RSA breaks from Speed Kills narrative

LeChienMefiant

It's great to see some sense from the RSA finally. Possibly down to Uncle Gaybo and his divisive language being out of the picture. Their incessant mantra of "Speed Kills" was tiresome. If you think about what it means, it's akin to saying motion kills. Of course a stationary vehicle is much safer than a moving one. That much is obvious.

While excessive speed is dangerous, and is a factor in a large proportion of accidents. Seatbelt usage has also been a significant factor in accident statistics for years, but went relatively unmentioned.

Good to see them diversifying.

www. thejournal .ie/rsa-garda-road-deaths-2271702-Aug2015/

Special Circumstances

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I love reading RSA/Garda/Insurance industry public releases. If they weren't so serious they'd be hilarious.

1 in 3 drivers dead not wearing seatbelts. Not very funny, but no mention of how actual Gardai on the streets should be used to combat this rather than flash for cash vans.

Also, the key to sfe driving is to be having great bants - silence and concentration are a no no.

"The traffic bureau chief called on people to speak out. “So many people are silent when they should speak up” and they have lifelong regrets afterward that “I should have said something.” He added: “You have drivers out there who have passengers who are usually very talkative but then are quiet in the car. That’s an indication very often that you’re a bad driver. If the person doesn’t talk to you when you’re driving the chances are they’re afraid, so you need to look at your driving.”"

Afraid? Afraid I'll tell them "put a fvking sock in it, I'm trying to watch all these morons we're sharing the road with"

Quoting myself from the chat forum. These quotes were taken from the Irish times interpretation of the same event.

Special Circumstances

I am glad to see another break from the old reliables - "Younger and older drivers continue to remain a high risk group."
An acknowledgement that older folks seem to be a factor in many fatal accidents over the last few years. Absolutely frightening the lack of awareness and general cop on shown by them.

eqwjewoiujqorj

Special Circumstances wrote: »

1 in 3 drivers dead not wearing seatbelts. Not very funny, but no mention of how actual Gardai on the streets should be used to combat this rather than flash for cash vans.

All cars should have a beeping sound if the seat belt in not on, although a lot of 'accidents' are suicides.

From 4m20s

mikeecho

eqwjewoiujqorj wrote: »

All cars should have a beeping sound if the seat belt in not on, although a lot of 'accidents' are suicides.

From 4m20s

On Toyota's you can disable the alarm, but this has to be done at every startup.
On Ford's it can be done permanently by having the key in the on position and bucking/unbuckling a set amount of times, and hyundais stop after a few minutes
On bmws you can have the key recoded do that you don't get any seatbelt alarm

Fyi

Special Circumstances

I hear that on white passats and audis you can disable this by sitting on the fastened belt. Darwin time...

K4t

eqwjewoiujqorj wrote: »

All cars should have a beeping sound if the seat belt in not on

Should they?

A solitary driver in a vehicle not wearing a seat belt is no more likely to have an accident than a person wearing one, and I doubt they are going to cause much extra damage to anyone but themselves if involved in an accident. Also, I'm pretty sure there have been studies that have shown not wearing a seat belt can make drivers more cautious of potential accidents etc.

It's a cliche, but speed really is the killer. So many of us speed and escape accidents though that it makes it seem like it's not the most serious problem.

eqwjewoiujqorj

K4t wrote: »

Should they?

A solitary driver in a vehicle not wearing a seat belt is no more likely to have an accident than a person wearing one, and I doubt they are going to cause much extra damage to anyone but themselves if involved in an accident. Also, I'm pretty sure there have been studies that have shown not wearing a seat belt can make drivers more cautious of potential accidents etc.

It's a cliche, but speed really is the killer. So many of us speed and escape accidents though that it makes it seem like it's not the most serious problem.

Surely the point of a safety belt is what happens to you when you have an accident, and even if you are the greatest / safest driver, you could be crashed into by another driver.

Atomic Pineapple

K4t wrote: »

Should they?

A solitary driver in a vehicle not wearing a seat belt is no more likely to have an accident than a person wearing one, and I doubt they are going to cause much extra damage to anyone but themselves if involved in an accident. Also, I'm pretty sure there have been studies that have shown not wearing a seat belt can make drivers more cautious of potential accidents etc.

It's a cliche, but speed really is the killer. So many of us speed and escape accidents though that it makes it seem like it's not the most serious problem.

I think the point is that if someone has an accident the seat belt could save their life, not wearing one increases the chances of death by so much that it's illogical not to wear a seat belt. You say they do no harm to others in the event of the crash but the reality is that a fatality in a car crash has a much higher cost to the state and therefore all of us than a non fatal accident.

challengemaster

K4t wrote: »

Should they?

A solitary driver in a vehicle not wearing a seat belt is no more likely to have an accident than a person wearing one, and I doubt they are going to cause much extra damage to anyone but themselves if involved in an accident.

Sure why have airbags, crumple zones, or any other safety features. Just have an occupancy sensor in all the passenger seats, if there's no passengers - the driver has no safety features and is free to fly out through the windscreen upon impact. Sounds like a great idea :rolleyes:

ironclaw

K4t wrote: »

but speed really is the killer. So many of us speed and escape accidents though that it makes it seem like it's not the most serious problem.

RSA fact book states that 'excessive speed' is only a factor in 11% of accidents. Speed alone doesn't kill, its speeding inappropriately or beyond one's limits. If speed killed, Germany would be a ghost nation.

Honestly I wouldn't fancy my chances at any speed in this country as you're just as likely to be killed or injured by someone pulling out at 80km/h than doing 160km/h on the M50. We are a nation of very poor drivers, that's the issue and nothing is being done about it.

sbkenn

K4t wrote: »

Should they?

A solitary driver in a vehicle not wearing a seat belt is no more likely to have an accident than a person wearing one, and I doubt they are going to cause much extra damage to anyone but themselves if involved in an accident. Also, I'm pretty sure there have been studies that have shown not wearing a seat belt can make drivers more cautious of potential accidents etc.

It's a cliche, but speed really is the killer. So many of us speed and escape accidents though that it makes it seem like it's not the most serious problem.

Should the state limit our personal risks ? Seatbelts, or helmets, or the lack of, doesn't cause, or even contribute to causing accidents. That they, and speed do, is make the damage worse when an accident does occur. Faulty lights, tyres,brakes and driving style, do cause accidents, particularly driving style. It is the nut behind the wheel that is the real problem, not the nut ON the wheel. Even before the NCT was introduced, vehicle faults were just a contributing factor in only 10% of accidents. What the NCT does is encourage people to leave their vehicle checks until the NCT is nearly due. 25% of Irish vehicles have faulty lights, many have more than one dead, and since the boom, a lot of people are running their tyres well past legal limits.

ironclaw

sbkenn wrote: »

Should the state limit our personal risks ? Seatbelts, or helmets, or the lack of, doesn't cause, or even contribute to causing accidents. That they, and speed do, is make the damage worse when an accident does occur. Faulty lights, tyres,brakes and driving style, do cause accidents, particularly driving style. It is the nut behind the wheel that is the real problem, not the nut ON the wheel. Even before the NCT was introduced, vehicle faults were just a contributing factor in only 10% of accidents. What the NCT does is encourage people to leave their vehicle checks until the NCT is nearly due. 25% of Irish vehicles have faulty lights, many have more than one dead, and since the boom, a lot of people are running their tyres well past legal limits.

Completely agree with your points. However, my argument is that simply stating 'speed kills' is false. You are more likely to be seriously injured or killed at speed, but there are many other factors that are not being enforced and taught that could stop the accident in the first place e.g. Drive education, proper lane discipline and use, stricter enforcement of basic traffic violations. Simply driving above the limit, according to the RSA, is instant death. That is simply false.

sbkenn

Absolutely !
Lane discipline ... what lane disipline ? Changing lanes without warning, merging straight into the overtaking lane, cruising in the overtaking lane, no signaling on roundabouts, and even mis-marking on and approaching roundabouts. Many of them have 2 lanes coming onto a too-small roundabout, and even stop-signs at the merging of a filter lane ... just when you should be acquiring the same speed as the main road !
Research has consistently shown that people drive at THEIR risk limit. Make the road straighter, smoother, better lit, or making cars safer, all contribute to lower care and concentration. Better safety cages reduce injury, but not accidents. Using phones is not a risk (much) because someone is holding it. It dangerous because the driver has their mind elsewhere. Even talking to a passenger, especially a back-seat passenger does that same, but at least, then, there is likely to be a 2nd pair of eyes somewhat alert to hazards. Many people even make hand gestures when talking on the phone !

Special Circumstances

Incorrect sbkenn, the more chat you are having the more likely you are to be a safe driver. According to the powers that be anyway!! They will soon introduce penalty points for "inadequate banter" apparently.

Del2005

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Incorrect sbkenn, the more chat you are having the more likely you are to be a safe driver. According to the powers that be anyway!! They will soon introduce penalty points for "inadequate banter" apparently.

What happens if you're such a smooth driver that your passenger falls asleep? Do you have to start driving dangerous to wake them up:D

Special Circumstances

Del2005 wrote: »

What happens if you're such a smooth driver that your passenger falls asleep? Do you have to start driving dangerous to wake them up:D

In these situations the RSA will provide a type of party-line phone service. You will be able to move between the Waffle, Natter, Pointless Prattle and the And Then I Said rooms as you wish. These will all sound like various versions of Martin's parents from the Martin's Life youtube comedy shorts, or that annoying loud wan you remember from the last time you used public transport.

This will be a location based service. Distraction levels will be increased as you approach flash for cash vans.

sbkenn

Some research has shown a 4-fold increase in the accident rate when people are talking on their phone.

Eric Cartman

eqwjewoiujqorj wrote: »

All cars should have a beeping sound if the seat belt in not on, although a lot of 'accidents' are suicides.

From 4m20s

there are some garages that insist mechanics don't wear seat belts for tests incase oil or grease get on them, obviously thats usually for 'around the industrial estate' drives but this could very well have just been because of that.

Iwannahurl

LeChienMefiant wrote: »

While excessive speed is dangerous, and is a factor in a large proportion of accidents. Seatbelt usage has also been a significant factor in accident statistics for years, but went relatively unmentioned.

Good to see them diversifying.

I'm less patient with the RSA than I used to be, but it's plain wrong to suggest that they haven't emphasised seatbelts in the past. The seatbelt issue has always been high on the agenda, along with speed and alcohol.

Presumably seatbelts are back in focus because of recent reports that a third of people killed in crashes were not wearing one.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I am glad to see another break from the old reliables - "Younger and older drivers continue to remain a high risk group."

An acknowledgement that older folks seem to be a factor in many fatal accidents over the last few years. Absolutely frightening the lack of awareness and general cop on shown by them.

Can you back up that assertion with some facts and figures?

ironclaw wrote: »

RSA fact book states that 'excessive speed' is only a factor in 11% of accidents. Speed alone doesn't kill, its speeding inappropriately or beyond one's limits. If speed killed, Germany would be a ghost nation.

Honestly I wouldn't fancy my chances at any speed in this country as you're just as likely to be killed or injured by someone pulling out at 80km/h than doing 160km/h on the M50. We are a nation of very poor drivers, that's the issue and nothing is being done about it.

If the RSA says that then they are referring to speed being reported as a factor, not speed as a factor per se. Such reports depend on information submitted by the Gardai.

The importance of speed as a major risk factor in both crash risk and crash severity is well established in the international research evidence, and selective reading of the RSA's pronouncements doesn't alter that one bit.

Faulty thinking about the role of speed is one aspect of poor driving, which may be why the RSA is considering awareness training for first-time offenders.

ironclaw wrote: »

Simply driving above the limit, according to the RSA, is instant death. That is simply false.

In fact it's just a straw man fashioned by you (and others seeking to deny the importance of speed).

LeChienMefiant

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm less patient with the RSA than I used to be, but it's plain wrong to suggest that they haven't emphasised seatbelts in the past. The seatbelt issue has always been high on the agenda, along with speed and alcohol.

Presumably seatbelts are back in focus because of recent reports that a third of people killed in crashes were not wearing one.

Can you point to the press releases/news articles on seat belt use in the past?

Iwannahurl

LeChienMefiant wrote: »

Can you point to the press releases/news articles on seat belt use in the past?

Seatbelt campaigns go all the way back to the National Safety Council, precursor of the RSA: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=49030

LeChienMefiant

Anything from more recent, from the RSA for example? I'd be genuinely amazed if you could pull anything out of the hat with Uncle Gaybo for example.

Iwannahurl

Loads of stuff on the RSA website and elsewhere, if you care to look.

I'm not sure why Gaybo should be singled out, but all the same here's a photo of him looking like a dork in hi-vis:

LeChienMefiant

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Loads of stuff on the RSA website and elsewhere, if you care to look.

No press releases I'm aware of in the last ten years (or since it's inception). Thanks for the link btw.

Special Circumstances

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Can you back up that assertion with some facts and figures?

I'm guessing the RSA have a reason for saying "younger and older drivers continue to be high risk groups", but i certainly dont remember any focus on any age grouo but younger drivers previously but hey shur I probably made that up too ha? Lolz

LeChienMefiant

It does have to be said that they are trying. The public awareness ads on motorway driving (merging etc) seemed complicated and un engaging. The recent campaign on driver fatigue has been much better in my opinion.

Autosport

I want to know where am I supposed to get coffee at 1-5am on the motorway(M9) home, once you pass the apple green at rathcoole there's nowhere until Carlow and then you have to drive into Carlow town and by the time Id reach there I would be home, not many places outside of Dublin open 24hrs

CiniO

Autosport wrote: »

I want to know where am I supposed to get coffee at 1-5am on the motorway(M9) home, once you pass the apple green at rathcoole there's nowhere until Carlow and then you have to drive into Carlow town and by the time Id reach there I would be home, not many places outside of Dublin open 24hrs

A flask you prepare before the journey?

visual

CiniO wrote: »

A flask you prepare before the journey?

Bring your own potty and toiletries. You might find a lay by that they forgot to lock.

foxy farmer

Let's not forget this little debacle

Jimmy Iovine

Autosport wrote: »

I want to know where am I supposed to get coffee at 1-5am on the motorway(M9) home, once you pass the apple green at rathcoole there's nowhere until Carlow and then you have to drive into Carlow town and by the time Id reach there I would be home, not many places outside of Dublin open 24hrs

Don't get me started on that. I regularly drive from Dublin to Kilkenny. One place to pull in. If I don't, I've to go into a town which is 8km off the m9.

Also, who came up with the 'stop, sip and sleep' motto thingy?

Who has a coffee before they go for a sleep? I can't believe that the RSA and Gardaí are actually encouraging that.

The biggest concern though is the lack of motorway facilities. The m9 has two lanes and plenty of room for a stop every 15km.

Can't put the blame on the drivers when the authorities haven't done anything themselves to help us.

Lurching

mikeecho wrote: »

On Toyota's you can disable the alarm, but this has to be done at every startup.
On Ford's it can be done permanently by having the key in the on position and bucking/unbuckling a set amount of times, and hyundais stop after a few minutes
On bmws you can have the key recoded do that you don't get any seatbelt alarm

Fyi

They can be permanently disabled on Toyotas also. I disabled it on a Hilux in the past. It did a lot of off-road driving.

foxy farmer

foxy farmer wrote: »

Let's not forget this little debacle

I was going to mention this, i was watching that program with him and Terry Wogan, for the entire journey in the back of the car Gaybo is pulling the seatbelt down from his shoulder to his side, he may as well of been wearing the seatbelt around his waist.

Atomic Pineapple

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

Who has a coffee before they go for a sleep? I can't believe that the RSA and Gardaí are actually encouraging that.

In the case of someone suffering from sleep deprivation while driving it makes sense, you don't want to pull over and fall into a deep sleep and end up being there for 30 - 60 min or more so pulling over grabbing a coffee and then having 15 minutes of sleep while the caffeine kicks in makes sense.

koutoubia

Why don't the RSA do some sort educational campaign for those who are driving around with DRL's on during the night.
Inform them that DRL's only come on in the front.
In the dark your in ninja mode to those behind you!

kirving

Yeah, I see that quite a bit.

Since DLR's are now a legal requirement on new cars, I think many people see them as auto-lights.

Even on cars with auto lights, they often don't kick on in heavy rain or fog where rear lights are really helpful to be able to see.

I wonder why the EU directive on DLR's don't allow headlights to be used as DLR's as the likes of Volvo did before LED's were of high enough power output?

LeChienMefiant

koutoubia wrote: »

Why don't the RSA do some sort educational campaign for those who are driving around with DRL's on during the night.
Inform them that DRL's only come on in the front.
In the dark your in ninja mode to those behind you!

I wasn't aware of that, thanks. It seems odd seeing as DLRs are for increased visibility, that's just as important for cars behind you surely.

hi5

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

Don't get me started on that. I regularly drive from Dublin to Kilkenny. One place to pull in. If I don't, I've to go into a town which is 8km off the m9.

Also, who came up with the 'stop, sip and sleep' motto thingy?

Who has a coffee before they go for a sleep? I can't believe that the RSA and Gardaí are actually encouraging that.

The biggest concern though is the lack of motorway facilities. The m9 has two lanes and plenty of room for a stop every 15km.

Can't put the blame on the drivers when the authorities haven't done anything themselves to help us.

There will be no shortage soon...

Kilcullen, junction 2 construction to start soon.
Carlow, junction 5 planning permission in
Paulstown, junction 7 construction under way.

challengemaster

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

In the case of someone suffering from sleep deprivation while driving it makes sense, you don't want to pull over and fall into a deep sleep and end up being there for 30 - 60 min or more so pulling over grabbing a coffee and then having 15 minutes of sleep while the caffeine kicks in makes sense.

I'd like to see a study showing 15 minutes of sleep actually has any effect on someone that is sleep deprived. Or coffee for that matter.

galwaytt

K4t wrote: »

Should they?

A solitary driver in a vehicle not wearing a seat belt is no more likely to have an accident than a person wearing one, and I doubt they are going to cause much extra damage to anyone but themselves if involved in an accident. Also, I'm pretty sure there have been studies that have shown not wearing a seat belt can make drivers more cautious of potential accidents etc.

It's a cliche, but speed really is the killer. So many of us speed and escape accidents though that it makes it seem like it's not the most serious problem.

Good grief, what 'flat earth' nonsense.

What next, " 2 will do ? "........ ??

Jimmy Iovine

hi5 wrote: »

There will be no shortage soon...

Kilcullen, junction 2 construction to start soon.
Carlow, junction 5 planning permission in
Paulstown, junction 7 construction under way.

What's going there, if you don't mind me asking?

Anything to liven up the m9. I find it to be one of the most boring roads to drive on. There are very few cars and most of the time, all you can see is the mound of earth to the side.

A difficult one to stay alert on.

hi5

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

What's going there, if you don't mind me asking?
Anything to liven up the m9. I find it to be one of the most boring roads to drive on. There are very few cars and most of the time, all you can see is the mound of earth to the side.


A difficult one to stay alert on.

Services, somewhere to pull in for a coffee.


I had to drive from Kilkenny to Naas towing an empty light trailer on Saturday, stuck to the 90km/h all the way, nearly fell asleep and couple of times, way too slow for just a small trailer, IMO.

CiniO

LeChienMefiant wrote: »

I wasn't aware of that, thanks. It seems odd seeing as DLRs are for increased visibility, that's just as important for cars behind you surely.

Rear tail lights are of no use during the day.
Therefore there's no need for them to come on with DRLs which are intended to be used only during day time during good visibility.
If visibility is limited (due to rain, fog, etc) and during lighting up hours, normal dipper lights should be used which have rear taillights on.

LeChienMefiant

CiniO wrote: »

Rear tail lights are of no use during the day.
Therefore there's no need for them to come on with DRLs which are intended to be used only during day time during good visibility.
If visibility is limited (due to rain, fog, etc) and during lighting up hours, normal dipper lights should be used which have rear taillights on.

Why are lights on the front of use during the day but not on the back?

I've been driving a lot around the North east and midlands lately (blindly following a sat nav so not actually sure where I've been most of the time), but would I be right in saying that the motorway in and around Athlone/moate area (Im usually travelling easy from athlone, so whatever motorway I'd be on ) has more than it's fair share of parking bays the whole way along it?

I see lots of "P - 500m" signs and I'm confident there must be 3-4 parking/rest bays at the side of the road within a 20 minute space. I remember pulling into one, as I was shattered tired, and I got about a half an hour sleep (not the most comfortable sleep in the world, but I felt a fair bit more refreshed after it).

This isn't something I'd feel comfortable doing on a hard shoulder, yet, I don't recall seeing any of these parking bays on the M50 or M1 around Louth/Dublin (or out towards Kildare direction)?

Am I just travelling the wrong roads, or have Athlone filled a country-wide quota for rest areas so they're not included around other counties, too? :P

LeChienMefiant

Deleted User wrote: »

This isn't something I'd feel comfortable doing on a hard shoulder, yet, I don't recall seeing any of these parking bays on the M50 or M1 around Louth/Dublin (or out towards Kildare direction)?

The M1 has rest stops at Castlebellingham and at Rush/Lusk. They have ample additional facilities to parking (shop, restaurants, toilets, fuel, services).

CiniO

LeChienMefiant wrote: »

Why are lights on the front of use during the day but not on the back?

Imagine you are driving at 100km/h on N road. Other car come towards you also 100km/h.
That's 200km/h relative speed between you equal to 55.5 m/s (metres/second).
So let's say approaching vehicle is half a kilometre away from you, and in many circumstances you wouldn't see it, if it didn't have front DRLs on (or just dipped lights).
But even though it's half a kilometre away, you are going to meet in 9 seconds, so if you f.e. intend to overtake someone it's very handy to see that vehicle from half km, and therefore front DRLs are very useful.

With rear tail lights there's no point.
If other vehicle is stopped and you drive 100km/h it is still going to take you 18 seconds to reach it assuming it's half a kilometre away. Even if it had rear tail lights on, you wouldn't see them from half a kilometre.
You wouldn't even see them from 200 metres I'd say.

Just do an experiment - during the day try to look at the rear of the car which is 200 metres away from you, and try to tell if it has rear light on of off.
I can bet you won't be able to tell, until you are about 100 to 50 metres away from it. (that's all assuming we are talking about daytime in good weather)
If it's raining or foggy or dark obviously it's going to make a difference.

LeChienMefiant

Good explanation.

First Up

I must give special mention to the lady (blond of course) in the white 141 registered RSA car (Road Safety Education Programme) this morning who hogged the middle lane on the northbound M50 from (at least) Sandyford until she crossed the driving lane to exit at Firhouse.

What a splendid example to others and illustration of the prevailing ethos in the RSA.

Mc Love

the DRL's on my mondeo are the sidelights too, they just dimm a small bit when on instead of being used as DRL's