2017- Safest year on roads since records began

D Trent

Big congratulations to Road Safety Authority and An Garda Siochana along with all safe road users out there for making 2017 the safest year on Irish roads since records began.

road_high

D Trent wrote: »

Big congratulations to Road Safety Authority and An Garda Siochana along with all safe road users out there for making 2017 the safest year on Irish roads since records began.

That's a brilliant achievement. Hopefully even better this year once some more safer, new roads come on stream.
Particularly good as the traffic levels have risen considerably again this year, above boom time levels.

prunudo

road_high wrote: »

That's a brilliant achievement. Hopefully even better this year once some more safer, new roads come on stream.
Particularly good as the traffic levels have risen considerably again this year, above boom time levels.

It's strange, the authorities never seem to acknowledge the impact traffic volumes have on the figures.
When the figures were going down the recession we were all told it was down to speed enforcement, penalty points etc. The lower journey numbers were never mentioned.
When it went up again last year, we were all bad drivers and they would need more laws to punish the motorist, no mention of the impact of higher volumes on roads due to economy improving.
While the decrease is welcomed, unfortunately we will never reach zero deaths as their aim is, you can never completely remove the risk from traveling on the roads.

L1011

jvan wrote: »

When the figures were going down the recession we were all told it was down to speed enforcement, penalty points etc. The lower journey numbers were never mentioned.

The utter gubbins spouted when GoSafe started during a massive freeze, traffic figures a quarter of normal and nobody even able to speed was the best example of this. We were told the cameras were the sole cause of the reduction. Most of them weren't even out operating!

prunudo

L1011 wrote: »

The utter gubbins spouted when GoSafe started during a massive freeze, traffic figures a quarter of normal and nobody even able to speed was the best example of this. We were told the cameras were the sole cause of the reduction. Most of them weren't even out operating!

Exactly, I am always very sceptical when statistics and % are used to push a government agencies agenda.
Again not taking away from the fact that lower numbers are good.
The elephant in the room of course is that the suicide figure is 3 times road death yet you don't hear anything like the amount of advertising or government rhetoric about that. Also drownings are about 130 a year and again very little mentioned about it.

NIMAN

Great news but of course Irish media and their love of misery won't mention this.

SeanW

Oh they mentioned it alright ... but only in the context of the continuing need for more laws, more regulations and more enforcement.

Make of that what you will.

kirving

The engineers consistently designing safer roads and far safer cars are consistently forgotten about when it comes to commendation time on reduced fatalities.

PCP financing which has become much more mainstream in the past few years has also allowed people to afford newer safer cars where previously they couldn't have done so.

bigar

I have a hard time calling this "Good News". Still 158 deaths and 15 of them were cyclists (near to 10%). Time to prioritise bicycle safety with suitable infrastructure.

Although the infrastructure will go a long way to increase safety for weaker road users, a change in mentality for both motorised traffic and cyclists themselves is also needed.

Middle Man

bigar wrote: »

I have a hard time calling this "Good News". Still 158 deaths and 15 of them were cyclists (near to 10%). Time to prioritise bicycle safety with suitable infrastructure.

Although the infrastructure will go a long way to increase safety for weaker road users, a change in mentality for both motorised traffic and cyclists themselves is also needed.

Most of these cycle accidents happened AFAIK on narrow rural roads - what do you want us to do??? Rip out every country road and sterilise them of any character so that cycling can be accommodated? Are you saying that bikes are so unfit for purpose that all the roads need to be modified???

hans aus dtschl

Middle Man wrote: »

Are you saying that bikes are so unfit for purpose that all the roads need to be modified???

You do know that roads were first paved for bicycles and horses rather than cars, right?

SeanW

Umm ... Using the roads in Ireland is one of the safest things you can do worldwide - in 2012-2013 Ireland had the 14th lowest deaths-per-capita from road use among all countries on Earth. 14th lowest. Worldwide. And that was when deaths-per-year were significantly higher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

P_1

bigar wrote: »

I have a hard time calling this "Good News". Still 158 deaths and 15 of them were cyclists (near to 10%). Time to prioritise bicycle safety with suitable infrastructure.

Although the infrastructure will go a long way to increase safety for weaker road users, a change in mentality for both motorised traffic and cyclists themselves is also needed.

The vast majority of cyclist deaths were on rural roads during the daytime and indeed almost half were on a Sunday. If infrastructure was an issue then you would see more in urban areas during the week.

Middle Man wrote: »

Most of these cycle accidents happened AFAIK on narrow rural roads - what do you want us to do??? Rip out every country road and sterilise them of any character so that cycling can be accommodated? Are you saying that bikes are so unfit for purpose that all the roads need to be modified???

A change in driver mentality on rural twisty roads is the solution.

nordydan

SeanW wrote: »

Umm ... Using the roads in Ireland is one of the safest things you can do worldwide - in 2012-2013 Ireland had the 14th lowest deaths-per-capita from road use among all countries on Earth. 14th lowest. Worldwide. And that was when deaths-per-year were significantly higher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Saudi is very high on that list on 2013. Must be all the women drivers...:eek:

sdanseo

Really great to see that the roads are getting safer and probably helped by a much increased Garda presence over the last couple of years. Really to be welcomed (although of course 150 odd deaths is still 150 too many).

Next step should be to ban all Facebook / other social media groups which share checkpoint locations (except the GoSafe locations, for reasons below).

Meanwhile, despite our apparently earth-shattering safety record, Ross wants to punish speeders with up to 12 points.

http://www.thejournal.ie/shane-ross-speeding-driving-3777515-Jan2018 wrote:

I think the system is too lenient. The two main killers on the roads are alcohol and speeding and we are tackling the alcohol issue with new road traffic bill. We’re hoping to reduce deaths even further as a result of that legislation. The other issue is that speed has not been properly addressed and it’s a massive killer on the roads. I’d like to see a similar system to the breathalyser where people get a larger punishment for being further up the scale.

Just to pull his comments apart, speed alone does not cause accidents. Penalising people in a graduated way is ideal, but setting the base line at 3 points and working up from there will see people lose licenses for going as little as 5km/h over the limit twice. In a country with shambolically inconsistent speed limits, that is lunacy.

As for drink driving, his new bill won't increase detection of drink driving at all, and will only serve to penalise those barely over the limit. My tolerance for drink drivers is zero, so I've no sympathy there, but to suggest this is some golden ticket to less road deaths is, also, mad.

The man is on drugs. It's the only logical conclusion. :rolleyes:

Middle Man

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

You do know that roads were first paved for bicycles and horses rather than cars, right?

What year is this???

Middle Man

P_1 wrote: »

A change in driver mentality on rural twisty roads is the solution.

As a driver, I'd say absolutely - many motorists travel far too fast on small roads. However, cyclists also need to cop on when cycling on narrow or twisty roads!

P_1

Middle Man wrote: »

As a driver, I'd say absolutely - many motorists travel far too fast on small roads. However, cyclists also need to cop on when cycling on narrow or twisty roads!

What do you mean by cop on out of interest?

Middle Man

P_1 wrote: »

What do you mean by cop on out of interest?

Stop cycling two abreast - stop cycling in the middle of the road. On narrow and twisty roads, this kind of behaviour makes overtaking for motorists far more difficult than it needs to be - it only gets people's backs up against cycling.

P_1

Middle Man wrote: »

Stop cycling two abreast - stop cycling in the middle of the road. On narrow and twisty roads, this kind of behaviour makes overtaking for motorists far more difficult than it needs to be - it only gets people's backs up against cycling.

Sorry but that's just a case in point of the driver mentality that needs to change. When cyclists are cycling 2 abreast the time it takes to complete the overtake maneuver (i.e. the dangerous part when you're on the wrong side of the road) is lessened. Plus I doubt many cyclists are in the middle of the road as opposed to not cycling in the ditch.

Middle Man

P_1 wrote: »

Sorry but that's just a case in point of the driver mentality that needs to change. When cyclists are cycling 2 abreast the time it takes to complete the overtake maneuver (i.e. the dangerous part when you're on the wrong side of the road) is lessened. Plus I doubt many cyclists are in the middle of the road as opposed to not cycling in the ditch.

Well as cyclists take over, what's just going to happen here is... "We need new roads - what we have is unfit for purpose!". In fact, in the Netherlands (king of cycling), wide local bypasses are now being built and there goes more land that we have to grow our food on. Without cyclists, so many rural roads though old would require very little widening as time goes on. Yes, the main roads (between major towns and cities) need to be large but not every little country road. As a motorist, pedestrians are for the most part quite manageable, but cyclists are a different story. Perhaps, we may have to declare many rural roads cycle free so as to preserve their character.

P_1

Middle Man wrote: »

Well as cyclists take over, what's just going to happen here is... "We need new roads - what we have is unfit for purpose!". In fact, in the Netherlands (king of cycling), wide local bypasses are now being built and there goes more land that we have to grow our food on. Without cyclists, so many rural roads though old would require very little widening as time goes on. Yes, the main roads (between major towns and cities) need to be large but not every little country road. As a motorist, pedestrians are for the most part quite manageable, but cyclists are a different story. Perhaps, we may have to declare many rural roads cycle free so as to preserve their character.

That's quite the leap there. I don't think any cyclist is going to to have old rural roads widened or have them lose their character in any way, that's the fun of small rural roads. Instead drivers should have a bit of cop on.

Middle Man

(not my photo)

This is a main town road in the Netherlands - about twice the width of most of our main roads in towns nationwide when the cycles tracks are included. This is what being cycle friendly actually means - stop listening to the gombeens who tell you that Ireland can be so easily a cycle friendly nation. You may as well have a dual carriageway looking at that road!

P_1

^Absolutely nothing wrong with that and indeed something to aspire towards in areas of high population density.

Middle Man

P_1 wrote: »

^Absolutely nothing wrong with that and indeed something to aspire towards in areas of high population density.

That's fine as long as people know what's involved - in the above example, there's clearly a place for cars and a place for bikes - however, much more space is required for such infrastructure. BTW, those footpaths look far better than the crap we often get to walk on.

prunudo

Middle Man wrote: »

Stop cycling two abreast - stop cycling in the middle of the road. On narrow and twisty roads, this kind of behaviour makes overtaking for motorists far more difficult than it needs to be - it only gets people's backs up against cycling.

It's not just overtaking, on narrow roads I've often met cyclist 2 a breast going the opposite direction. The roads so narrow it's impossible to leave anywhere near 1.5m between you and the cyclists. But it's okay, they know best.

Sam Russell

Middle Man wrote: »

(not my photo)

This is a main town road in the Netherlands - about twice the width of most of our main roads in towns nationwide when the cycles tracks are included. This is what being cycle friendly actually means - stop listening to the gombeens who tell you that Ireland can be so easily a cycle friendly nation. You may as well have a dual carriageway looking at that road!

That is a dual carriage way!.

I would think that that road is in a town and is probably a very safe road for pedestrians, cyclists, bus passengers, and motorists alike. Excellent surface, visibility and access for all. It probably has a speed limit of 50 km/h or less. What is not to like?

hans aus dtschl

jvan wrote: »

It's not just overtaking, on narrow roads I've often met cyclist 2 a breast going the opposite direction. The roads so narrow it's impossible to leave anywhere near 1.5m between you and the cyclists. But it's okay, they know best.

I understand why this is annoying/stressful (I'm a driver also) but cyclists are actually advised to cycle two abreast for their own safety - it's not necessarily a "we know best" thing.
The concept is that some drivers try to "share" the lane with the cyclist due to oncoming traffic, even though that space isn't available. Many cyclist deaths result from this "shared" lane.
So instead, by cycling two abreast, the motorist is forced to treat the cyclist as a normal-width road user and has to overtake across the centre/median line, forcing them to overtake safely.

I will understand if you don't agree with the concept, but just pointing out that fear rather than belligerence often makes people cycle two abreast.

prunudo

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I understand why this is annoying/stressful (I'm a driver also) but cyclists are actually advised to cycle two abreast for their own safety - it's not necessarily a "we know best" thing.
The concept is that some drivers try to "share" the lane with the cyclist due to oncoming traffic, even though that space isn't available. Many cyclist deaths result from this "shared" lane.
So instead, by cycling two abreast, the motorist is forced to treat the cyclist as a normal-width road user and has to overtake across the centre/median line, forcing them to overtake safely.

I will understand if you don't agree with the concept, but just pointing out that fear rather than belligerence often makes people cycle two abreast.

I totally understand the concept and the reasoning behind it. I just don't think it is safe or wise to use it on narrow roads where you can barely squeeze by going the opposite direction.

I've yet to see a group pull in to let a line of traffic by.

hans aus dtschl

jvan wrote: »

I totally understand the concept and the reasoning behind it. I just don't think it is safe or wise to use it on narrow roads where you can barely squeeze by going the opposite direction.

I agree, if there's traffic behind for more than a few seconds or if the road is so narrow that two cars barely fit it's not sensible to be two abreast. Tbf, roads that narrow are often not lined and it should be self-explanatory there.

There are a lot of great motorists, but the odd few unfortunately try to "share the lane" inappropriately, for instance not crossing the centre-line while doing 80kmh, or not indicating while overtaking. I like to imagine many of these are spatially challenged. I also like to think that education could help them.

In terms of groups of cyclists, I understand the frustration. I suspect that if a group goes single-file it'll often become so long as to be dangerous to overtake. The solution there is possibly to have smaller groups on the road.
So education would be helpful for clubs/groups also.

Middle Man

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is a dual carriage way!.

I would think that that road is in a town and is probably a very safe road for pedestrians, cyclists, bus passengers, and motorists alike. Excellent surface, visibility and access for all. It probably has a speed limit of 50 km/h or less. What is not to like?

It's all very fine in theory, but this is Ireland! With all the NIMBYism, can't you imagine trying to rebuild all the main town roads to that spec across the country? Can't you imagine all the demolition work that would be required - then people would find plenty to dislike? Mind you as I always said, we need to get over all this property obsession and allow the country to move forward with all of the required infrastructure upgrades.

Middle Man

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I understand why this is annoying/stressful (I'm a driver also) but cyclists are actually advised to cycle two abreast for their own safety - it's not necessarily a "we know best" thing.
The concept is that some drivers try to "share" the lane with the cyclist due to oncoming traffic, even though that space isn't available. Many cyclist deaths result from this "shared" lane.
So instead, by cycling two abreast, the motorist is forced to treat the cyclist as a normal-width road user and has to overtake across the centre/median line, forcing them to overtake safely.

I will understand if you don't agree with the concept, but just pointing out that fear rather than belligerence often makes people cycle two abreast.

I have been overtaken dangerously on narrow roads for daring to drive at a reasonable safe speed (while making good progress), so what makes you think that cycling two abreast will deter such idiots behind the wheel. What we need is a independent traffic corps department with stiff penalties for dangerous driving.

hans aus dtschl

Middle Man wrote: »

I have been overtaken dangerously on narrow roads for daring to travel at a reasonable safe speed (while making good progress), so what makes you think that cycling two abreast will deter such idiots behind the wheel. What we need is a independent traffic corps department with stiff penalties for dangerous driving.

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer: the two-abreast is an attempt to persuade the overtaking motorist to cross the median line rather than squeeze by within the lane. It's an attempt to discourage the close-pass.

Groups also use it as a method of trying to "bunch-up", to make it easier for motorists to pass (rather than a big long single-file line) and it's also easier for them to share the workload.

frozenfrozen

Middle Man wrote: »

I have been overtaken dangerously on narrow roads for daring to drive at a reasonable safe speed (while making good progress), so what makes you think that cycling two abreast will deter such idiots behind the wheel. What we need is a independent traffic corps department with stiff penalties for dangerous driving.

exactly.

I've seen some stupidity by cyclist and walkers and generally all motorists of any type of vehicle known to man

but there is never a reason to overtake dangerously.

certain defensive techniques can be considered by cyclists like maybe smaller groups and moving in to facilitate overtakes where safe etc. but at the end of the day if there were no dangerous overtakes the problem would be resolved

serfboard

D Trent wrote: »

Big congratulations to Road Safety Authority and An Garda Siochana along with all safe road users out there for making 2017 the safest year on Irish roads since records began.

I'd actually give my biggest congratulations to TII, since I read somewhere that the number one thing any country can do to improve road safety is to build better roads.

Sam Russell

serfboard wrote: »

I'd actually give my biggest congratulations to TII, since I read somewhere that the number one thing any country can do to improve road safety is to build better roads.

... and then enforce the traffic laws.

If you consider that you are certain to get caught, then most tend to not offend.

road_high

serfboard wrote: »

I'd actually give my biggest congratulations to TII, since I read somewhere that the number one thing any country can do to improve road safety is to build better roads.

True. When the old interurbans were all replaced up to 2010, there was a dramatic fall in road death figures. Old N1, N4/6, N7, N8, N9 plus part of a few others all had notoriously bad sections that had massive accident rates.

frozenfrozen

is there any map available with pins dropped at locations of accidents?

marno21

frozenfrozen wrote: »

is there any map available with pins dropped at locations of accidents?

2014 and previously only.

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

marno21

road_high wrote: »

True. When the old interurbans were all replaced up to 2010, there was a dramatic fall in road death figures. Old N1, N4/6, N7, N8, N9 plus part of a few others all had notoriously bad sections that had massive accident rates.

Even since the road building came to an end there has been substantial work on bad bends and seriously deficient stretches of road.

The N17 between Milltown and Ballindine is one stretch in particular, along with the N11 Ballinameesda bends.

When Slane is bypassed, the N4 Collooney-Castlebaldwin upgraded, the N22 Ballyvourney-Macroom done and others, you will see further drops in deaths.

Shane Ross or his successor will continue to blame people speeding and people after drinking 1 pint but the facts don't lie.

The main contributors to the reduction in road deaths have been the NCT, improved safety in cars, the clamp down on drink driving, and one which keeps getting forgotten, the vast upgrades in the road network in recent years, particularly busy long distance journey routes such as the M1, M3, N4/M4, N5, N6/M6, N7/M7, N8/M8, N9/M9, M11/N11, N17/M17, N18/M18. These roads in the past were incredibly busy especially with HGVs and the risks of head on collisions was huge. The days of head on collisions, bar the odd one caused by people driving against the flow of traffic, is gone.

BrianD3

Road deaths have dropped considerably in most of Europe since 2001.
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/pdf/observatory/trends_figures.pdf

We've had one of the bigger reductions but even already "safe" countries that didn't have our motorway building programme, our improvements in driver training, our belated introduction of roadworthiness testing etc. have seen road deaths at about 45-50% of what they were in 2001.

For us the figure is 40%, for Spain it is 30%. Obviously population should be factored in also.

Germany
2001: 6977 deaths
2015: 3459

UK
2001: 3598
2015: 1806

Sweden
2001: 583
2015: 259

Improved car safety is something that every country has experienced as new cars replaced older ones. This has to be a major factor.

plodder

serfboard wrote: »

I'd actually give my biggest congratulations to TII, since I read somewhere that the number one thing any country can do to improve road safety is to build better roads.

In order of priority, imo:
1. The motorway network
2. Safer cars
3. Improved secondary roads
4. Redesigned junctions
5. Better more consistent road line painting
6. Gosafe vans
7. garda drink driving enforcement

I wouldn't put garda enforcement of traffic law (other than drink driving, tax & nct) on the list at all, because I don't believe they do any.

bigar

Middle Man wrote: »

In fact, in the Netherlands (king of cycling), wide local bypasses are now being built and there goes more land that we have to grow our food on. .

The Netherlands is half the size of Ireland but with a population 4 times larger yet they find space for bicycle highways, bypasses and segregated bicycle lanes. I do not see them suffering from famine because of that.

Sam Russell

plodder wrote: »

In order of priority, imo:
1. The motorway network
2. Safer cars
3. Improved secondary roads
4. Redesigned junctions
5. Better more consistent road line painting
6. Gosafe vans
7. garda drink driving enforcement

I wouldn't put garda enforcement of traffic law (other than drink driving, tax & nct) on the list at all, because I don't believe they do any.

I would think removing the uninsured cars (and hopefully the drivers of these) would have contributed.

The higher requirements for the driving test is not going to be a game changer until those that never took a test are off the road, and those convicted of certain offences made to retake it - including the need to take mandatory lessons. (I am talking about those who are banned from driving).

My 10yr licence expired a while back so I went to get a new one. Checked out the website and the requirements. I misunderstood the medical requirement so of I went to the local GP who performed a top to tail check of reflexes, eyesight, hearing, bp etc etc etc.

Turned up to the NLS centre for my appointment and the lad behind the counter was baffled as to why I brought the medical report, said unless it was indicated or requested, it was not a requirement.

Now, 10 years prior, when I got my original provisional, I had to bring an eye test. It was over a month old so they wouldn't accept it, had to go get another.

My point is, would it not seem like a logical requirement to have a medical performed prior to getting a licence or a new licence.

I was honestly gobsmacked that they were happy with the original eye test from 10 years prior all because it had been submitted within 30 days of being performed.

prunudo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My 10yr licence expired a while back so I went to get a new one. Checked out the website and the requirements. I misunderstood the medical requirement so of I went to the local GP who performed a top to tail check of reflexes, eyesight, hearing, bp etc etc etc.

Turned up to the NLS centre for my appointment and the lad behind the counter was baffled as to why I brought the medical report, said unless it was indicated or requested, it was not a requirement.

Now, 10 years prior, when I got my original provisional, I had to bring an eye test. It was over a month old so they wouldn't accept it, had to go get another.

My point is, would it not seem like a logical requirement to have a medical performed prior to getting a licence or a new licence.

I was honestly gobsmacked that they were happy with the original eye test from 10 years prior all because it had been submitted within 30 days of being performed.

Whatever about the medical, the fact that you could go 50 years without a need for a eye sight report is baffling. Must be thousands of drivers out there who can't see as well they need too.

Cookiemunster

Sam Russell wrote: »

The higher requirements for the driving test is not going to be a game changer until those that never took a test are off the road.

I've a relative who recently passed their test. They've never driven faster than 80kph, never driven on road with a 100kph speed limit and haven't a clue how to drive on a dual carriageway/motorway. They do however know how to reverse around a corner and how to do a three point turn.

All the higher requirements have done is make learners take 12 lessons and not drive unaccompanied (and that's generally ignored). While you can pass a test without having to be experienced in driving at speed, the roads will be no safer.

Sam Russell

The requirement to present yourself for a new or renewal of the DL is a good thing, but it opens up the possibility of doing a bit better.

Check ID and address paperwork.

Eyesight test: 'Please read from the chart behind me.' You read the eyesight test behind the desk - so simple. If you fail, you must get a professional eye test before DL issued.

Rules of the road: 'Please answer these 10 questions from the RoTR test' which are on an A4 sheet printed from the current test randomly selected just for you. If you do not get 9 out of ten you must take the full test before DL issued.

Photo taken, ('look at the camera!' ) and signature checked against form. Check to see if any driving ban exists, or any outstanding bench warrants. All clear - so OK.

Pay the fee, and all done. DL delivered in 10 days.

Job done.

Eyesight deteriorates between 40 years old and 60 years of age, and then declines after that. If it was bad to start with, it gets worse quicker.

Sam Russell

Cookiemunster wrote: »

I've a relative who recently passed their test. They've never driven faster than 80kph, never driven on road with a 100kph speed limit and haven't a clue how to drive on a dual carriageway/motorway. They do however know how to reverse around a corner and how to do a three point turn.

All the higher requirements have done is make learners take 12 lessons and not drive unaccompanied (and that's generally ignored). While you can pass a test without having to be experienced in driving at speed, the roads will be no safer.

While that is all true.

The test makes sure that the learner can manipulate the car at slow speed, in forward and reverse gears. They are tested that they can maintain 50 km/h in traffic and obey the rules of the road in general traffic. All of this is essential for safe driving.

Once passed, the test is only the beginning of the skill leaning. Experience will teach the rest. Anyone can take a car out and drive at 100 km/h on a motorway - no steering, no gear changes, and little overtaking or traffic to worry about - just keep up and stay in the lane. However, reversing around the corner is tricky even for experienced drivers, as is a three point turn (without hitting the kerbs).

Most education only takes you to the start - would you trust a doctor newly qualified to do a complicated bit of surgery on you?

There are too many drivers that have poor eyesight, faulty knowledge of the ROTR, do not understand roundabouts or dual carriageways, and drive poorly maintained cars.

Cookiemunster

Sam Russell wrote: »

While that is all true.

The test makes sure that the learner can manipulate the car at slow speed, in forward and reverse gears. They are tested that they can maintain 50 km/h in traffic and obey the rules of the road in general traffic. All of this is essential for safe driving.

Once passed, the test is only the beginning of the skill leaning. Experience will teach the rest. Anyone can take a car out and drive at 100 km/h on a motorway - no steering, no gear changes, and little overtaking or traffic to worry about - just keep up and stay in the lane. However, reversing around the corner is tricky even for experienced drivers, as is a three point turn (without hitting the kerbs).

Most education only takes you to the start - would you trust a doctor newly qualified to do a complicated bit of surgery on you?

There are too many drivers that have poor eyesight, faulty knowledge of the ROTR, do not understand roundabouts or dual carriageways, and drive poorly maintained cars.

And the vast majority of these drivers also passed a driving test. I did mine 20 years ago and I was tested on the rules of the road before I was allowed to do the test. I see plenty of people who can't use a roundabout who are way to young to have gotten one in the amnesty in the 70s.
And the reason many people don't understand dual carriageways is that they were never taught how to drive on them, which current learner drivers aren't taught either.

plodder

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would think removing the uninsured cars (and hopefully the drivers of these) would have contributed.

The higher requirements for the driving test is not going to be a game changer until those that never took a test are off the road, and those convicted of certain offences made to retake it - including the need to take mandatory lessons. (I am talking about those who are banned from driving).

What makes you think they are being removed from the road? My daughter had a brush with a car recently. The gardai who it has to be said did investigate it, found it had invalid plates and couldn't be traced. I witnessed a clunker hit another car and drive off as well. I checked the plates online myself, and it was registered to a different vehicle, and presumably untraceable.

Considering the increasing cost of insurance for young drivers, and the increase in claims against the uninsured drivers fund, I suspect the problem is getting worse rather than better.

17% JUMP IN UNINSURED DRIVER CLAIMS - MIBI