Heading for a new low fatality count.

mike65

201 people have died on the roads so far 16 fewer that 2009, last years total was 240, itself a new low. Given the catatrophic incidents in Donegal and Kerry this seems a reason for a very small cheer. Naturally the media will not really reflect this improvement as that would get in the way of easy stories designed to wag an accusing finger at us all.

I can't find any breakdown for previous years but I do note that pedestrians accounted for about 20% of deaths which seems pretty high.

Lord Trollington

There is always going to be fatalities on the road, its inevitable. Huge sums of money has been been pumped into keeping the deaths down and some credit must go to Gay Byrne and co for the huge reductions.

In saying that, there is less people on the road in recent years due to jobs losses ect.

I wonder however in the coming years, will spending be cut on campaigns?

Atomic Pineapple

mike65 wrote: »

201 people have died on the roads so far 16 fewer that 2009, last years total was 240, itself a new low. Given the catatrophic incidents in Donegal and Kerry this seems a reason for a very small cheer. Naturally the media will not really reflect this improvement as that would get in the way of easy stories designed to wag an accusing finger at us all.

I can't find any breakdown for previous years but I do note that pedestrians accounted for about 20% of deaths which seems pretty high.

The pedestrians where you live must be very well behaved so?

I'm not surprised to see that figure being so high, the amount of idiots you see out walking or running in the dark wearing all black with no reflectors, idiots walking across junctions without looking, in Dun Loaghaire every morning I see people dash across the junction in front of oncoming cars instead of waiting 20 seconds for the lights.

Some even dawdle across forcing drivers to slam on their brakes. I've seen people in towns walk out in front of traffic without a care in the world, people step out from behind obstructions etc.. when a few meters up is much safer.

Its great to see such a low figure though, safer cars, better roads and more motorways have led to excellent life saving measures, however with a cut of 9 million from road services forecast I fear that next year we wont be looking at such a good figure.

whycliff wrote: »

There is always going to be fatalities on the road, its inevitable. Huge sums of money has been been pumped into keeping the deaths down and some credit must go to Gay Byrne and co for the huge reductions.

In saying that, there is less people on the road in recent years due to jobs losses ect.

I wonder however in the coming years, will spending be cut on campaigns?

5 million being cut from the RSA's budget, not a bad thing though as they have no clue as to how to actually tackle problems with Irish drivers as demonstrated by their ridiculous adverts and lack of interaction with actual drivers. The 9 million being cut from road maintenance is much more worrying along with the fact that no new roads will be built, and old ones wont be upgraded or improved.

Gary ITR

I wonder if cyclists are lumped in with pedestrians

seamus

Well if we continue to get snow and ice during December, we'll be on the way towards a huge drop - last January was statistically very safe on the roads, attributed to slower speeds on the snow/ice and less people on the roads in general because of it.

You're right about the pedestrians. Perhaps due to the drop in motorists' fatalities, the level of ped. deaths is now becoming more of an issue.

It would definitely be worth looking at all of the pedestrian deaths individually over the last five years to try and identify the most common conflict points between peds. and vehicles and see what we can do about it.
My gut says the vast majority are caused by dark country roads and/or HGVs, but that's pure speculation.

Onkle - cyclists are included on their own. Five have died so far this year.

Some even dawdle across forcing drivers to slam on their brakes. I've seen people in towns walk out in front of traffic without a care in the world, people step out from behind obstructions etc.. when a few meters up is much safer.

The idiocy of pedestrians became painfully apparent yesterday in the snow. With the cars moving very slowly, most seemed to take this as a cue to stroll across the road right in front of the car, seemingly oblivious to the car's massively reduced braking ability.

Voodoomelon

Just in case there is a misunderstanding here, Gay Byrne has *nothing* to do with these figures.

Iwannahurl

mike65 wrote: »

201 people have died on the roads so far 16 fewer that 2009, last years total was 240, itself a new low. Given the catatrophic incidents in Donegal and Kerry this seems a reason for a very small cheer. Naturally the media will not really reflect this improvement as that would get in the way of easy stories designed to wag an accusing finger at us all.

I can't find any breakdown for previous years but I do note that pedestrians accounted for about 20% of deaths which seems pretty high.

A big cheer I would say.

I think the media, and those authorities responsible for road safety, are actually quite good at publicising good news and giving credit where it's due for real progress.

Times and Indo reports for 2009:

2009 set to be safest year on State's roads as fatalities fall

Death on our roads in 2009 was lowest on record

It's all great progress towards realisable and worthwhile targets, and the authorities are happy (and right) to acknowledge that.

I want to pay tribute to the decent people of this country who have changed their attitudes and their behaviour for the better. We truly have an emerging culture of road safety in Ireland. For that the credit goes to road users. Your choices have saved lives and prevented injuries. Well done and please keep up your efforts in 2010.

~Gay Byrne, Chairman, Road Safety Authority
2009 Safest Year on Record (RSA news release January 2010)

mailforkev

It's getting down to a pretty low level alright, is good news. Amazing really considering how poor the standard of driving is here.

And to be honest, if they took out the unreported drunks, suicides and moron pedestrians who don't look when crossing roads, it would probably be down under a hundred killed in what I would deem actual accidents.

mike65

I would not use the word accident as there are very few of them. Almost all deaths occure due to incidents, which might seem like semantics but isn't.

re the weather, its hard to know how much to ascribe to this. The numbers for January/Febuary are pretty similair to 2009. Is that bad or good? Few kilometres driven at lower average speed but conditions very difficult.

Iwannahurl

Yes, some pedestrians walk like some motorists drive -- without due care and attention.

However, the European trend (by which I mean the likes of Sweden and the Netherlands) is towards making the roads environment more "forgiving". That way, when vulnerable road users make mistakes -- whether by accident or through carelessness/stupidity -- the outcomes are not as bad.

Let's not forget that older people and children are a significant part of the 'vulnerable road user' category. I don't think criticising this cohort would be of any help to anyone.

The RSA has produced a draft pedestrian safety strategy, but apparently it's still waiting for sign-off in the DoT.

CR 7

All that'll happen now is the NRA will use these figures to prove how effective the 'safety cameras' are.:(

Atomic Pineapple

seamus wrote: »

The idiocy of pedestrians became painfully apparent yesterday in the snow. With the cars moving very slowly, most seemed to take this as a cue to stroll across the road right in front of the car, seemingly oblivious to the car's massively reduced braking ability.

Its unreal, its like pedestrians dont realise that if they get hit by a car their gonna get hurt! In Ardee on Sat one women walked out in front of me and then froze and stood there!

mailforkev wrote: »

It's getting down to a pretty low level alright, is good news. Amazing really considering how poor the standard of driving is here.

And to be honest, if they took out the unreported drunks, suicides and moron pedestrians who don't look when crossing roads, it would probably be down under a hundred killed in what I would deem actual accidents.

Tackling the standard of driving would have been the logical next step in cutting fatalities, proper driving education and re-education but it would have been unpopular with vast demo-graphs and cost money without any money coming back.

No matter what is implemented to save lives it will never be able to account for stupidity.

Park Ji Sung wrote: »

All that'll happen now is the NRA will use these figures to prove how effective the 'safety cameras' are.:(

How can they? The speed cameras would have had minimal if any effect on these figures, come this time next year if the figures are around the same or higher then it will show what a waste the €65 million was/is.

CR 7

draffodx wrote: »

Its unreal, its like pedestrians dont realise that if they get hit by a car their gonna get hurt! In Ardee on Sat one women walked out in front of me and then froze and stood there!

Where the road narrows near Mallow racecourse on the N72 is particularly bad for people walking and running. It's almost closed in with trees at either side, and you regularly get people wearing all black, with no hard shoulder to stand in. Just a few weeks back, a man ran straight across the road in front of me, couldn't even see him until it was too late to react, and barely missed him. He had ran out after a car coming against me had passed him, so I had no way to see him. And if he had fallen and I hit him, it'd be me at fault.:rolleyes:

draffodx wrote: »

How can they? The speed cameras would have had minimal if any effect on these figures, come this time next year if the figures are around the same or higher then it will show what a waste the €65 million was/is.

We all know how gullible the general public is, that they will happily accept stuff like that as 'facts'. I can see the ads already 'Only 2 weeks into the safety camera rollout, we have already seen a huge resultant cut in road deaths.'

corktina

Park Ji Sung wrote: »

Where the road narrows near Mallow racecourse on the N72 is particularly bad for people walking and running. It's almost closed in with trees at either side, and you regularly get people wearing all black, with no hard shoulder to stand in. Just a few weeks back, a man ran straight across the road in front of me, couldn't even see him until it was too late to react, and barely missed him. He had ran out after a car coming against me had passed him, so I had no way to see him. And if he had fallen and I hit him, it'd be me at fault.:rolleyes:




'

you will be delighted to know this stretch has just been resurfaced...why the chance wasnt taken to add hard shoulders here is beyond me, especially as it is on the infamous list of dangerous bits of road needing speed cameras. It has been widened slightley (possibly) but I feel the increased speeds which will now be possible will result in more accidents...watch this space!

Buffman

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1130/roadsafety.html

Road collision figures have shown a 16% increase in pedestrian deaths in Ireland since last year.
Both gardaí and the Road Safety Authority have urged pedestrians to take extra care on the roads as road collision figures show that 42 people have been killed while walking in 2010.
Assistant Garda Commissioner John Twomey said the statistics for pedestrians now amounted to one in every five road deaths.
He appealed to all pedestrians and cyclists to recognise the importance of being seen at night, especially during winter months.
Assistant Commissioner Twomey said the only way to be seen by motorists was to wear reflective clothing such as a high-visibility jacket, armband, or carry a flashlight when walking, particularly on country roads.

Iwannahurl

draffodx wrote: »

The speed cameras would have had minimal if any effect on these figures, come this time next year if the figures are around the same or higher then it will show what a waste the €65 million was/is.

Park Ji Sung wrote: »

We all know how gullible the general public is, that they will happily accept stuff like that as 'facts'. I can see the ads already 'Only 2 weeks into the safety camera rollout, we have already seen a huge resultant cut in road deaths.'

To be fair to agencies like the RSA, I would hope and expect that they will take an evidence-based and professional approach to this issue.

I guess such an approach could perhaps involve surveys of free speeds, straightforward before-and-after casualty stats, or even more sophisticated methods such as time-series analyses.

I certainly hope they don't rush to judgment.

Even over a year (whatever about "2 weeks") I imagine that any reduction in casualties would have to be dramatic -- or at least statistically significant, if that can be shown -- in order to permit a categorical claim that the speed/safety cameras have been effective. Maybe a longer observation period is needed to draw any definitive conclusions in the Irish context?

Incidentally, Transport for London are claiming a 50% reduction in casualties 2002-2007 around sites where speed/safety cameras have been installed, estimated from data collated by the London Accident Analysis Unit.

And finally, here is a link to a fully-referenced 2003 paper from the UK Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS), which identifies and debunks ten claims commonly made against speed/safety cameras. Similar claims are still appearing in Boards threads and individual posts, usually 'supported' by opinion and speculation rather than any substantiated evidence.

mike65

11 people killed in December

Provisional Fatal Collision Statistics 2010

Total Persons Killed: 212

Summary for the year up to 9.00 am December 31st 2010

Road Users Killed
Drivers

---

91
Passengers----55
Pedestrians----44
Motorcyclists--16
Pedal Cyclists--5
Motorcyclist Pillion Passengers/others -1


Total Killed to 31/12/09----238
Total Killed to 31/12/10----212

BrianD3

I see there have already been 2 people killed in 2011. But obviously there has been a big reduction in 2008, 2009 and again in 2010. Whether this is statistically significant or not I don't know. If it is significant there are several likely contributory factors.

I dug up all the yearly road death figures for the last 40 years and compared them to population. If I compared them to the number of vehicles or licence holders or miles travelled the reduction could be more dramatic.

1961
11.77 deaths per 100,000 population

1972
21.16 deaths per 100,000

1981
16.61 per 100,000

1991
12.62 per 100,000

1996
12.49 per 100,000

2002
9.60 per 100,000

2006
8.61 per 100,000

2009
5.35 per 100,000

22,587 people died on Irish roads from 1960-2010. To put this into perspective, around 300,000 have died from cancer in that period.

JJJJNR

Wonder how many of these are suicide by car also.

peasant

Are there any statistics for the amount of life changing injuries?

It is great to see that less people die in traffic, but I have a feeling that the statistics may just have shifted down one notch on the severity scale and that we may be seeing more severely injured (and crippled) people than previously.

-Corkie-

JJJJNR wrote: »

Wonder how many of these are suicide by car also.

Thats very true. Who knows, not a thing to be talking about here I would say.

Reg'stoy

The survivability of accidents which has improved over the last number of years along with the increased safety features of cars should be taken into account. As one who deals directly with the results of accidents I can tell you that a large amount of people who survive today would not have been so lucky 10 or 20 years ago.

The current RSA ad with the female social worker (which I personally think is an excellent advert) is a case in point. Take a trip out to Our Lady of Lourdes hospital in Dun Loaghaire and you will see the results of non fatal accidents which don't seem to matter. It is extremely narrow minded to only view fatal accidents statistics, I'd rather see a breakdown and reduction in the number of serious accidents which don't always result in deaths before I would start clapping ourselves on the back.

Absurdum

JJJJNR wrote: »

Wonder how many of these are suicide by car also.

I wonder if they include things like accidents on farms involving tractors or that case in Cork where (iirc) two people were killed when their car was allegedly run off the road by someone else?

BrianD3

peasant wrote: »

Are there any statistics for the amount of life changing injuries?

It is great to see that less people die in traffic, but I have a feeling that the statistics may just have shifted down one notch on the severity scale and that we may be seeing more severely injured (and crippled) people than previously.

I'd say its just as likely that the number of serious injuries has reduced rather than increased. While it is certainly the case that a crash that would have been fatal 20 years ago may result in life changing injuries today, it's also the case that a crash that would have resulted in life changing injuries 20 years ago may result in someone walking away with cuts and bruises today.

Also with better roads (i.e motorways and dual carriageways) there should be fewer serious crashes of all types.

Seatbelt wearing has historically been very poor in this country and IMO only changed in around the last 10 years. Also IMO, this contributed greatly to life changing injuries. My parents know several people of their generation who were blinded, brain damaged or paralysed after being thrown through windscreens. Had they been wearing their seatbelts the outcomes could have been very different. Even knowing this, my Dad didn't start regulalry wearing his seatbelt till he was 75 years old. The reason? He bought a car with a highly annoying seatbelt buzzer.

Seth Brundle

Absurdum wrote: »

I wonder if they include things like accidents on farms involving tractors

If it was on a farm (& therefore not on a road) then it wouldn't be a road traffic fatality!

Absurdum wrote: »

or that case in Cork where (iirc) two people were killed when their car was allegedly run off the road by someone else?

If it was on a road that it would be a road traffic fatality!

Iwannahurl

peasant wrote: »

Are there any statistics for the amount of life changing injuries?

It is great to see that less people die in traffic, but I have a feeling that the statistics may just have shifted down one notch on the severity scale and that we may be seeing more severely injured (and crippled) people than previously.

There were 3450 injuries per million population on Irish roads in 1998. This had decreased to 1803 per million in 2007, but rose again to 2207 per million in 2008.

According to the RSA, the increase was "partly due to improvement in reporting of minor injury collisions".

These data are in the RSA publication Road Collision Facts 2008, which was the most recent report I could find.

I don't have time to delve further into this report just now. Off the top of my head, however, I can think of no reason why serious injuries would increase overall when deaths are decreasing.

The overall effect of road safety improvements, such as a reduction in the prevalence of speeding, is to shift the entire distribution of casualties 'to the left', i.e. all road casualties are "shifted down one notch on the severity scale".

The Irish Times reported today that road deaths have fallen to their lowest ever level, with December’s total of 10 fatalities the lowest monthly figure in five decades.

Whether or not this month's record low is due to the severe weather, it's an excellent outcome, and one to be warmly welcomed. AFAIK, the fall in road casualties is also ahead of the RSA's target for 2012.

Owen

Hmmm, road deaths down, shiny new safe motorways and bypasses open. Coincidence? I'd put it out there that improvements in the road networks have saved more lives than any misguided RSA campaign.

MagicMarker

I have to say, 212 deaths in a country with probably close to 2 million (wild guess, maybe 1.5m?) cars is extraordinary.

Iwannahurl

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Hmmm, road deaths down, shiny new safe motorways and bypasses open. Coincidence? I'd put it out there that improvements in the road networks have saved more lives than any misguided RSA campaign.

Would be interesting to see an analysis of the data testing that hypothesis.



EDIT: I wonder whether it might be possible to form an impression based on the decline in road casualties month by month from 1999 to 2008, correlated with the opening of particular motorways. Wouldn't be scientific, but could suggest a correlation. Then again, given the practice of opening motorways one stretch at a time, the picture might be too complicated.

Iwannahurl

MagicMarker wrote: »

I have to say, 212 deaths in a country with probably close to 2 million (wild guess, maybe 1.5m?) cars is extraordinary.

As of end December 2009, the total number of taxed vehicles in the RoI was just under 2.5 million.

Source: Department of Transport.

rebel.ranter

It seems to me that there are two clear road safety campaigns that the RSA need to concentrate on for 2011:

- Pedestrian saftey awareness on the road:
- 44/212 = ~20% of all fatalities
- Hi-Vis jackets, reflectors, etc.
- Better decision making with regard to where people walk
- Campaign for installation of footpaths for critical areas

- Passenger awareness
- 55/212 = ~26% of all fatalities
- Campaign to promote the need to wear seatbelts as passenger
- Campaign not to over-occupy a car (think Donegal crash, 8 people in one car)
- Campaign to ask passengers to influence their driver's behaviour
* Asking driver to reduce speed
* Asking driver not to use mobile phone while driving
* Insisting that they don't get into the car with a driver under the influence of drink/drugs


If Gay Byrne prattles on about speed being the biggest killer on our roads without addressing the two issues above shame on him.

Cyclists:
I detected a bit of a side-swipe comment at cyclists early on in this thread, I think any such comment is unwarranted. 5/212 deaths were cyclists. That is quite good when you consider the context of the "Cycle To Work" schemes increasing the number of cyclists on the road in the past two years. On top of that the likelihod of a fatality as a cyclist is much greater than another motorist in the event of a collision. Also consider that this country is brutal at providing proper infrastructure for cyclists, some of the cycling lanes provided are atrocious.

Finally I'm sure it is of little comfort to the families of the 212 victims that the figures are so low. Hopefully they will cope OK in 2011.

Iwannahurl

rebel.ranter wrote: »

It seems to me that there are two clear road safety campaigns that the RSA need to concentrate on for 2011:

- Pedestrian saftey awareness on the road:
- 44/212 = ~20% of all fatalities
- Hi-Vis jackets, reflectors, etc.
- Better decision making with regard to where people walk
- Campaign for installation of footpaths for critical areas

- Passenger awareness
- 55/212 = ~26% of all fatalities
- Campaign to promote the need to wear seatbelts as passenger
- Campaign not to over-occupy a car (think Donegal crash, 8 people in one car)
- Campaign to ask passengers to influence their driver's behaviour
* Asking driver to reduce speed
* Asking driver not to use mobile phone while driving
* Insisting that they don't get into the car with a driver under the influence of drink/drugs


If Gay Byrne prattles on about speed being the biggest killer on our roads without addressing the two issues above shame on him.

Cyclists:
I detected a bit of a side-swipe comment at cyclists early on in this thread, I think any such comment is unwarranted. 5/212 deaths were cyclists. That is quite good when you consider the context of the "Cycle To Work" schemes increasing the number of cyclists on the road in the past two years. On top of that the likelihod of a fatality as a cyclist is much greater than another motorist in the event of a collision. Also consider that this country is brutal at providing proper infrastructure for cyclists, some of the cycling lanes provided are atrocious.

Finally I'm sure it is of little comfort to the families of the 212 victims that the figures are so low. Hopefully they will cope OK in 2011.

1. The RSA issued a draft Pedestrian Safety Action Plan around April 2009. It's still with the Dept. of Transport awaiting sign-off, AFAIK. If you'd like to do something on behalf of pedestrians, it might be no harm to arrange for some pressure to be put on the DoT to get them to publish it.

2. Footpaths are good for pedestrians. Unfortunately, in this country a large number of motorists think they own not only the road but the footpaths as well. Enforcement of the law in this regard would be a big help as well as a novelty.

3. Speed is the major factor in terms of probability/severity of any road collision. Focusing on individual pedestrian behaviour (eg choice of clothing) has merit in some contexts, but people ought to be able to walk in confidence in most situations without the added encumbrance of hi-viz clothing. Walking is an inherently safe and healthy mode of travel, and it ought not to be necessary in normal urban settings (i.e. the majority of cases) to dress up like a Christmas tree in order to exercise the dog, go to the shops or commute to work. A default 30 kph speed limit in city centre and residential areas would achieve a lot more than a million hi-viz vests. AFAIK, the stats show that the pedestrian was at fault in only a small percentage of RTCs. Even if pedestrian carelessness was a major factor, lower speed and a more forgiving/protective road environment would reduce both the risk and severity of collisions.

dr.fuzzenstein

rebel.ranter wrote: »

If Gay Byrne prattles on about speed being the biggest killer on our roads without addressing the two issues above shame on him.

I think Gay's brilliant, I started out driving 100 km/h down my road, but everytime he says "Slow Down", I knock off 5 km/h.
The only problem is that now I'm down to 25 km/h and it takes hours to get everywhere and I get abused and beaten up!
What will I do, if the "Slow Down" ads continue, I will not be able to drive, since driving at near 0 km/h on an open road strikes me as dangerous, I really want to do what the RSA says without thinking about it, since they are the experts and I'm just a Joe Soap, is it right to question Uncle Gay? Surely not?

rebel.ranter

Iwannahurl wrote: »

....If you'd like to do something on behalf of pedestrians,....it might be no harm to arrange for some pressure to be put on the DoT to get them to publish it.

Is this not why the RSA exists?

From the RSA website:

Key functions:
# Advising the Minister for Transport on road safety policy
# Producing road safety strategy documents and monitoring their implementation
# Working with stakeholders to ensure a co-ordinated response and ensure our collective resources are used wisely and efficiently

Iwannahurl wrote: »

2. Footpaths are good for pedestrians. Unfortunately, in this country a large number of motorists think they own not only the road but the footpaths as well. Enforcement of the law in this regard would be a big help as well as a novelty.

Fair enough

Iwannahurl wrote: »

3. Speed is the major factor in terms of probability/severity of any road collision. Focusing on individual pedestrian behaviour (eg choice of clothing) has merit in some contexts, but people ought to be able to walk in confidence in most situations without the added encumbrance of hi-viz clothing. Walking is an inherently safe and healthy mode of travel, and it ought not to be necessary in normal urban settings (i.e. the majority of cases) to dress up like a Christmas tree in order to exercise the dog, go to the shops or commute to work. A default 30 kph speed limit in city centre and residential areas would achieve a lot more than a million hi-viz vests. AFAIK, the stats show that the pedestrian was at fault in only a small percentage of RTCs. Even if pedestrian carelessness was a major factor, lower speed and a more forgiving/protective road environment would reduce both the risk and severity of collisions.

It doesn't matter whether the pedestrian was at fault or not, they still died. If there is a way to make pedestrians more visible then it should be promoted. That was my point. At ~20% of all fatalaties any initiative here has the potential to make a big difference. I don't suggest for one minute that speeding should be ignored. I believe that there is enough initiatives running already, like speed cameras & some of the existing ad campaigns.

Also I noticed that you had no comment on targetting passengers, again if the mindset was changed passengers would realise they could have a huge influence on drivers, again 1/4 of all deaths are passengers. Surely this groups shoudl be targetted?

unkel

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Hmmm, road deaths down, shiny new safe motorways and bypasses open. Coincidence? I'd put it out there that improvements in the road networks have saved more lives than any misguided RSA campaign.

+1

Hardly a week goes by without a story of horrific fatal head-on crashes. Typically on single lane national roads. Replace these with motorways and those fatal crashes can't happen anymore. It really is that simple.

Owen

I think if we finished decent dual carriageway/motorway links between cities, and then fitted cats eyes, and reflective signage to every single other road in the country, we could cut out another 50-70 deaths a year. We'd be getting close to 150 deaths for the entire country then which would be incredible, some countries can have that amount in 2 weeks (Poland for example).

Course, I'm also pulling these figures out of my arse, but it's a simple step to fit cats eyes everywhere, and they'd dramatically reduce accidents overnight. If we disbanded the RSA and used their marketing budget, we'd nearly be able to cover it

CJhaughey

I saw recently that the entire NRA road maintenance budget has been spent on Salt, that means there is no money left for pothole fixing/replacing Armco etc.

galwaytt

Iwannahurl wrote: »

3. Speed is the major factor in terms of probability/severity of any road collision. Focusing on individual pedestrian behaviour (eg choice of clothing) has merit in some contexts, but people ought to be able to walk in confidence in most situations without the added encumbrance of hi-viz clothing. Walking is an inherently safe and healthy mode of travel, and it ought not to be necessary in normal urban settings (i.e. the majority of cases) to dress up like a Christmas tree in order to exercise the dog, go to the shops or commute to work. A default 30 kph speed limit in city centre and residential areas would achieve a lot more than a million hi-viz vests. AFAIK, the stats show that the pedestrian was at fault in only a small percentage of RTCs. Even if pedestrian carelessness was a major factor, lower speed and a more forgiving/protective road environment would reduce both the risk and severity of collisions.

Nonsense- even the same RSA report you quote only puts speed as a factor in 10% of accidents. What's the other 90% caused by? 'Going to wrong side of road' is actually the biggest cause of accidents according to the RSA.
And you're use of 'speed' is semantics of the same manner as RSA's xenophobic use of it. Technically, anything moving has a 'speed' - and the RSA deliberately use 'inappropriate speed'+'exceeding the safe speed'+actually breaking the speed limit.........and still only come to 10%. The number of people involved in the 10% actually breaking the posted limit is, imho, deliberately obfuscated. Otherwise they couldn't justify their spend on campaign's.
And your suggestion to lower the speed limit to 30kph for pedestrian benefit is equally ridiculous. Hit the pedestrian at.....20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 29.99 and you'll not break the limit, not get your photo taken by the 'man in the van'. But the pedestrian will still be dead.
And yes, we can now see that which we have known: pedestrians are now an actual accident-contributing hazard. And as such, they should no longer enjoy the protection of 'as innocent' in accident's involving vehicles, where they are shown/known to be a causal factor. It's call personal responsibility. Pedestrians must now be forced to take upon themselves the same duty of care to motorists, that motorists must, to them, under law.

rebel.ranter wrote: »

Cyclists:
I detected a bit of a side-swipe comment at cyclists early on in this thread, I think any such comment is unwarranted. 5/212 deaths were cyclists. That is quite good when you consider the context of the "Cycle To Work" schemes increasing the number of cyclists on the road in the past two years. On top of that the likelihod of a fatality as a cyclist is much greater than another motorist in the event of a collision. Also consider that this country is brutal at providing proper infrastructure for cyclists, some of the cycling lanes provided are atrocious.

Finally I'm sure it is of little comfort to the families of the 212 victims that the figures are so low. Hopefully they will cope OK in 2011.

Well remove the 'side' and I'll call it a straightforward swipe. The standard of bicycle riding, like pedestrian behaviour above, is appalling. It is more than anecdotal that they display scant regard for lighting regulations, lane discipline, and regulatory discipline (traffic lights, one-way streets, road 'stop' and 'yield' markings).

Frankly, imho, I think it's a miracle they are so under-represented in the figures published.

Iwannahurl

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I think Gay's brilliant, I started out driving 100 km/h down my road, but everytime he says "Slow Down", I knock off 5 km/h.
The only problem is that now I'm down to 25 km/h and it takes hours to get everywhere and I get abused and beaten up!
What will I do, if the "Slow Down" ads continue, I will not be able to drive, since driving at near 0 km/h on an open road strikes me as dangerous, I really want to do what the RSA says without thinking about it, since they are the experts and I'm just a Joe Soap, is it right to question Uncle Gay? Surely not?

Switch to walking or cycling, perhaps? As well as being excellent modes of travel for urban commutes, walking and cycling promote physical fitness.

Regular aerobic exercise is also generally good for the brain, and can even stimulate the growth of new brain cells, improving memory and the ability to learn.

Iwannahurl

unkel wrote: »

+1

Hardly a week goes by without a story of horrific fatal head-on crashes. Typically on single lane national roads. Replace these with motorways and those fatal crashes can't happen anymore. It really is that simple.

Many roads definitely need upgrading, but replacing every single N road in the country with a motorway is probably impractical, unaffordable and unsustainable.

Or is that the NRA's Grand Plan?

Iwannahurl

rebel.ranter wrote: »

Is this not why the RSA exists?

I would hope the RSA is putting pressure on Government all the time. People power is needed too.

rebel.ranter wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether the pedestrian was at fault or not, they still died. If there is a way to make pedestrians more visible then it should be promoted. That was my point. At ~20% of all fatalaties any initiative here has the potential to make a big difference. I don't suggest for one minute that speeding should be ignored. I believe that there is enough initiatives running already, like speed cameras & some of the existing ad campaigns.

Pedestrians can increase their own visibility by wearing lighter clothing, carrying reflectors etc. Alcohol is also a major factor. Good article here on the topic: Seeing Pedestrians At Night.

However, as a general rule, environmental or systems approaches are more effective than road safety campaigns targeting individual behaviours. Speed limits and related enforcement versus pedestrians wearing hi-viz vests, to cite just one example.

A systems approach to road safety "recognizes that prevention efforts notwithstanding, road users will remain fallible and crashes will occur."

The basic strategy of a safe system approach is "to ensure that in the event of a crash, the impact energies remain below the threshold likely to produce either death or serious injury."

rebel.ranter wrote: »

Also I noticed that you had no comment on targetting passengers, again if the mindset was changed passengers would realise they could have a huge influence on drivers, again 1/4 of all deaths are passengers. Surely this groups shoudl be targetted?

I don't disagree with you on these points. I haven't looked at the evidence, but AFAIK younger drivers in particular are more likely to overcrowd their cars and drive too fast when doing so. These factors can combine to greatly increase the number of fatalities in the event of a crash. Again, my own view (based on what I know of the evidence) is that enforcement of the law is more effective than education.

Iwannahurl

galwaytt wrote: »

Nonsense- even the same RSA report you quote only puts speed as a factor in 10% of accidents. What's the other 90% caused by? 'Going to wrong side of road' is actually the biggest cause of accidents according to the RSA.
And you're use of 'speed' is semantics of the same manner as RSA's xenophobic use of it. Technically, anything moving has a 'speed' - and the RSA deliberately use 'inappropriate speed'+'exceeding the safe speed'+actually breaking the speed limit.........and still only come to 10%. The number of people involved in the 10% actually breaking the posted limit is, imho, deliberately obfuscated. Otherwise they couldn't justify their spend on campaign's.
And your suggestion to lower the speed limit to 30kph for pedestrian benefit is equally ridiculous. Hit the pedestrian at.....20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 29.99 and you'll not break the limit, not get your photo taken by the 'man in the van'. But the pedestrian will still be dead.
And yes, we can now see that which we have known: pedestrians are now an actual accident-contributing hazard. And as such, they should no longer enjoy the protection of 'as innocent' in accident's involving vehicles, where they are shown/known to be a causal factor. It's call personal responsibility. Pedestrians must now be forced to take upon themselves the same duty of care to motorists, that motorists must, to them, under law.


Well remove the 'side' and I'll call it a straightforward swipe. The standard of bicycle riding, like pedestrian behaviour above, is appalling. It is more than anecdotal that they display scant regard for lighting regulations, lane discipline, and regulatory discipline (traffic lights, one-way streets, road 'stop' and 'yield' markings).

Frankly, imho, I think it's a miracle they are so under-represented in the figures published.

Lots of claims I would disagree with above, but I just don't have time at the minute to address them all (with reference to evidence).

Re 30 km/h speed limits: the probability of a crash being fatal rapidly increases with collision speeds above approximately 30 km/h.

galwaytt

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Lots of claims I would disagree with above, but I just don't have time at the minute to address them all (with reference to evidence).

Re 30 km/h speed limits: the probability of a crash being fatal rapidly increases with collision speeds above approximately 30 km/h.

Well, the % I quote are from your source: RSA - so if you're going to say some of their figures are right, and some wrong, then all of your argument is moot.

And quoting some arbitrary Dutch body is equally useless. They have a formidable public infrastructure, for both cars, bikes and walker's, and no figures from there has any relevance here, where pedestrians are actively walking and running in, and competing with, motor carriageways (R roads, for example......)

But, seeing as you went to the trouble, page 2 of that report says that the largest % of accidents occurs on 50km/h roads (58%). Yet the lowest is on 60km/h roads (6%). So, what we need to do, obviously, is to double the 30km/h speed limit, and it's 'cured'. See ? I can play silly copy/paste statistics as well as the next guy..........;)

Voodoomelon

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0101/rta.html

Bollox, i recognise that E39, its often about Dundalk. Awful.

See the video.

Iwannahurl

galwaytt wrote: »

Well, the % I quote are from your source: RSA - so if you're going to say some of their figures are right, and some wrong, then all of your argument is moot.

And quoting some arbitrary Dutch body is equally useless. They have a formidable public infrastructure, for both cars, bikes and walker's, and no figures from there has any relevance here, where pedestrians are actively walking and running in, and competing with, motor carriageways (R roads, for example......)

But, seeing as you went to the trouble, page 2 of that report says that the largest % of accidents occurs on 50km/h roads (58%). Yet the lowest is on 60km/h roads (6%). So, what we need to do, obviously, is to double the 30km/h speed limit, and it's 'cured'. See ? I can play silly copy/paste statistics as well as the next guy..........

No, you can play silly better than most.

Physics is Physics, and 30 km/h is 30 km/h everywhere. Even in Ireland, land of saints, scholars and sillies.

SWOV is not an "arbitrary Dutch body". It is the national centre for road safety research in the Netherlands, and is internationally respected. Though not on Boards obviously, specifically the Motors forum, where uninformed opinion and group-think is in the ascendant.

Even if you are just attempting sarcasm, it would work better if you didn't mangle figures in a manner that suggests you have no understanding of them.

The figures you quote in your last paragraph above have nothing at all to do with the well-established relationship between speed and the probability or severity of a collision.

They are simply frequencies of crashes involving pedestrians on different categories of road in the Netherlands.

This is what the SWOV Fact Sheet on pedestrians actually says:

If we look at the average over the period 2007-2009, 86% of the pedestrian casualties in the Netherlands occurred in urban areas. 58% of the road deaths occurred on 50 km roads, 13% on 80 km roads, 6% on 30 km roads, and 6% on 60 km roads. For in-patients these percentages are: 65% on 50, 20% on 30, 4% on 80 en 3% on 60 km roads.

So, those figures are the frequencies of pedestrian casualties on roads in different speed categories.

The report goes on:

Research shows that the outcome of crashes with motorized vehicles is mainly determined by the collision speed. This is illustrated in Figure 3 which shows that the probability of a crash being fatal rapidly increases with collision speeds above approximately 30 km/h.

This is the graph they use:



The graph illustrates the evidence-based finding that there is a nearly 100% probability of death when the front of a car hits a pedestrian at 80 km/h, compared to a 5% chance at 30 km/h.

It would be completely absurd if SWOV were to draw this conclusion from the frequency data above, because that is not what the frequency data shows.

The devil in the detail that you apparently fail to see, or appreciate, is the rate of severe crashes per kilometre in different speed limit categories. Also related to this point is the number of pedestrians on different road types.

Another SWOV report, on "Zone 30" residential areas, makes this point:

In the period 2002-2007 approximately half the urban road length consisted of streets with a 30 km/h speed limit; in 1997 this was 15%. In the period 2002-2007, approximately 12% of the severe urban crashes happened on those streets, and in 1997 the proportion was 5%. Reckoning per road length, streets with a limit 30 are therefore safer than the urban main roads. The difference has grown during the past ten years: in the period 2002-2007 there were 0.04 severe crashes per kilometre limit 30 road, as opposed to 0.31 for the limits 50 and 70; in 1997 the figures were 0.07 and 0.23 respectively.

From 2002-2007, therefore, the rate of severe crashes on Dutch roads with a 50-70 km/h limit was nearly eight times higher than on 30 km/h roads.

The number of cyclists and pedestrians on different road types is an important factor:

In an absolute sense, the involvement of cyclists and/or pedestrians in severe crashes is somewhat higher on 30 km/h streets than on roads with a limit of 50 or 70 km/h, 51% and 46% in the period 2002-2007 respectively. Relatively speaking, therefore, their crash involvement is less in streets with a 30 limit because these streets probably have much more cyclist and pedestrian road users than other roads in urban areas.

This is the Australian experience:

Nearly 2/3 of Australian pedestrian fatalities occur in speed limits of 60 km/h or less. Deaths of Australian pedestrians aged 65 or over were mostly at locations subject to speed limits of 60 km/hr or less (81%). One in six deaths occur in speed limits of 100 km/h or more. For children aged 5-12, 68% of fatalities occur in 60 km/h speed limits, 13% in 75-80 km/h limits and 19% in speed limits of 90 km/h or more.

The Silly Statistics approach would conclude from the above figures that children are safer in streets where vehicles travel at 90 km/h. No further comment necessary.

dr.fuzzenstein

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Switch to walking or cycling, perhaps? As well as being excellent modes of travel for urban commutes, walking and cycling promote physical fitness.

Regular aerobic exercise is also generally good for the brain, and can even stimulate the growth of new brain cells, improving memory and the ability to learn.

Nice links, you should try out this one to see what I was getting at.
I have to travel from near Gort to Limerick and back every day.
The speed limit is 120 km/h.
Going 121 is not going to kill you.
Neither is 130, 140 or even 160. You can even do 180 on that motorway if, let's just assume, it's quiet and no one else is on it. Theoretically.
And then there's Germany.
I once blew past the Polizei at nearly 230 km/h (with them going 100 k in their bus) and nothing happened. Because it's completely legal.
So, speed kills? I should be dead 10 times over.
The reason I'm not is, I don't speed inappropriately, i.e. when there's traffic or I'm in town or it's dark and I'm on a backroad I drive slower.
As for the 60 km/h brigade, who will drive everywhere at 60 km/h (backroads, town centres, motorway, etc...) and think "Jaysus, I'm the safest driver in the world", you're not. Simply going slow is no subsitute to paying attention and keeping up with traffic.

Iwannahurl

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Nice links, you should try out this one to see what I was getting at.
I have to travel from near Gort to Limerick and back every day.
The speed limit is 120 km/h.
Going 121 is not going to kill you.
Neither is 130, 140 or even 160. You can even do 180 on that motorway if, let's just assume, it's quiet and no one else is on it. Theoretically.
And then there's Germany.
I once blew past the Polizei at nearly 230 km/h (with them going 100 k in their bus) and nothing happened. Because it's completely legal.
So, speed kills? I should be dead 10 times over.
The reason I'm not is, I don't speed inappropriately, i.e. when there's traffic or I'm in town or it's dark and I'm on a backroad I drive slower.
As for the 60 km/h brigade, who will drive everywhere at 60 km/h (backroads, town centres, motorway, etc...) and think "Jaysus, I'm the safest driver in the world", you're not. Simply going slow is no subsitute to paying attention and keeping up with traffic.

It's not the fall that hurts, it's the sudden stop.

Try this link.

dr.fuzzenstein

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's not the fall that hurts, it's the sudden stop.

Exactly.
Therefore the slogan "SPEED KILLS!" is useless, not helpful and in fact inaccurate.
Inappropriate speed does kill of course.
When it's dark, wet, snowy, icy in cities and towns and heavy traffic you not only want to watch your speed, but those around you.
If all you do is watch your speed one day you will say the line "I swear to God, he came out of nowhere!" to a police person.
I have some time for ads that show how to overtake, use a roundabout, etc...
They're at least helpful and positive and you will also need ads that show what inappropriate speed can do.
But simply shout speed kills at us at every turn has been done to death.
It's not enough just beating people over the head, at some stage a positive message will be needed.
Why not show people what's right for once?
They might just learn something...

Shay Vader

Does anyone think that the dramatic change in attitudes towards Drink-Driving in the last decade has more to do with the drop in Road death figures than any other factor? Or have we all forgotten the mass drunken exodus from pub car parks that were a part of our culture for far, far too long?

Iwannahurl

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Exactly.
Therefore the slogan "SPEED KILLS!" is useless, not helpful and in fact inaccurate.
Inappropriate speed does kill of course.
When it's dark, wet, snowy, icy in cities and towns and heavy traffic you not only want to watch your speed, but those around you.
If all you do is watch your speed one day you will say the line "I swear to God, he came out of nowhere!" to a police person.
I have some time for ads that show how to overtake, use a roundabout, etc...
They're at least helpful and positive and you will also need ads that show what inappropriate speed can do.
But simply shout speed kills at us at every turn has been done to death.
It's not enough just beating people over the head, at some stage a positive message will be needed.
Why not show people what's right for once?
They might just learn something...

As a slogan, "Speed Kills" ticks more 'social marketing' boxes than the accurate but wordy "in general, the faster a vehicle is driven the higher the risk of being involved in a crash, and the higher the collision speed the more serious the consequences in terms of injury, because the physics of impact means that higher speed aggravates the effect of crashes that happen for other reasons".

The arguments about speed, on Boards and on other similar online forums in Ireland and elsewhere, seem to go round and round ad nauseam. Much of the 'debate' is pedantic nit-picking and special pleading by those who claim that their alleged superior driving skills mean their personal "appropriate" driving speed can safely be higher than the posted limit in certain circumstances.

Michael Schumacher, Fernando Alonso, Sebastien Loeb, Mikko Hirvonen and Dr. Fuzzenstein could probably drive on a variety of Irish roads much faster than the posted speed limit without crashing. Congratulations, and so what? The fundamental point, in the context of law enforcement and public safety, is that even though the speed-related risks for individuals may be lower than the average the risks for the whole population are unacceptably increased.

It may well be that the main effect of "expected" speeding (that is the common 10-20% over the posted limit) is to raise the average severity of crashes and the number of severe casualties, rather than producing more crashes overall (e.g., Streff and Schultz, 1990). Because of the physics of impact, the extra speed aggravates the effect of crashes that happen for other reasons. The added risks of speed violation are fairly substantial over the whole population, but may appear modest to the individual. The choice to avoid speeding probably has to be made on the basis of social responsibility rather than perceived individual risk reduction. This risk of speeding is quite different from that produced by "unexpected," very high speeds (say 50-100% above posted levels). At extreme levels the speed itself may be the primary cause of the crash, either through exceeding the envelope of control available in the roadway geometry or through violating another road user's expectations.

As for doing "what's right", I have argued elsewhere in this forum that the lawfully determined speed limit is a social contract that we all ought to adhere to for the greater good. Why not just accept these limits in the spirit in which they are intended, rather than engage in endless quibbling about the acknowledged complexities of speed choices and various risk factors?

Seth Brundle

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Why not just accept these limits in the spirit in which they are intended, rather than engage in endless quibbling about the acknowledged complexities of speed choices and various risk factors?

As always you are so right!!!




God, this arguing with you gets tiring tbh. Do you work for the RSA or someone that youo are able to pul out all of these links so quickly?