Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Road safety issues

24

Comments

  • #32
    Gophur
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,921 ✭✭✭Gophur


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    The one I've never understood - for all the red tape and opt-outs that are in an insurance contract - there's no obligation on the driver to be obeying the law at the time!

    If you're exceeding the limit (or being an idiotic prick making black rubber circles on motorways) then you should not be covered.

    .....

    There is an obligation to adhere to the Road Traffic Legislation, already, with specific penalties outlined in the Irish Statute.

    So, given it's impossible to have an accident if one is 100% compliant with the Law, doesn't your argument mean one shouldn't have any insurance at all?

    What about people who are hit by someone breaking the Law? How would they be compensated?


  • #33
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Big Steve wrote: »
    1. Zero tolerance for drink drivers.
    2. If you are convicted of drink driving then its a permanent ban from driving (driving is a privilege not a right)
    3. Maximum driving age of 70 or 75 with an age restriction for drivers on the motorway of 65.
    4. Teach basic driving skills in second level education.
    5. From 17 to 21 you must have a full licence driver over 21 in the car with you regardless of what kinda licence you have.
    6. Taxi drivers must have a car max of 10 years old.'t get
    7. If you fail your driving test 3 times or don't have it by the time your 50 that's it you shouldn't be on the road

    1. Agree
    2. We're human, not perfect - everyone is entitled to make a mistake and at least get a chance to learn from it.
    3. Besides being ageism, its daftness to assume that you can apply a wide blanket of reasoning that everyone over that age loses their senses or is automatically too ill to drive!
    Aaa... no they don't - and the senses of all don't fail just because also you hit a certain age!
    4. Would be more practical and useful than the time wasted on religion classes daily!
    5. Hard to enforce, would be hard for some to comply due to economic, timing, or other reasons.
    6. Sounds reasonable. Probably some small details would have to be ironed out.
    7. Part (a) Not everyone is good in exams - but a lot are much better when exam pressure is off!
    Part (b) More un-necessary blanket ageism.


  • #34
    MarkR
    Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 11,397 Mod ✭✭✭✭MarkR


    Big Steve wrote: »
    Not really. Women are involved in more accidents in general (scrapes, fenders benders etc) but men are involved in more road fatalities.

    I thought the sumo wrestlers might have given you a sense that I wasn't being entirely serious. :D


  • #35
    biko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,060 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Give bicycles to everyone except me.
    Give me a Hummer.


  • #36
    Keith186
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,271 ✭✭✭Keith186


    NothingMan wrote: »
    Eh........ never mind.
    LOL

    If that went over his head probably shouldn't be discussing road safety.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    dilallio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,728 ✭✭✭dilallio


    Big Steve wrote: »
    3. Maximum driving age of 70 or 75 with an age restriction for drivers on the motorway of 65.

    Unless accompanied by both parents.


  • #38
    NTMK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,575 ✭✭✭NTMK


    Big Steve wrote: »
    A few friends and I were discussing road safety in work and the lads and girls had some input into improvements that could be made. I've posted them here to see what the boardsies think. Now bear in mind we do work for a large motor insurance company (not quinn)

    1. Zero tolerance for drink drivers.
    Agreed
    2. If you are convicted of drink driving then its a permanent ban from driving (driving is a privilege not a right)
    Agree to a certain extent 2 strikes for just over the limited permanent ban for being way over it
    3. Maximum driving age of 70 or 75 with an age restriction for drivers on the motorway of 65.
    dont agree with this
    4. Teach basic driving skills in second level education.
    Completely Agree
    5. From 17 to 21 you must have a full licence driver over 21 in the car with you regardless of what kinda licence you have.
    dont agree with this we are not all idiots and maybe car insurance companies should stop ripping us off
    6. Taxi drivers must have a car max of 10 years old.'t get
    Alot of taxis are in great condition despite being 12-15yo
    7. If you fail your driving test 3 times or don't have it by the time your 50 that's it you shouldn't be on the road
    Agree with the 3 strikes but not the age limit

    Now I must say I agree totally with the drink driving ones and I am quite fond of the Taxi idea.
    Also I can understand the one about the age limit on driving but that's not to say I agree with it but I do understand.
    The one about no full licence by 50 or 3 strike rule I think is kinda harsh.

    .


  • #39
    Viper_JB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,258 ✭✭✭Viper_JB


    These feel like ideas that the RSA would think up, except all those would finish with "for male drivers".


  • #40
    MitchKoobski
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,101 ✭✭✭MitchKoobski


    Big Steve wrote: »
    1. Zero tolerance for drink drivers.
    2. If you are convicted of drink driving then its a permanent ban from driving (driving is a privilege not a right)
    3. Maximum driving age of 70 or 75 with an age restriction for drivers on the motorway of 65.
    4. Teach basic driving skills in second level education.
    5. From 17 to 21 you must have a full licence driver over 21 in the car with you regardless of what kinda licence you have.
    6. Taxi drivers must have a car max of 10 years old.'t get
    7. If you fail your driving test 3 times or don't have it by the time your 50 that's it you shouldn't be on the road
    1. Fair enough, caught drink driving, no "just this one time".
    2. I would put that down to depending highly on the circumstances. I have one mate who was asked to move his car so a neighbour could get out. Had 3 or 4 drinks in him. Moved it 10ft so the neighbour could get out, and got back out of the car. Two guards walking past asked him how much he had and told him he should have just left it off. Banned for a year, pending 2. He accepts it entirely. To suggest he should be banned for life because of this is stupid imo.
    3. Not fair on those of that age that are perfectly competent drivers.
    4. Completely agree.
    5. You haven't a hope in hell.
    6. I don't care what car they're driving as long as it's road-safe.
    7. Completely ridiculous. Took my best mate 4 times, and he's the best driver I know.


  • #41
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Big Steve wrote: »
    A few friends and I were discussing road safety in work and the lads and girls had some input into improvements that could be made. I've posted them here to see what the boardsies think. Now bear in mind we do work for a large motor insurance company (not quinn)

    1. Zero tolerance for drink drivers.
    2. If you are convicted of drink driving then its a permanent ban from driving (driving is a privilege not a right)
    3. Maximum driving age of 70 or 75 with an age restriction for drivers on the motorway of 65.
    4. Teach basic driving skills in second level education.
    5. From 17 to 21 you must have a full licence driver over 21 in the car with you regardless of what kinda licence you have.
    6. Taxi drivers must have a car max of 10 years old.'t get
    7. If you fail your driving test 3 times or don't have it by the time your 50 that's it you shouldn't be on the road

    Hi Steve,

    Some good ideas there.

    I am all for zero tolerance on drink driving and think it should apply to dricing on drugs. To me getting into a car with drink on you is the most dangerous and irresponsible thing anyone can do. I would add here that there needs to be much harsher penalties on speeding.

    Regarding the young and old drivers, I think generalising the limits put on them is unfair. Age is not necessarily indicative of the kind of driver you'll be.

    I would agree with teaching driving and preparing for the theory test at school.

    The taxi driver point I agree with 100%

    The driving test thing......I wouldn't agree with permanently banning a person from driving but perhaps you should have to wait a decent period of time before you try again and have to get a certain number of lessons in that time.

    I also think the poster who said we all ought to have to do tests every few years is spot on.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Daegerty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,864 ✭✭✭Daegerty


    I don't know what is it with people on boards and clamouring for new regulations. They think that making the law more restrictive can solve all their problems, what a load of cods wollop


  • #43
    Orando Broom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,351 ✭✭✭Orando Broom


    If everyone had fighter jets......


  • #44
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,351 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    How about using the actual facts about what causes accidents to determine rules?

    The idea of not having NCT giving 4 points is strange as so few accidents are put down to a faulty vehicle.

    How many accident are a result of drink driving? It seems to me that it is an overreaction to keep reducing the limit unless there is proof that it is causing so many accidents. I know studies have suggested lack of sleep is much more likely to cause an accident than alcohol.

    Lower enforced speed limits on rural roads would appear to make the most difference to fatalities.

    I don't think many old people are involved in accidents so I don't get why the OP wants them off the road.


  • #45
    mikemac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,967 ✭✭✭✭mikemac


    Here is an idea

    Remember those lads who were killed in Monaghan, two cars playing chicken. Whole thing wasn't reported clearly and journalists who asked questions were accused of being insensitive. It was a tragedy and leave it at that was the attitude.

    Same for the accident on the M7 where a lady drove into the back of a fire truck in heavy fog. Her sister went on national radio crying over the questions being asked how you drive into the back of a fire truck with flashing lights and why can't the media be quiet.

    The vast majority of accidents are driver error and I'm not saying criticize the dead but if lessons can be learned why not publish it.

    So.......
    Once a month in the national papers you publish a report.
    No names, just details with speeds, road conditions and the critical factors.
    People will read these and be more aware. Make it realy technical, not emotional.
    And give the different factors and how they could have been avoided. And give the main reason why it happened.
    Should read like a risk analysis

    A lot of families will hate this idea though


  • #46
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Actually I change my mind re taxis. Rather than just banning cars of a certain age I think every taxi driver/company should be required to have their cars tested by the NCT regularly. If a problem is found the car must be brought back soon after to make sure it's been fixed. If its not fixed the first time you get a verbal warning, second time maybe a warning again and perhaps a small fine and three strikes and the car is off the road and the driver/company pays a larger fine and/or depending on how serious the fault is perhaps the Gardai/Courts could get involved.

    I write this having watched that program on taxis a few weeks back on RTE. Scary stuff.

    There also needs to be tougher regulations on who is allowed a taxi licence and on who the NCT employ imo.


  • #47
    Gannicus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭Gannicus


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    I don't think many old people are involved in accidents so I don't get why the OP wants them off the road.

    I never said i wanted old people off the road. read my OP again.

    If we can save even one more life a year by a perma-ban on drink drivers I think that is definitely worth it.

    I also agree that speed limits need to be enforced but also re-assessed as Some roads that are quite straight and in great condition are only 60kph but winding country roads that are in bits, narrow and have a ditch on each side are 80kph


  • #48
    gonedrinking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 810 ✭✭✭gonedrinking


    mikemac wrote: »

    The vast majority of accidents are driver error and I'm not saying criticize the dead but if lessons can be learned why not publish it.

    So.......
    Once a month in the national papers you publish a report.
    No names, just details with speeds, road conditions and the critical factors.

    But the people who knew the person who died will know its about them, so the effect is just the same had they of published the name. Still its not a bad idea, although they should not publish it until about 3 years after the accident if there was a death.


  • #49
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,152 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    orourkeda wrote: »
    But driving offences affect insurance premiums. While the driver may be breaking the law, any infringement will have consequences in accordance with the seriousness of the offence committed.

    That's the aftermath - we're talking about prevention.

    If someone knew that going 10kmph over would cost them €100,000 if they crashed then they might cop themselves in. I just can't understand why a document that means an insurance company is legally liable even if someone was blatantly breaking the law.


  • #50
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    Big Steve wrote: »
    A few friends and I were discussing road safety in work and the lads and girls had some input into improvements that could be made. I've posted them here to see what the boardsies think. Now bear in mind we do work for a large motor insurance company (not quinn)

    1. Zero tolerance for drink drivers.
    2. If you are convicted of drink driving then its a permanent ban from driving (driving is a privilege not a right)
    3. Maximum driving age of 70 or 75 with an age restriction for drivers on the motorway of 65.
    4. Teach basic driving skills in second level education.
    5. From 17 to 21 you must have a full licence driver over 21 in the car with you regardless of what kinda licence you have.
    6. Taxi drivers must have a car max of 10 years old.'t get
    7. If you fail your driving test 3 times or don't have it by the time your 50 that's it you shouldn't be on the road

    Now I must say I agree totally with the drink driving ones and I am quite fond of the Taxi idea.
    Also I can understand the one about the age limit on driving but that's not to say I agree with it but I do understand.
    The one about no full licence by 50 or 3 strike rule I think is kinda harsh.

    Number 4, that is the only one I would agree with, the others are just silly.


  • #51
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 33,053 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    3 strikes and your out is ridiculous, people rarely fail driving tests because of their level of competence, its usually because they're so damn nervous they make mistakes they usually wouldn't. Anyway the way you drive in a driving test is not the way people drive in the real world.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    gonedrinking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 810 ✭✭✭gonedrinking


    The following laws should be in place:

    - Helmets to be worn at all times by driver and passengers
    - Only cars with 5 star safety ratings should be allowed on the road
    - All cars should have a rear view camera, side cameras and front cameras displayed on screens on the dashboard at all times, so the driver is allways able to have a full view of everything around them and spot dangers sooner. It will also help prevent scrapes when people are reversing.
    - Cars should also have parking sensors on the off chance that you aren't paying attention to the screens, you will at least hear the sensors indicating you are about to hit something.
    - All cars should be automatic.
    - No car should be able to go over 75 mph max, limiters should be used to enforce this.

    Of course, given the speed of technology, its likely that in 10 years time you won't be able to crash even if you tried, but until then the government should implement my recommendations asap.


  • #53
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,339 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Some fairly bizarre shít there, OP. Ageist and idiotic.

    Regarding the 10 year taxi rule, if these cars aren't fit for the taxi-going public how can they be fit for ordinary families?


  • #54
    Daegerty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,864 ✭✭✭Daegerty


    gonedrinking wrote: »
    - All cars should be automatic.


    God no, slushboxes are horrible boring yokes. They don't improve driving either, just look at the States. I'd rather travel around by horse than drive a fooking automatic.


  • #55
    gonedrinking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 810 ✭✭✭gonedrinking


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Some fairly bizarre shít there, OP. Ageist and idiotic.

    The fact you can't have a license until you're 17 is also ageist


  • #56
    gonedrinking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 810 ✭✭✭gonedrinking


    Daegerty wrote: »
    God no, slushboxes are horrible boring yokes. They don't improve driving either, just look at the States. I'd rather travel around by horse than drive a fooking automatic.

    times are changing, technology has moved on, automatics are more responsive and quicker than manuals these days


  • #57
    Daegerty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,864 ✭✭✭Daegerty


    gonedrinking wrote: »
    times are changing, technology has moved on, automatics are more responsive and quicker than manuals these days

    Even if they have it doesn't make them any less boring. Making them mandatory will do nothing for anyone except the crowd making those horrible gearboxes. Who cares if technology has 'moved on' why would you force a particular type of gearbox on someone who doesn't want it? It wouldn't save any lives thats for sure, with more people who can't even twiddle a gear stick on the road and people eating the burger in one hand and on the phone with the other. I know I'd be a lot more likely to fall asleep behind the wheel in one of those yokes.

    Technology has 'moved on' from electric cars 100 years ago, now they are starting to make a comeback. Maybe they should have been banned too when the newer superior petrol powered cars came out?


  • #58
    kirving
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,372 ✭✭✭kirving


    gonedrinking wrote: »
    The following laws should be in place:

    - Helmets to be worn at all times by driver and passengers
    - Only cars with 5 star safety ratings should be allowed on the road
    - All cars should have a rear view camera, side cameras and front cameras displayed on screens on the dashboard at all times, so the driver is allways able to have a full view of everything around them and spot dangers sooner. It will also help prevent scrapes when people are reversing.
    - Cars should also have parking sensors on the off chance that you aren't paying attention to the screens, you will at least hear the sensors indicating you are about to hit something.
    - All cars should be automatic.
    - No car should be able to go over 75 mph max, limiters should be used to enforce this.

    Of course, given the speed of technology, its likely that in 10 years time you won't be able to crash even if you tried, but until then the government should implement my recommendations asap.

    To be honest, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'll reply anyway.

    Do you really think helmets would make a difference?

    What about 4 star cars, All death traps? What about manufacturers who design cars to pass the tests, not overall safety?

    Cars have mirrors, some have blindspot warning lights. Screens would be another distraction.

    Parking sensors are handy, yes, but they're really just used in car parks on large cars. You should be able to drive without them.

    Automatic's only?! Ridiculous point really.

    Is 100mph on a motorway at night really that dangerous? What about overtaking?


    Systems are being developed and introduced lately by manufactures whereby a car monitors it's surroundings(with lasers, radar) and will automatically react to a danderous situation. You're right, in 20 years time, I imagine crashing a new car to be quite difficult!


  • #59
    gonedrinking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 810 ✭✭✭gonedrinking


    Daegerty wrote: »
    I know I'd be a lot more likely to fall asleep behind the wheel in one of those yokes.

    Anyone you thinks there is even a slight chance they might fall asleep behind the wheel of a car should not be allowed to drive. In fact they shouldn't even be allowed out of their house without the supervision of a responsible adult.


  • #60
    kirving
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,372 ✭✭✭kirving


    I agree, but unfortunately it's far more common than drink driving and very difficult to prove.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Daegerty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,864 ✭✭✭Daegerty


    gonedrinking wrote: »
    Anyone you thinks there is even a slight chance they might fall asleep behind the wheel of a car should not be allowed to drive. In fact they shouldn't even be allowed out of their house without the supervision of a responsible adult.

    It could happen to anyone. Better stay inside I reckon. It's a big bad world out there but the radon inside the house isn't too good for your health either


Advertisement
Advertisement