How are more people not killed on our Roads

AllForIt

Last week I saw 3 lads in an Audi doing a handbrake turn at 11pm in the center of the town...on a roundabout near Tesco. This week 2 lads of 3 died in an Audi that inexplicably went off the road in Ballina, a nearby town.

Gimme A Pound

Thread title is bizarre. Obviously zero deaths would be the ideal but why concern as to why there aren't more deaths? Obviously people are being safer.

John_Rambo

imme wrote: »

There are enough measures in place to deal with speeding of vehicular traffic imo.

But not enough for careless and reckless driving.

In 2017 there were 157 tragic fatalities.

There were 66 car Drivers killed in their cars.

There were 26 car Passengers killed in cars.

There were 30 Pedestrians killed by cars

imme wrote: »

Cycling without lights and wearing dark clothing and no luminous clothing is asking for trouble, a death wish, apart from being illegal.

Agreed, but in 2017 there were 15 Cyclists killed by mostly by cars. Of the 15 cyclist killed by cars 13 were in broad daylight.

In my experience as a motorist 95% of motorist/cyclist negative interaction is due to the impatience and fault of the motorist (usually frustrated lone car drivers)

Edit; ("luminous" clothing is as illegal as "luminous" car paint)

AndrewJRenko

imme wrote: »

4 out of 5, is that in urban areas or rural areas, 1 km over the limit or 29 over the limit.
Is there a source for that.

There are enough measures in place to deal with speeding of vehicular traffic imo.

Cycling without lights and wearing dark clothing and no luminous clothing is asking for trouble, a death wish, apart from being illegal.

Sure, the source is in the RSA Speed Surveys, showing 60%-80% of motorists breaking speed limits, depending on which year you choose.


Speed is a significant cause is around 30% of road deaths iirc, so that would be about 50 deaths each year. All but one of the cyclist deaths on the road last year was in daylight.



So your 'asking for trouble, death wish' statement really isn't supported by the evidence. The 'asking for trouble' are the large numbers of motorists who speed, despite what you think are 'enough measures'.


Isn't it amazing how creative people can be when it comes to making excuses for motorists?

dr.fuzzenstein

Well, when I cycle I make sure I have lights and helmet and my bike has a load of reflectors.
When I drive I make sure the car is up to scratch and that all the lights work.
I don't think "but what about cars breaking the rules" when I cycle and I don't think "but what about bikes breaking the rules" when I drive.
I just follow the rules and look out for others.
I find that whataboutery makes for extremely poor road safety. I make sure that everything is ok on my side and I don't use other people as a poor excuse for my own sh*tty behaviour.
Anyone who can't do that shouldn't be on the fcuking road.

Sittingpretty

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, when I cycle I make sure I have lights and helmet and my bike has a load of reflectors.
When I drive I make sure the car is up to scratch and that all the lights work.
I don't think "but what about cars breaking the rules" when I cycle and I don't think "but what about bikes breaking the rules" when I drive.
I just follow the rules and look out for others.
I find that whataboutery makes for extremely poor road safety. I make sure that everything is ok on my side and I don't use other people as a poor excuse for my own sh*tty behaviour.
Anyone who can't do that shouldn't be on the fcuking road.

This. 100%.

Being responsible as a cyclist and as a motorist are not mutually exclusive.

AndrewJRenko

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, when I cycle I make sure I have lights and helmet and my bike has a load of reflectors.
When I drive I make sure the car is up to scratch and that all the lights work.
I don't think "but what about cars breaking the rules" when I cycle and I don't think "but what about bikes breaking the rules" when I drive.
I just follow the rules and look out for others.
I find that whataboutery makes for extremely poor road safety. I make sure that everything is ok on my side and I don't use other people as a poor excuse for my own sh*tty behaviour.
Anyone who can't do that shouldn't be on the fcuking road.

So you never break the speed limit at all while driving then?

dr.fuzzenstein

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So you never break the speed limit at all while driving then?

Of course I do, the whole time whilst shouting "bloody cyclists made me do it".
What about that whataboutery about the other guys what are about that other about the what about.

AndrewJRenko

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Of course I do, the whole time whilst shouting "bloody cyclists made me do it".
What about that whataboutery about the other guys what are about that other about the what about.

I'm confused now. When you say 'I make sure everything is OK on my side', does that include sticking to the law or not?

dr.fuzzenstein

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm confused now. When you say 'I make sure everything is OK on my side', does that include sticking to the law or not?

Ok, maybe my making a joke (a humorous statement meant in jest) and the complex concept of "following the rules" was too much for you to take in. I will use simple language and easy to understand points.
Yes of course, I stick to the limits, obey lights and act according to the rules of traffic.
But my main point:

Me obeying the rules has nothing to do with other people obeying or not obeying the rules. They do their stuff, I do mine.
Maybe that's what's confusing you.

twinytwo

I have the misfortune of having to do a lot of driving. What i can say is that (from my own experience) the quality of driving in this country gets worse every year.

I am not sure how people pass their driving tests..

- Speeding, tailgating and what i can only describe truly frightening overtaking(the amount of people that have nearly been sent to next life because of this is astounding)

- People do not understand hand signals, unable to corner correctly, unable to negotiate a roundabout correctly, dont understand the purpose/function of a yellow box, inability to park correctly.

- increasing mobile phone usage

- and this growing nonsense of stopping at lights and leaving enough space to the car in front to park a bus.

work

I believe that us Irish only respect law enforcement and as there is almost none the laws have become mere guidelines.
I cycle or drive to work along the Stillorgan dual carriageway and many road users are idiots.
When cycling I would say 60% break red lights which is a shame and annoying for other users and sometimes dangerous.
When driving I use cruise control set to the speed limit and 95% of cars overtake me so I look like I am snailing it. The simple reality is speed kills and 95% of drivers prefer to increase the risk of death than obey the law.
SOLUTION: Enforce the bloody law the Irish are currently encapale of obeying it. After a few years enforcement we may start to cop on.
Bring in traffic enforcement police and MASSIVE fines. Let the rule breakers pay a hefty financial price for their stupidity and they may start to cop on. Apply this to all road users.

SimonTemplar

For mobile phone usage, if caught the phone should be confiscated and a hefty fine paid for its return. Perhaps on a sliding scale so it increases each time.

My brother was rear ended twice in the past 6 months when stopped at light because the driver in the car behind him was looking at their phone. One of them tried to deny it and blame it on brake failure until my brother pointed out he had a rear dash cam.

erica74

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Of course I do, the whole time whilst shouting "bloody cyclists made me do it".
What about that whataboutery about the other guys what are about that other about the what about.

:pac:

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, when I cycle I make sure I have lights and helmet and my bike has a load of reflectors.
When I drive I make sure the car is up to scratch and that all the lights work.
I don't think "but what about cars breaking the rules" when I cycle and I don't think "but what about bikes breaking the rules" when I drive.
I just follow the rules and look out for others.
I find that whataboutery makes for extremely poor road safety. I make sure that everything is ok on my side and I don't use other people as a poor excuse for my own sh*tty behaviour.
Anyone who can't do that shouldn't be on the fcuking road.

This post is perfectly reasonable. How anyone has found something in it to argue about absolutely baffles me.

MadDog76

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, you got me there - it is literally in the thread title.


And if you go back to my statement, I literally said that the point of the thread is "deaths on the road" - so I got it right, right?


When I asked the slightly rhetorical question about reducing deaths on the road, I just assumed that most people would be keen on reducing deaths on the road. Are you keen on reducing deaths on the road? If so, you're looking in the wrong place if you're chasing cyclists. And no, I don't mean that literally.

Again you're seeing things the way you want to see them ....... I haven't "chased" Cyclists on this thread ........ I stated that Cyclists are the only road users that can't accept any criticism which, based on you/your posts alone, is entirely accurate.

You are the most dangerous road user of all, ie. more interested in spewing out your rhetoric in blind defence of Cyclists as opposed to taking the blinkers off and being open to an honest discussion.

Wibbs

work wrote: »

The simple reality is speed kills

It's not such a "simple reality", more a simplistic and simple to remember ad campaign. The average family runabout car of today is more powerful and can drive at higher speeds than most two seater "sports cars" of the 60's and 70's. Average roads speeds have gone up, there are far more cars on the road, yet deaths and injuries have gone down and the safest roads in Ireland are motorways and dual carriageways, roads with the highest average speeds.

Just going on my own observations after a few decades of driving yes speed can certainly be a factor. People thinking they're Fangio on country roads an example. But mostly I'd say inattention is the bigger factor. That and some people just aren't cut out for driving at anything above 30Kph. And even then. I've known a few. People who were just naturally uncoordinated and this translated into their driving. Others are very nervous drivers on top of that. I knew one guy who passed his test first time out(lord knows how) and every panel on his car save the roof had dents in it from him bumping into things. Another is a woman who is an extremely nervous driver. Dabs the brakes in the middle of roundabouts and gets in a panic looking for her exit. People like them should not be on the road IMHO, or restricted to low speed urban driving, but I dunno how you would filter such people out. The driving test doesn't seem to.

Wibbs

MadDog76 wrote: »

I stated that Cyclists are the only road users that can't accept any criticism which, based on you/your posts alone, is entirely accurate.

Some cyclists can be a total pain in the ring alright. Though I can see why some might be defensive. They're the most vulnerable road user by a fair distance(pedestrians OK, but they're only sharing the road occasionally, crossing one etc). Having seen drivers turn corners into the path of cyclists - and this is a regular thing to see - I can see their point.

facehugger99

Are the Guards allowed to use mobile phones while driving?

I passed a squad car the other day driven by what used to be called a Ban Garda.

She was having a great old yap away on the mobile phone. Big smily head on her too so it didn't seem like an emergency call or anything.

It's no wonder most people don't take these laws seriously when those who are trusted to enforce them show such flagrant disregard.

dr.fuzzenstein

Wibbs wrote: »

Some cyclists can be a total pain in the ring alright. Though I can see why some might be defensive. They're the most vulnerable road user by a fair distance(pedestrians OK, but they're only sharing the road occasionally, crossing one etc). Having seen drivers turn corners into the path of cyclists - and this is a regular thing to see - I can see their point.

I would tend to agree. I'm very aware how vulnerable I am on my bike and that's why I watch out and make sure I'm visible. And any cyclist that has an interest in arriving in one piece should so the same. I don't want to argue about high viz now, but I think helmet, lights and reflectors on a bike are a must. I just think I want to take any chance I can get.
But other cyclists seem to think that "vulnerable road user" absolves them of any and all responsibility, they can do whatever the hell they want because everyone has to look out for them.

Igotadose

Wibbs wrote: »

The average family runabout car of today is more powerful and can drive at higher speeds than most two seater "sports cars" of the 60's and 70's. Average roads speeds have gone up, there are far more cars on the road, yet deaths and injuries have gone down and the safest roads in Ireland are motorways and dual carriageways, roads with the highest average speeds.

Really? Were you driving Deux Chevaux in Ireland in the '60's and '70s? An MG midget from that era would totally smoke some of the modern punymobiles with their smaller than 1 liter engines. Plus they could accelerate- high octane leaded petrol was good stuff. FFS in Ireland a 1.8liter engine is considered large!

Not sure about the road speeds back then, didn't live here then, but were there limits? The rest of the world didn't get into today's lower speed limits until the '70's/80's. I think you have slower, safer cars (air bags, safety belts, better signals, side-view mirrors), better tires and the roads are better.

Ireland's pretty safe but could always be safer. Just like the rest of the world.

Edgware

If we got all pedestrians to wear Ryan Tubridy masks we could go all out to increase our kill ratio

Conall Cernach

I get the bus to and from work and on Fridays it is a "student" bus. I am amazed every time I see them get off and cross in front of the bus on dark country roads. Do they not do road safety in school these days?

Mutant z

A lot more awareness by drivers i guess it shows all those drink driving ads aren't a complete waste of time upgrading of major roads has also largely helped solve the problem.

gctest50

Conall Cernach wrote: »

I get the bus to and from work and on Fridays it is a "student" bus. I am amazed every time I see them get off and cross in front of the bus on dark country roads. Do they not do road safety in school these days?

It should be illegal here to pass/overtake school buses when they are pulled in to drop off kids



"Saving 30 seconds is not worth risking a childs life"

Wibbs

Igotadose wrote: »

Really? Were you driving Deux Chevaux in Ireland in the '60's and '70s? An MG midget from that era would totally smoke some of the modern punymobiles with their smaller than 1 liter engines. Plus they could accelerate- high octane leaded petrol was good stuff. FFS in Ireland a 1.8liter engine is considered large!

I'll have whatever you're smoking Ted. It must be bloody fantastic stuff, if you think an MG Midget would "totally smoke" your average urban shopping trolley car of today. You do realise that the original midget had a sub one litre engine giving out all of 50 bhp? Hold me back folks.. And took about 20 seconds to do the 0-60 mph run and topped out at barely 80 Mph. The "fastest" version of the Midget got a 1.5 IIRC and it dropped the 0-60 time to *gasp* 13 seconds. Fierce heady stuff altogether. Cute little car I grant you but a mobile phone has more power. Oh and the slowest Toyata Yaris model of today? 10 seconds to 60. And some models do it closer to 8 seconds and all can go over 100. So what were you saying about acceleration and high octane petrol?

So no, my point stands, modern cars while being safer and far more fully featured are also faster and safer at speed than the vast majority of cars from the 60's and 70's. Sure, actual race cars with reg plates like Jag D-Types are still rocket ship fast today*, but they were like an alien spacecraft to the general public. Take a car even non petrolheads would likely recognise, Ferris Bueller's car from the flic of the same name: the 61/2 Ferrari 250 GT California Spider. Ohhh yeeeeah... etc. A car that cost the equivalent of a couple of houses when new, a "proper" sports car, with a three litre V12. Power equaled around 280bhp, 0- 60 came up around 6.5 seconds in ideal circumstances and topped out at nearly 160 MPH(which would be scary). There are diesel Beemers that will do that today. And get you way more than 12 miles to the gallon while doing so. And have brakes that work. And suspension not based on a 19th century stagecoach. Though you'd be looking a long time to find a modern car nearly as pretty as one of those Californias.

Not sure about the road speeds back then, didn't live here then, but were there limits?

Yes. From the 60's on anyway. IIRC 80mph was the very highest on stretches like the Naas dual carriageway. Otherwise it was 60. I was only a kid in the 70's so...


*IIRC the D-TYpe and its civilian version only had its 0-60 time beaten when the Ferrari F40 came out in the 80's. Mad. Great time period for being generally cool too. Drive your D-Type to LeMan's or wherever, stick a number on it and race, maybe win. Have a wee indiscretion with a French dolly bird, as one surely must, have a few sniffs of champagne and back into the D and drive home. Unreal drivers too. Like Sterling Moss doing the Mille Miglia, a thousand miles on bad Italian roads, while averaging 99 miles per hour. Averaging :eek:

gctest50

Igotadose wrote: »

An MG midget from that era would totally smoke some of the modern punymobiles with their smaller than 1 liter engines.

0-60 m.p.h. - 16 sec
Quarter-mile - 20 sec

Igotadose wrote: »

Plus they could accelerate - high octane leaded petrol was good stuff.

They just sounded like they were accelerating

Igotadose wrote: »

...... high octane leaded petrol was good stuff.

Octane is a measure of knock resistance

punisher5112

facehugger99 wrote: »

Are the Guards allowed to use mobile phones while driving?

I passed a squad car the other day driven by what used to be called a Ban Garda.

She was having a great old yap away on the mobile phone. Big smily head on her too so it didn't seem like an emergency call or anything.

It's no wonder most people don't take these laws seriously when those who are trusted to enforce them show such flagrant disregard.

Gardai are exempt.

They are however bound by the same rules for dangerous driving, drink or drugs and anything serious like that.

Only time any ordinary folk can use a phone while driving is on to 112 or 999.

Wibbs

gctest50 wrote: »

Octane is a measure of knock resistance

Aye and the addition of lead to petrol is a thread all of its own. In essence it wasn't required, but putting lead in petrol made billions over the 20th century. A scandal that likely shortened many people's lives, but money talks.

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of "old" cars. Hell, my own jalopy is 20 years old(though still pretty quick by current standards). I've driven all sorts of older and classic cars and overall the vast majority aren't a patch on modern stuff as far as power and brakes and reliability and features go. They often look better(though that's in the eye of the beholder) and a few have way more "feel" than current stuff, even fancy current stuff and you feel more a part of the driving experience, if that's your thing*. For most folks it's not. They just want to get from A-B in comfort and safety and as easily and cheaply as possible.

One thing I would reckon with older cars is that speed feels more... well speedy. Like you said G they sounded like they were accelerating. 120Kph in an MG Midget would feel like bloody warp speed. With modern cars you are more isolated and I think that gives some a false sense of security and a false sense of the speed they're actually doing. And how bad things can get if something goes wrong. My old car that came minus sound proofing from the factory so you feel the speed and no mistake, it has actually made me drive more slowly. I rarely creep above 100Kph on the 120kph limit motorways. 90Kph more like(if I ever get a speeding ticket it'll be up a twisty backroad)**. Whereas having driven various BMWs and Mercs and the like, that feels like crawling. I'd lose my licence in a week in one of those.



*if you ever get offered the chance to pedal a 1960's Lotus Elan up your fave backroads, take the key as if your life depended on it. Fantastic little car and still pretty bloody "quick". Ditto for an E-type, though not nearly as point and shoot as the Lotus. The Lotus is like a go kart that injects daft grins, even at 50Kph. Others worth a shout would be any 80's/90's Ford Cosworth and a Lancia Delta Integrale, if it hasn't broken down. Again. A Mark 1 Golf GTi is the craic too. Same with a Peugeot 205Gti. A Mazda Mx-5 another. An MR2 can be the craic too. And all at low enough speeds too. The list is a long one.

** Once and not in Ireland(no really) I opened all the taps up on a motorway and passed 190Kph on the clock(it only goes to that. Japanese car) and it continued on. I reckon I was doing around 130Mph in old money. And never again. Though it was solid as a rock, I really wasn't. Even on a clear motorway things come at you extremely quickly and if I ever happen to suffer from constipation in the future, thinking of those ten minutes will clear it up pronto.

AndrewJRenko

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Ok, maybe my making a joke (a humorous statement meant in jest) and the complex concept of "following the rules" was too much for you to take in. I will use simple language and easy to understand points.
Yes of course, I stick to the limits, obey lights and act according to the rules of traffic.
But my main point:

Me obeying the rules has nothing to do with other people obeying or not obeying the rules. They do their stuff, I do mine.
Maybe that's what's confusing you.

I presume you find the vast majority of other motorists either speed past you or queue up behind you, with occasional beeping or flashing. It's really not easy to stick to the speed limit when so many others ignore it.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I would tend to agree. I'm very aware how vulnerable I am on my bike and that's why I watch out and make sure I'm visible. And any cyclist that has an interest in arriving in one piece should so the same. I don't want to argue about high viz now, but I think helmet, lights and reflectors on a bike are a must. I just think I want to take any chance I can get.
But other cyclists seem to think that "vulnerable road user" absolves them of any and all responsibility, they can do whatever the hell they want because everyone has to look out for them.

Let's not get into the helmet argument either! I fully agree with you about lights (at night) and reflectors, though I'm not quite sure that unlit cyclists in urban areas are quite the scourge that some people want to make out.

I really don't think that anyone has said that cyclists can do whatever the hell they want. Simply pointing out that motorists are involved in 99% of road deaths is a fact.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Again you're seeing things the way you want to see them ....... I haven't "chased" Cyclists on this thread ........ I stated that Cyclists are the only road users that can't accept any criticism which, based on you/your posts alone, is entirely accurate.

You are the most dangerous road user of all, ie. more interested in spewing out your rhetoric in blind defence of Cyclists as opposed to taking the blinkers off and being open to an honest discussion.

Again, I've clarified that you're welcome to criticise cyclists and I frequently criticise cyclists. Cyclists do stupid stuff every day on the roads. But yeah, let's have an honest discussion about how motorists kill 3 or 4 people on the roads each week, and maim many more.

Wibbs wrote: »

Just going on my own observations after a few decades of driving yes speed can certainly be a factor. People thinking they're Fangio on country roads an example. But mostly I'd say inattention is the bigger factor. That and some people just aren't cut out for driving at anything above 30Kph. And even then. I've known a few. People who were just naturally uncoordinated and this translated into their driving. Others are very nervous drivers on top of that. I knew one guy who passed his test first time out(lord knows how) and every panel on his car save the roof had dents in it from him bumping into things.

Here's a mad idea, let's not go on your own observations or my own observations. Let's look at the formal research, which shows the main factors in road deaths; speeding, not wearing seat belts, driver fatigue and drink driving. So let's focus on the real issues please.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Are the Guards allowed to use mobile phones while driving?

I passed a squad car the other day driven by what used to be called a Ban Garda.

She was having a great old yap away on the mobile phone. Big smily head on her too so it didn't seem like an emergency call or anything.

It's no wonder most people don't take these laws seriously when those who are trusted to enforce them show such flagrant disregard.

punisher5112 wrote: »

Gardai are exempt.

They are however bound by the same rules for dangerous driving, drink or drugs and anything serious like that.

Only time any ordinary folk can use a phone while driving is on to 112 or 999.

I think the Garda exemption is 'where necessary for the performance of their duties', so it is not a blanket exemption. If you're feeling brave, you could ask them if it is necessary, or if they think it gives good example?

Mutant z wrote: »

A lot more awareness by drivers i guess it shows all those drink driving ads aren't a complete waste of time upgrading of major roads has also largely helped solve the problem.

It's an interesting question. I do wonder if the ads really work, given how endemic speeding and mobile phone use is.

RobbieMD

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I presume you find the vast majority of other motorists either speed past you or queue up behind you, with occasional beeping or flashing. It's really not easy to stick to the speed limit when so many others ignore it.



Let's not get into the helmet argument either! I fully agree with you about lights (at night) and reflectors, though I'm not quite sure that unlit cyclists in urban areas are quite the scourge that some people want to make out.

I really don't think that anyone has said that cyclists can do whatever the hell they want. Simply pointing out that motorists are involved in 99% of road deaths is a fact.




Again, I've clarified that you're welcome to criticise cyclists and I frequently criticise cyclists. Cyclists do stupid stuff every day on the roads. But yeah, let's have an honest discussion about how motorists kill 3 or 4 people on the roads each week, and maim many more.


Here's a mad idea, let's not go on your own observations or my own observations. Let's look at the formal research, which shows the main factors in road deaths; speeding, not wearing seat belts, driver fatigue and drink driving. So let's focus on the real issues please.




I think the Garda exemption is 'where necessary for the performance of their duties', so it is not a blanket exemption. If you're feeling brave, you could ask them if it is necessary, or if they think it gives good example?


It's an interesting question. I do wonder if the ads really work, given how endemic speeding and mobile phone use is.

Slight difference in how it's phrased in law. It's not "where necessary for the performance of their duties" it's "in the performance of the duties" caveated with not endangering other road users.

The member wouldn't have to prove that use of the phone was necessary, simply that it was used in the performance of their duties.
I agree it isn't setting a good example though.