Are Road Deaths Stats available by road name?

mydiscworld

This idea came to me in another thread. As the title suggests. Are Irish Road Deaths Stats available by road name anywhere?

Was thinking that I'd like the Road Safety Authority, NRA or the Gardaí to produce the road deaths per Road name, inc. all Mortorways, National, Regional roads, etc.

This way the public can see the deadliest roads, and even dangerous stretches within those roads, and seek them to be rectified as a matter of urgency.

Currently, the RSA comment on road deaths and safety in their annual reports. Latest, 2010 is here

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/About%20...%20english.pdf

The Gardaí do give some stats, updated each working day, here

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

But there is no breakdown given as to where the deaths have occurred.

L1011

Only ever seen it on the EuroRAP reports which are quite outdated now.

The vast majority of EuroRAP "red" roads in Ireland have been completely replaced since the last reporting period.

mydiscworld

MYOB wrote: »

Only ever seen it on the EuroRAP reports which are quite outdated now.

The vast majority of EuroRAP "red" roads in Ireland have been completely replaced since the last reporting period.

Checked it and 2008 report seems the latest one

http://www.eurorap.org/library/pdfs/20080519_IRLAND_RESULTS.pdf

They did one in 2005 and 2008 so maybe there should be another due soon. All their Euro reports are here

http://www.eurorap.org/lib_search?search=Y&Type=nat

Edit: I emailed them to see if any report for 2011 or 2012 is due out

L1011

mydiscworld wrote: »

Checked it and 2008 report seems the latest one

Yeah, that's the one I was talking about

For the roads classed as priority in that:

1: Serious work underway at the moment
2: Serious work both underway and completed since then
3: Still crap
4: Some work to start shortly
5: Totally new alignment done along most of this (if its the correct section)

Don't think much has been done on 6-10; 10 will be replaced when Enniscorthy is bypassed though.

Even more has been done on some of the ones they reported as being the previous priorities - the N53 work as mentioned, more work on the Mullingar section of N52 this year, N25 DC bypass of Kilmeaden.

Sponge Bob

3 months behind on 2010 data. Yet the shaggin RSA can demand photo ID at NCT tests.

mydiscworld

Update on EuroRAP reports.

I got a speedy email reply as follows:

"The latest report for Ireland is the 2008 version that you've found on the website. Discussions are currently underway to update this and it is hoped that a new report will be published in 2012."

mydiscworld

Bump.

RSA comment on road deaths and safety in their annual reports. Latest, 2011 is here

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/About%20Us/RSA%20ANNUAL%20REPORT%202011.pdf

and see here for breakdown by county

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/

The Gardaí do give some stats, updated each working day, here

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

But there is no breakdown given as to where the deaths have occurred in a county.

EuroRAP http://www.eurorap.org/ report on each country's roads. I got an email reply in April 2012 saying discussions were currently underway to provide a new report in 2012.

Just been on their website but no sign of a 2012 report. Emailed asking for update

mydiscworld

RSA have published a list of

Road Traffic Deaths by Road User and County 2007 to 2012

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Press%20Office/Road%20Traffic%20deaths%20by%20Road%20user%20and%20county%202007%20to%202012().pdf

ardmacha

I take it that EuroRAP have never produced a new report?

mydiscworld

ardmacha wrote: »

I take it that EuroRAP have never produced a new report?

Per EuroRAP, Ireland have

"updated their Risk Mapping results and are currently preparing a results report for publication.

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]The launch of the results will be by the end of June."[/FONT][/FONT]

Per the website here
http://www.eurorap.org/partner-countries/ireland/

this will be the first update since 2008

mydiscworld

mydiscworld wrote: »

Per EuroRAP, Ireland have

"updated their Risk Mapping results and are currently preparing a results report for publication.

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]The launch of the results will be by the end of June."[/FONT][/FONT]

Per the website here
http://www.eurorap.org/partner-countries/ireland/

this will be the first update since 2008

Can any spot this report on NRA's website. Was due two months ago

mydiscworld

EuroRAP have updated their website showing details from the 2013 Ireland Risk Mapping report

http://www.eurorap.org/partner-countries/ireland/

Can't find the actual 2013 report online yet, but I have emailed NRA and EuroRAP for a copy. Will post that up if I receive it

In 2013 additional risk mapping was produced covering the period 2006 to 2010. As before the results showed a continuation in the reduction of risk to the road users in Ireland. Some 4% of the sections were considered medium-high risk. The previous risk mapping (2002 to 2006) showed that medium-high risk section accounted for 7% of the network.

Comparing the number of low-medium roads from the previous publication shows that it has grown from 50% to 66%.

Low risk sections have grown (from 3% to 7%) however the full benefit of the completion of the motorway network in the Republic has not yet impacted on this figure as these roads have to be excluded from the analysis until a full 5 years of collision and traffic data can be analysed.

mydiscworld

To update on this, EuroRAP weren't in a position (last October when I enquired) to release the 2013 Risk Mapping results, as the NRA have apparently decided to retain the report internally.

The only thing we know to date is the extract I have quoted above.

mydiscworld

The RSA have produced a Provisional Review of Road Crashes for 2013

http://rsa.ie/Documents/Road Safety/Crash Stats/Provisional Review of Road Crash 2013.pdf

It analyses

1. Month of year
2. Road user type
3. Time of day
4. Age group
5. Day of week
6. Region
7. Speeding
8. Seatbelt wearing rates

Unfortunately the Regions breakdown does not go into depth and is only shown by Dublin, Eastern, South Eastern, Southern, Western and Northern.

Rather lazy really. What of any significance is this going to tell us? They agreed by saying

"It is difficult to discern what factors may be driving the increases in each of these three regions."

So why not go into further depth, like by County and Road name and type?

Iwannahurl

Would analysis by county provide useful information? My guess would be that the number of road deaths in each county in any given year would be too small to allow meaningful analysis. In any case, what does "county" mean in terms of the causes of road traffic fatalities?

They have categorised the number of road deaths according to speed limit, which gives some indication of road type. The majority of fatalities occurred on roads with 80-100 km/h limits.

mydiscworld

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Would analysis by county provide useful information? My guess would be that the number of road deaths in each county in any given year would be too small to allow meaningful analysis. In any case, what does "county" mean in terms of the causes of road traffic fatalities?

They have categorised the number of road deaths according to speed limit, which gives some indication of road type. The majority of fatalities occurred on roads with 80-100 km/h limits.

Well county as the overall heading, then where in the county inc. road name would be ideal

Iwannahurl

I should have said "contributing factors" rather than "causes".

I can imagine a situation whereby local councils, which are roads authorities, could have a bad record over time in terms of road repairs/modifications that could have a bearing on safety.

Zoney

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Would analysis by county provide useful information? My guess would be that the number of road deaths in each county in any given year would be too small to allow meaningful analysis. In any case, what does "county" mean in terms of the causes of road traffic fatalities?

They have categorised the number of road deaths according to speed limit, which gives some indication of road type. The majority of fatalities occurred on roads with 80-100 km/h limits.

That doesn't tell us much beyond what you'd guess, i.e. most fatal accidents are outside urban areas but not on motorways. Or to put it another way, the worst roads are the vast majority of the roads in the country (though the motorways/urban/restricted speed areas are mostly the highest traffic volumes).

To expand on guessing, I think most people would agree the most accidents will be on the poorer quality national (higher N numbers) and regional roads, the busiest ones in particular.

mydiscworld

mydiscworld wrote: »

The RSA have produced a Provisional Review of Road Crashes for 2013

http://rsa.ie/Documents/Road Safety/Crash Stats/Provisional Review of Road Crash 2013.pdf

It analyses

1. Month of year
2. Road user type
3. Time of day
4. Age group
5. Day of week
6. Region
7. Speeding
8. Seatbelt wearing rates

Unfortunately the Regions breakdown does not go into depth and is only shown by Dublin, Eastern, South Eastern, Southern, Western and Northern.

Rather lazy really. What of any significance is this going to tell us? They agreed by saying

"It is difficult to discern what factors may be driving the increases in each of these three regions."

So why not go into further depth, like by County and Road name and type?

2014 provisional review out

http://rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Provisional%20review%20of%20Road%20Crashes%202014.pdf

Report is very similar to the one done last year.

It analyses

1. Month of year
2. Road user type
3. Time of day
4. Age group
5. Day of week
6. Region
7. Seatbelt wearing rates

The Chapter on Speeding has been dropped in the 2014 report

Bray Head

The reports are of pretty poor quality which is a pity given the effort involved and the evident quality of the underlying dataset.

The deaths per county should be expressed as a share of the relevant population, or number of cars licensed or passenger-kilometres. A raw comparison of deaths in Dublin and Donegal is meaningless otherwise.

There is a lot of noise with these numbers. Fluctuations from year to year at the county level is not particularly meaningful. Yet paragraphs of turgid prose are written on the basis of them. See for example the stuff on dangerous times of day or year. You need years of data to make conclusive conclusions on this yet they are making claims on the back of the last two years.

The big lacuna from a policy perspective is the lack of data on deaths by road type. The speed limit data doesn't bring much to bear. There's no way of telling if a cyclist is incrementally more dangerous on roads with higher speed limits.

Finally (and this comment goes for a lot of government publications) is that the data should be downloadable so people can do their own analysis.

Sam Russell

A huge amount of effort (and presumably cost) goes into forensic analysis of fatal car crashes and it is not published as far as I can tell.

Speed, drink, tiredness are all blamed in late night crashes - but is there actual evidence of these causes?

Seat belts (not wearing them) is cited as a cause of fatalities but seat belts do not start working until the crash is well under way.

Bray Head

Sam Russell wrote: »

A huge amount of effort (and presumably cost) goes into forensic analysis of fatal car crashes and it is not published as far as I can tell.

Speed, drink, tiredness are all blamed in late night crashes - but is there actual evidence of these causes?

Seat belts (not wearing them) is sited as a cause of fatalities but seat belts do not start working until the crash is well under way.

There are two reasons I can think of for not having individual collision-level data in the public domain. The first is sensitivity toward relatives of those deceased. The second is legal issues regarding cause of the accident which could have liability implications. So some level of aggregation of the data is probably necessary. But far less than is currently the case I would contend.

Alkers

The NRA assess the accident rates for the entire national road network by breaking the network into 1km strips. Strips for which the accident rate is twice the national average for that type of road (motorway / dual carriageway / single carriageway etc) are then assessed in detail to determine the likely cause of this. Based on this assessment, interventions are designed to increase the safety of the stretch in question.

Iwannahurl

Bray Head wrote: »

The reports are of pretty poor quality which is a pity given the effort involved and the evident quality of the underlying dataset.

I wonder about the quality overall.

Many of the published reports are compiled from Garda data, a source not renowned for its reliability.

Recording fatalities and serious injuries is straightforward. Noting contributory factors and interpreting the resultant data is more tricky, especially with regard to analysing trends in context.

For example, the RSA points to an absolute reduction in the number of fatalities among child pedestrians and cyclists over a period of years, and interprets this as a positive outcome.

However, they make no attempt to take account of the parallel reduction in the number of children walking and cycling to school. It is therefore legitimate to ask (a) whether the absolute reduction in fatalities is really due to successful and sustainable road safety strategies, and not just to a significant drop in the number of children walking and cycling, and (b) whether the relative risk faced by child cyclists and pedestrians has also changed for the better.

I'm not aware of any attempt by the RSA or AGS to look at such figures in terms of relative risk. Only the absolute numbers are reported, as if these tell us all we need to know. Do they ever seek the services of a statistician?

In everyday terms, the reality is that, even while the RSA and AGS are claiming that the roads are safer than ever for children, many parents are terrified of letting their children walk or cycle down to the local shop, never mind travel on foot or by bike to the local school, 3-4 km away.

It is also my opinion the official mania for hi-vis is an example of where the RSA and AGS are giving a mixed message that reveals, at best, an ambivalence about road safety. It's as if they're saying to parents: "Take this hi-vis vest to protect you from danger on the road. Actually, the roads are safe now thanks to us, but whatever danger is there is your own responsibility, and if your child gets knocked down while walking or cycling without one of these Don't Kill Me Jackets it's your own fault."

One promotional poster says "We've made the roads safer than ever -- aren't we great?" and the other says to pedestrians and cyclists "Be afraid -- be very afraid."

Sam Russell

Bray Head wrote: »

There are two reasons I can think of for not having individual collision-level data in the public domain. The first is sensitivity toward relatives of those deceased. The second is legal issues regarding cause of the accident which could have liability implications. So some level of aggregation of the data is probably necessary. But far less than is currently the case I would contend.

I accept that, but it is not beyond them to publish the details of accidents in terms of cause(s). They give not wearing a seat belt as a major cause of fatalities, but the collision is already underway by the time seat belts come into play so what was happening before that? They should publish the alcohol levels of the driver for fatalities, at least as a table.

I think they do not do much analysis because it does not support their assertions as to causes of fatalities, or are they just lazy?

Iwannahurl

Sam Russell wrote: »

I accept that, but it is not beyond them to publish the details of accidents in terms of cause(s). They give not wearing a seat belt as a major cause of fatalities, but the collision is already underway by the time seat belts come into play so what was happening before that? They should publish the alcohol levels of the driver for fatalities, at least as a table.

I think they do not do much analysis because it does not support their assertions as to causes of fatalities, or are they just lazy?

I would agree that it's not scientific enough, although it's better than it used to be. For example, crashes are now treated as potential crime scenes, and therefore the forensic analysis is more tightly controlled. Likewise, testing for intoxication is mandatory, afaik.


There is a difference, though, between reliably working out the precise cause of specific crashes versus the general evidence for overall crash risk.


Not wearing a seatbelt is a significant cause of fatalities for vehicle occupants when a crash occurs. Alcohol consumption increases the likelihood of a crash occurring.


These are well-established risk factors at a population level, but it is much more difficult in a lot of cases to pin down a precise cause. An unbelted car occupant may be killed in a collision, but there may be a cascade of factors leading to that fatal outcome. In any one case, is it always possible to identify with certainty THE cause of the fatality?

Bray Head

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I would agree that it's not scientific enough, although it's better than it used to be. For example, crashes are now treated as potential crime scenes, and therefore the forensic analysis is more tightly controlled. Likewise, testing for intoxication is mandatory, afaik.


There is a difference, though, between reliably working out the precise cause of specific crashes versus the general evidence for overall crash risk.


Not wearing a seatbelt is a significant cause of fatalities for vehicle occupants when a crash occurs. Alcohol consumption increases the likelihood of a crash occurring.


These are well-established risk factors at a population level, but it is much more difficult in a lot of cases to pin down a precise cause. An unbelted car occupant may be killed in a collision, but there may be a cascade of factors leading to that fatal outcome. In any one case, is it always possible to identify with certainty THE cause of the fatality?

As long as I have been sentient I have been aware that drink-driving and lack of seatbelts are contributory factors to road crashes. I think we've pretty much reached peak public awareness on this and there are enforecement strategies in place to deal with both of these issues.

It would be useful to know a little more about other factors which are outside the control of the driver such as road and weather conditions. This data is collected (See Peter Murtagh's excellent articles from late last year) but is not put in the public domain in any analytically tractable way.

For example are no stats on whether motoryclists were in dark clothing or not, or if cyclists were carrying lights, or indeed if pedestrians were intoxicated. I strongly suspect that these are all contributory factors to mortality for each of these three groups but it is very hard to know.

I would echo what was said about the RSA badly needing the services of a statistician. It would be useful to know where the relative risk increases along dimensions such as: time of day, time of year, weather conditions, type of road, etc. This would also allow AGS to target their approach to enforcement a bit more effectively.

PS: the county-level analysis isn't particularly useful imo. A county like Galway contains both a street-lit city and large areas of poor-quality, largely quiet roads. Data on fatality by road type would be far more useful.

Iwannahurl

Bray Head wrote: »

For example are no stats on whether motoryclists were in dark clothing or not, or if cyclists were carrying lights, or indeed if pedestrians were intoxicated. I strongly suspect that these are all contributory factors to mortality for each of these three groups but it is very hard to know.

I doubt whether there is any routine collection of data on the colour of cars involved in collisions (ie dark shades such as black or grey), or whether the driver was paying attention at the time. What about systematic checking of mobile phone use by drivers at the time of collision?

There is no evidence to support the widespread belief that the wearing of hi-vis by pedestrians and cyclists reduces road casualties. In fact there was some evidence from New Zealand recently, suggesting the opposite could occur in certain circumstances.

I don't think we've reached peak public awareness at all, because myths and superstitions persist, complacency can set in and the science is being refined. Alcohol and speed are major factors, of course, but there may be limited gains to be had from detailed study of other specific factors which are relatively minor contributors to road fatalities.

Maybe the answer is to make 'black boxes' or drivecams standard in every vehicle? Apart from the fact that drivers might behave better when they know they're being watched, there would also be a reliable source of 'big data' that could be continuously mined to inform new refinements in safety standards.

Incidentally, data on pedestrian intoxication is collected, hence the RSA's "The Way Back" drunk pedestrians campaign. IMO alcohol is a very good example of where public (and institutional) awareness lags way behind the evidence. A favourite example of mine is the way the powers that be, and various vested interests, continue to engage in fear-mongering about cycle helmets, while ignoring the fact that up to half of all people hospitalised after suffering a traumatic brain injury are intoxicated at the time.

Victor

Bray Head wrote: »

The reports are of pretty poor quality which is a pity given the effort involved and the evident quality of the underlying dataset.

That is only an interim report. Fuller reports will be published in due course. Publishing the full report now would be without the benefit of corners findings, etc.

Sam Russell

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I would agree that it's not scientific enough, although it's better than it used to be. For example, crashes are now treated as potential crime scenes, and therefore the forensic analysis is more tightly controlled. Likewise, testing for intoxication is mandatory, afaik.


There is a difference, though, between reliably working out the precise cause of specific crashes versus the general evidence for overall crash risk.


Not wearing a seatbelt is a significant cause of fatalities for vehicle occupants when a crash occurs. Alcohol consumption increases the likelihood of a crash occurring.


These are well-established risk factors at a population level, but it is much more difficult in a lot of cases to pin down a precise cause. An unbelted car occupant may be killed in a collision, but there may be a cascade of factors leading to that fatal outcome. In any one case, is it always possible to identify with certainty THE cause of the fatality?

But are they well established? It is facile to give speed as a cause of an accident, but there is usually no evidence of speed in most accidents, merely a supposition.

Without full details of all alcohol levels in all personal injury accidents, how are they to know that alcohol was a generic factor? Driving skill or experience is a possible factor - but is it checked out at all?

A first responder can give a good guess as to the cause of an accident - even that is valuable data and should be included in accident reports. Chasing NCTs and seat belts as a major cause of accidents is to ignore possible real causes because the questions are not asked. For example, there are many drivers on the road with full licences that have never passed a test, and possibly never took a driving lesson in their lives.

One statistic that is published is that 27% of four year old cars fail their first NCT - so why not start NCT testing at two years old? Or, heaven forbid, even testing every year? That way it would be no great thing.

Iwannahurl

Sam Russell wrote: »

But are they well established? It is facile to give speed as a cause of an accident, but there is usually no evidence of speed in most accidents, merely a supposition.

Without full details of all alcohol levels in all personal injury accidents, how are they to know that alcohol was a generic factor? Driving skill or experience is a possible factor - but is it checked out at all?

A first responder can give a good guess as to the cause of an accident - even that is valuable data and should be included in accident reports. Chasing NCTs and seat belts as a major cause of accidents is to ignore possible real causes because the questions are not asked. For example, there are many drivers on the road with full licences that have never passed a test, and possibly never took a driving lesson in their lives.

One statistic that is published is that 27% of four year old cars fail their first NCT - so why not start NCT testing at two years old? Or, heaven forbid, even testing every year? That way it would be no great thing.

The evidence for a causal relationship between speed, crash and crash severity is extensive, well-established an incontrovertible. In all situations higher speed increases the risk of a fatal outcome, even if the proximal cause of the crash is not speed per se. It couldn't be any other way: the laws of physics, and the vulnerability of the human body, are inescapable realities. That doesn't mean that in every individual case speed can be identified with certainty as the main cause or as an important contributory factor.

Alcohol levels can be measured easily. AFAIK alcohol testing is supposed to be mandatory in all fatal crashes. If it's not the same for serious crashes, then it ought to be.

Does AGS do alcohol testing in 100% of fatal cases? They ought to be, but I recall that not too long ago PARC Road Safety group were very concerned about flaws in the testing system: http://alcoholireland.ie/home_news/system-blamed-for-low-number-of-alcohol-tests/

Some contributory factors can be ascertained just by looking (eg no seatbelt), by measuring (BAC) or by estimating (speed). But can you always measure or estimate a dead driver's skill or experience?

Older drivers who have had their licence longer are less of a risk, of course. Two of the biggest (inter-related) risk factors for fatal crashes are being male and under 40, which require no investigation to be established in individual cases.

According to the RSA 1% of fatal crashes are caused by mechanical defects, which leads to suspicions that annual testing is primarily motivated by revenue-raising considerations rather than by compelling concerns about road safety.

Sam Russell

My point is concerning the CAUSE of the accident, not what caused the fatality. A head-on collision will be a major cause of the crash, no seat belt could be cause of the fatality instead of serious injury.

Mechanical failures are unlikely to be much of a cause of fatality if all other matters are OK - every one has a seat belt, car is in good shape otherwise, and driver is skilled. For an example, a blown tyre should not cause a serious accident, but if the car is travelling at a dangerous speed, driven by an inexperienced driver, then what would you expect? I had a back wheel fly off entirely and no harm was done.

The first responder will be able to give a good idea of what went on before the evidence is trampled underfoot. I saw photos of a serious fatal accident and was able to piece together a number of contributors just from the photos - no road markings, poor surface, and one vehicle ran off the road to avoid fast car coming toward them overtaking a slower vehicle, the the vehicle off the road hit a large, mainly hidden, boulder in the verge that flipped it over causing the fatalities. It was quite clear from the photos.

I am not suggesting that legal causes be determined, just that such evidence, added up over many accidents, would give a valuable set of data.

Iwannahurl

The existence and effects of many risk factors can be explained in terms of a few highly general mechanisms, all of which are closely related to the fact that human behaviour tends not to be perfectly rational, but is shaped by factors that limit the exercise of perfect rationality. Imperfect rationality implies imperfect knowledge of, and imperfect control of traffic hazards. Imperfect control of hazards is not primarily a matter of conscious risk taking, but of the presence of complexity that goes beyond human cognitive capacity.

Learning how to identify and control traffic hazards is likely to be a life-long process. The variety of circumstances and situations that can lead to accidents is endless. It is beyond human imagination to think of more than just a few of the things that can go wrong. In this sense, managing traffic hazards is a very complex task, since most hazards will be unknown and, for all practical purposes, impossible to predict. Man is a notoriously poor intuitive statistician. Thus, errors are bound to be made in a system that is as complex as modern road traffic.

Source: Rune Elvik, Laws of accident causation, 2006

Bray Head

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The evidence for a causal relationship between speed, crash and crash severity is extensive, well-established an incontrovertible. In all situations higher speed increases the risk of a fatal outcome, even if the proximal cause of the crash is not speed per se. It couldn't be any other way: the laws of physics, and the vulnerability of the human body, are inescapable realities. That doesn't mean that in every individual case speed can be identified with certainty as the main cause or as an important contributory factor.

I don't think that is in doubt. The prime message of road safety is (and should remain) "slow down".

But there are other causal factors that may or may not contribute to better road safety. It's fine to extrapolate from other countries' experiences. But there are specifically Irish factors (such as a largely empty, winding, rural road network) that may play a part and may be relevant to policy formation. It would be nice to know.

The data void surrounding road fatalities reminds me a bit of the family law situation until very recently. An issue of huge public importance with impacts on thousands of lives but one where very little information on very basic things is available.

Victor

Iwannahurl wrote: »

According to the RSA 1% of fatal crashes are caused by mechanical defects, which leads to suspicions that annual testing is primarily motivated by revenue-raising considerations rather than by compelling concerns about road safety.

There is a difference between a mechanical defect causing a collision and affecting the outcome of a collision. Rusted vehicle framing or panelling is not going to help the outcome of a collision. Fortunately, rust buckets are relatively rare these days, but were common 15 years ago.

Additionally, the NCT addresses other factors like vehicle licensing and pollution reduction.

BaronVon

Not quite road death stats by name, but some good info can be gleaned from it.....

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/crash-report