. It could for example be the case that newer, better, safer cars are just meaning that people who would have died on the spot 10 years ago survive today, even if that means living the rest of their lives as a vegetable.

Road deaths are one statistic, and an easy target for headline writers, but not the whole story by any means.

mcwhirter

Roads are bad here. One split second loss of concentration on most roads and your tyres are easily dragged into a muddy grass verge.

Even for experienced drivers they are dangerous roads.

Colostomy Bag

Why haven't the toxicology results from the Kerry road crash been published? The Gardai indicated these tests would be happening as part of the investigation. It does seem rather unusual that these details would not be made public - whatever the results turned out to be.

Mr Benevolent

That's good news - road deaths used to be much, much higher. I put it down to NCAP and better roads.

af_thefragile

I wonder how much the part of safer cars is in these figures. As volvo like to say no one would die in Their cars by 2020 or so. Cars are becoming a lot safer so accidents which would have killed a person 10 years ago will only now leave a person with some bruises and probably broken bones.

I think the accident rate as opposes to the death rate would be a better measure of the driving standards of people here.

BrianD3

Confab wrote: »

That's good news - road deaths used to be much, much higher. I put it down to NCAP and better roads.

Just to illustrate this, here are the historical figures. Terrible figures and even worse when you consider than in the 1970s there were far fewer cars on the road. I think the population was also less and the average mileage per car might have been less too (due to less long distance commuting)

Road Accident Fatalities 1960-2003

1960-302
1961-332
1962-339
1963-335
1964-341
1965-356
1966-382
1967-416
1968-447
1969-462
1970-540
1971-576
1972-640 :eek:
1973-592
1974-594
1975-586
1976-525
1977-583
1978-628
1979-614 :eek:
1980-564
1981-572
1982-533
1983-535
1984-465
1985-410
1986-387
1987-462
1988-463
1989-460
1990-478
1991-445
1992-415
1993-431
1994-404
1995-437
1996-453
1997-472
1998-458
1999-413
2000-415
2001-411
2002-376

kilns

Is there a statistic to say what percentage of the drivers who have died this year have been 21 or younger?

My opinion is that the age limit should be risen to 21 before you can drive. 18/19/20 years are not mature enough to handle a car, I know its harsh and a generalisation but would save alot of lives I think!

Mr Benevolent

kilns wrote: »

Is there a statistic to say what percentage of the drivers who have died this year have been 21 or younger?

My opinion is that the age limit should be risen to 21 before you can drive. 18/19/20 years are not mature enough to handle a car, I know its harsh and a generalisation but would save alot of lives I think!

All that would mean is the deaths would be shifted higher up the age range.

kilns

No it wouldnt!

You would like to think that someone who is 22 and above would be more mature than a 17 year old

When a 17/18 year old gets a car, he would usually be the first amongst his mates to get one and thus drives them around everywhere and leading him to showing off by speeding and doing other stupid things.

They should be educated intensely till they are 21 and then they might appreciate it more. Yes you will still have some idiots who arent mature enough but I bet you deaths would be reduced if it was implemented

Gophur

kilns wrote: »

Is there a statistic to say what percentage of the drivers who have died this year have been 21 or younger?

My opinion is that the age limit should be risen to 21 before you can drive. 18/19/20 years are not mature enough to handle a car, I know its harsh and a generalisation but would save alot of lives I think!

So, Legally you can get married at 18, but shouldn't be allowed drive until 21?

mike65

Age is should not be a barrier, competence should be.
Wasn't there supposed to be a push to have driving included in the final year at school, or did I dream that?

the_syco

cooltown wrote: »

Monthly Comparisons 2001 - 2010

YEARJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Totals
2001 30 38 31 22 40 24 41 34 42 32 40 37 411
2002 35 33 34 32 20 34 42 35 36 31 23 21 376
2003 20 21 33 23 38 37 32 26 20 34 30 21 335
2004 32 36 25 27 26 36 38 35 34 22 29 34 374
2005 33 37 26 23 41 23 41 24 31 44 35 40 397
2006 40 31 27 37 30 32 38 17 23 32 27 31 365
2007 22 25 34 31 24 29 31 28 28 26 23 39 339
2008 25 32 20 19 19 28 26 28 19 22 22 19 279
2009 18 15 24 20 28 15 20 21 14 22 25 18 240
2010 15 14 12 20 28 13 22 16 140

Use TABLE tags, please

YEAR|JAN|FEB|MAR|APR|MAY|JUN|JUL|AUG|SEP|OCT|NOV|DEC|Totals
2001|30|38|31|22|40|24|41|34|42|32|40|37|411
2002|35|33|34|32|20|34|42|35|36|31|23|21|376
2003|20|21|33|23|38|37|32|26|20|34|30|21|335
2004|32|36|25|27|26|36|38|35|34|22|29|34|374
2005|33|37|26|23|41|23|41|24|31|44|35|40|397
2006|40|31|27|37|30|32|38|17|23|32|27|31|365
2007|22|25|34|31|24|29|31|28|28|26|23|39|339
2008|25|32|20|19|19|28|26|28|19|22|22|19|279
2009|18|15|24|20|28|15|20|21|14|22|25|18|240
2010|15|14|12|20|28|13|22|16|||||140

kilns

Its not about being compentant its about being mature

The best driver in the world could lose control on a poor road going round a bend at serious speed

The facts speak for themselves, how often do you hear anyone over the age of 21 crashing theirs cars late at night??

Gophur

kilns wrote: »

..............
The facts speak for themselves, how often do you hear anyone over the age of 21 crashing theirs cars late at night??

Frequently, unfortunately.

the_syco

Moving the driving age from 18 to 21 would cut some deaths, as people just introduced to drink wouldn't be driving. They'd have 3 years to grow up, and thus a better chance of not acting the drunken eejit when they get a car.

stevenmu

kilns wrote: »

Its not about being compentant its about being mature

The best driver in the world could lose control on a poor road going round a bend at serious speed

Competency includes driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions. The best driver in the world simply would not drive around a bend at too fast a speed, anybody who does so is automatically a very poor driver.

galwaytt

kilns wrote: »

No it wouldnt!

You would like to think that someone who is 22 and above would be more mature than a 17 year old

When a 17/18 year old gets a car, he would usually be the first amongst his mates to get one and thus drives them around everywhere and leading him to showing off by speeding and doing other stupid things.

They should be educated intensely till they are 21 and then they might appreciate it more. Yes you will still have some idiots who arent mature enough but I bet you deaths would be reduced if it was implemented

No, you're using the wrong yard-stick. An 18yr old with a first time car, is equally naive as a 21yr old with a first time car. It's year's behind the wheel that counts, not year's on the planet. You need to shift the point of coincidence between the 'crazy years' 17+ and the skills required, and shift it the opposite direction. In fact, driver's Ed should be started BEFORE 17+, and I'd suggest, at 14 in the class, and 15 behind the wheel (closed course). I intend to start my kids earlier than that.

the_syco wrote: »

Moving the driving age from 18 to 21 would cut some deaths, as people just introduced to drink wouldn't be driving. They'd have 3 years to grow up, and thus a better chance of not acting the drunken eejit when they get a car.

Are you actually suggesting that people at 21 drink less than they did at 18 ?? I'd really, really like to see the numbers that back that up, tbh.

galwaytt

stevenmu wrote: »

Competency includes driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions. The best driver in the world simply would not drive around a bend at too fast a speed, anybody who does so is automatically a very poor driver.

Even the best driver's make mistakes. We are all, fallible.

spooky donkey

I think one of the reasons we are seeing trends go down is we are getting better roads in recent years. All them new motor ways seem to be helping. Its very rare you hear of a death on our countrys "FASTEST" roads.

stevenmu

galwaytt wrote: »

Even the best driver's make mistakes. We are all, fallible.

Well that's true, I know I've made plenty. Luckily none have been serious so far, but I'd put that down to competency as opposed to maturity. When comparing competency to maturity (especially just plain age maturity as opposed to driving experience), I think "competent" drivers are far less likely to make mistakes than "mature" drivers.

Cuddlesworth

galwaytt wrote: »

No, you're using the wrong yard-stick. An 18yr old with a first time car, is equally naive as a 21yr old with a first time car. It's year's behind the wheel that counts, not year's on the planet. You need to shift the point of coincidence between the 'crazy years' 17+ and the skills required, and shift it the opposite direction. In fact, driver's Ed should be started BEFORE 17+, and I'd suggest, at 14 in the class, and 15 behind the wheel (closed course). I intend to start my kids earlier than that.

Years behind the wheel? Please do tell what makes the vast majority of 40-60year olds who don't know how to use a/their roundabout/mirrors/motorway/lights/seat adjusters/accelerator/fifthgear/brakes that I see everyday better then my paltry 4 years on the road and multiple advanced driving lessons.

Tea drinker

mike65 wrote: »

Age is should not be a barrier, competence should be.
Wasn't there supposed to be a push to have driving included in the final year at school, or did I dream that?

This is exactly what is needed, lets face it a lot of kids need to drive straight after leaving after so they need this to get work. Coping techniques for road rage would be helpful.

I still say we should all road users, pedestrians / cyclists / drivers of all types do a one day course on safety every coupple of years. People need to be shown how their own road use looks to others, and reminded about safety, and also any new regulations. It would save a bunch of lives (more money for exchequer) and create more than a few jobs!

galwaytt

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Years behind the wheel? Please do tell what makes the vast majority of 40-60year olds who don't know how to use a/their roundabout/mirrors/motorway/lights/seat adjusters/accelerator/fifthgear/brakes that I see everyday better then my paltry 4 years on the road and multiple advanced driving lessons.

...ah, but I bet most of those 40/60 year olds do drive a lot less than you, so they still, comparatively, spend less time behind the wheel ! And, they don't give a hoot! As you no doubt know, if it's not inculcated at a young age, they don't pick it up, later (old dog/new trick's scenario).

Which is exactly my point.

dr.fuzzenstein

Colostomy Bag wrote: »

Why haven't the toxicology results from the Kerry road crash been published? The Gardai indicated these tests would be happening as part of the investigation. It does seem rather unusual that these details would not be made public - whatever the results turned out to be.

That's the thing, we never get to hear the result of any investigation into any accident, which then opens the floodgates to the hand-wringing Joe Duffy won't-someone-think-of-the-children brigade.
If we don't know we can't come to any conclusions and take appropriate action.
All that's left is pointless hysteria, as per usual.
Every investigation is always closed with the same wishy-washy "speed" result which tells us nothing, helps nobody and won't prevent any accidents in the future.

veXual

It's strange that a guy I used to go to school with and knew well is now one of those statistics, that's when they really hit home.

dr.fuzzenstein

the_syco wrote: »

Moving the driving age from 18 to 21 would cut some deaths, as people just introduced to drink wouldn't be driving. They'd have 3 years to grow up, and thus a better chance of not acting the drunken eejit when they get a car.

OK, I see where you're coming from.
However if you're learning something at a later age you're never going to be as good at it than learning it at a younger age.
If people learnt to drive at 21-22 they would never have the car control of someone who learns at 17-18.
Unfortunately we are in a situation where said 17-18 year olds are in danger because of their immaturity.
I would be in favour of restricting the type of car they could drive, i.e. 1 liter max engine size, maybe give them all Micras and Yaris (I know, dreadful, but you can buy that Imprezza later, once you haven't killed yourself) or the likes.
Immaturity will always be a problem, but by that reasoning no one should start driving till they're 30 and that's just silly.

cpoh1

Colostomy Bag wrote: »

Why haven't the toxicology results from the Kerry road crash been published? The Gardai indicated these tests would be happening as part of the investigation. It does seem rather unusual that these details would not be made public - whatever the results turned out to be.

Considering it was a drunk 15 year old girl driving a stolen car I cant blame them for not making a press release due to the sensitive nature of the situation.

People need to get it into their heads that although there are high profile cases with teenagers and young adults losing their lives on the road they are not the only ones doing so. Although the numbers are higher than the average in the other age brackets (but not by much!) there are still a lot of people outside the targeted area dying too.

People often forget that driving a big hunk of metal around at any kind of speed will eventually result in road deaths no matter what measures are put in place. You are driving a lethal weapon and there are risks regardless of training, preparation and precautions taken.

I sometimes get a little resentful of the media attention to road deaths considering the amount of completely avoidable deaths there are in ireland every year with little or no coverage. 424 people commited suicide in Ireland in 2008 (and these are just confirmed) but there is much less media attention and outrage for what is a much more treatable situation.

who what when

cpoh1 wrote: »

Considering it was a drunk 15 year old girl driving a stolen car I cant blame them for not making a press release due to the sensitive nature of the situation.

People need to get it into their heads that although there are high profile cases with teenagers and young adults losing their lives on the road they are not the only ones doing so. Although the numbers are higher than the average in the other age brackets (but not by much!) there are still a lot of people outside the targeted area dying too.

People often forget that driving a big hunk of metal around at any kind of speed will eventually result in road deaths no matter what measures are put in place. You are driving a lethal weapon and there are risks regardless of training, preparation and precautions taken.

I sometimes get a little resentful of the media attention to road deaths considering the amount of completely avoidable deaths there are in ireland every year with little or no coverage. 424 people commited suicide in Ireland in 2008 (and these are just confirmed) but there is much less media attention and outrage for what is a much more treatable situation.

Is this true?? Wow i didnt know that

If it was drunk male youth in dublin i wonder would it be hushed up!

cpoh1

who what when wrote: »

Is this true?? Wow i didnt know that

If it was drunk male youth in dublin i wonder would it be hushed up!

Its pretty common knowledge, its just not on the media waves. Confirmed by a garda friend posted in killarney.

Cuddlesworth

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

OK, I see where you're coming from.
However if you're learning something at a later age you're never going to be as good at it than learning it at a younger age.
If people learnt to drive at 21-22 they would never have the car control of someone who learns at 17-18.
Unfortunately we are in a situation where said 17-18 year olds are in danger because of their immaturity.
I would be in favour of restricting the type of car they could drive, i.e. 1 liter max engine size, maybe give them all Micras and Yaris (I know, dreadful, but you can buy that Imprezza later, once you haven't killed yourself) or the likes.
Immaturity will always be a problem, but by that reasoning no one should start driving till they're 30 and that's just silly.

Have you considered the fact that the larger death figure in the younger ages might be comparable to the quality and size of the car that finances allow. And by limiting the engine size you could be increasing road deaths to those who may crash regardless but would be safer in their larger more expensive car?

Because I'm not aware of any statistic from the RSA which includes engine size/car type/gross vehicle weight/tyre condition/weather conditions/quality of road surface per accident. In fact outside of deaths and age I see little to nothing in terms of actual and usable info.

Sids Not

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Have you considered the fact that the larger death figure in the younger ages might be comparable to the quality and size of the car that finances allow. And by limiting the engine size you could be increasing road deaths to those who may crash regardless but would be safer in their larger more expensive car?.

:eek:...seriously..you think arming them with a more powerful/faster car is going to improve things...So Joe Racer and his mates in the 5 Series honking down some country road and plows into Mrs.Mooney coming home from the shops gets killed ,,BUT the 5 little knackers walk away to drive another day.......cop on..:rolleyes:

dr.fuzzenstein

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Have you considered the fact that the larger death figure in the younger ages might be comparable to the quality and size of the car that finances allow. And by limiting the engine size you could be increasing road deaths to those who may crash regardless but would be safer in their larger more expensive car?

Because I'm not aware of any statistic from the RSA which includes engine size/car type/gross vehicle weight/tyre condition/weather conditions/quality of road surface per accident. In fact outside of deaths and age I see little to nothing in terms of actual and usable info.

Well, just look at the motorbike licence, you cannot pass the test and buy yourself a Ducati.
It's staggered, people have to work their way up through power/engine size.
Right now a 17 year old can pass the test and (if he's loaded anyway) buy himself any car with any horsepower, no one's stopping him from buying an Impreza that in actual performance rivals anything else on the road.
I know that young drivers will manage to kill themselves in any car you give them, but the idea of giving them unlimited bhp even before their test (since you can drive around without a proper license in this daft country) isn't the smartest.
Besides, loads of small cars are very safe, Renaults (though rickety and unreliable) are at least great in a crash.
Don't automatically relate the size of a car to it's safety, some old Land Rovers are absolute death traps, while you can have a crash in a Fiesta any day without problems since it carries the maximum 5 star rating.

Cuddlesworth

Sids Not wrote: »

:eek:...seriously..you think arming them with a more powerful/faster car is going to improve things...So Joe Racer and his mates in the 5 Series honking down some country road and plows into Mrs.Mooney coming home from the shops gets killed ,,BUT the 5 little knackers walk away to drive another day.......cop on..:rolleyes:

http://www.aaat.com/Auto-Transport-Industry/car-accidents-reasons-measures.cfm#Small-cars-are-necessarily-not-safe

Small cars in impacts with cars of a far greater mass are not safer. And my old 1.2 Punto would top 100mph, ignoring the face that a sudden stop over 60mph will kill you. Also although I can't find it, study's have shown that cars with a greater value are treated better. Do you know anybody with a new high powered car that treats it and the roads like ****? I knew plenty in wanna-be crapbox's that did so.

Don't brainwash yourself into believing that a "big" car is automatically dangerous. Without statistics of vehicle types involved in fatal accidents you can't claim that it would have a effect either way.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, just look at the motorbike licence, you cannot pass the test and buy yourself a Ducati.
It's staggered, people have to work their way up through power/engine size.
Right now a 17 year old can pass the test and (if he's loaded anyway) buy himself any car with any horsepower, no one's stopping him from buying an Impreza that in actual performance rivals anything else on the road.
I know that young drivers will manage to kill themselves in any car you give them, but the idea of giving them unlimited bhp even before their test (since you can drive around without a proper license in this daft country) isn't the smartest.
Besides, loads of small cars are very safe, Renaults (though rickety and unreliable) are at least great in a crash.
Don't automatically relate the size of a car to it's safety, some old Land Rovers are absolute death traps, while you can have a crash in a Fiesta any day without problems since it carries the maximum 5 star rating.

As a daily bike driver myself, I'm fully aware of the power to weight restrictions. Have you driven a bike on the power to weight restriction ratio? It still blows most cars out of the water for acceleration and power. Anything similar in a car I would agree but I think you will find that many three litre engines would apply for it.

And small cars score well on Ncap safety tests. Where they crash into a brick wall. Take a three star range rover and drive it head on into a five star super mini and come back to me when you have changed your mind about our Safety rating.

cooltown

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

Watch this Volvo Estate vs Renault Modus!!!

r3nu4l

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Also although I can't find it, study's have shown that cars with a greater value are treated better.

Treated better by who? The owners? No doubt about it.

Do you know anybody with a new high powered car that treats it and the roads like ****? I knew plenty in wanna-be crapbox's that did so.

However, what about Daddy's little boy driving Daddy's big, shiny, powerful car? You really think he's going to treat it the same way Daddy does? Some may because Daddy would kill them for damaging it but most teenagers would be delighted to show their mates how fast Daddy's car can go.

dr.fuzzenstein

r3nu4l wrote: »

Treated better by who? The owners? No doubt about it.


However, what about Daddy's little boy driving Daddy's big, shiny, powerful car? You really think he's going to treat it the same way Daddy does? Some may because Daddy would kill them for damaging it but most teenagers would be delighted to show their mates how fast Daddy's car can go.

True enough, when I got to drive daddy's BMW (was about 20 at the time) I wanted to see what that baby can do, cane it like sh*t and overtake caravans on a hill at night in the dark.
I had a Subaru (not Impreza, something like a 1.8 Legacy) and finally got myself a VW van with 50 bhp on the advise of my friends because I was going to kill myself or others.
Young drivers are basically trying to gain experience before running out of luck.
True, you can kill yourself in anything, you can even kill yourself running into a wall on foot if you try hard enough, but I'm basically old enough now to know how close I came.