Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Roads Deaths in 2012 now higher than 2011

  • 06-06-2012 10:29am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 781 ✭✭✭mydiscworld


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

    Summary for the year up to 9.00 am June 6th 2012
    Daily Comparison 2011 - 2012

    Total Killed to 06/06/11 74 Total Killed to 06/06/12 75

    Total Collisions to 06/06/11 67 Total Collisions to 06/06/12 72


«134

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 781 ✭✭✭mydiscworld


    Collisions are also up btw.

    I've been saying for a while now that once the new motorways were finished the annual road deaths figure would stay pretty flat.

    Perhaps some more Speed (aka Safety) Cameras would help a tiny bit.

    Next big step in my opinion is compulsory eye tests.

    Discussed here a few months ago
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=76995378

    And way back in 2003 here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=801702


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    We were doing well up till April.

    Weather would be my main guess. April was wetter and colder this year than last year, May was pretty much the same (hence similar figures), June so far has again been wet and cold, particularly over the bank holiday.

    This pattern would also seem to match with the exceptionally mild and dry month we had in January corresponding to a big difference in figures.

    I don't think speed cameras are of any particular benefit. I think there would be more benefit in evaulating dodgy parts of our road system to remove sharp bends & hidden junctions, and insert street lighting at any major junctions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 45 Hifiman


    Road deaths have gone up by about 13 since the drink drive limit was lowered late last year. (The new limits came into effect just before the October Bank Holiday 2011)

    Four more were killed in November 2011 compared to the same month in 2010 while eight more were killed in December 2011 than December 2010.

    The RSA would have been vey quick to point out a reduction following the lowering of the limits - but there has been an increase of over 15% when you compare the seven-month period since November with the same seven months in the previous years (2010/2011)

    It was predicted by some (Donegal Coroner etc.,) that lowering the limits would make little difference - but in fact it has - deaths have risen!


  • Registered Users Posts: 739 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    There has been great progress over the last few years so sadly its probably inevitable that at some point that rate might level off or even creep back up.

    While it probably would help if road improvements continued, ultimately unless we come up with a different form of mass transportation or some new radical innovation on preventing collisions there are always going to be incidents and, regretfully, fatalities.

    To be honest I don't think there is any one factor that can be linked to this slight increase. Let's just hope that the next six months are a safer period.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,524 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    It's just statistical variance. One more death doesn't mean something odd is happening.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    seamus wrote: »
    I don't think speed cameras are of any particular benefit. I think there would be more benefit in evaulating dodgy parts of our road system to remove sharp bends & hidden junctions, and insert street lighting at any major junctions.

    Can anybody remember when the revenue generator "safety" cameras were introduced. It'd be interesting to see what the relative effect that this has had vs say the introduction of penalty points or the lowering of a DD limit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,503 ✭✭✭veryangryman


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Can anybody remember when the revenue generator "safety" cameras were introduced. It'd be interesting to see what the relative effect that this has had vs say the introduction of penalty points or the lowering of a DD limit.

    I think you just listed the benefit


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,014 ✭✭✭niloc1951


    An important issue in the figures is that deaths as a result of collisions resulting from sudden illness, eg. heart attack for example, are not separated.

    Such collisions are not attributable to 'driver bad behaviour' and all is needed is one or two such tragic occurrences involving multiple deaths to skew the figures significantly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Unless the end of year figure is more than about 8% higher I'd not read anything into this beyond people still die on the roads and always will.


  • Registered Users Posts: 553 ✭✭✭robclay26


    I know many would disagree to this idea, but i personally think it would be the right job:
    In aviation every 2 years a private pilot does a check ride with an instructor, or commercial every 6 months with an airline.

    So take this concept to the roads.
    Our licences are for 10 years and I believe (open to correction) that after a certain age that are for shorter periods of time?

    Well for all drivers under 50 the should have to take a skills test to get a licence renewal after their 10 year licence expires. This test is just to show they know the basic rules and proper way to drive and to be safe. (NOT A FULL BULL****E DRIVING TEST)
    Drivers over 50, Licence valid for 5 years and a skills test again to renew it
    Drivers over 70, licence valid for 2 years and a skill test to renew it.

    The validation period is shorter for older generations because they in general have a substandard of driving. Example: driving at 80km or 60km in fast lane on motorway when the left lane is clear, or driving the wrong way up the Dual carriage way or motorway.

    I would like to mention that also pensioners should have this renewal test done free of charge if the meet criteria similar to medical card approvals. Low income pensions are free and the rich pay the normal fee.

    But before something like this can be done, the delays and backlogs in driving test would have to be a thing of the past. Also the driving test itself needs to be changed, its a load of ballocks!!

    Its time to remove from the road dangerous drivers! Go safe Vans are Ballocks the make money for the government.
    Saving lives on the roads is done by:
    (1)improving driving skills in all conditions, Rain, ice, Snow etc
    (2)fixing the Dangerous roads them selves. better signage and markings at dangerous junctions, straightening out the bad bends on back roads etc. But this costs money, Go- Safe Vans make money!mad.gif
    Go-safe vans according to the Gardai are places where fatal Accidents accoured, not serious or minor, but fatal, it says it on their site. I know of a few camera areas near me that have had not a single Minor, serious or fatal accident since 2005 according to the RSA map, but the Go-safe map has a speed van zone in them and i see them pretty much everyday.
    Other places such as the N4 east of Mullingar with the junction for Kilucan is one of the most dangerous in the country, ( i know it is been upgraded at the moment) but the main N4 is 100KPH and it should be only 80KPH with a speed van here, this is a dangerous junction and many many accidents, just look at the RSA site with the map.



    I wrote yesterday to the RSA and the Garda Traffic Unit on many subjects with driving in this country and what should be done.

    Bottom line: Driving standards, Testing, Roads and regulation of it by the Gardai is Ballocks!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 781 ✭✭✭mydiscworld


    mike65 wrote: »
    Unless the end of year figure is more than about 8% higher I'd not read anything into this beyond people still die on the roads and always will.

    My point was not that the roads are getting worse or more dangerous. I agree that anything +/- 8% is within an expected annual variance.

    My point was more can be done to have the number lowered.

    robclay's idea of a basic test every 10 years when your license expires seems logical. This should incldue mandatory eye test imo. And be no more than 50euro all in.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    I would agree with a decade test, NCT for cars every two years (every year for anything over 10 years) and yet most humans don't need to take one until 75 (I think).


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    How many were single driver accidents that hit a wall or tree after coming off a straight road?

    And have these such "accidents" risen?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Well for all drivers under 50 the should have to take a skills test to get a licence renewal after their 10 year licence expires.

    I imagine an enhanced rules test would be easier to administer in the the first instance. People with substantial driving experience rarely lack control of their vehicles.
    The validation period is shorter for older generations because they in general have a substandard of driving.

    Why then do people in their 50s have the lowest accident rate?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,014 ✭✭✭niloc1951


    the_syco wrote: »
    How many were single driver accidents that hit a wall or tree after coming off a straight road?

    And have these such "accidents" risen?

    Sadly they probably have, in line with the rise in our national suicide rate :(. A friend of mine, who's son committed suicide, met a member of the RSA at a function and during a conversation that person admitted to holding the opinion that young males killed in single vehicle accidents could well have intentionally created the accident as a way out of this life, so sad.

    On the other issue about 'older' people needing re-testing. My experience is that if I am being overtaken dangerously or witness other dangerous driving it's sure to be a 'younger' person :P.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,524 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    niloc1951 wrote: »
    Sadly they probably have, in line with the rise in our national suicide rate :(. A friend of mine, who's son committed suicide, met a member of the RSA at a function and during a conversation that person admitted to holding the opinion that young males killed in single vehicle accidents could well have intentionally created the accident as a way out of this life, so sad.

    On the other issue about 'older' people needing re-testing. My experience is that if I am being overtaken dangerously or witness other dangerous driving it's sure to be a 'younger' person :P.

    I would imagine a high proportion of these single vehicle accidents are suicides. The truth is for the most part, we have no way of telling.

    I'd also imagine that a certain percentage of two vehicle accident may also be suicide. Very hard to imagine what goes through the mind of a suicidial person. Certainly not thinking straight.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    niloc1951 wrote: »

    On the other issue about 'older' people needing re-testing. My experience is that if I am being overtaken dangerously or witness other dangerous driving it's sure to be a 'younger' person :P.

    My father is driving for over 30 years at this stage, I know the roads have changed drastically since he sat his test (e.g. no dc when he did it). Personally I think the idea of a license for life is a reciepe for disaster.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    My experience is that if I am being overtaken dangerously or witness other dangerous driving it's sure to be a 'younger' person

    Many people know the rules perfectly well, but choose to ignore them. Which is why it is difficult to eliminate road fatalities and injuries.
    I know the roads have changed drastically since he sat his test (e.g. no dc when he did it).

    Do you mean that he did not do his test on DC or that there wasn't any? The first DC in the Republic was built in 1940 or so, probably 20 years before he was born.
    Personally I think the idea of a license for life is a reciepe for disaster.

    I think many people here agree that a comprehensive rules test on licence renewal would be a good plan for everyone.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    ardmacha wrote: »
    Do you mean that he did not do his test on DC or that there wasn't any? The first DC in the Republic was built in 1940 or so, probably 20 years before he was born.

    Hell I did my test in 2005 and I didn't get onto a a 4 lane rd (don't know if any of the test routes take in any of the 4 lane stretches either) - so no, that's not my concern.

    There were no DCs/4 lane roads in or around Galway until the mid-late 80s. The odds of him having regularly used one of the ones that had been built regularly are slim to none. So the "training" and test at the time that he got his license is radically unsuited to modern roads.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,201 ✭✭✭ongarboy


    Yes the increase may just be a statistical variance although I feel as if I'm hearing about more fatalities in the recent past then I did last year. Cork, in particular seems to be having an awful time of it with road deaths recently.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,014 ✭✭✭niloc1951


    antoobrien wrote: »
    My father is driving for over 30 years at this stage, I know the roads have changed drastically since he sat his test (e.g. no dc when he did it). Personally I think the idea of a license for life is a reciepe for disaster.

    But your father learned to drive when one had to rely on ones own ability and not the idiot protecting technology of ABS, ASR, Airbags, crumple zones, collapsible steering columns, etc. etc.

    In those days one was very much aware that your safety/survival was in your own hands.

    Dual Carriageways and other modern roadway technologies are but a new environment to understand and be aware of, which I am sure present little challenge to us 'older' drivers who had always to deal with challenging driving conditions and were not cosseted in air-conditioned, computer controlled, entertainment centres.


  • Registered Users Posts: 45 Hifiman


    ongarboy wrote: »
    Yes the increase may just be a statistical variance although I feel as if I'm hearing about more fatalities in the recent past then I did last year. Cork, in particular seems to be having an awful time of it with road deaths recently.

    You're correct. Cork is one of the worst as far as road deaths are concerned.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0414/1224314731098.html

    ROAD DEATHS increased by 50 per cent in Co Cork last year, while more than a quarter of all fatal crashes took place in the southern region. Cork is the only county to record an increase in road fatalities in 2011, with decreases recorded in every other county


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭number10a


    Hifiman wrote: »
    Road deaths have gone up by about 13 since the drink drive limit was lowered late last year. (The new limits came into effect just before the October Bank Holiday 2011)

    Four more were killed in November 2011 compared to the same month in 2010 while eight more were killed in December 2011 than December 2010.

    The RSA would have been vey quick to point out a reduction following the lowering of the limits - but there has been an increase of over 15% when you compare the seven-month period since November with the same seven months in the previous years (2010/2011)

    It was predicted by some (Donegal Coroner etc.,) that lowering the limits would make little difference - but in fact it has - deaths have risen!

    Riiiighht. So being required to be more sober while driving has increased road deaths?? :confused::confused:

    While it's fair to say that lowering the limit has not decreased road deaths, you cannot say that it has increased them. That has to be due to other factors (for example, a virtually ice free winter meaning more people were out driving and they were driving faster than the previous winter).

    Otherwise what you are saying is that people drive better after one or two drinks than those who have had nothing to drink.


  • Registered Users Posts: 781 ✭✭✭mydiscworld


    Hifiman wrote: »
    You're correct. Cork is one of the worst as far as road deaths are concerned.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0414/1224314731098.html

    ROAD DEATHS increased by 50 per cent in Co Cork last year, while more than a quarter of all fatal crashes took place in the southern region. Cork is the only county to record an increase in road fatalities in 2011, with decreases recorded in every other county

    I mentioned a few months ago I'd like to see the fatality figures by county, road name and even down to stretches of roads.

    This way you could clearly see which are the most dangerous and in need of immediate action.


  • Registered Users Posts: 45 Hifiman


    number10a wrote: »
    Riiiighht. So being required to be more sober while driving has increased road deaths?? :confused::confused:

    While it's fair to say that lowering the limit has not decreased road deaths, you cannot say that it has increased them. That has to be due to other factors (for example, a virtually ice free winter meaning more people were out driving and they were driving faster than the previous winter).

    Otherwise what you are saying is that people drive better after one or two drinks than those who have had nothing to drink.

    It's about the best use of Garda resources. The vast majority of drink drive deaths involve levels well above the old limits. If Garda time is taken up processing the least dangerous offenders, then maybe more of the more dangerous offenders may escape detection. This from a German study:

    http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/T95/paper/s9p2.html

    Thus, countermeasures directed at those persons driving at BACs higher than 0.08% can be expected to be most effective in reducing the number of accidents attributable to the effects of alcohol. In contrast, measures directed at drivers with BACs less than 0.08% cannot be very effective. At most, 4% of all accidents attributable to the effects of alcohol may be prevented.
    This also implies that simply changing the legal DUI limit from 0.08% to 0.05% is insufficient with respect to alcohol-induced accidents as the potential reduction would be only about 4%. Further inspection of the risk function indicates that certain subgroups of drinking drivers are responsible for the alcohol-related accident risk in the higher BAC range. Measures capable of deterring drinking drivers in this range were expected to have a substantial impact on traffic safety, namely, result in a decrease in accident rates.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭cocoshovel


    the_syco wrote: »
    How many were single driver accidents that hit a wall or tree after coming off a straight road?

    And have these such "accidents" risen?

    Why must people use this as the only example, if you are implying what I think you are even implying I dont think those are what some make them out to me. Such an unorthodox way to do it too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 980 ✭✭✭Decoda


    I mentioned a few months ago I'd like to see the fatality figures by county, road name and even down to stretches of roads.

    This way you could clearly see which are the most dangerous and in need of immediate action.

    Might not be exactly what you're looking for but it gives some details of fatalities, location, type of collision etc only up to 2009 though.

    http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Ireland-Road-Collisions/


    DC


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 66,534 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Hifiman wrote: »
    The RSA would have been vey quick to point out a reduction following the lowering of the limits

    Would have been the same as them claiming the reduction caused by an 80% slump in traffic due to freezing weather being down to the introduction of GoSafe vans that weren't actually on the roads at the time :rolleyes:

    If the figures go down this year, they'll claim a victory for new measures. If they go up, we won't hear a peep.


  • Registered Users Posts: 781 ✭✭✭mydiscworld


    Looks like the Irish Times read this board for topics to write about

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0611/breaking48.html

    But in an epic piece of journalist they mistook 2012 figures for 2011

    "There had been 75 deaths in 73 collisions so far this year, compared with 76 deaths and 68 collisions in the same period last year."

    As you can see per link below, it's actually 75 in 2011 and 76 in 2012

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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 45 Hifiman


    Looks like the Irish Times read this board for topics to write about

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0611/breaking48.html

    But in an epic piece of journalist they mistook 2012 figures for 2011

    "There had been 75 deaths in 73 collisions so far this year, compared with 76 deaths and 68 collisions in the same period last year."

    As you can see per link below, it's actually 75 in 2011 and 76 in 2012

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

    Yes, you're correct. As of today, 76 have died in 2012, compared with 75 up to the same date last year. Even though it's only a difference of one fatalality, this is a bit of a disaster for the RSA when you think of the time, energy and considerable resources they put into the campaign to lower the drink drive limit. They actively dismissed anyone who said it would make no difference to road deaths - even though their own evidence was quite flimsy. (I remember they showed the example of Switzerland where there was a drop in deaths when the limit was lowered. The fact was, there was a downward trend at the time anyway, and it had simply continued after the limit had dropped. You'd need to prove that this downward trend would have ceased without dropping the limits.) The truth is, in Ireland, enforcement of the old limit was far more succesful and the big drop in deaths happened under the 80mg limit. Since it has been dropped, the trend has been reversed - and if it continues, 2012 may be the first year since 2005 where road deaths have increased. And that's with Safety Cameras in place as well.
    I heard RSA chief, Noel Brett say yesterday, that drivers were becoming "complacent" again. "Complacent" Really? So it's not down to tougher laws, stricter penalties and fancy new Speed vans or breathalizers? It's all about whether drivers are "complacent" or not. And have the RSA been hauled in by the Minister for Transport to explain just why they think lower drink drive limits and safety cameras somehow appear to have made drivers "complacent?" I doubt it!


Advertisement