30k speed limits for all urban areas on the way

No, that doesn't properly reflect what I did at all.

I did not take "the deliberate number of fatal crashes", as that number cannot be determined. What I used instead was a postulated number stemming from an academic hypothesis which was formulated in the USA almost two decades ago.

Nor did I make "a foolish assumption" that all non-fatal crashes are non-deliberate. I've already twice pointed out how I allowed an equal number of these as I did for deliberately-caused fatal crashes.

If you still don't understand, I'm at a loss as to how I can make it any clearer for you.

Last words of many a Darwin recipient.

Right here, highlighted in yellow, so hopefully you don't miss it this time:

"Unsuccessful suicide attempts" = non-fatal deliberate collisions.

I didn't decide, as I've no reliable data. Instead, I made an allowance, to illustrate a point.

And in fact, 39 is surely vastly overstating the real number of unsuccessful vehicular suicide attempts, but I was being generous to you.

A vehicular suicide attempt is likely to involve high speed, a conscious decision not to wear a seat belt, and a deliberate head-on collision.

So 39 successful suicide attempts and 39 unsuccessful ones would mean a 50% chance of surviving a crash in those circumstances. The actual chance of surviving a such a crash is miniscule.

If you can find figures or a hypothesis regarding what proportion of all crashes are deliberately caused for reasons other than vehicular suicide attempts, then I'm happy to recalculate.

Well.....more the case that it's one of the things that may have been suggested by one or more people at a drop-in consultation event that was held in the town library today, as part of the pre-draft process. See https://consult.wexfordcoco.ie/en/consultation/new-local-area-plan-wexford-town

Work on actually drafting the Local Area Plan hasn't even started yet. And when it's drafted, the elected members will accept some portions of it, amend some sections, and reject some sections.

It's not "Wexford town looking to roll out 30k limits" in the sense that a resolution to introduce such speed limits has already been agreed. It's just one of the things that may be considered in the years ahead.

Or......"some in Wexford town area suggest that a proposal for 30km/h speed limits could be included in the upcoming draft Local Area Plan, so that it can be considered by the elected members of the Council in the years ahead".

One is a short and snappy "clickbait" headline, while the other is a more accurate summation of the true current situation.

Yes, as a resident of County Wexford and one who works in Wexford town, I look forward to seeing it too, for a whole host of reasons.

Wouldn't surprise me if the finalised draft does include a suggestion of 30km/h limits, and at that stage, it will indeed be accurate to say "Wexford town looking to roll out 30km/h limits".

Andrew, you seem to have serious trouble in keeping up with things here - even with things that you introduce yourself.

I did not decide that 50% of fatal crashes were suicides. You presented a figure that suggested 30% of single-vehicle collisions which occur under a very particular set of circumstances are suicides. You misdirected from the overall conclusion of that hypothesis that "Only 1.7% of the total fatal crashes were considered to have been suicides, and 1% of the nonfatal crashes were deemed suicide attempts", and also that the study focused on only 278 crashes in the USA over a six-year period - an almost infinitesimally small figure from the total of more than five million crashes that occur in the USA per year (source: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/car-accident-statistics/). 278 crashes out of approximately 30 million means only about 0.0001% of all crashes were the subject of that study.

By the way, think we should let it pass how Forbes uses the term "accident".

Being exceedingly generous to you, I overlooked your misdirection and ran with this 30% figure anyway, applying it to all fatal collisions in Ireland over the course of a year - not just the ones that met the criteria outlined in the academic paper you presented. This is where the figure of 39 deliberate fatal crashes came from (129 fatal crashes x 30% = 38.7).

I then made an allowance that an equal number of non-fatal crashes were also deliberate. This would allow for unsucccessful suicide attempts, and staged car crashes for insurance scam purposes.

So, an overall summary:

• I allowed that 30% of fatal crashes were suicides. This was the proportion you presented, and this gave a figure of 39.
• Allowing that a further 39 non-fatal crashes were also deliberate, to give a total of 78 deliberate crashes, would mean that 50% of all deliberate crashes were fatal. It does not mean that 50% of fatal crashes were deliberate. Please read this line as often as necessary, because this is fundamental to your first misunderstanding.
• The total number of deliberate crashes according to these calculations (78) represents 0.16% of all crashes. It does not mean that 0.16% of non-fatal crashes were suicide attempts. Again, please read this as often as necessary, as it's fundamental to your second misunderstanding.
• The total number of non-fatal crashes reported in Ireland that year was 48,714. The allowance being made is that the number of deliberate non-fatal crashes was 39. Therefore, (39/48,714) x 100 = 0.08% of non-fatal crashes would have been deliberate.

Again, if you can find actual figures for the number of non-fatal deliberate crashes per year, I'm happy to recalculate. I have thus far been unable to find such figures myself.

Even if that's the case, you're currently misdirecting from how you completely misunderstood and/or misinterpreted the results of those calculations.

Anyway, I'm currently packing for a two-week holiday. I don't expect to be on Boards much during my time away. But again, if you can find figures showing what proportion of all non-fatal crashes are deliberately caused, I'm happy to recalculate upon my return.

You're both a long way from defining crash vs accident. Give it up for the love of mike.