Decrease in road deaths during 2011

Iwannahurl

Chimaera wrote: »

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.

IIRC vehicle defects cause only a very small proportion of crashes in this country. The NCT requires a minimum standard in the condition of vehicles on the road, while NCAP promotes higher levels of safety in the design of new vehicles.

Major factors in road safety -- such as speed, BAC and road conditions -- affect all vehicles across the board. All other things being equal, in relation to NCAP vehicle standards for example, motorists travelling at different speeds are at different levels of risk.

Going after people driving above the speed limit creates a culture of driving a bit more slowly (assuming an optimum level of enforcement) which improves road safety overall. That is an important effect of speed enforcement which is independent of NCAP standards.

In-vehicle safety improvements are also not much comfort to pedestrians, for example, in the event of a collision. Pedestrians now constitute ~40% of road fatalities, I believe. Being struck by a car travelling at 80 km/h is still far more deadly than being hit by one at 30 km/h, even if that car has a gold-standard NCAP rating.

This is why I think the suggestion that all pedestrians wear high-visibility clothing at all times is missing the point. For example, I fail to see how going for a walk in my suburban neighbourhood with a hi-viz vest on makes me meaningfully safer, when the real risk is that motorists routinely drive along our single-footpath 50 km/h residential street at speeds in the region of 70-80 km/h. Several years ago AGS refused to carry out speed checks locally on the basis that it would not be an efficient use of resources, and they have not been seen since (except for one motor tax/insurance checkpoint a while back). Likewise the local authority has so far declined all requests for traffic calming. Such inaction creates a culture where motorists feel they can choose whatever speed they see fit, regardless of the needs of other road users.

Iwannahurl

Voodoomelon wrote: »

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.

It's just that I'd be surprised if factors such as recession and emigration had a downward effect on road deaths (as some people claim) but not on injuries. Just now I can't think of any explanation that would satisfy the causal criterion of plausibility in this regard.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say that "everything else has remained fairly constant". Do you mean in terms of risk factors? My guess is that one other very important risk factor has not remained fairly constant: speed.



.

BrianD3

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/6203...-watershed-low
Personally I think its a number of factors, economic activity, safer cars, fuel prices(making people drive economically) etc etc .

Road deaths have also decreased in most EU countries with an overall decrease of 43% from 2001 to 2010. Some countries (incl Ireland) experienced a >50% reduction.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/830

For as long as I can remember Sweden and Germany have been held up as role models for road safety yet they managed to reduce fatalities by 54% and 48% respectively from 2001 to 2010. Presumably these countries were already pretty good when it came to driver training, drink driving, speeding, enforcement etc. I also presume that most of their motorways were already in place in 2001?

This makes me think that EuroNCAP/safer cars may be one of the most important factors as one thing Germany, Sweden and Ireland had in common from 2001 to 2010 is that older cars with no or poor NCAP ratings were gradually replaced with cars with much higher ratings for the car's occupants. Also, if pedestrians are making up a higher proportion of the total fatalities now it might also point to EuroNCAP being a factor. Even though cars are rated for pedestrian safety many have done badly and I don't think there is the same scope for making a car safer for pedestrians who are hit by it as there is to make it safer for the occupants. Pedestrians might be better off if more pre sense systems like radar and night vision (see below) are fitted to cars

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0wwcU_IlwE

Voodoomelon

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's just that I'd be surprised if factors such as recession and emigration had a downward effect on road deaths (as some people claim) but not on injuries. Just now I can't think of any explanation that would satisfy the causal criterion of plausibility in this regard.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say that "everything else has remained fairly constant". Do you mean in terms of risk factors? My guess is that one other very important risk factor has not remained fairly constant: speed.



.

Sorry, what I meant by remaining constant is road injuries/casualties. The same amount of road injuries/casualties appear to be happening as many years ago, the only notable figure that's dropping is deaths.

As long as deaths are dropping, everyone is happy to say that the roads are safer.

I mean, what has actually changed over the last twenty years in regards Irish drivers? Has the test become harder? No. Is there constant retraining? No. Has driver education improved? No. Do we teach motorway/winter driving skills? No. etc etc

Nothing has been done about the Irish driver, the only thing that has changed/improved is the metal cocoon around us. That, and the threat of loosing our licence if we drink and drive. Personally I think we're as likely to crash into each other/fly off the road as we were twenty years ago.

AugustusMinimus

BrianD3 wrote: »

Also, if pedestrians are making up a higher proportion of the total fatalities now it might also point to EuroNCAP being a factor.

An excellent comparison to be made. Has the percentage of pedestrians vs drivers killed on the road increased ?

Eoin

Voodoomelon wrote: »

I mean, what has actually changed over the last twenty years in regards Irish drivers? Has the test become harder? No. Is there constant retraining? No. Has driver education improved? No. Do we teach motorway/winter driving skills? No. etc etc

Nothing has been done about the Irish driver, the only thing that has changed/improved is the metal cocoon around us. That, and the threat of loosing our licence if we drink and drive. Personally I think we're as likely to crash into each other/fly off the road as we were twenty years ago.

So you think that it's still as socially acceptable to drink drive or overload a car as it was a few decades ago? I totally disagree.

Sandwlch

Voodoomelon wrote: »

I mean, what has actually changed over the last twenty years in regards Irish drivers? Has the test become harder? No. Is there constant retraining? No. Has driver education improved? No. Do we teach motorway/winter driving skills? No. etc etc

Nothing has been done about the Irish driver, the only thing that has changed/improved is the metal cocoon around us. That, and the threat of loosing our licence if we drink and drive. Personally I think we're as likely to crash into each other/fly off the road as we were twenty years ago.

Nonesense.

While better cars and better roads have helped, the biggest factor is driver behaviour in all its manifestations; drink driving, speeding, wearing seatbelts, using mobiles. These have changed on two fronts, carrot, and stick:
1) Education. Some people are willing to change when they understand the risks they would otherwise be taking
2) Punishment. The points system, random (or threat of) breath testing, increased speeding cameras. The likelyhood of be caught, fined, being put off the road has increased and modified the behaviour of many who dont believe it is necessary, but fear the consequences.