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

Iwannahurl

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.

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.

Looks like begrudgery to me. In the RSA's year-end press release, GB, Leo Varadkar and Asst. Garda Commissioner John Twomey all thank motorists and the general public for their efforts.

Since the RSA was set up in 2006 there must have been several instances where anomalously low road death figures were recorded.

Please cite some sources to support your claim that the RSA 'jumped in' to claim credit on those occasions.




.

Hifiman

I certainly wasn't been cynical, as has been suggested, when I opined earlier that the RSA just might be a tad dissapointed that the fatality rate has actually risen quite sharply since the drink-drive limits were lowered. (And yes I realise that a few months are not statistically significant).

But when you recall just how much time and energy they put into pushing this through, and how vehemently they challenged anyone who opposed it (including people like the late Maurice Nelligan - the eminent heart surgeon who argued that we should retain the old limit, along with at least two County Coroners) then you have to wonder whether the agenda is purely a road safety one.

And then you look a little deeper (as I did) and discover that almost all of those names behind the push for lower limits were actually previously involved in a broader, anti-alcohol campaign, then it begins to make some kind of sense. For example Noel Brett, Chief Executive of the RSA had no background in Road Safety before taking up his current post (as far as I am aware he was involved in mental health) but was on the 2004 Strategic Task Force For Alcohol, while Dr Declan Bedford who compiled the only study on alcohol and crashes in Ireland, is a long-time, staunch campaigner on alcohol (and who was on that very same Strategic Task For On Alcohol). Both names on page 49 of the report here:
http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/5208/1/886-STFASECONDreport.pdf

Meanwhile, PARC - the Donegal road safety group appear to be mainly an anti-drink driving group, as far as their public utterances are concerned (I've never once heard them call for a reduction in the insane rural speed limits of 100k and 80k on back roads, for example)

Anyway, my main point here is that the benefit of the reduction in the limits has been way overplayed - the vast majority of the driving population were already obeying those limits.

Tragically, two more deaths in the first few hours of the New Year.

L1011

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

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.

You still haven't answered my question. You're very good at avoiding answering direct questions when it comes to road safety.

cyclopath2001

MYOB wrote: »

You still haven't answered my question.

I have answered your question, but it's not the answer you wanted to hear.

You want me to say that I would prefer that safety gimmicks/gadgets did not exist, but I have said that I think they're not as important as people complying with road safety laws.

Sorry, but I'm not going to let you put words in my mouth.

MYOB wrote: »

You're very good at avoiding answering direct questions when it comes to road safety.

That could be said of many speeding motorists.

Iwannahurl

Hifiman wrote: »

I certainly wasn't been cynical, as has been suggested, when I opined earlier that the RSA just might be a tad dissapointed that the fatality rate has actually risen quite sharply since the drink-drive limits were lowered. (And yes I realise that a few months are not statistically significant).

But when you recall just how much time and energy they put into pushing this through, and how vehemently they challenged anyone who opposed it (including people like the late Maurice Nelligan - the eminent heart surgeon who argued that we should retain the old limit, along with at least two County Coroners) then you have to wonder whether the agenda is purely a road safety one.

And then you look a little deeper (as I did) and discover that almost all of those names behind the push for lower limits were actually previously involved in a broader, anti-alcohol campaign, then it begins to make some kind of sense. For example Noel Brett, Chief Executive of the RSA had no background in Road Safety before taking up his current post (as far as I am aware he was involved in mental health) but was on the 2004 Strategic Task Force For Alcohol, while Dr Declan Bedford who compiled the only study on alcohol and crashes in Ireland, is a long-time, staunch campaigner on alcohol (and who was on that very same Strategic Task For On Alcohol). Both names on page 49 of the report here:
http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/5208/1/886-STFASECONDreport.pdf

Meanwhile, PARC - the Donegal road safety group appear to be mainly an anti-drink driving group, as far as their public utterances are concerned (I've never once heard them call for a reduction in the insane rural speed limits of 100k and 80k on back roads, for example)

Anyway, my main point here is that the benefit of the reduction in the limits has been way overplayed - the vast majority of the driving population were already obeying those limits.

Tragically, two more deaths in the first few hours of the New Year.

You're referring to the recent reduction in the BAC limit?

If so, I can't see how you can make such a claim about a measure that has only been in place since late October 2011.

BTW, Maurice Neligan was always a crusty old reactionary, IMO. A typical old-style consultant with a vested interest in medical treatment who was long suspicious of the prevention/population approach favoured by his Public Health colleagues. I always felt he would have been more at home in the Sunday Telegraph than the Irish Times, though I usually read his column anyway.

Public Health professionals like Declan Bedford have a strong interest in road safety, and a focus on alcohol-related harm is a major aspect of that, well justified by the established evidence.

Hifiman

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You're referring to the recent reduction in the BAC limit?

If so, I can't see how you can make such a claim about a measure that has only been in place since late October 2011.

BTW, Maurice Neligan was always a crusty old reactionary, IMO. A typical old-style consultant with a vested interest in medical treatment who was long suspicious of the prevention/population approach favoured by his Public Health colleagues. I always felt he would have been more at home in the Sunday Telegraph than the Irish Times, though I usually read his column anyway.

Public Health professionals like Declan Bedford have a strong interest in road safety, and a focus on alcohol-related harm is a major aspect of that, well justified by the established evidence.

I've already aknowledged above that a few months are not statistically significant - however road deaths have risen quite sharply since the introduction of the new lower limits - November up, December up quite substantially and three dead this year, as of now. Regarding Declan Bedford, I'm not questioning his professional integrity - but he is a long time campaigner on alcohol and was a member of Alcohol Action. I'm pointing out that his Public Health interest in road safety appears to be almost entirley concerned with alcohol. Has he done any such detailed research on the effects of hands-free phones for example? (more dangerous than the old drink drive limit, apparently.) Has he done any research on the effects of SUVss on road deaths? (plenty of evidence that if you're struck by an SUV you can be up to twice as likely to die than if hit by a standard saloon car.) What about the insane 100kph speed limits on rural back roads around Ireland? Any public health releated research there? I don't hear anyone calling for those limits to be reduced - even though lives may/would be saved.

By the way, the RSA continually exaggerates the role that drink driving plays in road deaths. Take a look at their website below and look under "Drink Driving Facts" where they state that alcohol is involved in 1 out of 3 fatalities. That figure, based on Bedford's 2003 report refers to alcohol-related road deaths not drink driving deaths (one third of that 1 in 3 includes non drink driving but alcohol related deaths such as, say a pedestrian with as low as 20mgs of alcohol being struck by a sober driver! An alcohol-related death, yes but not a drink driving death and therefore completely misleading being included as a "Drink Driving Fact".) This was covered on the Pat Kenny radio show a few years ago where someone demonstrated that the real drink drive fatality rate was about 14% of the total - not 1 in 3!

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Drink-Driving/Drunk-Driving-Myths--Facts/

AugustusMinimus

Hifiman wrote: »

What about the insane 100kph speed limits on rural back roads around Ireland? Any public health releated research there? I don't hear anyone calling for those limits to be reduced - even though lives may/would be saved.

All regional roads after the move to kilometer based speed limits were automatically given a 80kph speed limit.

Those which were considered to be of good enough quality, were and still are being upgraded to a 100kph speed limit where county councils see fit (obviously after discussions with relevent engineers).


This leaves National secondary roads with automatic 100kph speed limits. Any notable national secondary roads which shouldn't have a 100kph speed limit ?

Hifiman

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

All regional roads after the move to kilometer based speed limits were automatically given a 80kph speed limit.

Those which were considered to be of good enough quality, were and still are being upgraded to a 100kph speed limit where county councils see fit (obviously after discussions with relevent engineers).


This leaves National secondary roads with automatic 100kph speed limits. Any notable national secondary roads which shouldn't have a 100kph speed limit ?

Actually it's the 80kph ones that are the scariest! I recall driving from Barna back into Galway last year (that road is 100kph) but the narrow laneways leading off it down towards the sea all appeared to have 80kph limts - when they should be 40kph - max! Anyway, I live just off the N11 in South Dublin. The speed limit in my estate, where there are open greens with kids playing, dogs etc. is 50kph! When I go out onto the N11 - a six lane dual carriagway with pedestrian bridges and tunnels the speed limit is just 60kph. I'm just about to head up to Powerscourt for a stroll where I can do 100kph on the road from Kilternan and 80kph on most of the other roads.
Crazy!

L1011

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I have answered your question, but it's not the answer you wanted to hear.

You want me to say that I would prefer that safety gimmicks/gadgets did not exist, but I have said that I think they're not as important as people complying with road safety laws.

You didn't actually answer it until this post.

Hifiman wrote: »

Actually it's the 80kph ones that are the scariest! I recall driving from Barna back into Galway last year (that road is 100kph)

That road is 50 and 60km/h, not 100 at any point! It doesn't even see its first 80 zone till beyond Furbo and never, ever gets a 100.

I don't think Galway CC have any 100km/h R-roads, although someone will undoubtedly know of one.

Hifiman

MYOB wrote: »

You didn't actually answer it until this post.



That road is 50 and 60km/h, not 100 at any point! It doesn't even see its first 80 zone till beyond Furbo and never, ever gets a 100.

I don't think Galway CC have any 100km/h R-roads, although someone will undoubtedly know of one.

Sorry, meant to say the road from Spideal. It's 100kph on some stretches and there are narrow, one-track lanes off it, heading down to the sea, with insane 80kph limits!

(Can someone tell me how to link to a google maps image or how to attach one - it'll make it easier to show what I mean.)

challengemaster

Hifiman wrote: »

(Can someone tell me how to link to a google maps image or how to attach one - it'll make it easier to show what I mean.)

When you go to where you want to link to on google maps, there's a button beside the print symbol like an infinity sign, which is for linking. Just paste the link it generates here.

AugustusMinimus

challengemaster wrote: »

When you go to where you want to link to on google maps, there's a button beside the print symbol like an infinity sign, which is for linking. Just paste the link it generates here.

This one here in Ballyvourney is a good example.

http://maps.google.ie/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=ballyvourney&aq=&sll=53.401034,-8.307638&sspn=7.667955,19.753418&vpsrc=6&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Ballyvourney,+County+Cork&ll=51.946459,-9.175113&spn=0.000967,0.002411&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=51.946451,-9.175328&panoid=j9p6px5ReM8t2gBhPdzL-Q&cbp=12,312.62,,0,7.81

Twisty side road becomes 80kph and yet the main road changes to 60kph for an age. Prime area for shooting fish in a barrel.

L1011

Hifiman wrote: »

Sorry, meant to say the road from Spideal. It's 100kph on some stretches and there are narrow, one-track lanes off it, heading down to the sea, with insane 80kph limits!

(Can someone tell me how to link to a google maps image or how to attach one - it'll make it easier to show what I mean.)

Where is 100km/h out to Spideal? I know it gets to 80 after Furbo.

Not out that way as often as I used to, though.

Hifiman

challengemaster wrote: »

When you go to where you want to link to on google maps, there's a button beside the print symbol like an infinity sign, which is for linking. Just paste the link it generates here.

Thanks for that. Works a treat - always wanted to be able to link to those. Anyway, this is just one of many crazy 80kph speed limits in this country. (It's just off the road from Spideal to Galway. I wouldn't do more than 20kph here!)

http://maps.google.ie/maps?hl=en&ll=53.24651,-9.274532&spn=0.000013,0.005171&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=53.246519,-9.27643&panoid=HERSj20kPN_6sgxH6QsGOQ&cbp=12,184.77,,1,4.28

dr.fuzzenstein

Victor wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76241673&postcount=69

tl;dr

Tragedy

Victor wrote:

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%20S..._Fact_Book.pdf

You're looking at fatalities, not fatalities/million registered vehicles or fatalities/million kms driven.

'Fatalities' as a statistic is an utterly meaningless statistic, hence why I believe using that(and in the timeframe you chose) is misusing statistics.
The same graph you stated(on page 1 of the RSA fact book) shows that in general, fatalities per million vehicles registered each year have been falling since 1972.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Looks like begrudgery to me. In the RSA's year-end press release, GB, Leo Varadkar and Asst. Garda Commissioner John Twomey all thank motorists and the general public for their efforts.

Since the RSA was set up in 2006 there must have been several instances where anomalously low road death figures were recorded.

Please cite some sources to support your claim that the RSA 'jumped in' to claim credit on those occasions.




.

Iwannahurl, I'm still waiting for you to reply to me on the general speed camera thread - as yet again, when confronted with proof that your claims and statistics were either out and out lies, or deliberately choosing statistics to prove a point that the wider analysis of the statistics you used ran counter to, you, yet again, went mysteriously quiet and refused to reply.

I've spent a lot of time researching replies to your posts to prove(with references and plenty of evidence) your points conclusively wrong only for you to not reply each and every time, so I'm not falling for that old trick.

Iwannahurl

Tragedy wrote: »

Iwannahurl, I'm still waiting for you to reply to me on the general speed camera thread - as yet again, when confronted with proof that your claims and statistics were either out and out lies, or deliberately choosing statistics to prove a point that the wider analysis of the statistics you used ran counter to, you, yet again, went mysteriously quiet and refused to reply.

I've spent a lot of time researching replies to your posts to prove(with references and plenty of evidence) your points conclusively wrong only for you to not reply each and every time, so I'm not falling for that old trick.

This is another Gaybo/RSA bashing thread. Bump my post in the Speed Camera thread where I went "mysteriously quiet" and yet simultaneously "refused to reply" to your 'conclusive proofs' and I'll deal with your claims there.

Since you spend so much time "researching" -- and you're so convinced of your ability to reveal what's "conclusively wrong" -- I'm sure you won't find it difficult to cite some sources to support your claim that the RSA 'jumped in' to claim credit for anomalously low fatality numbers. Then again, since you seem to regard citing evidence as "falling for that old trick" I won't hold my breath.

Gophur

RSA have a problem with their policies being so heavily focussed on "speed", or, in reality, adherence to speed limits.

Looking at the fatal accidents in 2012, so far, it's difficult to see if any of them were caused by the cars exceeding the speed limit. That's not to say they were not driving at an inappropriate speed for the road/conditions, etc.

I drove over 700km in the past two days and there was no Garda traffic enforcement. Christmas Eve I saw one of the Speed-trap camera vans in the most obscure country road. Happy Christmas me ar5e, eh? What effect will receiving a letter in a few weeks have on road safety?

cyclopath2001

Gophur wrote: »

RSA have a problem with their policies being so heavily focussed on "speed", or, in reality, adherence to speed limits.

Looking at the fatal accidents in 2012, so far, it's difficult to see if any of them were caused by the cars exceeding the speed limit. That's not to say they were not driving at an inappropriate speed for the road/conditions, etc.

You just don't get it.

1: It 's not just about fatal accidents - many people suffer life-changing injuries.

2: It's not just about accidents caused by speeding - speed is a factor in the severity of the outcome, even when it is not the primary cause.

Tragedy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

This is another Gaybo/RSA bashing thread. Bump my post in the Speed Camera thread where I went "mysteriously quiet" and yet simultaneously "refused to reply" to your 'conclusive proofs' and I'll deal with your claims there.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75478145&postcount=2363
That's either the second or third time I've caught you lying and when challenging you on it, had you ignore proof/evidence and just stop responding. So when you go through that one I'll PM you the other times you've gone quiet when called out on your lies, and you can go deal with them too

Since you spend so much time "researching" -- and you're so convinced of your ability to reveal what's "conclusively wrong" -- I'm sure you won't find it difficult to cite some sources to support your claim that the RSA 'jumped in' to claim credit for anomalously low fatality numbers.

Why would I spend time proving you wrong in this thread when you consistently refuse to accept that you're wrong when proven wrong - instead ignoring the posts, disappearing from the thread and then slinking back in a while later to get back up to your old tricks?

Then again, since you seem to regard citing evidence as "falling for that old trick" I won't hold my breath.

I didn't say that, so here's yet another example of you lying

I might be cantankerous, I might have strong views, and I definitely post TL;DR posts when I catch people lying and talking nonsense - but I engage constructively(usually) with posters, am not afraid to be proven wrong(and have been quite a bit).
You on the other hand, as most users on this forum can attest to, have a fixed opinion that you will not deviate from. Any proof or evidence that runs contrary to this evidence is always unacknowledged and I have never once seen you admit to being wrong or changing your opinion/viewpoint even slightly. You're here purely to force your viewpoint on others and ignore absolutely anything that runs contrary to that.

As for mods, if this is o/t etc do feel free to snip - but Iwannahurl quoted and responded to my post and the fact he's still allowed to get up to his old antics has led to this.

Anan1

Gophur wrote: »

What effect will receiving a letter in a few weeks have on road safety?

Please tell me you're joking? I have 0 points, and I regularly exceed the posted limits. A 'letter' or two would slow me down considerably.

Gophur

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You just don't get it.

..........

I do get it. more than you think.

Atomic Pineapple

Anan1 wrote: »

Please tell me you're joking? I have 0 points, and I regularly exceed the posted limits. A 'letter' or two would slow me down considerably.

It will for a short period but thats all, it won't slow you down long term unless you build up some points in a short period.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

2: It's not just about accidents caused by speeding - speed is a factor in the severity of the outcome, even when it is not the primary cause.

Why concentrate on a factor then instead of the cause? Cut out the cause and no factor comes into play. Better driver education and awareness, better policing of car maintenance, better roads, make safer cars more affordable to young people, these are just some of the areas that would in my opinion decrease the cause rather than allowing the crash to happen but decrease the factor so its not as bad.

Does this not make sense?

Gophur

Anan1 wrote: »

Please tell me you're joking? I have 0 points, and I regularly exceed the posted limits. A 'letter' or two would slow me down considerably.

Good man.

Anan1

draffodx wrote: »

It will for a short period but thats all, it won't slow you down long term unless you build up some points in a short period.

Sure it would. Points affect my insurance for 3 years, and I don't want that.

Gophur wrote: »

Good man.

You made the IMO ridiculous assertion that fines/points have no effect on drivers' behaviour. Can you back it up, or is 'Good man' the best you can do?

Gophur

Anan1 wrote: »

.......You made the IMO ridiculous assertion that fines/points have no effect on drivers' behaviour. .......

I didn't, actually, but don't let that stop you.

Anan1

Gophur wrote: »

I didn't, actually, but don't let that stop you.

Eh, you did:

Gophur wrote: »

What effect will receiving a letter in a few weeks have on road safety?

Atomic Pineapple

Anan1 wrote: »

Sure it would. Points affect my insurance for 3 years, and I don't want that.You made the IMO ridiculous assertion that fines/points have no effect on drivers' behaviour. Can you back it up, or is 'Good man' the best you can do?

Ah OK, anything up to 4 doesn't appear to affect mine, not significantly anyway.

Gophur

Anan1 wrote: »

Eh, you did:

It was a question, not a statement. If you can point out where I said it would have no effect, then I will stand corrected.

I was asking what effect such a ham-fisted way of enforcing Road Traffic legislation has. I do think Speed cameras are a ham-fisted way of forcing road traffic law down peoples' throats..

draffodx is correct. 2 points has no insurance implications with most all insurance companies. (I would guess novice drivers may find otherwise?)

Anan1

draffodx wrote: »

Ah OK, anything up to 4 doesn't appear to affect mine, not significantly anyway.

Lucky you.:) Aviva give a discount for 0 points, so there's an effective loading for any points.

Gophur wrote: »

It was a question, not a statement. If you can point out where I said it would have no effect, then I will stand corrected.

It was a rhetorical question, which makes the above just this side of a lie.

Gophur wrote: »

draffodx is correct. 2 points has no insurance implications with most all insurance companies. (I would guess novice drivers may find otherwise?)

I'm with Aviva, i'm not a novice driver, and I can assure you that even one PP will affect my premium.