nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Solution to soaring road deaths in Ireland?

kelle

I was watching "Prime Time" last night, and was in tears listening to the poor parents who recently lost 2 sons in a car crash three weeks ago in Carlow. She always warned them to drive carefully when they'd leave home, and they always reassured her they would. Sadly, like most young people, common sense would go out the window the minute they were in control of the steering wheel.
There is a lot of talk about having more gardai doing speed checks (useless, as they can't be everywhere all of the time), educating people about driving safely (useless again as they don't care once they're out on the road - they believe nothing will happen to them). Even the latest graphic road safety adverts are obviously not having any effect.
Which brings me to my next point - surely, if speed is the main factor in causing crashes and subsequent road deaths, then the effective solution is to eliminate it altogether from cars!!!!! With all the wonderful technology nowadays, and all the great devices that are put into cars (ABS, CD changers, air conditioning, etc.), surely a device can be placed in the car to stop it travelling above 60 kmph? And insurance companies could get together to only insure anybody under, say, 25, for such a car. They wouldn't get insurance for their parent's car unless such a device was fitted. When they'd approach open road, no matter how carelessly they were driving, the incidence of death would be greatly reduced if they could only drive to a maximum of 60 Kmph!
For years, I have been convinced that is the only solution and can't understand why car manufacturers have not implemented such devices in their cars.

(Maybe this is not the correct page to place this thread - please feel free to move it if you wish)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

whiskeyman

kelle wrote:

Which brings me to my next point - surely, if speed is the main factor in causing crashes and subsequent road deaths, then the effective solution is to eliminate it altogether from cars!!!!! With all the wonderful technology nowadays, and all the great devices that are put into cars (ABS, CD changers, air conditioning, etc.), surely a device can be placed in the car to stop it travelling above 60 kmph?

The car isn't the problem... it's the person behind the wheel.
More education and enforcement of laws is the real solution.
Look at Sweden, or even Northern Ireland, as an example.

Such a device is totally not viable tbh.

Nuttzz

a speed restricted car isnt going to help you if your in a head on with a truck or if you are a cyclist..its all about education tbh

Dyr

theres already governor's in heavy goods vehicles which are meant to this but you're point is valid.

Here's a thought: we have nanny government that lectures us on drinking, smoking, waste disposal etc etc and the terrible cost to our collective health and finances of all this. Yet this nanny state has no problem with the sale of cars that are designed to go at speeds that are simply illegal. Compare that to the heavy handed legislation thats applied to other areas of life and the number of deaths cars cause by speeding. You'd imagine there'd be a national outcry but no.

Why? Theres a massive hypocrisy in play on the subject because most of us are quite happy to maintain the status quo on cars despite the horrendous casualties they cause. Sure the old scapegoats of drink driving, young drivers etc etc are wheeled out to make us feel better but look at the amount of money ploughed into campaigns to eradicate these things yet they seem to have little impact on the number of road deaths. Still it beats admitting that as car ownership increases so will the death toll. The usual suspects in public life beat their breast about smoking, drinking and all the other ills of irish life and remain strangely silent on this. Guess they all own motors

:v: < but sure, we need the ould jammers more than life itself!

Dyr

whiskeyman wrote:

The car isn't the problem... it's the person behind the wheel.
More education and enforcement of laws is the real solution.
Look at Sweden, or even Northern Ireland, as an example.

Such a device is totally not viable tbh.

Try think of any readily available device thats specifically designed to break the law in this country and is legal to own, its a short list.

We have stringent gun laws on the type of gun somebody can buy, because no civilian has a valid use for an automatic rifle or a semi- automatic pistol. Why is the car exempt from this logic? Why do you need a car that breaks our top speed limit?

We need to rethink our relationship with cars or stop kidding ourselves and accept the death toll and the chaos that is our roads

Gandhi

Car rental companies already have speed limiters installed in their cars so that you can't speed. Many people who have company cars have speed limiters on them and probably don't even know it. Basically, if you go above a certain speed, the computer cuts power to every second spark plug, until you get back into the safe zone. At least, that is the way it worked a few years ago. There is probably a more sophisticated method at this stage.

Wertz

Well actually teaching people to drive properly whilst they're in school, instead of teaching them sh*t they don't need later in life would be a good start. Americans have a system at school called driver's ed where at age 16 with your parent's consent, you're taught to drive properly...now I know america has a lot of road accidents and associated deaths, but then you're allowed out on the roads over that at 16 in most states.

that aside, you'll find that the vast majority of fatal accidents here tend to happen on secondary roads as opposed to kmotorways, yet the speed limits seem to be enforced ONLY on the motorways and primary routes (speed cameras, garda checkpoints etc)...due to our network of badly maintained country backroads and a tendency on behalf of a lot of the drivers that use them to go faster than what they should, we see so many mangled wrecks of cars upside down in a ditch...often they are single vehicle accidents.

Drink is used as such an excuse for everything in this country...speed is definitely more of a culprit and I also reckon in-car entertainment and mobile phone convos are blameworthy; lack of attention to what's going on on the road instead of what's on the stereo/mobile HAS to be a factor in some deaths.

I really don't have all the answers but we certainly have a major problem...comments liek that of the politician down the country today in relation to people in rural areas and that they should be allowed to drink and drive within reason are downright stupid and indicative of the attitude certain areas seem to have with regard to road safety...

Binomate

I drive quite fast. I certainly wouldn't like one of those devices stuck on to my car. I don't speed at all, I just drive fast. (e.g. accelerate to 40kph in 2nd gear in a 40kph zone when it is safe to do so; Double clutching etc.). I don't think that dangerous drivers should ruin it for people who enjoy driving fast in a safe manner like myself.

whiskeyman

Bambi wrote:

Try think of any readily available device thats specifically designed to break the law in this country and is legal to own, its a short list.
..... Why do you need a car that breaks our top speed limit?

I'm going to have to repeat myself here.
Car's dont break the speed limit.. it's the driver that knowingly pushes the car beyond the limit that it breaking the law.

A car is not specificially designed to break the law.
The top speed of a car, and where it may be greater than the speed limit, is used by marketeers as a USP of power and success.
It by no means gives instant validation that it is ok for the car to be used at that degree.

I do see your point, but I think much undue focus would go on it.
It is no silver bullet for our problem.
Education and enforcement is.

nesf

From what I've gathered, powerful cars are bought more for their acceleration ability when overtaking etc, than on their top speed which is relatively useless in this country.

That, and to all the people moaning about the "super cars" with insanely high speeds, please try and rememember that you don't need a large or powerful car to kill people on the road. It's education, and enforcement that are the main issues here not the vehicles on the road. People crying out for speed limiters are really ignoring the bigger picture. It's not just speed that kills on our roads.

LovelyHurling

Binomate wrote:

I drive quite fast. I certainly wouldn't like one of those devices stuck on to my car. I don't speed at all, I just drive fast. (e.g. accelerate to 40kph in 2nd gear in a 40kph zone when it is safe to do so; Double clutching etc.). I don't think that dangerous drivers should ruin it for people who enjoy driving fast in a safe manner like myself.

Who do you think you are? You either break the speed limit or you dont, how would one of these devices hinder you once you're going to be under the speed limit anyway.

The op made a very good, valid point. Devising a tool to maintainm the accleleration capabilities of a car while controlling its over all speed would hardly be like formulating an AIDS vaccine and would save a hell of a lot of heartbreak.

Mr.Nice Guy

I agree with the idea of limiting speed on cars.

As for those who say the cars aren't the problem, guns aren't responsible for killing people either it's the person pulling the trigger but that doesn't mean I want to see guns legalised in this country.

senordingdong

The obvious problem is to stop giving driving licenses to every stupid Tom, Dick and Harry.
It's disgusting how easy it is to get out on the road in this country.

Secondly, there should be no second chances for people who are caught speeding, drink-driving etc...

Fighting Irish

The only way road deaths can be stopped is if people slow down and if the government makes the roads safer, outside of dublin most roads are an absolute disgrace

Fighting Irish

senordingdong wrote:

The obvious problem is to stop giving driving licenses to every stupid Tom, Dick and Harry.
It's disgusting how easy it is to get out on the road in this country.
NO

Secondly, there should be no second chances for people who are caught speeding, drink-driving etc...
YES

Its OK for people who have their full licence already but if you don't and you were not allowed drive you would never really have enough experience on the roads to pass the full licence test

Binomate

LovelyHurling wrote:

Who do you think you are? You either break the speed limit or you dont, how would one of these devices hinder you once you're going to be under the speed limit anyway.

The op made a very good, valid point. Devising a tool to maintainm the accleleration capabilities of a car while controlling its over all speed would hardly be like formulating an AIDS vaccine and would save a hell of a lot of heartbreak.

I break the speed limits the odd time as well, only when it is safe to do so. Usually in the early hours of the morning or down the country.

Using electricity to power cars will save the environment. I want to be driving a petrol car when I'm 90. You might think I'm going off on a tangent here but the point is still the same. Sometimes you must ignore the greater good for something you enjoy.

Sam Vimes

whiskeyman wrote:

I'm going to have to repeat myself here.
Car's dont break the speed limit.. it's the driver that knowingly pushes the car beyond the limit that it breaking the law.

his point is that the car shouldn't be capable of doing something that's illegal in this country. it takes the 18 year old gob****e factor out of the equation. the driver tries to knowingly push the car above the limit, so he should be stopped. i saw a car on top gear that would go up to the limit, then pressing the accelerator had no effect. i think it even used gps technology to know what the limit in that area was. i may be wrong though.

apparently theres a thing you can get that gives you lower insurance. it monitors your speed and if you go above the limit, it sends the info off to the company and they triple your rates.

i think that anyone with a massive spoiler or a blue light under the car should be charged 10,000 for insurance because they're far more likely to act the eejit. in fact, they should be taken off the road so i don't have to look at them anymore.

Gandhi

The problem is attitude more than knowledge. Nobody thinks it is perfectly legal - or even a good idea - to drive home after fifteen pints or at double the speed limit.

But if I'm out with my friends and someone says "Did you hear Mikey drove home after half a bottle of whiskey the other night?" the typical response is "Hard man, that Mikey. What'll he do next? Ha ha ha!". Similar story if we hear about somebody getting away with a speeding ticket etc.

A lot of people still view many traffic laws as "spoilsport laws" put there by over-zealous politicians and whining old biddies to stop the cool kids from having fun. The risk is low enough to be perceived as virtually non-existent. For everyone who gets in a serious accident, there are hundreds who have done stupid / illegal things behind the wheel on numerous occasions and made it home without a scratch. I certainly did when I was younger.

Hellrazer

There was talk a few years back of a speed limiter which worked via a satellite link.

Basically it adjusted the vehicles speed depending on the "speed limit zone" it was in using global positioning.

The problem with speed limiters and one which Ive researched for a friend is that the experts reckon that they could actually kill more people than they save.

Imagine trying to overtake a car in front and the limiter suddenly kicks in--accident waiting to happen.

Or if you foresaw an accident in which you knew you could accelerate around the obstacle/whatever and the limiter kicks in.

Limiters are not the solution to the problem.
Education,enforcement and more penalty point categories are the only way to stop the carnage on the roads.
Personally Id also like to see this thing of Provisional licence holders from driving done away with--I mean come on you fail your test and drive away--stupid.
At the minute its not practical until they get the waiting lists down for tests to a reasonable waiting time.

Another thing is to retest drivers every 5 or 10 years and again if they fail they cant drive until they`ve passed it again.It would make people appreciate their licence more and IMO make them better drivers.

whiskeyman

Hellrazer wrote:

Limiters are not the solution to the problem.
Education,enforcement and more penalty point categories are the only way to stop the carnage on the roads.

Exactly.

I'm sure the Government would love all this talk of limiters being used as a possible solution, as it puts more pressure on motor manufactures rather than themselves.
It's our Government that need to be forced more to spend more on education and enforcement to bring the stats down.

Mr. Niceguy wrote:

As for those who say the cars aren't the problem, guns aren't responsible for killing people either it's the person pulling the trigger but that doesn't mean I want to see guns legalised in this country.

Like a car, you can get a gun licence and own a (certain type) gun in this country. It all depends if you use it illegally or not.
Thankfully, there's heavy enforcement on guns in this country, and extremely harsh punishment if used illegally.... not so for cars it seems.... and that's the issue I'm stressing.

Mr.Nice Guy

Hellrazer wrote:

There was talk a few years back of a speed limiter which worked via a satellite link.

Basically it adjusted the vehicles speed depending on the "speed limit zone" it was in using global positioning.

The problem with speed limiters and one which Ive researched for a friend is that the experts reckon that they could actually kill more people than they save.

Imagine trying to overtake a car in front and the limiter suddenly kicks in--accident waiting to happen.

Or if you foresaw an accident in which you knew you could accelerate around the obstacle/whatever and the limiter kicks in.

Limiters are not the solution to the problem.

How about we forget satellites altogether and just make sure that manufacturers don't produce cars that go over a certain limit?

LovelyHurling

Binomate wrote:

I break the speed limits the odd time as well, only when it is safe to do so. Usually in the early hours of the morning or down the country.

Sometimes you must ignore the greater good for something you enjoy.

So, its safe to speed in the early hours in the morning? Its also safe to speed 'down the country'?

A huge amount of accidents happen in the early hours of the morning. Most accidents occur down the country. I think this is the type of attitude problem people here are referring to. Im not going to lose any sleep if you kill yourself on a country road at 3am, but what about the innocent people you are at risk of murdering?

if I'm out with my friends and someone says "Did you hear Mikey drove home after half a bottle of whiskey the other night?" the typical response is "Hard man, that Mikey. What'll he do next? Ha ha ha!". Similar story if we hear about somebody getting away with a speeding ticket etc.

A lot of people still view many traffic laws as "spoilsport laws" put there by over-zealous politicians and whining old biddies to stop the cool kids from having fun. The risk is low enough to be perceived as virtually non-existent.

Well said.

whiskeyman

LovelyHurling wrote:

So, its safe to speed in the early hours in the morning? Its also safe to speed 'down the country'?

A huge amount of accidents happen in the early hours of the morning. Most accidents occur down the country. I think this is the type of attitude problem people here are referring to. Im not going to lose any sleep if you kill yourself on a country road at 3am, but what about the innocent people you are at risk of murdering?

I think Binomate ought to read this:

sbpost.ie wrote:

Road death statistics for 2001 show that by far the worst time for accidents is between 9pm and 3am, with 27 per cent of all deaths occurring then.The worst morning of the week is early on Sunday, Saturday being the traditional big night out.

Newspaper and radio reports frequently deploy the phrase `no other vehicle was involved' when reporting late-night tragedies.

This is because one-third of fatal road accidents are classed as `single vehicle only' - a collision type which is "strongly associated with the casual factors of excessive speed and/or alcohol", according to the NRA.

Binomate

LovelyHurling wrote:

So, its safe to speed in the early hours in the morning? Its also safe to speed 'down the country'?

A huge amount of accidents happen in the early hours of the morning. Most accidents occur down the country. I think this is the type of attitude problem people here are referring to. Im not going to lose any sleep if you kill yourself on a country road at 3am, but what about the innocent people you are at risk of murdering?

Well said.

When it is safe to do so yes. I would consider the early hours of the morning a lot safer than daylight hours because there is a lot less traffic on the road. When I say down the country, I'm not talking about tiny bothareens. I'm talking about roads that are a lot wider and straighter than city roads with a lot less traffic on them with more visibility.

Whiskeyman, I'm not a Boy Racer. I only drive fast when I feel it entirely safe to do so with out endangering myself or other people. I would consider myself a safer driver than most people.

whiskeyman

Binomate wrote:

When it is safe to do so yes. I would consider the early hours of the morning a lot safer than daylight hours because there is a lot less traffic on the road. When I say down the country, I'm not talking about tiny bothareens. I'm talking about roads that are a lot wider and straighter than city roads with a lot less traffic on them with more visibility.

Whiskeyman, I'm not a Boy Racer.

Read the stats I posted. These hours are not "safer".
Once again, education is so important... something you are clearly lacking.
If you are not a "Boy Racer", what exactly are you then?
Someone who gets a buzz ("enjoy" as you said) from taking your car to a higher speed than is allowed legally?
Fits the bill tbh.

Binomate

whiskeyman wrote:

Read the stats I posted. These hours are not "safer".
Once again, education is so important... something you are clearly lacking.
If you are not a "Boy Racer", what exactly are you then?
Someone who gets a buzz ("enjoy" as you said) from taking your car to a higher speed than is allowed legally?
Fits the bill tbh.

I was simply saying that you are more likely have an road with no cars on it at all during those hours than you are during the day. If there are other cars about it's hardly safe. The majority of accidents happen between those hours because people are stupid enough to drink and drive or drink when there is alcohol still in their system or because they are driving when they are tired.

I don't drink very often, I certainly don't drive within 24 hours of consuming alcohol and I usualy sleep through the day. I am fully awake, aware and aleart when I'm on the road. If I'm not I don't drive. I am a safe driver and as I've said before only drive fast when the roads are empty of cars and it is safe to do so. I like the feeling of being 100% in control otherwise I would be afraid to step in to the car. Yes I like the feeling you get when you accelerate hard and the feeling you get when you are driving fast but I'm not a Boy Racer and again, if I'm not in 100% control and 100% certain of the outcome then I wont do something.

I drive a honda civic that I havn't modified, I have experience on the road, I've never had an accident, I have no points on my lisence, I passed my driving test first time around, got 40/40 in my theory test. The only difference between me and someone you havn't labeled a 'boy racer' is that I'm probably a safer driver than they are. I'm not trying to be arrogant, I'm just stating the truth. I have been told by a lot of people that I'm a very safe driver, safer than most. This is the first time i've ever been labled a 'boy racer' (But it's on a forum, by someone who has never seen or experienced me driving before, so I'm not too woried).

LovelyHurling

Binomate wrote:

The majority of accidents happen between those hours because people are stupid enough to drink and drive or drink when there is alcohol still in their system or because they are driving when they are tired.

Nothing to do with speeding then? You'd better let the NRA know quickly, thyve just spent a lot of $$ on an advertising campaign.

Binomate this thread is called Solution To Soaring Road Deaths In Ireland and your posts have nothing to do with a solution, discussing your kicks doesn't belong here at all

Binomate

It's not my fault the conversation drifted this way. I simply said I wouldn't agree with a speed limiter or something like what the OP suggest because it would ruin driving for people like me who enjoy speed when it is in a controlled and safe state. Somehow I was taken for a boy racer, and I'm simply stating in my last post that I'm not.

Yes when you speed in an unsafe way like most of the people who speeed do, then speeding does contribute to the death tolls. Infact I'd say a high majority of the deaths in Ireland are a combination of drinking whilst, tired and speeding.

whiskeyman

Binomate wrote:

I was simply saying that you are more likely have an road with no cars on it at all during those hours than you are during the day. If there are other cars about it's hardly safe.

Actually, it is.
More cars = more traffic = slower speeds = less fatal accidents. It's a fact. Ask any traffic garda and they'll tell you the same.

Binomate wrote:

The majority of accidents happen between those hours because people are stupid enough to drink and drive or drink when there is alcohol still in their system or because they are driving when they are tired.

No need to bring drink into the equation.... speed is just as big a killer.
Yet again.....fact.

Binomate wrote:

I don't drink very often, I certainly don't drive within 24 hours of consuming alcohol and I usualy sleep through the day. I am fully awake, aware and aleart when I'm on the road. If I'm not I don't drive.

I have to say, fair play. At least you understand some of the basics.

Binomate wrote:

I am a safe driver and as I've said before only drive fast when the roads are empty of cars and it is safe to do so. I like the feeling of being 100% in control otherwise I would be afraid to step in to the car. Yes I like the feeling you get when you accelerate hard and the feeling you get when you are driving fast but I'm not a Boy Racer and again, if I'm not in 100% control and 100% certain of the outcome then I wont do something.

This is the problem.
You are a danger to yourself, if anything, with this attitude.
I think a visit to the National Medical Rehabilitation Centre in Dun Laoghaire may be worth while. Here you'll meet many lads, of all ages, who will tell you they thought they felt 100% in control and loved the feeling of speed, and whos mates said they were the safest drivers they knew...
At least here, you'll be able to meet some of the ones who enjoyed it.... sadly, there are hundreds that aren't alive to tell their tale.

Binomate wrote:

The only difference between me and someone you havn't labeled a 'boy racer' is that I'm probably a safer driver than they are. I'm not trying to be arrogant, I'm just stating the truth. I have been told by a lot of people that I'm a very safe driver, safer than most. This is the first time i've ever been labled a 'boy racer' (But it's on a forum, by someone who has never seen or experienced me driving before, so I'm not too woried).

I think you find offence by the title "Boy Racer" as you may associate it with a Burberry Hat wearing lad with pimped up car who loved reckless driving.
These associations have been wrongly attached by the media and have almost segregated this character from what was the real meaning: someone who loves speeding and felt confident about it.
Even if you dont agree with the title, you cant deny the basic attachment.

Binomate

I've seen the effects of speeding on boy racers before. A guy I knew was in a horrific accident in Longford town. He and the girl in the passanger seat were killed instantly, guy in the back seat broke all of his bones, and another guy scalded by boiling hot radiator fluid. I'm not stupid. I just enjoy speed when it is safe to do so. Be it on a racing circuit, runway, completely empty or closed off road or what ever is safe enough to do so. I don't speed excessivly or inappropriatly.

whiskeyman

Binomate wrote:

I'm not stupid. I just enjoy speed when it is safe to do so. Be it on a racing circuit, runway, completely empty or closed off road or what ever is safe enough to do so.

And that's the point I'm trying to get across.
I've never questioned your level of intellegence, but I have questioned your knowledge of proper road safety.
It is not safe to speed on open roads the way you say you do, and I've backed this up each time I've mentioned it.
Plain and simple.
Take your love of speed to the closed environment of a rally track etc.. for your own sake and other road users.