2015 is on course to be the safest on Irish roads since records began in 1959

mydiscworld

RSA Review of 2015 Road Fatalities as of 21 December 2015

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/RSA%20Review%20of%20fatalities%2021%20December%202015%20FINAL.pdf

Review shows 19% reduction in road deaths this year

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/1222/755673-road-deaths-reduction/

Lowest ever total was 162 in 2012

http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/Fatalities%202008-2013.pdf

2015 figure was 154 as of 10am 22/12/15 but I note two more today in the news so figure will be close

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=10816&Lang=1

mydiscworld

Looks like the record is gone after a bad few days on the roads, but figure still well down on last year

Gaygooner

The weather has been horrific though tbf

marno21

It's sad to see after a positive year last year with a reduction in road deaths that 2016 has been much worse in comparison.

As of yesterday morning, road deaths were up 18 (131 vs 113) on the same year-to-date last year. Since then there has been two fatal accidents, one near Drogheda and one on the M20 in Co. Limerick.

This year, there was a marked increase in the amount of speed enforcement zones on the road network, however this hasn't lead to any reduction in fatalties.

JupiterKid

Overall the trend is a downwards one which is very welcome.

I really think that in addition to better enforcement of regulations and safer cars, the building of our interurban motorway network has been a major factor in the reduction in fatal road accidents.

lucernarian

JupiterKid wrote: »

Overall the trend is a downwards one which is very welcome.

I really think that in addition to better enforcement of regulations and safer cars, the building of our interurban motorway network has been a major factor in the reduction in fatal road accidents.

I don't think the same can be said for this year.

An increasing proportion and sometimes number of accidents among the non-motorised travellers is very disheartening. I feel like we've made cars and car journeys, for the people inside, safer than ever while more people on bikes are ending up dead more than ever.

Middle Man

lucernarian wrote: »

I don't think the same can be said for this year.

An increasing proportion and sometimes number of accidents among the non-motorised travellers is very disheartening. I feel like we've made cars and car journeys, for the people inside, safer than ever while more people on bikes are ending up dead more than ever.

Well I was driving today and a large group of cyclists were cycling along a main road (R132 north towards Drogheda) - some acted reasonably, but others remained out on the carriageway despite the presence of a hard shoulder along much of the road's length - some were 2 or 3 abreast. This behaviour caused much disruption to motor traffic as well as unnecessary danger. Selfishness is the only description for this carry on - cyclists cannot solely blame motorists for their woes while they act dangerously themselves.

Carawaystick

What's dangerous about cycling 2 abreast on a regional road?

How do you know the hard shoulder was safe to cycle in?

Do you know that a group of cyclists in single file will be longer and more difficult to overtake, than 2 abreast?

Selfishness is right, expecting other road users to get out of your way, when the alternatives of using a road cyclists are legally prevented from using or overtaking the group when it is safe to do so were available.

endagibson

Middle Man wrote: »

some acted reasonably, but others remained out on the carriageway despite the presence of a hard shoulder along much of the road's length

The hard shoulder is not part of the road and is not always safe to travel on.

Middle Man wrote: »

some were 2 or 3 abreast.

I doubt that. It simply appeared that way to you.

Middle Man wrote: »

This behaviour caused much disruption to motor traffic

You mean motorised vehicles had to slow down and overtake in a safe manner.

Middle Man wrote: »

as well as unnecessary danger

What danger are you referring to?

Middle Man wrote: »

cyclists cannot solely blame motorists for their woes

Harry Palmr

What's the deaths per 100,000 KM travelled year on year? A better measure

lucernarian

Middle Man wrote: »

Well I was driving today and a large group of cyclists were cycling along a main road (R132 north towards Drogheda) - some acted reasonably, but others remained out on the carriageway despite the presence of a hard shoulder along much of the road's length - some were 2 or 3 abreast. This behaviour caused much disruption to motor traffic as well as unnecessary danger. Selfishness is the only description for this carry on - cyclists cannot solely blame motorists for their woes while they act dangerously themselves.

You can say what you like about some random incident, but what's that to do with the ever-higher number of pedestrian as well as cyclist deaths? To be honest it could be dangerous or an inconvenience but hardly both at the same time, barring having 3 abreast which is a recipe for trouble.

The road north of julianstown is quite wide and easy to overtake on outside of travelling against peak traffic. Slowing up before overtaking never killed anyone.

As well as fairly unsympathetic of you to the tragedies that are happening every month or more, I have to wonder if there was much disruption at all as I know that area well...

The 13 year old who was killed recently on the Slane road was hardly cycling 3 abreast... But then I guess there was scant news coverage of it, that's coming from what I've heard in the area.

Middle Man

Carawaystick wrote: »

What's dangerous about cycling 2 abreast on a regional road?

How do you know the hard shoulder was safe to cycle in?

Do you know that a group of cyclists in single file will be longer and more difficult to overtake, than 2 abreast?

Selfishness is right, expecting other road users to get out of your way, when the alternatives of using a road cyclists are legally prevented from using or overtaking the group when it is safe to do so were available.

The R132 through Julianstown is approaching 20k PCUs/Day...

A little cop on is required when cycling along that road - when I cycled years ago on the same road, I used the hard shoulder - even during later years as a regional road!

On the other hand, next time when I'm walking along a shared pedestrian/cycle way (like in Newbridge Demesne near Donabate), perhaps I'll just walk the way I please without any regard for cyclists - well it's like for like - as a pedestrian, I'm the vulnerable party and cyclists should take care of me because I'm a pedestrian - now, how do you like my new found attitude as a pedestrian towards cyclists?

All road users must take care and exercise due consideration for others!

I signed up for...
European Day Without A Road Death
...have you?

endagibson

Middle Man wrote: »

I signed up for...
European Day Without A Road Death
...have you?

No, because it's ****ing stupid.

L1011

Middle Man wrote: »

...have you?

No, because it'll achieve nothing

Anyway, my travelling today has consisted of the walk from my house to the train station, another train station to the office (very close) and back. Not much chance to influence road safety.

L1011

Somewhat unsurprisingly, there were road deaths today:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0921/818244-donegal-rta/

Middle Man

endagibson wrote: »

No, because it's ****ing stupid.

...typical barstool talk!

Now, we can have a mature discussion here or just put up!

EDWARD is simply an EU awareness campaign for all road users...

Middle Man

L1011 wrote: »

Somewhat unsurprisingly, there were road deaths today:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0921/818244-donegal-rta/

...typical!

The purpose of EDWARD is to get road users to make an effort for just one day - guess that's too difficult for Irish people, many who seem to care not!

L1011

Middle Man wrote: »

EDWARD is simply an EU awareness campaign for all road users...

Awareness campaigns are usually ineffectual at best and occasionally harmful.

On average they do nothing and waste money.

marno21

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/778591744283832320

This kind of craic isn't going to make the roads any safer.

gctest50

Middle Man wrote: »

...typical!

The purpose of EDWARD is to get road users to make an effort for just one day - guess that's too difficult for Irish people, many who seem to care not!

bit "married to yer sister" special that

Cookiemunster

Middle Man wrote: »

...typical!

The purpose of EDWARD is to get road users to make an effort for just one day - guess that's too difficult for Irish people, many who seem to care not!

So can you confirm that there have been no other roads deaths anywhere else across the EU today?

kirving

marno21 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/778591744283832320

This kind of craic isn't going to make the roads any safer.

As much as I hate gob****es speeding and then invariably driving up your arse when overtaking, what's far far worse is gob****es slamming on the brakes when they see one of those vans on a perfectly clear and safe road.

Fighting Tao

Driving the M1 and the electronic displays highlighting EDWARD were terrible and very distracting. Way too many words to try to read while driving. Also signing up for something like this is as useful as sharing a post on Facebook to cure cancer.

endagibson

Cookiemunster wrote: »

So can you confirm that there have been no other roads deaths anywhere else across the EU today?

Saw this one earlier today from the UK.

seamus

Record numbers of people at work, record numbers of vehicles on the road. The current figures are actually incredible when you think about the fact that ten years ago we were "happy" that we'd gotten the number of road deaths below 400.

There are now 12% more vehicles on the road than 2006 and we're worried that the death toll might go over 200 by the end of the year.

AugustusMinimus

endagibson wrote: »

The hard shoulder is not part of the road and is not always safe to travel on.


I doubt that. It simply appeared that way to you.


You mean motorised vehicles had to slow down and overtake in a safe manner.


What danger are you referring to?

Why do you doubt 3 abreast? I've seen pelotons 4 abreast.

lucernarian

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Why do you doubt 3 abreast? I've seen pelotons 4 abreast.

That's hardly the point being made. Its a wide road barring one junction, between julianstown and the roundabouts at Colpe. There should be no issue to overtake when it's safe to do so.

I quite agree about cycling 3 or more abreast but then this discussion about a nuisance issue someone posted, is a red herring. It's trivialising what's actually happening, and why there's an ever increasing proportion of cyclist AND pedestrian deaths.

Carawaystick

Middle Man wrote: »

The R132 through Julianstown is approaching 20k PCUs/Day...

And has a 7-10x safer alternative for motor vehicles in the parallel M1...

Middle Man wrote: »

On the other hand, next time when I'm walking along a shared pedestrian/cycle way (like in Newbridge Demesne near Donabate), perhaps I'll just walk the way I please without any regard for cyclists - well it's like for like - as a pedestrian, I'm the vulnerable party and cyclists should take care of me because I'm a pedestrian - now, how do you like my new found attitude as a pedestrian towards cyclists?

The cyclists I see in Newbridge are usually very young children...I hope you stand your ground if they cycle towards you, and ignore them tinkling the bell on their stabilised bikes...

Middle Man wrote: »

All road users must take care and exercise due consideration for others!

Consideration like driving on the parallel safer motorway...

Middle Man

Carawaystick wrote: »

Middle Man wrote: »

The R132 through Julianstown is approaching 20k PCUs/Day...

And has a 7-10x safer alternative for motor vehicles in the parallel M1...

Middle Man wrote: »

On the other hand, next time when I'm walking along a shared pedestrian/cycle way (like in Newbridge Demesne near Donabate), perhaps I'll just walk the way I please without any regard for cyclists - well it's like for like - as a pedestrian, I'm the vulnerable party and cyclists should take care of me because I'm a pedestrian - now, how do you like my new found attitude as a pedestrian towards cyclists?

The cyclists I see in Newbridge are usually very young children...I hope you stand your ground if they cycle towards you, and ignore them tinkling the bell on their stabilised bikes...

Middle Man wrote: »

All road users must take care and exercise due consideration for others!

Consideration like driving on the parallel safer motorway...

I was heading to the car park in Scotch Hall - Does the M1 go there? Also, does the 101 local bus go on the M1? Does everyone going about their local business go on the M1? I also see full grown cyclists in Newbridge Demesne - I remember one aggressively ringing the bell at pedestrians.

Fighting Tao

Middle Man wrote: »

I remember one aggressively ringing the bell at pedestrians.

This baffles me. A bell can only be rung one way. It's not like the horn on a car that can be held down.

lucernarian

Middle Man wrote: »

I was heading to the car park in Scotch Hall - Does the M1 go there? Also, does the 101 local bus go on the M1? Does everyone going about their local business go on the M1? I also see full grown cyclists in Newbridge Demesne - I remember one aggressively ringing the bell at pedestrians.

Pretty silent about the other points though. Do you really think it's okay to use a thread about road deaths to vent about cyclists getting in your way?

seamus

Middle Man wrote: »

I remember one aggressively ringing the bell at pedestrians.

What an inhuman monster. How are the Gardai letting him away with this?

Middle Man

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Middle Man wrote: »

I remember one aggressively ringing the bell at pedestrians.

This baffles me. A bell can only be rung one way. It's not like the horn on a car that can be held down.

Ringing the bell repeatedly!!!!

FFS!

Middle Man

lucernarian wrote: »

Middle Man wrote: »

I was heading to the car park in Scotch Hall - Does the M1 go there? Also, does the 101 local bus go on the M1? Does everyone going about their local business go on the M1? I also see full grown cyclists in Newbridge Demesne - I remember one aggressively ringing the bell at pedestrians.

Pretty silent about the other points though. Do you really think it's okay to use a thread about road deaths to vent about cyclists getting in your way?

I wonder about the intelligence of Irish people...

I am venting about cyclists acting without any consideration for other road users (failure to use ample opportunities to move in out of the traffic while moving - buses pull in at bus bays and slow tractors are required to pull in at the nearest opportunity once traffic builds up behind) and in the process, creating major hazards by forcing motorists into the lane of opposing traffic or hatched areas - there's only one section where the lanes are very wide - perhaps 4.5m - 5.0m. I'm so furious having to spell out everything - one would think I was teaching in primary FFS!

Why do people think cyclists are so special?

Fighting Tao

Middle Man wrote: »

Ringing the bell repeatedly!!!!

FFS!

Still baffled how that's aggressive. Aggressive would be shouting...surely it would be more effective than ringing a diddly bell.

When was the last road death caused by a cyclist anyway?

Middle Man wrote: »

Why do people think cyclists are so special?

Cyclists are people. People are quite special.

Carawaystick

I wonder are the rsa counting raised blood pressure causing heart attacks in their road deaths :rolleyes:

tharlear

Why do people think cyclists are so special?

There're not, the are legally entitled to use the roads like everyone else.
However if a cyclist hits your car, you get a scratch or pump.
If a car hits a cyclist it a different matter.

More interesting is the type of crash, and type of road they occur on.

When discussing proposed road grade separation while expensive and some times will be considered over spec by d4 commenters, they do save lives. How may lives have been lost on the n20 or n17/n18 over the last 5 years?
I expect a reduction on the n17/18 in the near future
Also where possible bike paths should be physically separated from motorized traffic. And I don't mean putting the bike path beside the footpath, or behind the bus stop

Carawaystick

Middle Man wrote: »

I am venting about cyclists acting without any consideration for other road users (failure to use ample opportunities to move in out of the traffic while moving - buses pull in at bus bays

TO let passengers on and off.

Middle Man wrote: »

creating major hazards by forcing motorists into the lane of opposing traffic or hatched areas

Is this some jedi force the cyclists use to force motorists do stuff, or do the motorists choose to create a major hazard?

SeanW

Carawaystick wrote: »

And has a 7-10x safer alternative for motor vehicles in the parallel M1...

That has a toll.

Consideration like driving on the parallel safer motorway...

That has a toll. Would you like to have to pay <€1000/year in "non-Motor Tax" and then have great cycle facilities that you had to pay €3 a pop in tolls to use?

Would you f***. You'd dodge what you legally could, and rightly so.

Middle Man

Carawaystick wrote: »

Middle Man wrote: »

I am venting about cyclists acting without any consideration for other road users (failure to use ample opportunities to move in out of the traffic while moving - buses pull in at bus bays

TO let passengers on and off.

Middle Man wrote: »

creating major hazards by forcing motorists into the lane of opposing traffic or hatched areas

Is this some jedi force the cyclists use to force motorists do stuff, or do the motorists choose to create a major hazard?

So you think it's ok to hold up others in an unnecessary manner - guess the attitude is 'motorists can put up and shut up' - well you'd do well to remember who it is that pay for the use of the roads.

Middle Man

SeanW wrote: »

Carawaystick wrote: »

And has a 7-10x safer alternative for motor vehicles in the parallel M1...

That has a toll.

Consideration like driving on the parallel safer motorway...

That has a toll. Would you like to have to pay < 1000/year in "non-Motor Tax" and then have great cycle facilities that you had to pay 3 a pop in tolls to use?

Would you f***. You'd dodge what you legally could, and rightly so.

I do frequently use the toll if the motorway goes the way I'm going (or is quicker) - however, motorists do have a right to use any main through road - God knows we pay way too much in tax as it stands.

Fighting Tao

Middle Man wrote: »

So you think it's ok to hold up others in an unnecessary manner - guess the attitude is 'motorists can put up and shut up' - well you'd do well to remember who it is that pay for the use of the roads.

Yet again I'm baffled by you. We all pay for the roads through general taxation.

marno21

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Yet again I'm baffled by you. We all pay for the roads through general taxation.

Not for the M1. Part of the M1 was built by a private company with private money. They must recoup their investment somehow.

Middle Man

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Middle Man wrote: »

So you think it's ok to hold up others in an unnecessary manner - guess the attitude is 'motorists can put up and shut up' - well you'd do well to remember who it is that pay for the use of the roads.

Yet again I'm baffled by you. We all pay for the roads through general taxation.

Motor Tax, Fuel Excise Duty, VAT, VRT - why do I have to spell out everything?????

lucernarian

Middle Man wrote: »

Motor Tax, Fuel Excise Duty, VAT, VRT - why do I have to spell out everything?????

Monkeys battering at keyboards to write a Shakespeare play wouldn't make them any way less monkeys. It is indeed an interesting consideration to witness how silly people can be.

2016 is already a worse year for road deaths, with cyclists and pedestrians making up a bigger chunk of that in the past.

I'd argue that the spending of these great sums of money on roads has been primarily to the benefit of everyone, yet the stats show that proportionally motorists are benefiting the most from these measures.

This inconvenience you're still talking about is nothing more than that. Overtake when it's safe to do so....

Middle Man

lucernarian wrote: »

Middle Man wrote: »

Motor Tax, Fuel Excise Duty, VAT, VRT - why do I have to spell out everything?????

Monkeys battering at keyboards to write a Shakespeare play wouldn't make them any way less monkeys. It is indeed an interesting consideration to witness how silly people can be.

2016 is already a worse year for road deaths, with cyclists and pedestrians making up a bigger chunk of that in the past.

I'd argue that the spending of these great sums of money on roads has been primarily to the benefit of everyone, yet the stats show that proportionally motorists are benefiting the most from these measures.

This inconvenience you're still talking about is nothing more than that. Overtake when it's safe to do so....

Maybe if more funds were used for schemes of real benefit such as proper footpaths, more lighting and proper pedestrian facilities in town centres instead of wasting money on vanity cycle schemes (I'm not talking about greenways here - such seem like a very good idea), we might have far safer roads particularly at night. Also, proper road maintenance can benefit all road users including cyclists.

endagibson

Middle Man wrote: »

So you think it's ok to hold up others in an unnecessary manner

Middle Man

endagibson wrote: »

Middle Man wrote: »

So you think it's ok to hold up others in an unnecessary manner

Let me spell it out...

If one is cycling along a busy main road where there is a hard shoulder, then it is reasonable to expect the cyclist to use it especially where there is insufficient room for both motorists and cyclists to travel smoothly in the adjoining traffic lane - doing otherwise is holding up traffic in an unnecessary manner, especially when there are long sections of perfectly usable hard shoulder available - when I cycled, the hard shoulder was good enough for me, but then there weren't as many Prima Donna cyclists around then and I certainly was not one myself - I'm not a Prima Donna motorist either as I leave space where possible for cyclists on the left when stopped in traffic on narrower roads - I also don't block footpaths when parking and frequently allow pedestrians to cross a especially where there poor pedestrian facilities - it's called consideration for other road users.

endagibson

Middle Man wrote: »

doing otherwise is holding up traffic in an unnecessary manner

Please define unnecessary.

Middle Man wrote: »

Prima Donna cyclists

Middle Man wrote: »

I'm not a Prima Donna motorist either as...I also don't block footpaths when parking...it's called consideration for other road users.

This is confusing as not blocking the footpath is also the law. Is obeying the law using your car to be seen as exceptional?

Middle Man

endagibson wrote: »

Middle Man wrote: »

doing otherwise is holding up traffic in an unnecessary manner

Please define unnecessary.

Middle Man wrote: »

Prima Donna cyclists

Middle Man wrote: »

I'm not a Prima Donna motorist either as...I also don't block footpaths when parking...it's called consideration for other road users.

This is confusing as not blocking the footpath is also the law. Is obeying the law using your car to be seen as exceptional?

1) Unnecessary = Without need

2) Prima Donna = Anyone behaving in a egotistical and demanding fashion

Lesson over.

Regarding motorists and the law, I see myself as a reasonable responsible motorist who does not think he's above the law - how do you regard cyclists who see no need to stop at red lights, who cycle on footpaths, who obstruct traffic ignoring clear opportunities not to do so - there is a general law relating to reasonable consideration - maybe that can be applied regarding some of the points I've being raising here.

endagibson

Middle Man wrote: »

1) Unnecessary = Without need

But their is a need: their journey. Unless you're suggested that their journey isn't important, or maybe less important than yours.

I'd be interested to hear how you reached that conclusion.

Middle Man wrote: »

2) Prima Donna = Anyone behaving in a egotistical and demanding fashion

Such as demanding other road users get out of their way?

Middle Man wrote: »

Regarding motorists and the law, I see myself as a reasonable responsible motorist who does not think he's above the law

Curious then that you would consider an example of not breaking the law worthy of mention.

Middle Man wrote: »

how do you regard cyclists who see no need to stop at red lights, who cycle on footpaths

Whataboutery.

Middle Man wrote: »

who obstruct traffic ignoring clear opportunities not to do so

How is a lady or gentleman riding a bicycle on the road obstructing traffic? They are road traffic.

Middle Man wrote: »

there is a general law relating to reasonable consideration - maybe that can be applied regarding some of the points I've being raising here.

Indeed. Perhaps it could be used to deal with a person in the motorised vehicle who cannot manage to overtake a person in a non-motorised vehicle safely.