Ireland had 6th best road safety record in EU

Carawaystick · 22-06-2009 10:56pm #1

when measured by deaths per capita.

some rsa guy on George Hook on Newstalk admitted it was the safest record on a km driven basis, which seems hard to believe.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0622/breaking51.htm

reland's road safety record has improved dramatically over the past year and it is now the 6th safest country in the EU, according to a new report published today.

The report from the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) reveals that almost 40,000 people died on road across the EU in 2008.

Last year, 279 people died on Irish roads, compared to 338 deaths in 2007. Since 2001, the number of people who have died on Irish roads has fallen by 32 per cent.

The safety performance of a country is measured by the number of deaths that occur for every million people in the population. In 2008, Ireland recorded 63 road deaths per million population. This represents an improvement of 41 per cent from 107 people killed per million inhabitants in 2001.

In 2007, Ireland was ranked in 9th position in terms of road safety in the ETSC 's annual report.

The Road Safety Authority has previously forecast that if road safety improvement seen in this country since 2005 are maintained or improved upon, Ireland will meet the EU target of halving road deaths by 2010.

Welcoming today's report, Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey said that while he was encouraged by the findings, efforts should continue to reduce the number of road deaths in Ireland.

"2008 was the safest year on record on Irish roads and road deaths today are down 17 on the same date last year," he said.

Chairman of the RSA Gay Byrne said that while progress had been made in addressing drink driving in Ireland, speed remains the biggest contributory factor to deaths and injuries on Irish roads.

"The biggest challenge facing us today is to change this culture of speeding through enforcement and awareness raising educational campaigns,” he said.

Some 39,000 people were killed in road collisions in 2008 in the EU27 countries, according to the ETSC. Although this is 15,400 fewer fatalities than in 2001 it is still far from the 27,000 deaths limit which the EU set for itself in its Road Safety Target for 2010.

The average annual reduction since 2001 has been 4.4 per cent instead of the 7.4 per cent needed to meet the target.

The ETSC said the reduction in road deaths across the EU last year can be partly attributed to reduced traffic volume following the recession and relatively high petrol prices earlier in the year.

Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Latvia achieved the best reductions in road deaths in 2008 but still have some of the highest road death rates in the EU.

mikemac · 22-06-2009 10:59pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

some rsa guy on George Hook on Newstalk admitted it was the safest record on a km driven basis, which seems hard to believe.

Possibly true.
It's a oft quoted fact that Ireland has more kilometers of road per head of population then anywhere in Europe.
Probably goes back to famine times and our population over 8 million.

You're in Co. Dublin OP, now think of the rural roads and boreens in your area. Now realise every county has these and more. Probably more rural roads then Dublin actually

I wouldn't be surpassed if what the RSA guy said was true.

Victor · 22-06-2009 11:01pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

it was the safest record on a km driven basis,

While such a metric may have is uses, the only really meaningful one are the totals (per category) and deaths / injuries per capita.

Country A: population 1m, people travel an average of 50km per day, 100 people die per year
Country B: population 1m, people travel an average of 5km per day, 11 people die per year

Using a death per km calculation, Country A is safer, despite 9 times more people dying.

kleefarr · 22-06-2009 11:02pm

Does the word 'HAD' have some significance.

amacachi · 22-06-2009 11:02pm

Hold on, we have more motorways, with higher speeds than the old roads they replace, yet speed is STILL the biggest factor? Why can't they be somewhat honest and accurate and say it's unsafe speed?

Good to see the numbers going down, hopefully they keep going that way.

ardmacha · 22-06-2009 11:40pm

While such a metric may have is uses, the only really meaningful one are the totals (per category) and deaths / injuries per capita.

Not so. North Korea may have a low rate per capita, as there are few cars, but a much higher rate per km. You can only improve the rate per km. You could ban cars, of course.

http://www.etsc.eu/documents/ETSC%20PIN%20Annual%20Report%202009.pdf
Sweden, Ireland and Norway are the countries with the highest proportion of cars awarded 5 stars
for occupant protection among new cars sold in 2008 (Fig. 7). In these three countries, more than
60% of the new cars sold in 2008 had been awarded 5-stars for occupant protection by Euro NCAP.

In part Ireland has benefited from newer cars and safer models.

Slice · 23-06-2009 9:09am

Also, car journeys have increased while road deaths have decreased so this doesn't really come as much of a surpirse when that's taken into account.

Carawaystick · 23-06-2009 9:18pm

kleefarr wrote: »

Does the word 'HAD' have some significance.

Only that the report was about 2008, so it's half a year out of date.

I was thinking that the vrt scheme changes should have taken the ncap safety & pedestrian ratings into account - like -1% or a 4 or 5 * occupant and -1% pedestrian 4* rating off the existing rates, to somewhat counter-effect the idiocy of greatly increasing the tax take on lifesaving protective equipment.

I'd imagine it could be improved, when the M7/8 and M6 schemes finish, along with another road safety drive like the random breath tests did in Spring '08 and the provisional license abolishment.

murpho999 · 23-06-2009 11:28pm

amacachi wrote: »

Hold on, we have more motorways, with higher speeds than the old roads they replace, yet speed is STILL the biggest factor? Why can't they be somewhat honest and accurate and say it's unsafe speed?

Good to see the numbers going down, hopefully they keep going that way.

Motorways have considerably less accidents that other roads as despite there being higher speeds, the traffic is going in one direction only and head on collisions are eliminated.

The fact of the matter is that in the majority of fatal accidents that speed is a factor, which means that people were travelling too fast to the situation they were in which has nothing to do with increase in traffic average speeds due to motorways.

Zoney · 24-06-2009 11:29am

I don't like to be a harbinger of doom, but with people's seeming ignorance of basic physics (witness tailgating at 120 km/h or more on the motorways and no change in behavior on the part of some in wet/foggy conditions) we'll undoubtedly see more catastrophic crashes on our motorway network in years to come. That's without even taking into account those who still drink drive, can barely drive (career all over the place with little indication) and have dodgy vehicles (taillights or headlamps out are shockingly common).

Also the point about our motorways is that even if deaths/accidents are reduced from the main roads of the past, future incidents will probably be even more avoidable - making their occurance all the more unacceptable.

There is a lot wrong with our motorway network - no MSAs, low maintanance (witness entire shredded truck tires and other debris sitting by the roadside for weeks or even on it for hours, also slack wire barriers), and lack of barriers protecting motorists from signposts or trees at the verge. Signage or some junctions would probably be safer if lit up as well.

Our motorways look good compared to our old roads or indeed older motorways/highways in other countries - but they fall far short of being best practice for roads built very recently indeed with vast experience to draw on from other countries, and no scrimping on cost until recently.

KevR · 24-06-2009 4:33pm

Gay Byrne wrote:

Chairman of the RSA Gay Byrne said that while progress had been made in addressing drink driving in Ireland, speed remains the biggest contributory factor to deaths and injuries on Irish roads.

"The biggest challenge facing us today is to change this culture of speeding through enforcement and awareness raising educational campaigns,” he said.

amacachi wrote: »

Hold on, we have more motorways, with higher speeds than the old roads they replace, yet speed is STILL the biggest factor? Why can't they be somewhat honest and accurate and say it's unsafe speed?

Good to see the numbers going down, hopefully they keep going that way.

This sort of garbage from the RSA and the Gardai really winds me up.

The message they are sending out is as follows:

[font=Arial,Helvetica]“If you are not exceeding the speed limit, your speed is safe.”[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]“Your primary duty to road safety is to keep to the speed limits."[/font]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

It's a very dangerous message to send out when you consider some of our poorer roads have ridiculously high speed limits - you could legally kill yourself driving at 20/30kmh below the limit, that's how far off the mark speed limits are on some roads.

Also, I note that Gay Byrne said speed is the biggest contributory factor to deaths and injuries on Irish roads. That does not mean speed is the biggest cause of accidents - it means speed will make an accident worse (obviously a crash at 10kmh will be a lot less severe than a crash at 100kmh). Why not tackle the main contributory factor and just reduce all reduce limits to 10kmh, we'd never have any bad crashes then. Of course that wouldn't be practical.

So maybe look at tackling the actual fcuking causes rather than a contributory factor?

An example - I was driving from Athlone to Galway on the N6 a few weeks ago and I was doing approximately 100kmh. Some senile aul' hag pulled out in front of me from a side road without looking. Luckily there was nothing coming the other way and I was able to swerve to avoid her. If I hadn't have been able to avoid her car we both would have been killed. There would be the typical "speed was the biggest contributory factor in this 2 fatality accident" reaction from the RSA/Gardai, making me (young male) out to be the cause of it/as if I murdered some sweet innocent old lady. Yes, if I was only driving at 10kmh we both would survive the crash but more to the god damn point if that stupid bitch hadn't have pulled out without looking (yes, the actual cause!) the accident wouldn't have happened at all!!!!

Some other causes of accidents:

People overtaking when they shouldn't (the speed they're doing is irrevelant)
Tailgating (again speed is irrevelant)
People not looking properly at junctions/side roads
People changing lanes without looking or indicating
People wishing to turn off a high speed road into a side road jamming on the breaks and only indicating as they're turning the corner. You should indicate before you start slowing down to warn those behind you that you are about to slow down (possibly rapidly) so they don't smash into the back of you.
Using the wrong lane at roundabouts or junctions.
Suddenly, without warning, cutting lanes at roundabouts or junctions.
etc.

I emailed the RSA about a massive pothole on the N6 before because I was getting no heed from Galway County Council. This large pothole on a 100kmh road was a huge danger to motorists. People were swerving suddenly to avoid it and it was only a matter of time before someone didn't see it, went into it and lost control of their car.
The RSA basically said they didn't care, it was nothing to do with them and referred me to Galway County Council. How good of them! :rolleyes:

djk1000 · 24-06-2009 4:54pm

Slightly off topic, but the road safety/reduce speed thing is a classic example of politics and spin over practicality.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0611/1224248614956.html

"TEN TIMES more money is spent on road safety measures than on suicide prevention despite the fact that more people kill themselves than die on the roads.

That is one of the findings of a report launched by the Oireachtas Committee on Health yesterday aimed at monitoring progress in tackling suicide."

Plus there is a case to be made that some road fatalities are "suicide by car".

The road safety message is a convenient way for ministers to show there facees at press conferences with a bit of good news.

crocro · 24-06-2009 6:06pm

KevR wrote: »

The message they are sending out is as follows:
[font=Arial,Helvetica]“If you are not exceeding the speed limit, your speed is safe.”[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]“Your primary duty to road safety is to keep to the speed limits."[/font]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

This is a really strange characterisation of the RSA message. I'm guessing you only hear the parts which you see as criticising your own behaviour. the The RSA strategy document for 2007-2012 is here: http://www.rsa.ie/Home/upload/File/Misc/RSA_Strategy_ENG.pdf

It has more than a hundred actions to meet their targets and only one of those is to encourage better compliance with posted speed limits.

They're doing really well and likely to meet their target reduction in fatal accidents this year - three years early.

The nature of road accidents is that they are mostly multifactorial: inappropriate speed plus booze plus inexperience = bang!

The faster you drive the less time you have to take evasive action in the case of a mistake by you or another road user. And the more severe the consequences of a collision if it does happen.

Some other causes of accidents:
People overtaking when they shouldn't (the speed they're doing is irrevelant)

The speed is often relevant in these cases: a driver doing 100 along a twisty road in his gttdi will come across plenty of people below the posted limit of 80. He decides to pass these people at 120 and then crashes.

[*]Tailgating (again speed is irrevelant)

Tailgate at 50kmh and the consequence of your collision with the car in front will be far less than if you tailgate at 120. If that needs to be explained to you, you're probably overconfident.

On a side note, only 10 people have been killed this month so far so we may have the lowest month for road fatalities for decades.
http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=138

ardmacha · 24-06-2009 6:35pm

Tailgate at 50kmh and the consequence of your collision with the car in front will be far less than if you tailgate at 120. If that needs to be explained to you, you're probably overconfident.

Of course a lower speed will reduce risk, but the purpose of motor transport is to provide faster speeds than walking so some speed is needed.
The point is that a modern motorway may be appropriate for travel at 120, if a sufficient gap is kept between vehicles, but tailgating at this speed is not safe. It is the tailgating rather than the speed per se which is the problem, yet there is little attempt to penalise tailgating, inappropriate lane changing etc.

Cheeble · 24-06-2009 7:46pm

KevR wrote: »

I was driving from Athlone to Galway on the N6 a few weeks ago and I was doing approximately 100kmh. Some senile aul' hag pulled out in front of me from a side road without looking. Luckily there was nothing coming the other way and I was able to swerve to avoid her. If I hadn't have been able to avoid her car we both would have been killed.

Safe driving is about anticipating what might happen. You were clearly going too fast to allow for the obvious possibilities.

Zoney · 24-06-2009 7:48pm

ardmacha wrote: »

Of course a lower speed will reduce risk, but the purpose of motor transport is to provide faster speeds than walking so some speed is needed.
The point is that a modern motorway may be appropriate for travel at 120, if a sufficient gap is kept between vehicles, but tailgating at this speed is not safe. It is the tailgating rather than the speed per se which is the problem, yet there is little attempt to penalise tailgating, inappropriate lane changing etc.

A large part of tailgating on motorways is motorists wanting to go faster than the vehicle in front - usually the vehicle in front being at or already above the speed limit (esp on the HQDCs where even the usual speed-limit adherants often drive at 120 km/h or even the "customary" motorway norm of 125-130).

I have no sympathy for those who pretend speeding isn't one of the biggest problems on our roads - in my experience mostly such people just want to drive as they wish - and indeed as regards problems other than speed - such individuals also participate in those.

Malice · 24-06-2009 8:02pm

Cheeble wrote: »

Safe driving is about anticipating what might happen. You were clearly going too fast to allow for the obvious possibilities.

So what speed do you suggest should he have been going at?

Victor · 24-06-2009 10:59pm

The point about speed is that speed will often be the deciding factor in the outcome of an incident.

AugustusMaximus · 24-06-2009 11:02pm

I find it incredibly interesting that we have the least road deaths per capita per km driven yet we are one of the few countries in Europe without a large network of speed cameras.

KevR · 25-06-2009 12:19am

Cheeble wrote: »

Safe driving is about anticipating what might happen. You were clearly going too fast to allow for the obvious possibilities.

My point (which I think you and some people missed) is that if someone pulls out of a side road without looking as you are passing you are going to crash into them unless there nothing coming the other way and you can swerve to avoid them. It was not a case of me travelling so fast that she could not judge how quickly I was approaching from a distance or that I was far away but going at some ridiculous speed so struggled to avoid a crash. She pulled out (without looking) as I was literally passing the side road, OK?

I'll make the point that I made originally again - if I was going at 10kmh and she pulled as I was passing the junction it would have been the same two choices for me: hit her or (if lucky enough for there to be no cars coming the other way) swerve onto the other side of the road.

If I was going at 100kmh and she pulled as I was passing the junction it would have been the same two choices for me: hit her or (if lucky enough for there to be no cars coming the other way) swerve onto the other side of the road.

I am not denying that the implications of a 100kmh crash would be a lot worse than a 10kmh crash but I really do think there is a careless tendancy paint causes of bad accidents as speed when it was really some other cause. Basically not placing any blame on that old woman when she is totally to blame and instead pointing the finger at me because I was driving at a high speed (within the speed limit on a good stretch of road that was designed for such speeds). If she stops and looks like she's supposed to there is no crash, slow or fast.

malice_ wrote: »

So what speed do you suggest should he have been going at?

Cheeble - since it was clear to you that I was going to fast, it should be clear to you how fast I should have been going. Please do enlighten me.

KevR · 25-06-2009 12:36am

Victor wrote: »

The point about speed is that speed will often be the deciding factor in the outcome of an incident.

Victor, I do understand that and I hope people don't think I am suggesting otherwise.

But can people understand my annoyance at the way speed is always mentioned in public announcements by the RSA, while other things which are a lot more likely to actually cause accidents (the severity of which is then determined by the speed being travelled) are never given a plug? I would like to see more of a focus on tackling some of the causes. And I don't think we should forget about tackling speed while doing so. I think that's a fairly reasonable expectation to be honest.

If we all drove around at 5kmh we would never have any serious accidents (make no mistake there would still be accidents, just nobody ever getting hurt). But the whole country would grind to a standstill and wouldn't be able to function properly. There is a need, where roads are of an appropriate standard, to travel at higher speeds and we therefore must look at the causes of accidents and we must work towards eliminating these causes.

Tech3 · 25-06-2009 1:02am

Cheeble wrote: »

Safe driving is about anticipating what might happen. You were clearly going too fast to allow for the obvious possibilities.

That situation was unavoidable. A commuter driving on the main road at the speed limit of 100km/hr and then a car decides to pull straight out into the oncoming traffic.

Could you care to tell us all what is a driver meant to do before leaving a junction please? Your comment was irrelevant to that incident.

Malice · 25-06-2009 9:47am

KevR, I'm not sure why you quoted my post. For what it's worth I agree with what you wrote. Inappropriate speed for a given situation is bad. I'm sure you wouldn't tear around a housing estate at 100km/h for example. While you have to be prepared for the unexpected while driving, you can't be too cautious. If I'm travelling on a national road and I see a car ahead crawling at 10km/h and braking every time they come across another car at a junction, I'll be on to traffic watch to report them straight away. Well, I'll pull the car over first of course!

KevR · 25-06-2009 10:00am

Malice, I do apologize. I did realise from your comment that you agreed with what I wrote. I quoted the question you asked Cheeble about what speed I should have been going because I too would really like to know what he/she thinks. Thanks for asking that question and seeing the points I tried to make.

Malice · 25-06-2009 10:04am

KevR wrote: »

Malice, I do apologize. I did realise from your comment that you agreed with what I wrote. I quoted the question you asked Cheeble about what speed I should have been going because I too would really like to know what he/she thinks. Thanks for asking that question and seeing the points I tried to make.

No worries

.

I.S.T. · 25-06-2009 10:12am

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

I find it incredibly interesting that we have the least road deaths per capita per km driven yet we are one of the few countries in Europe without a large network of speed cameras.

No doubt they will tell us the roads will become even safer when they put the speed cameras in :rolleyes:

crocro · 25-06-2009 10:43am

KevR wrote: »

But can people understand my annoyance at the way speed is always mentioned in public announcements by the RSA, while other things which are a lot more likely to actually cause accidents (the severity of which is then determined by the speed being travelled) are never given a plug? I would like to see more of a focus on tackling some of the causes. And I don't think we should forget about tackling speed while doing so. I think that's a fairly reasonable expectation to be honest.

If you look through the RSA press releases or think back on their graphic TV ads, they really don't have the emphasis on speed that you attribute to them. There is a natural tenedency for people to wish that road accidents were the results of everyone else's behaviour and not their own - "it's the drink drivers, it's the drug drivers, it's the inexperienced or the senile but it's definitely not me because I'm an excellent driver".

But we can't improve other people's driving skills we can only improve our own - and all of us have room for improvement. If you want to drive more safely you can choose to do any of the following:

Do an Advanced Motoring course like the IAM
Choose a car at least partly based on safety features.
Get a handsfree kit
Discover joys of motoring that don't depend on turbo rush or pretending you are in a rally - for example you can get a convertible or a small low car like a mini to give a sensation of speed. Or you can get pleasure from cruising in a large engined comfortable car.
Don't drive whenever you have a feasible healthier alternative.
And lastly, drive at an appropriate speed and don't exceed the posted speed limits

As regards your incident at the junction with an old driver, I can't see how a court would rule against you so long as you were driving at a safe speed for the conditions and below the posted limit.

Older drivers are often associated with accidents at junctions.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme3/olderdriversaliteraturerevie4770?page=3

I think mandatory test resits every 5 years after the age of 65 would be helpful.

dubhthach · 25-06-2009 10:49am

The main reason for the drop over the last 10 years has been the massive increase in the amount of Motorway in the country. Generally 40% of road deaths are caused by head on collisions, you can't have these on a proper grade seperated motorway.

crocro · 25-06-2009 11:22am

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

No doubt they will tell us the roads will become even safer when they put the speed cameras in :rolleyes:

I expect they will! The French experience with deploying a large number of speed cameras and increasing penalties has been very positive in the last few years.
http://www.adac.de/images/%204-Chapelon_tcm8-222588.pdf

If you're more than 40kmh over the limit in France the police can now take your car and your licence and leave you by the side of the road.

The average french driver is speed checked 7 times a month so it's just too expensive to speed now.

Cheeble · 25-06-2009 3:46pm

ok, here we go.

If I see somebody at a junction, ready to pull out, and not looking my way (which can be seen way before you're actually passing them) I have some choices: I can carry on at 100kmh on the basis that I have right of way and rely on them to wait; or I can slow down. There are other things I can also do: check escape routes, sound horn etc, but one of my choices is definitely to slow down.

I drive most days, and most days somebody, somewhere pulls out in front of me. If I always took the "carry on at 100kmh" option, chances are I wouldn't be here to write this, and chances are also that somebody else wouldn't be putting their children to bed tonight.

So, I slow down. Each incident generally lengthens my daily travelling time by about 4 seconds, and statistically prolongs my life by several decades.

There are at least two ways of viewing this: either it's an unacceptable infringement of my inalienable right to drive right up to the speed limit whenever I have right of way; or it's a reasonable expectation that, in an imperfect society, responsible road users will make allowances for the mistakes, or carelessness of others.

In accidents which involve more than one vehicle, there is often one person who is responsible; but two people who could have prevented it from occuring, or reduced the consequences, often by simply slowing down.

murphaph · 25-06-2009 3:59pm

Cheeble wrote: »

Safe driving is about anticipating what might happen. You were clearly going too fast to allow for the obvious possibilities.

Rubbish. Travelling at 100km/h on an N road with good visibility is perfectly safe driving. You can't drive at 50 just in case some idiot pulls out from a side road without stopping. We just hope that such stupid people kill only themselves before they can kill others with their stupidity.

murphaph · 25-06-2009 4:05pm

Cheeble wrote: »

ok, here we go.

If I see somebody at a junction, ready to pull out, and not looking my way (which can be seen way before you're actually passing them) I have some choices: I can carry on at 100kmh on the basis that I have right of way and rely on them to wait; or I can slow down. There are other things I can also do: check escape routes, sound horn etc, but one of my choices is definitely to slow down.

I drive most days, and most days somebody, somewhere pulls out in front of me. If I always took the "carry on at 100kmh" option, chances are I wouldn't be here to write this, and chances are also that somebody else wouldn't be putting their children to bed tonight.

So, I slow down. Each incident generally lengthens my daily travelling time by about 4 seconds, and statistically prolongs my life by several decades.

There are at least two ways of viewing this: either it's an unacceptable infringement of my inalienable right to drive right up to the speed limit whenever I have right of way; or it's a reasonable expectation that, in an imperfect society, responsible road users will make allowances for the mistakes, or carelessness of others.

In accidents which involve more than one vehicle, there is often one person who is responsible; but two people who could have prevented it from occuring, or reduced the consequences, often by simply slowing down.

there are soooooo many ways you can lengthen your life statistically. Do you practice them all? It would be statistically MUCH safer for you NOT to drive at all.

ardmacha · 25-06-2009 4:18pm

there are soooooo many ways you can lengthen your life statistically. Do you practice them all? It would be statistically MUCH safer for you NOT to drive at all.

This thread has people talking at cross purposes. The point about driving is that it is a question of assessing the situation and responding accordingly. Global statements about going at certain speeds, high or low, do not work. You cannot say that you must assume that anything can happen, for on a single carriageway road this would mean traffic coming the opposite way would come onto your side of the road, so that you could not drive at all. Similarly you cannot proceed as it people are going to drive out of side roads, through red lights etc, but you can observe things and slow down if required.

KevR · 25-06-2009 4:24pm

Cheeble wrote: »

(which can be seen way before you're actually passing them)

As I said it was not a case of the other car pulling out of the side road way before I was actually passing it, the other car pulled out as I was passing the side road. If it had have been a case of her pulling out way before I actually passed the junction I would have slowed down obviously.

So you think you can always see well in advance that someone is about to pull out?

Cheeble · 25-06-2009 5:43pm

murphaph wrote: »

Rubbish. Travelling at 100km/h on an N road with good visibility is perfectly safe driving. You can't drive at 50 just in case some idiot pulls out from a side road without stopping. We just hope that such stupid people kill only themselves before they can kill others with their stupidity.

Well, firstly, the scenario was: travelling at 100kmh; at a junction; with somebody waiting to pull out.

Secondly, I like to rely on a little more than just "hope".

But anyway, what's your problem with the slowing down option? It seems irrational to me to dismiss it just because you're relying on other people to obey the rules. (btw, this isn't intended as sarcastic or anything, it's a genuine question, I'd like to understand your reasoning).

Cheeble · 25-06-2009 5:46pm

KevR wrote: »

So you think you can always see well in advance that someone is about to pull out?

I was referring to somebody not looking my way, which often can be seen.

Cheeble · 25-06-2009 5:54pm

murphaph wrote: »

there are soooooo many ways you can lengthen your life statistically. Do you practice them all? It would be statistically MUCH safer for you NOT to drive at all.

I don't understand your point. We all take risks, every day, whether we get out of bed or not. That's not a good justification for not slowing down in the light of a developing situation on the road ahead.

jaffa20 · 25-06-2009 6:09pm

Cheeble wrote: »

I was referring to somebody not looking my way, which often can be seen.

Why would someone not be looking in the direction traffic is coming

Would you stop on a roundabout in case someone decides to drive onto it because they might not be looking your way

:pac:

murphaph · 25-06-2009 6:11pm

I read it differently to you cheeble-I read it that the car just came out of the side road without stopping so the poster here had no chance to react. If I am travelling along and a car is waiting in a side road to come out I pay more attention than the average motorist because aside from driving a car I ride a motorcycle. I look at the wheels for that characteristic 'twitch' because I have had drivers look me straight in the eye on the bike and still pull out. Their eyes see me but their brain doesn't. My point was that I wouldn't ride my bike/drive my car at a reduced speed on a clear road (that's the inference I got from the original post) a to do so defeats the purpose of driving instead of walking everywhere. naturally if I see a car etc. waiting in a side road I slow down and watch very carefully for that twitch and as a motorcyclist I am looking for my escape route should they just pull out. I have read Roadcraft from cover to cover and it's a good read even for car drivers;

Cheeble · 25-06-2009 6:15pm

I think we agree then :cool:

AP50/RD125/RD400/GS1000S (though 'twas a few years ago)

Cheeble-eers

Cheeble · 25-06-2009 6:18pm

jaffa20 wrote: »

Why would someone not be looking in the direction traffic is coming

I don't know, but it happens all the time.

Would you stop on a roundabout in case someone decides to drive onto it because they might not be looking your way :pac:

Have I said that?

Cheeble-eers

whosedaddy? · 25-06-2009 7:24pm

KevR wrote: »

Some other causes of accidents:
People overtaking when they shouldn't (the speed they're doing is irrevelant)

actually even where overtaking as such is ok, but actually speed matters a lot here.
Not so much the absolute speed, but the speed difference!

I have seen it soo many times where a car crawls past another (and even worse the car that gets overtaken speeds up) and the lenght of time the overtaking car is out on the other lane is scary. I've seen many near misses.

In other countries like Germany the rules of the road stipulate that you have to travel significantly faster than the car you want to overtake (without breaking the speed limit of course).
Ie. if i had a car doing 90 in a 100km/h zone, you are not allowed to overtake.... if you do, it would be reckless driving.

And also please remember the speed limit is not a target that has to be hit at all times... Just because some old n windy country roads have speed limit of 100, doesn't mean I have to travel that fast...

Accidents happen - some cannot be avoided. The rest can be reduced..

Using your brain does make you a safer driver

Victor · 25-06-2009 8:28pm

KevR wrote: »

If we all drove around at 5kmh we would never have any serious accidents (make no mistake there would still be accidents, just nobody ever getting hurt). But the whole country would grind to a standstill and wouldn't be able to function properly. There is a need, where roads are of an appropriate standard, to travel at higher speeds and we therefore must look at the causes of accidents and we must work towards eliminating these causes.

Actually, many of the cyclists and pedestrians that are killed die at this type of speed when a truck is turning - its the mass, not speed that does the killing. hence the cyclops mirror campaign, etc.

Ireland had 6th best road safety record in EU

Comments