Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Irish roads the sixth safest in the European Union, says report

  • 22-06-2011 12:55am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭


    Ireland is now the 6th best performing country among EU Member States in terms of road deaths. Source: RTE News.

    Irish roads have been named the sixth safest in the European Union, according to a new report.

    Between 2001 and 2010 the number of people killed on the roads here fell by 48%.

    This was just short of the EU target of 50%, which only eight member states achieved, according to the report by the European Transport Council.

    Ireland's reduction was above the EU average.

    Ireland is now sixth behind Sweden, the UK, Malta, The Netherlands and Germany in terms of road safety.

    Ireland was among the best performers when it came to saving lives on rural roads and of pedestrians and motorbike users.

    However, it was below average when it came to reducing deaths of cyclists.

    The report estimated that there has been more than 100,000 fewer deaths on EU roads since 2001 and that the savings to society are worth around €176 billion.

    The Road Safety Authority has described the reduction as remarkable.

    RSA Chief Executive Noel Brett says that Irish road users have become an example to the rest of Europe but he warned against complacency.

    He says there is still a big gap between Ireland and the safest countries in Europe and that efforts to make the roads safer need to continue.

    The European Transport Council has set a new target of a further 50% reduction in road deaths by 2020.


    I'm sure there must be a few caveats, but still worth a nod of approval, no?
    Tagged:


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭serfboard


    Saw that report alright. The thing that jumped out at me was this
    there has been more than 100,000 fewer deaths on EU roads since 2001
    That's an amazing number. Think New York's Twin Towers 30 times over.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 66,540 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Now if they'd reposition their "safety cameras" to places with data from the last few years rather than the 1990s, they might get it down further. Rather than having them placed on bypassed roads that were once high casualty or places were the last serious accident happened over 20 years ago...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    Now if they'd reposition their "safety cameras" to places with data from the last few years rather than the 1990s, they might get it down further. Rather than having them placed on bypassed roads that were once high casualty or places were the last serious accident happened over 20 years ago...



    My hunch is that the speed/safety cameras are placed where deaths occurred previously in order to increase public acceptance of the programme.

    Personally, I think the only justification they need is that speed surveillance has been proven effective in reducing road casualties.

    Therefore the speed/safety cameras should be placed where motorists are likely to break the speed limit, ie anywhere and everywhere.

    Another hunch I have is that 2011 is going to be the safest year on record. I sincerely hope I'm not wrong.

    We've come a long way from the 1970s, when the number of cars on the road was half what it is now and fifty people a month were dying on the roads.

    Every little helps, IMO. Speed surveillance, driver education, random breath testing, better roads, better cars, etc. Given the huge number of lives saved, injuries prevented and tragedies averted cynicism is in no way justified.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 66,540 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    My hunch is that the speed/safety cameras are placed where deaths occurred previously in order to increase public acceptance of the programme.

    Which is ridiculous as for a HUGE amount of positions they site them in the deaths occurred on an older design of road.



    Better roads are responsible for more of the reduction than any other individual factor - take a look at old EuroRAP reports to see this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,503 ✭✭✭veryangryman


    MYOB wrote: »
    Better roads are responsible for more of the reduction than any other individual factor - take a look at old EuroRAP reports to see this.

    Exactly

    Why are the RSA so reluctant to acknowledge the following...

    1. Road deaths (usually) occur due to head-on collisions.
    2. Head on collissions usually happen on busier single carriageway roads
    3. Most of the busier single carriageways have been Dualled up

    Ergo less head on collisions, less deaths

    Why isnt this the first thing they list? What do they have to lose not saying this? Are they complete morons - what>?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,548 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Exactly

    Why are the RSA so reluctant to acknowledge the following...

    1. Road deaths (usually) occur due to head-on collisions.
    2. Head on collissions usually happen on busier single carriageway roads
    3. Most of the busier single carriageways have been Dualled up

    Ergo less head on collisions, less deaths

    Why isnt this the first thing they list? What do they have to lose not saying this? Are they complete morons - what>?
    Because the RSAs self-appointed mission is to drown motorists in red tape. Speed cameras on dual carriageways, "graduated" driver licensing with a byzantine set of rules, annual NCTs, they're only interested in making motoring as difficult, expensive and frustrating as possible. That's all.

    THAT is why they almost never - if at all - discuss the safety advantages of an increased motorway and dual carriageway network.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    Better roads are responsible for more of the reduction than any other individual factor - take a look at old EuroRAP reports to see this.


    1. Road deaths (usually) occur due to head-on collisions.

    2. Head on collissions usually happen on busier single carriageway roads

    3. Most of the busier single carriageways have been Dualled up




    Do you have authoritative sources for those specific claims? Publication title(s) & date(s), link(s), etc...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    SeanW wrote: »
    Because the RSAs self-appointed mission is to drown motorists in red tape. Speed cameras on dual carriageways, "graduated" driver licensing with a byzantine set of rules, annual NCTs, they're only interested in making motoring as difficult, expensive and frustrating as possible. That's all.

    THAT is why they almost never - if at all - discuss the safety advantages of an increased motorway and dual carriageway network.


    Such ill-informed ranting. I should have anticipated it, even if this isn't the Motors forum!

    1. The RSA is not self-appointed. It was set up by an Act of the Oireachtas in 2006. Its statutory responsibilities are set out in that legislation.

    2. The RSA has no involvement in the National Car Test. An NCT is required every two years, not annually.

    3. In its Road Safety Strategy 2007-2012 the RSA clearly acknowledges and credits the safety dividend in terms of reduced road deaths due to the contruction of motorways and upgrading/remediation of other roads. On RTE1 News recently, Noel Brett, CEO of the RSA, specifically mentioned the improved safety of better roads.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 66,540 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Do you have authoritative sources for those specific claims? Publication title(s) & date(s), link(s), etc...

    As I said - take a look at the old EuroRAP reports. Look at the roads with the highest accident figures. They've nearly all been replaced.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Such ill-informed ranting. I should have anticipated it, even if this isn't the Motors forum!

    2. The RSA has no involvement in the National Car Test. An NCT is req.

    You may want to get a little bit more up to date on this also.

    The RSA are responsible for the NCT system, and tests are now annual for vehicles over ten years old

    Its a good idea to check you aren't the ill-informed one before accusing someone of ranting, just as its a good idea to read what you're directed to before asking for the information contained within. But I can also anticipate that you'll not do this.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 66,540 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Because I know full well you won't actually look at the EuroRAP stuff, here's some bits from it

    2008 top 5 most dangerous roads in the Republic and their status in 2011:

    1: N1 Dundalk to Border. Replaced
    2: M50 to Ashbourne. Replaced
    3: N21 Tralee to Castleisland. Replaced or improved online
    4: N25 Waterford to Kilmeaden. Replaced.
    5: N52 South of Mullingar to Tyrrellspass. Vast majority of this has been replaced, final section to be done this year by online.

    If you go back further you see the same pattern. The roads on which the most deaths happened have been either massively improved or outright replaced.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,524 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    It is actually staggering that we have such a low death rate for a number of reason.

    1. We have the highest rate of car ownership in Europe. Given that the rate of deaths is per population, you would expect a high figure given we drive more than any other nation.

    2. Per population, we have the largest amount of used roads in Europe. Our population is spread very evenly accross the island. It means that more people in this country are using sub par roads on average in comparison to other countries. Our lack of urbanisation also means that fewer people are driving each day in cities where the speed limits are much slower.

    3. The state of our roads. After two bad winters, it's is presently pot hole city out there. The road surface of R and L roads is a border line disgrace. Our signage is god awful too. In most countries, severe bends etc are signed very well. Haphazard in this country.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    It's also kind of staggering that, even in a thread on the reduction of road deaths, the RSA is singled out for vitriol and condemnation, and not for praise and commendation. What is with Irish people and their distaste for any kind of authority?


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,250 ✭✭✭✭road_high


    MYOB wrote: »
    Because I know full well you won't actually look at the EuroRAP stuff, here's some bits from it

    2008 top 5 most dangerous roads in the Republic and their status in 2011:

    1: N1 Dundalk to Border. Replaced
    2: M50 to Ashbourne. Replaced
    3: N21 Tralee to Castleisland. Replaced or improved online
    4: N25 Waterford to Kilmeaden. Replaced.
    5: N52 South of Mullingar to Tyrrellspass. Vast majority of this has been replaced, final section to be done this year by online.

    If you go back further you see the same pattern. The roads on which the most deaths happened have been either massively improved or outright replaced.

    Yes, very true indeed. The old N1/8/9 especially were real death traps. We regularly had MAJOR collisions on those involving multiple vehicles and HGVs on an all too frequent basis. I can think back of crashes where whole families were killed :(. Thankfully much of these old stretches are gone. There were some awful collsions on the old N8 over the years despite it being a reasonably good road for the most part. Parts of the N11 were awful too. Unfortunately one or two still remain there.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Malta is a surprise in that list, I was led to believe (by Dev no less I think!) that they are pretty mad drivers on rather narrow roads.

    As for the drop well its a mixed bag of reasons one of which hasn't been mentioned - the recession! Fewer journeys at peaks times as compared to 2001 I would imagine, and those journeys that are made will tend to be shorter (nipping to the shop/school rather than commuting)


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 66,540 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    mfitzy wrote: »
    Yes, very true indeed. The old N1/8/9 especially were real death traps. We regularly had MAJOR collisions on those involving multiple vehicles and HGVs on an all too frequent basis. I can think back of crashes where whole families were killed :(. Thankfully much of these old stretches are gone. There were some awful collsions on the old N8 over the years despite it being a reasonably good road for the most part. Parts of the N11 were awful too. Unfortunately one or two still remain there.

    The N11 gap and the N2 at Slane alone as two schemes would cause another noticeable drop in collision statistics.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    MYOB wrote: »
    As I said - take a look at the old EuroRAP reports. Look at the roads with the highest accident figures. They've nearly all been replaced.

    You may want to get a little bit more up to date on this also.

    The RSA are responsible for the NCT system, and tests are now annual for vehicles over ten years old

    Its a good idea to check you aren't the ill-informed one before accusing someone of ranting, just as its a good idea to read what you're directed to before asking for the information contained within. But I can also anticipate that you'll not do this.



    Well, I stand corrected on the NCT. I was under the impression that it was run by the National Car Testing Service, and the annual test for cars over ten years old hadn't come to my notice (yet, since I'm not directly affected).

    I was looking for an authoritative source for this specific claim that you made:
    MYOB wrote: »
    Better roads are responsible for more of the reduction than any other individual factor - take a look at old EuroRAP reports to see this.

    You are stating categorically that better roads have saved more lives than any other individual factor. What is the direct, categorical evidence for that specific claim?

    The "complete morons" in the RSA, who "almost never - if at all - discuss the safety advantages of an increased motorway and dual carriageway network" state the following in their Road Safety Strategy:
    It is estimated that Major Road Building Programmes may save 50 lives a year when completed in 2010. This is supported by recent studies on the newly completed M1 from Dublin to Dundalk where the number of fatalities has fallen dramatically with the new motorway while traffic has grown two and a half times in eight years, well ahead of expectations. In the 3 years before the motorway was completed 12 fatalities occurred on the route. The 3 years after the motorway was completed have seen 2 fatalities.
    Perhaps that 50 lives saved a year is bigger than the reduction due to any other factors. I'd like to see some direct evidence for that though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    It is actually staggering that we have such a low death rate for a number of reason.

    1. We have the highest rate of car ownership in Europe. Given that the rate of deaths is per population, you would expect a high figure given we drive more than any other nation.

    2. Per population, we have the largest amount of used roads in Europe. Our population is spread very evenly accross the island. It means that more people in this country are using sub par roads on average in comparison to other countries. Our lack of urbanisation also means that fewer people are driving each day in cities where the speed limits are much slower.

    3. The state of our roads. After two bad winters, it's is presently pot hole city out there. The road surface of R and L roads is a border line disgrace. Our signage is god awful too. In most countries, severe bends etc are signed very well. Haphazard in this country.



    I'm, er, not up to speed on the car ownership rates either. Not too many years ago it was quite a different situation, IIRC. Can you post a link? Ditto re total kilometres driven. All very useful info.

    The number of fatalities was much higher in the 1970s, however, when there was half the number of car registrations as now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,524 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I'm, er, not up to speed on the car ownership rates either. Not too many years ago it was quite a different situation, IIRC. Can you post a link? Ditto re total kilometres driven. All very useful info.

    The number of fatalities was much higher in the 1970s, however, when there was half the number of car registrations as now.

    1. According to this list, only Italy seriously ranks above Ireland. Finland, Germany and Austria are also ahead, but please note that the Ireland figure is a 2006 figures, while the rest are 2008 and 2010.


    2.

    s3opdd.jpg

    Just look at the effort you've made me put in. Sweden is a freak as the country has such a small population compared to it's size. I would imagine given that as the majority of the population live in the south and given that the north is tundra, then most car journeys are done on a section of roads, far less than the total Km of roads in the country.

    I have no idea why Latvia and Lithuania has such length of roads compared to their populations.

    All info found at http://www.irfnet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=262%3Aeuropean-road-statistics-2009&catid=17&Itemid=30

    BTW, we have a hell of a lot of road to look after compared to our population. Just look at how little road the UK has to it's population. This means that looking after their network is easier as it should take up a smaller percentage of the countries GDP per person.

    No info for Greece or Cyprus btw.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    1. According to this list, only Italy seriously ranks above Ireland. Finland, Germany and Austria are also ahead, but please note that the Ireland figure is a 2006 figures, while the rest are 2008 and 2010.


    2.

    http://i55.tinypic.com/s3opdd.jpg

    Just look at the effort you've made me put in. Sweden is a freak as the country has such a small population compared to it's size. I would imagine given that as the majority of the population live in the south and given that the north is tundra, then most car journeys are done on a section of roads, far less than the total Km of roads in the country.

    I have no idea why Latvia and Lithuania has such length of roads compared to their populations.

    All info found at http://www.irfnet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=262%3Aeuropean-road-statistics-2009&catid=17&Itemid=30

    BTW, we have a hell of a lot of road to look after compared to our population. Just look at how little road the UK has to it's population. This means that looking after their network is easier as it should take up a smaller percentage of the countries GDP per person.

    No info for Greece or Cyprus btw.


    Thanks.

    Your work is not done yet! What about car ownership rates, and kilometres driven?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,524 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Wiki (best I could find) on car ownership rates. Forgot to post link originally.

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


    On the average kilometers driven. I can't find anything on it. It's an often thrown out statistic though. I have no reason not to believe it given our shocking public transport system and due to the sheer volume of commuter towns, which have been filling up over the past 15 years.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    I should have looked more closely at the link you posted earlier.

    The 2007 data for car ownership per thousand inhabitants in the EU27 is given here: http://www.irfnet.eu/images/stories/Statistics/2009/6._Passenger_Transport.pdf

    Looks like Ireland is 16th in the table, which is what I thought (ie my recollection was that our car ownership rates are lower than many countries in the EU, though our level of car use, and car dependence is higher than many). I'm told that we have the lowest rate of "active commuting", for example, though I have no source for that statement.

    I suspect that we crept up the table a fair bit in the Celtic Casino years. It would be interesting to see the trend 2001-2011.


    MotorisationbycountryEU272007.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,189 ✭✭✭overshoot


    was looking through that euroRap the shocking thing was in star rating, 50% of our "other roads" (non motorway) got 1 star, germany - 0%, GB about 2%, NI 5%. Take that to secondary single and its a whopping 75% of the road network gets 1*
    http://www.eurorap.org/library/pdfs/20080519_IRLAND_RESULTS.pdf
    (page 18 for that part)


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭marmurr1916


    1. According to this list, only Italy seriously ranks above Ireland. Finland, Germany and Austria are also ahead, but please note that the Ireland figure is a 2006 figures, while the rest are 2008 and 2010.


    2.

    s3opdd.jpg

    Just look at the effort you've made me put in. Sweden is a freak as the country has such a small population compared to it's size. I would imagine given that as the majority of the population live in the south and given that the north is tundra, then most car journeys are done on a section of roads, far less than the total Km of roads in the country.

    I have no idea why Latvia and Lithuania has such length of roads compared to their populations.

    All info found at http://www.irfnet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=262%3Aeuropean-road-statistics-2009&catid=17&Itemid=30

    BTW, we have a hell of a lot of road to look after compared to our population. Just look at how little road the UK has to it's population. This means that looking after their network is easier as it should take up a smaller percentage of the countries GDP per person.

    No info for Greece or Cyprus btw.

    Thanks for that information. I always suspected Ireland had far more roads per head of population than other countries.

    Part of the reason is that historical settlement patterns in rural Ireland meant that there was a very dispersed population, served by numerous small roads.

    A quick look at any reasonably detailed pre-Famine Ordnance Survey map will show numerous small clusters of houses (cláchans) across large areas of rural Ireland, with a maze of small roads.

    Unfortunately, nearly all of these small roads were surfaced after roads began to be tarmacked, unlike in other countries where many very minor roads were left as gravel or other unsealed surfaces.

    If Ireland had done this, the remaining, smaller, network of roads could have been given more attention and maintained to a higher standard.

    As for road safety, one of the factors is improved roads, another is improved cars.

    Thanks to various scrappage schemes and the boom years (RIP), the age of the Irish 'national fleet' is relatively young and modern cars have better safety features, leading to reduced accidents and increased survival rates.

    Advances in medical techniques and technology have also improved survival rates.

    Improved enforcement has played a role as has better driving behaviour. I would say that drink driving was probably much more widespread in the 1970s than today and random breath testing helps get drink drivers off the road.

    Overall, improved roads have clearly played a crucial part in reducing the accident rates on Irish roads, but other factors have contributed too.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 66,540 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Perhaps that 50 lives saved a year is bigger than the reduction due to any other factors. I'd like to see some direct evidence for that though.

    Do some simple maths. For any other factor to be bigger it'd need to be 51, then add in estimated numbers for the others. Then compare to the reduction in road deaths.

    There has only been a ~120 death drop per annum since 2003 when the road network had a tiny % of DC and hundreds of kilometre less of improvements to non-DC N roads.

    Its fairly obvious to anyone who's done junior cert maths (and who is willing to let go of an obsession with speed enforcement).


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,002 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Perhaps a bit OT but I've just come back home (to Germany) from 2 weeks driving in and around Campania/Lazio in Italy and I can safely say I will NEVER drive there again.

    Ireland is positively saintly in comparison to these morons who overtake INTO oncoming traffic and only survive because the oncoming traffic is looking out for them and swerves over to avoid. I saw numerous fender benders and basically ALL the cars are dented beyond belief. They treat driving a motor vehicle (because the 2 wheelers are just as suicidal) like a game. They allow minors to ride mopeds clearly far too young and there is only a helmet requirement for vehicles above 50cc....but I saw LOADS of sports bike riders going sans helmet (I'm a biker too-I would NEVER pull some of the stuff I saw these idiots pull) and the police doing absolutely nothing (Police drove just as badly, 2 feet from back bumper etc.).

    Speed limits are obviously not enforced whatsoever-virtually all traffic in an 80 zone does 110, on the 130 motorways you'd see people driving as fast as their cars will go. Ireland should take pride that the high death rate is/was largely due to crappy roads whereas in Southern Italy etc. it's due to moronic driving and a fatally flawed mentality.

    We can do better, but we should be happy overall that we are heading in the right direction-others are not I believe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,014 ✭✭✭niloc1951


    murphaph wrote: »
    Perhaps a bit OT but I've just come back home (to Germany) from 2 weeks driving in and around Campania/Lazio in Italy and I can safely say I will NEVER drive there again.

    Ireland is positively saintly in comparison to these morons who overtake INTO oncoming traffic and only survive because the oncoming traffic is looking out for them and swerves over to avoid. I saw numerous fender benders and basically ALL the cars are dented beyond belief. They treat driving a motor vehicle (because the 2 wheelers are just as suicidal) like a game. They allow minors to ride mopeds clearly far too young and there is only a helmet requirement for vehicles above 50cc....but I saw LOADS of sports bike riders going sans helmet (I'm a biker too-I would NEVER pull some of the stuff I saw these idiots pull) and the police doing absolutely nothing (Police drove just as badly, 2 feet from back bumper etc.).

    Speed limits are obviously not enforced whatsoever-virtually all traffic in an 80 zone does 110, on the 130 motorways you'd see people driving as fast as their cars will go. Ireland should take pride that the high death rate is/was largely due to crappy roads whereas in Southern Italy etc. it's due to moronic driving and a fatally flawed mentality.

    We can do better, but we should be happy overall that we are heading in the right direction-others are not I believe.

    Apologies to the OT police
    'DEAD' right, I had the same experience last year when we toured down the Adriatic coast to Bari, across to Salerno and back up the Mediteranian coast, they're absolutely crazy and the roads nearly shook the camper apart.

    We have promised ourselves that if we have any reason to go south of Pisa in the future we will either fly or leave the camper in the north and take the train.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,104 ✭✭✭nordydan


    murphaph wrote: »
    Perhaps a bit OT but I've just come back home (to Germany) from 2 weeks driving in and around Campania/Lazio in Italy and I can safely say I will NEVER drive there again.

    Ireland is positively saintly in comparison to these morons who overtake INTO oncoming traffic and only survive because the oncoming traffic is looking out for them and swerves over to avoid. I saw numerous fender benders and basically ALL the cars are dented beyond belief. They treat driving a motor vehicle (because the 2 wheelers are just as suicidal) like a game. They allow minors to ride mopeds clearly far too young and there is only a helmet requirement for vehicles above 50cc....but I saw LOADS of sports bike riders going sans helmet (I'm a biker too-I would NEVER pull some of the stuff I saw these idiots pull) and the police doing absolutely nothing (Police drove just as badly, 2 feet from back bumper etc.).

    Speed limits are obviously not enforced whatsoever-virtually all traffic in an 80 zone does 110, on the 130 motorways you'd see people driving as fast as their cars will go. Ireland should take pride that the high death rate is/was largely due to crappy roads whereas in Southern Italy etc. it's due to moronic driving and a fatally flawed mentality.

    We can do better, but we should be happy overall that we are heading in the right direction-others are not I believe.

    Likewise in Sicily in 2009, just swap the placenames around but same story


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    Interesting that three countries that drive on the left rank in the top six. Especially when you consider that the vast majority of EU countries drive on the right.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    KevR wrote: »
    Interesting that three countries that drive on the left rank in the top six. Especially when you consider that the vast majority of EU countries drive on the right.



    Interesting point. Any theories?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,004 ✭✭✭Brian CivilEng


    I remember reading a report somewhere that there was no statistically significant benefit to driving on the left, but I can't find it after a quick google. Some theories put forward is that driving on the left is safer for right handed people as they use their strong hand on the wheel when they change gear. So since 83% of people are right handed then driving on the left should be safer. Also apparently people have a slightly stronger vision on one side (right eyed maybe), and more people see better on their right than on their left. However there doesn't seem to be any major studies showing that one side is safer than the other.


Advertisement