Decrease in road deaths during 2011

CamperMan

Minister for Transport, Tourism & Sport, Leo Varadkar, has said that it appeared that fewer than 200 people will have lost their lives by the end of this year - the lowest number killed since records began.

consider that probably 1000,000 people have left ireland in the past year... now, if nobody left, these deaths would not have decreased.. nothing to do with the government's safety strategy

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1230/varadkarl.html

KK4SAM

Ye but I think it's only part of the equation less economic activity and feel good factor young chaps working a few bob in the pocket nice fast car .The price of petrol didn't matter. Didn't matter if you missed a days work because of a hangover.
More social responsibility in hard times.

ResearchWill

CamperMan wrote: »

Minister for Transport, Tourism & Sport, Leo Varadkar, has said that it appeared that fewer than 200 people will have lost their lives by the end of this year - the lowest number killed since records began.

consider that probably 1000,000 people have left ireland in the past year... now, if nobody left, these deaths would not have decreased.. nothing to do with the government's safety strategy

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1230/varadkarl.html

If you look at the figures there has been a steady decline for many years. Even when you look through the boom years and population growth, figures have been decreasing. While the total number killed is very important, I believe that this year the deaths per 100,000 population and deaths per registered car are still dropping. For example in 2010, 212 people lost their lives which if memory serves equates to 48 per million or 4.8 per 100000, the figure now is under 200 about 184 so approx 38 less than last year, to explain all that away with less population would require a much larger population drop than what happened.

Interesting figures here http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=138

It's scarry to think that in 1972 640 people died on Irish roads.

AugustusMinimus

There's a magnitude of factors at work here.

Putting it down to just one is idiotic. I have no doubt though that there will be a lot of back patting by the RSA execs come 1 Jan.

Reg'stoy

CamperMan wrote: »

consider that probably 1000,000 people have left ireland in the past year... now, if nobody left, these deaths would not have decreased.. nothing to do with the government's safety strategy

You're basing that statement on.......? Could just as easily say, if there wasn't a safety campaign road deaths would be higher.

As numerous people have pointed out there are many reasons the figures are down, to prove or refute any of them is near on impossible.

Tails142

Reg'stoy wrote: »

CamperMan wrote: »

consider that probably 1000,000 people have left ireland in the past year... now, if nobody left, these deaths would not have decreased.. nothing to do with the government's safety strategy

You're basing that statement on.......? Could just as easily say, if there wasn't a safety campaign road deaths w
ould be higher.

As numerous people have pointed out there are many reasons the figures are down, to prove or refute any of them is near on impossible.

We're always being told that young males are the biggest risk group. As a young male, half of my friends are working abroad, a large portion of the rest are unemployed and can't afford to run a car, so I think the op has a reasonable point to make.

bbam

Surely pedestrians are the next big target...

I feel it should be an offence to be on the road in poor light with a full hi-viz vest on..
Simple to implement... after X hour in summer and Y hour in winter there should be a €50 on the spot fine if you are found walking on a public road where there is no footpath without the appropriate viz-vest on....

AugustusMinimus

bbam wrote: »

Surely pedestrians are the next big target...

I feel it should be an offence to be on the road in poor light with a full hi-viz vest on..
Simple to implement... after X hour in summer and Y hour in winter there should be a €50 on the spot fine if you are found walking on a public road where there is no footpath without the appropriate viz-vest on....

Certainly where there is no public lighting. It's simply too dangerous.

keith16

Reg'stoy wrote: »

You're basing that statement on.......? Could just as easily say, if there wasn't a safety campaign road deaths would be higher.

As numerous people have pointed out there are many reasons the figures are down, to prove or refute any of them is near on impossible.

I have often wondered what the safety strategy is exactly...

You see those ads from time to time which are pretty graphic, I would think that people grow immune to these. The other side of the strategy seems to be the 'slow down' message which although is valid, again, just something I don't pay particular attention too.

What does shock me and keeps me driving safely is when I hear news reports of deaths on the road...every single time I am shocked...I genuinely don't know how or why so many people continue to die in this manner.

I often wonder why there isn't more information on how fatal accidents happen...you often just hear on the news 'lost control' etc...

I think if RTE did a piece something similar to those air crash investigation programs where the whole thing is graphically reconstructed could leave a lasting impression on people and maybe educate people where as the 'slow down' message just seems to wear a little thin.

Voodoomelon

I'd still like to see a proper break down of statistics from the RSA, and not just the tripe they shovel to the papers every few months.

Where are the figures for serious injurys compared to deaths? Where are the figures for alcohol related deaths? Where are the reports for what caused certain large accidents that made big headlines, ie Donegal, what was the outcome of that tragedy?

Because the roads and driving are just as catastrophically bad as they've ever been, just because less people are dying, does not mean the roads are any safer. It means cars are better at keeping people alive.

Eoin

CamperMan wrote: »

Minister for Transport, Tourism & Sport, Leo Varadkar, has said that it appeared that fewer than 200 people will have lost their lives by the end of this year - the lowest number killed since records began.

consider that probably 1000,000 people have left ireland in the past year... now, if nobody left, these deaths would not have decreased.. nothing to do with the government's safety strategy

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1230/varadkarl.html

But is this the only recessionary period covered by the stats? Unless they only go back 20 years or so, then there's also be the 80s when there was high unemployment, and presumably a lot less car ownership as well.

I do think there are lots of other factors that aren't down to the RSA (better technology, motorways etc), but I do think there's a change in attitude that has contributed to the lower deaths.

3rd safest country in Europe? That's pretty damn good if it's true.

keith16

Voodoomelon wrote: »

I'd still like to see a proper break down of statistics from the RSA, and not just the tripe they shovel to the papers every few months.

Where are the figures for serious injurys compared to deaths? Where are the figures for alcohol related deaths? Where are the reports for what caused certain large accidents that made big headlines, ie Donegal, what was the outcome of that tragedy?

Because the roads and driving are just as catastrophically bad as they've ever been, just because less people are dying, does not mean the roads are any safer. It means cars are better at keeping people alive.

100% agree with this. Very sensible post. What are the lessons from the tragic Donegal incident for the general public? Apart from slow down?

ResearchWill

Voodoomelon wrote: »

I'd still like to see a proper break down of statistics from the RSA, and not just the tripe they shovel to the papers every few months.

Where are the figures for serious injurys compared to deaths? Where are the figures for alcohol related deaths? Where are the reports for what caused certain large accidents that made big headlines, ie Donegal, what was the outcome of that tragedy?

Because the roads and driving are just as catastrophically bad as they've ever been, just because less people are dying, does not mean the roads are any safer. It means cars are better at keeping people alive.

All the figures you are looking for are on the RSA web site, example http://rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Collision-Statistics/

If you have time to go through it there is loads of info.

bbam

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Certainly where there is no public lighting. It's simply too dangerous.

I think everywhere... I still need my car lights on when there is public lighting... Make it definite and complete and it is easier implemented..

Eoin

keith16 wrote: »

100% agree with this. Very sensible post. What are the lessons from the tragic Donegal incident for the general public? Apart from slow down?

Do you mean the crash where 9 people were wedged in a car designed for 5 people?

That might have been considered OK a good while ago, but I think at the time, anyone with an iota of common sense knew it was incredibly stupid.

Absurdum

Fair play to the RSA.

Voodoomelon

ResearchWill wrote: »

All the figures you are looking for are on the RSA web site, example http://rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Collision-Statistics/

If you have time to go through it there is loads of info.

Yup, been through them several times. But all the media/RSA are interested in are the road deaths figures, take a look at this table regarding injuries:

Table 4 All Casualties Classified by Road User Type, 2000-2009.
Road User Type 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Pedestrians 1,332 1,202 1,196 1,115 982 1,063 1,017 965 1,173 1,115
Pedal Cyclists 451 363 296 307 298 233 220 272 349 370
Motor Cyclists 1,179 1,084 1,031 840 681 591 534 410 523 467
Car Users 8,395 7,033 6,225 5,521 5,395 6,628 6,024 5,638 7,105 7,260
Other Road User* 1,101 951 834 814 885 1,199 1,145 859 887 768
TOTAL 12,458 10,633 9,582 8,597 8,241 9,714 8,940 8,144 10,037 9,980

Why the hell isn't this table published? There's been essentially no change in injuries since 2001.

Raskolnikov

Eoin wrote: »

But is this the only recessionary period covered by the stats? Unless they only go back 20 years or so, then there's also be the 80s when there was high unemployment, and presumably a lot less car ownership as well.

I do think there are lots of other factors that aren't down to the RSA (better technology, motorways etc), but I do think there's a change in attitude that has contributed to the lower deaths.

3rd safest country in Europe? That's pretty damn good if it's true.

Totally agree.

I don't think anyone is trying to imply that the RSA are wholly responsible for the reduction in road deaths, however it's silly to ignore their contribution. The "He drives, she dies" ad campaign was ridiculous, but many initiatives were not. For example, I think that the introduction of the learner driver permit system with compulsory lessons and the clampdown on driving unaccompanied under a provisional licence are measures that will undoubtedly improve road safety. The reduction of blood alcohol limits, increased policing, tougher sentencing have all changed the culture of drinking driving and made it socially unacceptable in this country.

Galwayguy35

Eoin wrote: »

Do you mean the crash where 9 people were wedged in a car designed for 5 people?

That might have been considered OK a good while ago, but I think at the time, anyone with an iota of common sense knew it was incredibly stupid.

True but its hard to put an old head on young shoulders. Im 37 and back in my teens and early 20s i travelled in overloaded cars and the driver more ofton than not was drinking. I didnt see any danger at the time. I shudder to think of what might have happened when i think back on it.

keith16

Eoin wrote: »

Do you mean the crash where 9 people were wedged in a car designed for 5 people?

That might have been considered OK a good while ago, but I think at the time, anyone with an iota of common sense knew it was incredibly stupid.

True, but it probably goes on a lot more than you suspect. Remember prime time doing a piece on fraud taxi drivers and the whole NCT scandal? I recall one lady operating a school run cramming a load of kids into a taxi designed for many less.

Stupid yes, but was the number of occupants in the car the sole cause of the accident? Probably a contributing factor but the point is we don't know. Common sense will only go so far, and god knows people can always do with more of this.

Reg'stoy

Tails142 wrote: »

We're always being told that young males are the biggest risk group. As a young male, half of my friends are working abroad, a large portion of the rest are unemployed and can't afford to run a car, so I think the op has a reasonable point to make.

I don't really get what you're trying to say above, are you putting forth the idea that because young males are an endangered species on our roads that our roads are safer as a consequence.

Would it be therefore just as valid to say that the Go-safe van placement or rather the threat of points for speeding has also caused people to slow down and therefore reduce road deaths.

I'm saying that to simply state that safety campaigns have had no effect is a bit narrow minded. I'll admit that the threat of penalty points has slowed me down and the shock value of some of the current RSA ads; in particular the new one based on the Rehab hospital in Dun Laoghaire, will I would hope make people think and drive more safely.

I mention the above ad in particular because there are worse things than death. The idea that you might end up with serious brain injuries and exist as a vegetable for decades scares the bejayus out of me and I hope will colour my attitude to driving for a while to come..

Eoin

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

True but its hard to put an old head on young shoulders. Im 37 and back in my teens and early 20s i travelled in overloaded cars and the driver more ofton than not was drinking. I didnt see any danger at the time. I shudder to think of what might have happened when i think back on it.

But I think that's more a reflection in the changing of attitude than wisdom you got by getting a bit older. My mother overloaded her car more than once several years ago, but now wouldn't dream of it.

Drink drivers are stigmatised now - it's a tough thing to admit being guilty of. A while ago, it was just a gamble that you wouldn't be caught and slapped on the wrist.

keith16 wrote:

True, but it probably goes on a lot more than you suspect. Remember prime time doing a piece on fraud taxi drivers and the whole NCT scandal? I recall one lady operating a school run cramming a load of kids into a taxi designed for many less.

But the very point is that things like this are scandals now - not just something anyone would try and get away with.

I bet it does go on, but it's seen as irresponsible and stupid. That mindset wasn't there before.

vetstu

keith16 wrote: »

Stupid yes, but was the number of occupants in the car the sole cause of the accident? Probably a contributing factor but the point is we don't know. Common sense will only go so far, and god knows people can always do with more of this.

The no of occupants may not contribute to the accident, but it will mean a bigger mess if anything goes wrong.

conneem-TT

As mentioned previously if you look at the trend (data up to 2009 is all that's published on the RSA site) of drivers injured vs fatalities it seems that there is little change in the number of serious incidents i.e. where a driver gets injured but at the same time the number of fatalities has seen a steady decrease.

There are many factors that could be attributed to aiding the reduction in fatalities, a few of which have been mentioned already, such as;

- improved car safety with modern cars & nct requirements (however, I live in Scotland at the moment and being home for Christmas I have noticed a huge number cars with dodgy lighting)
- the stigmatization of drunk driving
- the major expansion of the motorway network
ect...

Iwannahurl

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Yup, been through them several times. But all the media/RSA are interested in are the road deaths figures, take a look at this table regarding injuries:

Table 4 All Casualties Classified by Road User Type, 2000-2009.
Road User Type 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Pedestrians 1,332 1,202 1,196 1,115 982 1,063 1,017 965 1,173 1,115
Pedal Cyclists 451 363 296 307 298 233 220 272 349 370
Motor Cyclists 1,179 1,084 1,031 840 681 591 534 410 523 467
Car Users 8,395 7,033 6,225 5,521 5,395 6,628 6,024 5,638 7,105 7,260
Other Road User* 1,101 951 834 814 885 1,199 1,145 859 887 768
TOTAL 12,458 10,633 9,582 8,597 8,241 9,714 8,940 8,144 10,037 9,980

Why the hell isn't this table published? There's been essentially no change in injuries since 2001.

Just wondering. Why would recession, emigration, better roads etc have an impact on road deaths but not injuries?

Voodoomelon

This is the point. Maybe they don't? Yes we have lots of new, wider, safer roads with long visible distances, but they make up a tiny proportion of the countries roads.

I'd argue as close to as many people are still on the road as pre-recession, most serious accidents still happen on non-motorway/national routes and only car safety/crash barriers/less drink driving has reduced deaths. Everything else has remained fairly constant, albeit on a slightly downward slope which is of course to be recognised.

Chimaera

My own view on this is that the only significant factor in the reduction in deaths is that vehicle has improved massively in the last 15 years. A crash now is far more survivable than one in a vehicle designed 15 years ago. From the figures others are posting on the number of incidents occurring, this seems to be borne out.

If any organisation should be patting itself on the back, it's EuroNCAP.

Another thing that's missing in our road accident statistics is near miss reporting. It's standard practice in industrial health and safety to report near misses as well as actual incidents, as these are indicative of larger trends in accident causes. The unfortunate reality is that such reporting is difficult on the roads when the main enforcement/monitoring tool is the gatso vans. I'd like to see the TrafficWatch guys produce a report each year on the incidents reported to them though.

The whole "Slow Down" message is jaded and over simplistic. Driving at a given speed will not in and of itself cause you to have an accident: it's down to judgement of speed for the conditions. I've no problem driving at 140-150 km/h on a motorway, but there's no way in hell I'd do that on a regional road. Going after people for driving above the speed limit creates a culture of clock watchers, more interested in keeping below a particular speed than actually paying attention to their environment and adjusting to that.

I decide my speed based on an analysis of the road and whether I can deal with an unexpected situation at that speed on that road. Speed limits such as they are are a poor second in the decision making process.

Cookie_Monster

bbam wrote: »

Surely pedestrians are the next big target...

I feel it should be an offence to be on the road in poor light with a full hi-viz vest on..
Simple to implement... after X hour in summer and Y hour in winter there should be a €50 on the spot fine if you are found walking on a public road where there is no footpath without the appropriate viz-vest on....

:rolleyes:

may as well get the to wear helmets too
and why not paint all cars in high vis while you're at it

Kepti

vetstu wrote: »

The no of occupants may not contribute to the accident, but it will mean a bigger mess if anything goes wrong.

True, but at the same time splitting the people among two cars also increases the risk.

CJhaughey

New Zealand has also recorded a record low of road deaths in 2011.
They are investigating why it has dropped so much.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6203115/AA-2011-road-toll-at-watershed-low
Personally I think its a number of factors, economic activity, safer cars, fuel prices(making people drive economically) etc etc .

Cookie_Monster

CJhaughey wrote: »

New Zealand has also recorded a record low of road deaths in 2011.
They are investigating why it has dropped so much.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6203115/AA-2011-road-toll-at-watershed-low
Personally I think its a number of factors, economic activity, safer cars, fuel prices(making people drive economically) etc etc .

don't count your chickens just yet, with 15 deaths so far this holiday season has been the worst in a while. From 23rd Dec to 4 Jan is the defined period and already 3 more than the entire period last year.

It's still a big drop on last year, I wonder what the effect of large areas of Christchurch being cordoned off has had?