Gaybo does it again. Is there no stopping dinosaur windbag?

Tragedy

Victor wrote: »

1969-1998 during the Troubles, about 3,500 people were killed. In the same time 20,000 died on the roads in Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Worldwide, every year 500,000 people die on the roads.

Worldwide, every year, well over 1million people commit suicide. A mimimum(and suicide is under reported in Ireland) of 527 people commited suicide in Ireland in 2009.

RSA funding in 2007: €45.1 million
NOSP funding in 2007: €3.5 million
Traffic Corps cost in 2007: €??? million?

Definitely not a disparity there.

Zen65 wrote: »

Which bad decision-making are you talking about?

Nobody can deny that since he took up his position in the Road Safety Authority there has been improved enforcement by Gardaí, and the statistics would indicate that this has made a very significant difference to the rate of fatality on the road:


It's nonsense to point to the economy as being the reason for the reduced rate of accidents; there was no noticeable decline during previous recessions in the country. The difference is down to roads being improved and enforcement by Gardaí. Remember that the previous head of the RSA resigned because he was not getting support from government. When GB was appointed he stated publicly that he was not an expert in the field, but that he was determined to hold the government accountable for their actions, and if they failed to act as they had promised then he would publicly "out" them.

And in fairness, since his appointment they delivered the dedicated Traffic Corps, and enforcement was improved, and the penalty points system was put in place and people took notice and changed their driving habits.

In every single year since he was appointed, road fatalities have reduced. That can't be dumb luck. You don't need to like the man, but you have to admit he has got results. How he has done so is entirely down to his skill at getting people to commit to taking action, and then using his skill and position as a respected celebrity to ensure that they honour that.

And starting a post in which your primary complaint is his age, well frankly that's just immature and ill-conceived.

Be at peace,

Z

PS: I'm not a Gay Byrne fan either, but I acknowledge his success in this role, and I'm staggered that somebody would suggest he's incompetent because he is old.

Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc etc.

Thank you.

Victor wrote: »

Ireland’s road deaths per 100,000 of the population from 1997 to 2004

Year Rate
1997 12.9
1998 12.4
1999 11.0
2000 11.0
2001 10.7
2002 9.6
2003 8.5
2004 9.3

I would also urge one to look at this report to see how deaths per million km's has been falling consistently across the whole of Europe since statistics started being collected. http://www.etsc.eu/oldsite/statoverv.pdf

It's easy to lie with statistics and unfortunately, there's plenty of lying being done in this thread.

I'm all for penalty points and a dedicated Traffic Corps, unfortunately my experience of the Traffic Corps is that they are purely a Speed Detection Corps. Seem to have no interest in bad driving, unsafe cars, trailers with no lights etc etc - just tripods on the side of the road, ANPR and spotting speeders on the motorway. Same goes for general Garda cars too, unfortunately.

L1011

44leto wrote: »

Post of the week, no arguing with that, discussion ended.

Why yes Mr Byrne, we'll end discussion because you say so....


Gay Byrne has done NOTHING to reduce road deaths. He's made a few public statements that the RSA has often had to row back from due to what he was suggesting being wrong or illegal.

Reduced traffic, improved national fleet quality, improved enforcement, people less willing to risk drink driving and most importantly the busiest *THOUSAND KM OF ROAD* being replaced by motorway (along with hundreds of KM of realignments to safe standards on other roads in the same period) are what has reduced road deaths.

You can see where improved car quality has come in by looking at the lack of a drop in serious injuries compared to the drop in deaths.

DeVore

I don't mind Gaybo and I do believe speed kills but I hate, really hate, bad logic.

By the same logic being used in this thread I can easily show that road deaths are linked to house prices. They went up and down roughly at the same time after all!

Fatalities are not accidents. There could have been a huge jump in accidents and a decrease in fatalitieis for all that data tells us. The invention of airbags, crumple zones, buyer awareness of safety ratings, seatbelts, helmet technology improvements, A&E facilities and medical advances... Have all these things had zero impact too? Cos that's what you are implying.

There are just too many variables to make any judgement whatsoever from a simplistic line graph.

I don't doubt that speed kills. I believe Gaybo has had a positive effect, but that's a belief. I have no proof and nor do people for or against him.

I can prove one thing though, there are roughly twice as many people dying by their own hand and there is little money being out into awareness of that.



DeV.

mikom

DeVore wrote: »

I can prove one thing though, there are roughly twice as many people dying by their own hand and there is little money being out into awareness of that.

When the government apply penalty points and fines to it I'm sure you will see an "awareness" campaign.

jive

Victor wrote: »

1969-1998 during the Troubles, about 3,500 people were killed. In the same time 20,000 died on the roads in Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Worldwide, every year 500,000 people die on the roads.

I said there are far bigger killers out there, which there are, in abundance and by a large distance. Not sure why the Troubles is relevant....

Spread

Zen65 wrote: »

So you're referring to two financial matters in his private life (neither of which had a detrimental impact on anybody else), one of which was 25 years ago, and from that you've deduced he is not competent now to be chairman of the RSA?
........................................................................................................
................................................................................

Z

People who allow greed to fcuk up in their private/financial lives are not the best decision makers. He took this job because (a) he is down on his luck, (b) his need for attention ............. remember he also floated himself as a Presidential candidate and (c) it will propel his name into the media - so other quangos might take him on board.
If you are one of these people that believes blindly in statistics ....... then you should make up your mind as to whether the general perception of Gaybo's hand at the wheel, is a positive one or not, judging by these posts.

Yakuza

Listing out bare numbers of deaths isn't enough information to draw a conclusion from. In actuarial terms, you would need to take what's known as the "exposed to risk" into account - in this case the number of passenger miles driven, in the context of deaths of those in cars, or population in the context of pedestrian. Only when you divide one by the other will you get a meaningful statistic, from which trends can be drawn. To be properly accurate, you'd have to (if not done already) split the deaths into various categories (car* , motorcyclist, cyclist and pedestrian) and divide by the appropriate exposed to risk figure.

As DeVore says, there are many other factors at play as well, so citing one as the main influence in such a complex system mightn't be appropriate at all. And, as Tragedy reminds us, correlation is not causation.

*By car I mean anything motorised that isn't a motorbike (car / van/ truck/ bus etc.)

Victor

Samba wrote: »

Peoples views on the stats are too crude and simplistic and the RSA have failed at the most elementary level, where the bad driving starts.

The driving test here in Ireland is grossly inadequate.

It is, so they are changing it from a technical test as to how competently you can drive to one where you have to demonstrate that you can driver safely.

Hifiman wrote: »

I think the RSA may be a little miffed by the fact that since the drink drive limit was reduced in October - the death rate has actually gone up.

Rather cynical, no? I imagine they are concerned that there has been a little bit of complacency over Christmas. However, If you asked me at the start of 2011 would road deaths in December 2011 be higher than the road deaths in December 2010, my answer would have been " Likely yes", what with December 2010 having a particularly low figure (10).

(Three more killed in November 2011 compared to the same month last year while December 2011 looks like having twice the number of deaths as December 2010.) If this trend continues into the new year there'll be red faces all round.

No, there will be an understanding that there is a 'reversion to mean'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

The RSA invested a huge amount of their time and energy towards reducing the limit despite the fact that the big drop in road fatalities happened while the higher limit was in operation.

All that means is that other effects caused that reduction. It doesn't mean that a limit reduction won't help further reduce casualties.

(The UK which still has the higher limit is one of the best practice countries in Europe when it comes to road safety.)

But Sweden and The Netherlands have lower limits and are better than the UK!

There are several theories as to why lower limits aren't the magic bullet the RSA hoped it would be. One is that Garda time and resources is wasted on relatively low-level offenders.

Lower level, not necessarily low level. If you take two populations, one of which has had a recent drink / several previous drinks and the other has had nothing to drink, and assuming no other differences, the first group - the drinkers - will have more accidents. http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Licensed%20Drivers/links_research/Alcohol_in_Ireland_DrBedfordsPresentation.pdf

Another, as the Canadian Traffic Research Foundation discovered, is that simply having a limit and enforcing it, is much more important than the actual level of the limit.

Useful to know. So you agree that we need to maintain enforcement and now dissipate the efforts of the Traffic Corps?

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

The downward curve seems to have started before the formation of the RSA and Garda Traffic Corps.

No. Statistically, at that point in time, the effect of random factors on monthly variation was much greater than the change in the slope of the line

A very simplistic graph which completely ignores the following variants

- Improvements in the road network
- Improvements to car safety technology
- Less driver-miles due to the recession
- Random breath testing

So, as part of my statistics course, I looked at quite a few factors and the reality is the combination of factors, not any one. I have been willing to point this put previously.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59237417&postcount=13
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62351525&postcount=8
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62366881&highlight=recession#post62366881
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=63738854

and other posts. Safer roads has had an effect, but I think it has been exaggerated - the only study I have seen here (N1 v M1) was rather loaded as it didn't include casualties on the existing road in the 'after' figures.

DeVore wrote: »

I don't mind Gaybo and I do believe speed kills but I hate, really hate, bad logic.

You looking at me?

By the same logic being used in this thread I can easily show that road deaths are linked to house prices. They went up and down roughly at the same time after all!

Road deaths peaked in the 1970s, house prices nearly 40 years later.

Fatalities are not accidents.

Indeed. However to call them accidents suggests no responsibility whatsoever, when the reality is often quite different. There is however some correlations between trends in number of vehicles, drivers, collisions, casualties, fatalities, fatalities per fatal collision, etc.

There could have been a huge jump in accidents and a decrease in fatalitieis for all that data tells us.

Unfortunately there is insufficient information on the total number of minor injury and material damage only collisions. But it is being worked on.

The invention of airbags, crumple zones, buyer awareness of safety ratings, seatbelts, helmet technology improvements, A&E facilities and medical advances... Have all these things had zero impact too?

They do have an impact, however there is the problem of risk compensation - pedestrian casualties went up when seat belt use became mandatory, drivesr felt safer, so engaged in more risky behaviour. Give a kid a skateboard and he is careful, give him a helmet and he is 'invincible'. Unfortunately many adults fail to acknowledge risk compensation. Income and social grouping are quite important in collision outcomes.

There are just too many variables to make any judgement whatsoever from a simplistic line graph.

Exactly. All the people who said there was no relationship between the RSA / Traffic Corps and reduced fatalities were making gratuitous statements.

I don't doubt that speed kills.

It does. However, the lack of physics education in this country means most people don't appreciate this enough.

I believe Gaybo has had a positive effect, but that's a belief. I have no proof and nor do people for or against him.

I wouldn't put too much belief in one man. However, put together a policy, a dedicated team and fund them and you can get results.

I can prove one thing though, there are roughly twice as many people dying by their own hand and there is little money being out into awareness of that.

But it isn't only about people dying. Wasting a few per cent of GDP on preventable casualties means you have more money and resources for the health awareness, leukaemia treatment and special needs assistants. Shift HSE and other resources away from the reactive to the proactive. One of the peculiarities of injury prevention is that the societal activities / government departments that benefit from it aren't the one that pick up the costs - money is being spent by the departments of transport, justice and education, but the savings accrue to health and welfare.

MYOB wrote: »

Gay Byrne has done NOTHING to reduce road deaths.

Again, he is one man. If anything what he has done is raised the level of awareness and kept the issue in the media eye, which keeps the politicians in line.

Reduced traffic,

Road deaths started falling from 2005. Recession started 2008.

improved national fleet quality,

Partially down to the RSA / NCT

improved enforcement,

Largely down to the RSA / Garda.

people less willing to risk drink driving

Largely down to the Garda.

and most importantly the busiest *THOUSAND KM OF ROAD* being replaced by motorway (along with hundreds of KM of realignments to safe standards on other roads in the same period) are what has reduced road deaths.

How are these motorways saving lives in Dublin city centre?

You can see where improved car quality has come in by looking at the lack of a drop in serious injuries compared to the drop in deaths.

There has been a big drop in serious injuries. http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/2009_Road_Collision_Fact_Book.pdf See "Figure 4: Number of Serious Injury Collisions, 1985-2009" It is unclear about less serious injuries as recording is poor.

Yakuza wrote: »

Listing out bare numbers of deaths isn't enough information to draw a conclusion from. In actuarial terms, you would need to take what's known as the "exposed to risk" into account - in this case the number of passenger miles driven, in the context of deaths of those in cars, or population in the context of pedestrian.

Only when you divide one by the other will you get a meaningful statistic, from which trends can be drawn. To be properly accurate, you'd have to (if not done already) split the deaths into various categories (car* , motorcyclist, cyclist and pedestrian) and divide by the appropriate exposed to risk figure.

Total and per capita are the only meaningful measures.

If Ireland had a large population of serial killers, would it make 200+ homocides a year acceptable? After all, the rate per serial killer would be down.

As DeVore says, there are many other factors at play as well, so citing one as the main influence in such a complex system mightn't be appropriate at all.

However, one factor (coordinated effort) is driving the other factors.

And, as Tragedy reminds us, correlation is not causation.

Agreed. But genuine, organised effort based on known causal factors. These factors are there and combined there is a correlation.

L1011

Watching Victors ongoing editing of that^ post, I'm rather worried as to why there's a post of mine in there hanging in mid-air awaiting comment...

kirving

I read in a previous post about optional safety equipment new cars being subject to VRT. I had a look on on Ford's website.

Being carrged between 14-20% extra on options such as DRL's, Blind Spot Info, Adaptive Headlighs, and the like is a bit harsh. by cutting the VRT on such items, it would show that the government are committed to road safety. I know people who are purchasing them would probbly do so anyway, but it would look good for the government at least.

I'd also like to copare the amount of older cars which have been put off the road in the last few years too, has to have an impact on the death toll.

Tragedy

Victor wrote: »

Rather cynical, no? I imagine they are concerned that there has been a little bit of complacency over Christmas. However, If you asked me at the start of 2011 would road deaths in December 2011 be higher than the road deaths in December 2010, my answer would have been " Likely yes", what with December 2010 having a particularly low figure (10).

I think people are cynical because the RSA tends to issue press releases and launch campaigns that read as if they were written/planned by children.
They claim credit for every success, and blame everyone else for every failure/regression and the campaigns tend to be ridiculously black and white, rarely integrated with each other and have a tendency to alienate people.

No, there will be an understanding that there is a 'reversion to mean'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

This is a perfect example though. In months/years/bank holidays where there has been an anomalously low amount of deaths, RSA jump in praising their own efforts.

All that means is that other effects caused that reduction. It doesn't mean that a limit reduction won't help further reduce casualties.

It does indicate that perhaps efforts on bringing in contentious legislation should have been focused elsewhere (personally, I feel on re-sitting driving tests every X years as well as redesigning how the learner system works to emphasize that learners are meant to be learning).

But Sweden and The Netherlands have lower limits and are better than the UK!

Using that logic, more countries with the lower limits have higher accident rates than Ireland/UK with the higher limit, so they should have all increased their limits. The vast majority of European countries with a BAC limit of 0.5 have worse deaths rates than the European countries with a BAC limit of 0.8 after all.

Lower level, not necessarily low level. If you take two populations, one of which has had a recent drink / several previous drinks and the other has had nothing to drink, and assuming no other differences, the first group - the drinkers - will have more accidents.

That hasn't been proven with morning after results, which is my only issue with the lower limit.

Useful to know. So you agree that we need to maintain enforcement and now dissipate the efforts of the Traffic Corps?

I've never been breathalyzed by the Traffic Corps, I've been breathalyzed by 'normal' Gardai many times though.

No. Statistically, at that point in time, the effect of random factors on monthly variation was much greater than the change in the slope of the line

I've already shown that the downward slope has been in existence since statistics started being collected(what was it, 40 years ago?).

So, as part of my statistics course, I looked at quite a few factors and the reality is the combination of factors, not any one. I have been willing to point this put previously.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59237417&postcount=13
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62351525&postcount=8
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62366881&highlight=recession#post62366881
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=63738854

and other posts. Safer roads has had an effect, but I think it has been exaggerated - the only study I have seen here (N1 v M1) was rather loaded as it didn't include casualties on the existing road in the 'after' figures.

For someone who did a statistics course, I've noticed you misusing statistics quite a few times on Motors over the last few years Victor.

Victor

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I read in a previous post about optional safety equipment new cars being subject to VRT. I had a look on on Ford's website.

Being carrged between 14-20% extra on options such as DRL's, Blind Spot Info, Adaptive Headlighs, and the like is a bit harsh. by cutting the VRT on such items, it would show that the government are committed to road safety. I know people who are purchasing them would probbly do so anyway, but it would look good for the government at least.

I'd also like to copare the amount of older cars which have been put off the road in the last few years too, has to have an impact on the death toll.

If the motor industry was so concerned about road safety, they would provide these features for free. Removing tax from a specific part of a vehicle is impractical and given that we need all the tax we can get at the moment ...

Tragedy wrote: »

I think people are cynical because the RSA tends to issue press releases and launch campaigns that read as if they were written/planned by children.
They claim credit for every success, and blame everyone else for every failure/regression and the campaigns tend to be ridiculously black and white, rarely integrated with each other and have a tendency to alienate people.

I think that is part the media. There have been messages of congratulating the public for improved behaviour, but that doesn't sell newspapers.

Tragedy wrote: »

I've already shown that the downward slope has been in existence since statistics started being collected(what was it, 40 years ago?).

While the general trend has been downward, 2005 (peak) was just as bad as 1985 (trough). See the blue line on "Figure 1: Fatalities and Fatalities per Million Registered Motor Vehicles, 1959-2009" http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/2009_Road_Collision_Fact_Book.pdf

For someone who did a statistics course, I've noticed you misusing statistics quite a few times on Motors over the last few years Victor.

I'm opinionated and fight my corner. However, I'm not shy of discussion and am willing to listen to reasonable people. Feel free to challenge me any time.

Motors as a centre of fact-based discussion may be another matter.

n900guy

44leto wrote: »

While I agree, in part, the speed rush that young drivers get has a very big part to play in road deaths.

Young drivers speed because they like it, at least I did in the day. I could speed now if I was bothered but I have 20+ years of driving experience. You can-not train for that.

I call that complete garbage. Driver training done properly for example in Germany or Netherlands allows you gain what has taken you 20 years in 1-2 years of very controlled training. For example, the penalty point system is focussed on the first 5 years of driving in NL, and it's pretty harsh. Getting the permit to drive is expensive and time consuming.

You speeded because you likely did not have proper driver training. It is no different to learning how to drink alcohol responsibly.

DeVore

My point remains (and you didnt address it ).

The logic (on either side of the argument) that correlation (the similar rise and fall of two numbers) equals causation (the idea that one numbers rise CAUSES the other number to rise), is BAD BAD BAD logic. It doesn't matter which side of this argument is using it (and both sides have).

Saying "look at how much we spent on advertising and look how the death toll dropped" is just bad bad bad bad bad bad logic.

I can equally point to the rise of Somalian pirates and say it caused the collapse of the euro.

Its tempting to draw conclusions (on both sides) but I'm afraid, its bollox.

DeV.

AugustusMinimus

Victor wrote: »

If the motor industry was so concerned about road safety, they would provide these features for free. Removing tax from a specific part of a vehicle is impractical and given that we need all the tax we can get at the moment ...

Car companies are profit making entities. It is completely outside of their remit to offer these for free.

On the other hand, government is for the public good and it is only exchequer greed that is holding this move back. It's an absolute disgrace that there is VRT on safety equipment.

If you want to be anal, I'm sure you could put a percentage of road deaths down to the absence of safety equipment due to the additional cost of VRT in cars. Has the RSA ever campaigned about dropping VRT on safety equipment and if not, why not ?

kirving

I agree, It's not really to do with the car manufacturers. At the absolute minimum, it would be a good gsture from the govenrment, and could possibly save lives if someone upgrades their car.

pred racer

MYOB wrote: »

Why yes Mr Byrne, we'll end discussion because you say so....


Gay Byrne has done NOTHING to reduce road deaths. He's made a few public statements that the RSA has often had to row back from due to what he was suggesting being wrong or illegal.

Reduced traffic, improved national fleet quality, improved enforcement, people less willing to risk drink driving and most importantly the busiest *THOUSAND KM OF ROAD* being replaced by motorway (along with hundreds of KM of realignments to safe standards on other roads in the same period) are what has reduced road deaths.

You can see where improved car quality has come in by looking at the lack of a drop in serious injuries compared to the drop in deaths.

My views exactly!

L1011

Victor wrote: »

Again, he is one man. If anything what he has done is raised the level of awareness and kept the issue in the media eye, which keeps the politicians in line.

Nearly every statement he makes is error-riddled, often suggesting things which are impossible or unconstitutional. He is also the worst possible person to preach on road safety when he has not passed a car driving test (yet drives a car), has admitted drink driving, and has been seen not wearing a seatbelt correctly, etc, etc.

A preachy liability is a worse mouthpiece than none at all.

Victor wrote: »

Road deaths started falling from 2005. Recession started 2008.

Its one factor. NCT started in 2000, penalty points before 05, etc, etc.

Victor wrote: »

Partially down to the RSA / NCT

The RSAs work is not down to its powerless mouthpiece.

Victor wrote: »

Largely down to the RSA / Garda.

The RSAs work is not down to its powerless mouthpiece.

Victor wrote: »

Largely down to the Garda.

The Gardai are certainly not affected by the RSAs powerless mouthpiece.

Victor wrote: »

How are these motorways saving lives in Dublin city centre?

You are aware surely of the removal of masses of trucks from the city centre by the M50 Dublin Port Tunnel?

Victor wrote: »

There has been a big drop in serious injuries. http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/2009_Road_Collision_Fact_Book.pdf See "Figure 4: Number of Serious Injury Collisions, 1985-2009" It is unclear about less serious injuries as recording is poor.

Less % reduction in serious injuries than in deaths.

cyclopath2001

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Car companies are profit making entities. It is completely outside of their remit to offer these for free.

Cheapest thing is for people to drive safely so that they won't need expensive safety gimmicks.

In this thread a lot of personal abuse has been directed at Mr Byrne, but I've seen no valid criticism of his actions in his present role.

AugustusMinimus

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Cheapest thing is for people to drive safely so that they won't need expensive safety gimmicks.

In this thread a lot of personal abuse has been directed at Mr Byrne, but I've seen no valid criticism of his actions in his present role.

You considering something which may save a life to be a "gimmick" ?

Saab Ed

Better roads and less traffic due to the recession are most likely behind the drop in road deaths. Speed cameras on straight stretches of good road and revenue collecting tax checkpoints hardly contribute to road safety.

cyclopath2001

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

You considering something which may save a life to be a "gimmick" ?

'may' being the most important word. These are simply empty safety gestures from patently bad drivers who would rather spend money on gadgets than change their behaviour. Just today, I nearly got cut up by an expensive merc loafed with all thses toys but who could not be bothered to indicate while executiing a left turn from the outside lane.

Let's concentrate on good driving and on compliance measures that remove law-breakers from the roads.

dr.fuzzenstein

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Cheapest thing is for people to drive safely so that they won't need expensive safety gimmicks.

In this thread a lot of personal abuse has been directed at Mr Byrne, but I've seen no valid criticism of his actions in his present role.

Saint Gaybo to the rescue!

cyclopath2001

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Saint Gaybo to the rescue!

Will you be backing up your opinions about Mr Byrne's work at the RSA with facts?

L1011

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

'may' being the most important word. These are simply empty safety gestures from patently bad drivers who would rather spend money on gadgets than change their behaviour. Just today, I nearly got cut up by an expensive merc loafed with all thses toys but who could not be bothered to indicate while executiing a left turn from the outside lane.

Let's concentrate on good driving and on compliance measures that remove law-breakers from the roads.

Seeing as there is no gadget that can prevent what happened there; would you prefer said Merc driver died when having to do hard braking due to a wheel lock?

cyclopath2001

MYOB wrote: »

Seeing as there is no gadget that can prevent what happened there; would you prefer said Merc driver died when having to do hard braking due to a wheel lock?

I'd prefer if he got a couple of penalty points to remind him to pay attention to his driving.

L1011

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I'd prefer if he got a couple of penalty points to remind him to pay attention to his driving.

That's not answering my question

You appear to think that safety aids are no use because they can't prevent one incident that occurred to you. Would you prefer they didn't exist?

AugustusMinimus

You're prob right.

Time to put point bits on the front of cars, just to remind pedestrians and cyclists alike that they also have to follow the rules.

Hell, a few impaled pedestrians might get the message out there.

dr.fuzzenstein

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Will you be backing up your opinions about Mr Byrne's work at the RSA with facts?

A lot of people just look at the chart and see Gaybo takes charge=accidents go down.
That can be construed as a fact, I call it the Gaydar effect, his rays of un-accidentntess have infected us all and since then people drive good on the road and no people die, Gaybo did it!
An idiot can show a graph that says Gaybo prevents accidents, but I can also show you a rock that can keep tigers away.
It's simple specious reasoning.

cyclopath2001

MYOB wrote: »

That's not answering my questionYou appear to think that safety aids are no use because they can't prevent one incident that occurred to you. Would you prefer they didn't exist?

I think the extra gadgets and gimmicks distract from the fundamental cause of collisions and grave outcomes: bad driving. Safe driving can't be bought, it's something that is practiced.

True, there may be anecdotes of people saved by airbags and other defensive measures, but let's concentrate on stopping the collisions by detecting and removing bad driving from the roads. This is by far the most effective use of precious time and effort.