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

Road deaths: Another record low year?

Zubeneschamali

According to the stats at the Garda National Traffic Bureau page, we look like having another record low in road deaths this year. The figure could be around 200. I'd put most of any improvement down to economic conditions this year.

Also at that page, drink driving arrests also down, but fixed charge notices for speeding, mobile use, seatbelts and "other" are up.

Find more posts tagged with

road safety

Quick Links

Comments

I.S.T.

Victor wrote: »

This is a metric that is pushed by the motor industry that has nothing to do with allievating the suffering of the dead, injured and their families.

Oh please, don't play the emotion card to deflect from a valid point re the published stats.

Victor wrote: »

Pistol sales in the Republic have gone up since the end of The Troubles, when they were all but banned. This has lead to a reduction in the murder per pistol rate. However we have 3-4 times the number of murders. See any parallels?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, since the absolute number of road deaths has been cut in half in 10 years.

As Zubeneschamali said, not a valid comparison at all. Absolute road deaths were 628 in 1978 and have reduced almost every year since then with an all time low of 211 last year. Road safety has been improving all the time, but when you take the deaths per million vehicles metric, it gives a much clearer picture of what is going on.

Zubeneschamali

Victor wrote: »

Pistol sales in the Republic have gone up since the end of The Troubles, when they were all but banned. This has lead to a reduction in the murder per pistol rate. However we have 3-4 times the number of murders. See any parallels?

No, since the absolute number of road deaths has been cut in half in 10 years.

Victor

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

If you look at the number of deaths in relation to the number of vehicles on the road (dramatically increased in the last 10 years) you will see there is an even more dramatic reduction in deaths. This is the figure they should be reporting. We will be publishing more comprehensive stats on this at irishspeedtraps.com very soon but here is a simple breakdown

Year: Deaths per million registered vehicles
1999: 257
2000: 247
2001: 232
2002: 203
2003: 173
2004: 184
2005: 185
2006: 159
2007: 138
2008: 112
2009: 96
2010: not available yet

This is a metric that is pushed by the motor industry that has nothing to do with allievating the suffering of the dead, injured and their families.

Pistol sales in the Republic have gone up since the end of The Troubles, when they were all but banned. This has lead to a reduction in the murder per pistol rate. However we have 3-4 times the number of murders. See any parallels?

MagicSean

There are loads of factors which contribute to this. Speed vans and fuel costs have people driving slower. NCT enforcement has people in safer cars. Overall attitudes have changed, in particular towards seatbelts and drink driving. Car enthusiasts tend to be older and more mature these days with the more boy racer types being caught doing stupid stuff. Less people are driving and traffic levels have dropped.

BrianD3

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

That's impressive. Do you know what contributed to the reduction?

Hard to say but some of the factors that may influence the reduction in deaths in the Republic may not be as significant in NI. For instance, they haven't had the dramatic road improvements that we have had, they haven't had a well publicised rollout of speed camera vans in the last year that we have had. Also, they may not be as badly affected by the recession.

Here are some stats going back a few years for NI.
http://www.roadsafetycouncil.com/stats.htm

I.S.T.

BrianD3 wrote: »

Northern Ireland also doing very well again this year after last year's record low.

1/1/09 to 21/9/09: 88 deaths
1/1/10 to 21/9/10: 38 deaths
1/1/11 to 21/9/11: 40 deaths

http://www.psni.police.uk/daily_fatal.pdf

That's impressive. Do you know what contributed to the reduction?

BrianD3

Northern Ireland also doing very well again this year after last year's record low.

1/1/09 to 21/9/09: 88 deaths
1/1/10 to 21/9/10: 38 deaths
1/1/11 to 21/9/11: 40 deaths

http://www.psni.police.uk/daily_fatal.pdf

I.S.T.

Actually this graph illustrates more clearly the dramatic drop in road deaths when you look at deaths per million registered vehicles:

nessan22

same happened in United States as well...new safety features in cars and strict safety norms for automakers can be claimed one reason for this.

I.S.T.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

According to the stats at the Garda National Traffic Bureau page, we look like having another record low in road deaths this year. The figure could be around 200. I'd put most of any improvement down to economic conditions this year.

Also at that page, drink driving arrests also down, but fixed charge notices for speeding, mobile use, seatbelts and "other" are up.

If you look at the number of deaths in relation to the number of vehicles on the road (dramatically increased in the last 10 years) you will see there is an even more dramatic reduction in deaths. This is the figure they should be reporting. We will be publishing more comprehensive stats on this at irishspeedtraps.com very soon but here is a simple breakdown

Year: Deaths per million registered vehicles
1999: 257
2000: 247
2001: 232
2002: 203
2003: 173
2004: 184
2005: 185
2006: 159
2007: 138
2008: 112
2009: 96
2010: not available yet

Victor

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Here's a funky idea.

Less people on the roads? Less people, fewer crashes.

Not absolutely. Fewer vehicles can also mean higher mean speeds and less attention.

heate wrote: »

I think we should take some sort of pride in these figures in some way isn't it nice to live in a safer country.

Agreed.

The clampdown on drink driving has a role to play - I just wish they'd stop doing so manh checkpoints in Dublinm; the one county where you can't do a100mph average with 10 people in you'd car!

Not every checkpoint is purely about drink driving or other motoring matters. Tehy are often used to disrupt criminals.

savagecabbages wrote: »

Better cars and roads

As previsoulyy, not many new roads over the last year and car quality is likely to have slightly degraded over that time.

One thing which infuriates me is people putting the 2am single car deaths down to suicide:mad: Massive cop out...

Cop out might be harsh, but I agree it might be misplaced.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Obviously not all are down to suicide. But seriously, what do you suggest they are?

Circumstances exceeding the ability of the driver, due to tiredness, fatigue, intoxication, etc. The Kildare County Coroner examined about 100 case and in only one case was there a suggestion that it might have been suicide.

Victor

Chriscl1 wrote: »

Has there been fewer rta's??

Fewer collisions - "accident" is a bit of a cop out. They also tend to be less fatal on average.

Maybe it's down to scrappage getting older less safe cars off the road.

Realistically, I don't think so. While they were older cars I don't thinkt hey were outright bangers like the ones removed from circulation around 1998-1999.

Confab wrote: »

I consider the road death count to be a bit misleading. Severe/serious injury should be emphasised more in the road accident stats.

Yes, but they are more difficult to track in realtime, which is what that Garda page does.

Also, a significant number of road deaths are single vehicle/male/18-25, in other words the same group that has the highest incidence of suicide.

Lots of murders/manslaughters are also committed by that group. Perhaps people are bringing Grand Theft Auto into real life?

More seriously, research indicated that suicide by road collision is quite rare.

tmcw wrote: »

Maybe it's down to more people with points (more fixed charges given), not wanting to get any more (less money to burn on penalties and resulting hikes in insurance), and taking a bit more care in how they drive (resulting in less accidents and fatalities).

I somewhat agree. With the recession and high fuel prices, people are travelling less for work and personal and are more cost conscious in what travel they make. Alcohol and other recreational drugs are also less affordable / available.

Tenshot wrote: »

Let's not forget a significant improvement in quality in roads over the past 10 years.

I can think of a number of stretches I drive regularly where, for example, road widening & straightening occurred, cross-junctions were removed and replaced by flyovers or underpasses or simply blocked off, etc.

With almost no new roads opened in the last year, that can't explain a 11% drop in road deaths in that period.

seamus wrote: »

There appears to be a direct correlation in previous years between the number of drink-driving offences and a drop in road deaths.

Whether they're linked is hard to say, but it seems unlikely to be coincidence. There was a 15% drop in DWI arrests between 09 and 10 and a 12% drop in road deaths.

There has been a trend away from pub/club drinking towards drinking at home that has been hapening for more than 10 years. I imagine the recession has helped that.

I used some statistics software on the numbers last year and while lots of factors appear to contribute to the reduction, the shift towards home drinking was the only one that appeared to have a direct correlation. However, correlation does not equal causation, one can see how it would contribute.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Hard to know just what that means without a lot more detail. It might mean we're getting down to mostly single-drunk-occupant single-vehicle vs. stone bridge at 2 am type crashes, or just that we had fewer HGV takes out whole family crashes.

I think those are just two stereotypes that may or may not be reflective of the overall figures. Remember the 8 killed in Donegal last year? That didn't involved a HGV. Speaking to HGV operators, they are immensely conscious about costs at the moment, so drivers are being given eco-driving courses (e.g. avoid hard braking / acceleration), that also bring safety improvements.

trad wrote: »

I would say directly proportional to the price of fuel. Motorists are driving slower.

Well inversly proportional. International research does point to fuel price hikes having positive effects on road safety. And its not just slower, its less harsh accelleration/braking, sharp manoeuvers, etc. Tehr ewill also be an element of trips not made or mode change for certain trips, e.g. not driving to the corner shop.

Plus a lot of the sub 25 year old male group are now in Australia/ UK / Canada etc

A proportion yes, but also Poland, etc. Its hard to determine how amny as those figures aren't available yet. The census did show a big drop in the male/female ratio as construction workers emigrated.

Rovi

seamus wrote: »

I wouldn't say "every", but if you speak to any Garda who's done his/her time on the road, they'll tell you that the number of apparent suicides is a lot higher than people think.

My brother is a paramedic, and he and his colleagues would say the same thing.

Zubeneschamali

I'd note also that with total road deaths running at 200-220 per year, the suicide stats are relatively large: 2009 total was 527, with about 400 of them male, and young men 20-24 the largest single grouping.

The stats break down by Poisoning, Hanging, Drowning, Firearms, Other which includes self-cutting and jumping from a high place with no sign of death by motorcar at all.

If even a low fraction of suicides are suicides by car, it would be enough to distort the road accident fatality picture. Surely more 15-24 year olds have access to a car than to a firearm!

Zubeneschamali

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I would say that the the age group of people that dont wear seatbelts would be the older generation.

I agree: I would think that young drivers (the group we're most interested in) are also the group least likely to be driving without a seatbelt.

Zubeneschamali

seamus wrote: »

Basically when you've got a vehicle which was quite clearly tipping long at a high speed, a direct collision with an immoveable object, no sign of any attempt to brake or avoid the object and no seatbelt, then it all looks a little fishy.

I'd have to agree. The only way that's an accident is asleep/drunk/amazingly stoned at the wheel. I would think that young drivers (the group we're most interested in) are also the group least likely to be driving without a seatbelt.

I'd expect most deaths due to inexperienced young men at speed/drunk in single vehicle accidents would be off the road understeer/oversteer with lots of tyre marks, braking, skidding and possibly rolling, rather than head-on into an obstacle at speed.

Tomk1

Theres an awfull lot of assumptions here, with no facts to support them.
Of the 200 deaths and compairing accidents say over the last decade broken down per each year.
Could someone give the figures per yr:
How many each year was dumb-driving?
How many related to speeding?
How many in each age bracket?
How many were due to unsafe-NTC passed cars?
How many were drink/drug related?
How many were during the morning/day/evening/night?
How many on bad roads/ motorways/ in urban areas towns&cities?
How many durning icy/rain/fog/bright-sun/falling-trees/flash-flood conditions?
How many involved provisonal drivers?
Approximately how many cars were actually on the road for each time-frame per day?
How many involved Trucks/tractors/motorbikes/pedestrian.
How many where; Irish vehicles (as road deaths do not mean cars), left-hand drive?
How many were road-rage, attempted murder etc?

Only with these figures can anyone claim: older ntc-passed-cars or speed, better roads, more people tuning into Lyric-fm while driving -(that claim is mine and is as relevent as any other claim)

It is true that many suicides are put down as accident/misadventure which is understandable for the families involved, but what are the overall reported figures per age group per year?

Was that fellow who killed his kids in Ballycotten and then rammed his car into a wall a few years ago put down as a road-death?

But untill I have the facts, Lyric-fm

BrianD3

Major car passive safety improvements happened between say 1998 and 2005 but it takes several years for these new cars to filter down to the cheap car market. Now, as 90s and earlier cars die out a good proportion of this market consists of cars with 4 and 5 star NCAP ratings. Passive safety improvement since 2005 are probably less dramatic but are still happening and added to active safety tech (ESP etc.) on cheap new cars and I could see further reductions in deaths.

Even simple things like seatbelt buzzers make a difference particularly in countries like Ireland where there has been traditionally been poor compliance with seatbelt wearing laws. I know several people who only wore their seatbelt on "long journeys" or when they saw a Garda, now the buzzer annoys them into belting up everytime.

Obviously there are other factors. Just thinking back to the 90s it seemed that every week there were fatalities on single carriageway stretches of N roads like the N1, N4, N6 etc. Eg Dublin to Galway drivers on the N6 were getting stuck in traffic in places like Moate and then overtaking like lunatics to make up lost time. All changed now and in this example the motorway that bypasses Moate, Kilbeggan Tyrrellspass doesn't have a toll.

re: 100km/h crashes, that Golf test wasn't survivable. But this 80 km/h Laguna test was. There is a big difference between 100 and 80. Still, surviving an 80 km/h test would have been unthinkable not so long ago so who knows what will be survivable in the future with better restraint systems, adoption of EVs (which have potential safety advantages over IC engine cars due to packaging)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MsqJFoWSjI

seamus

Just without being completely grim/morbid about it, I dug up a crash test VW did a couple of years back @ 100km/h.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055620954
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TNFDeK6GLE

Basically the odds of surviving a crash at over 100km/h are practically nil. It's not just your body bouncing off stuff that causes injury, the actual sudden deceleration causes all sorts of internal issues in your body that makes it practically unsurvivable.

In most cases where someone has survived a 100km/h+ crash, it's because they didn't hit a solid object and stop dead or because there was some other mitigating factor which saved their life (like being thrown from the car).

If you fast forward to 3:45 in the video (I think), you can see the position of the driver. Imagine it without a seatbelt.

challengemaster

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Drink driving. Driving while tired. Driving too fast on backroads, meeting the unexpected, losing control, hitting a tree, pole, bridge. Typical inexperienced, overconfident young fella stuff.

And before anyone takes offence, I was a young man once myself, and did most of those things, but lived.

Inexperience isn't just a trait of a young driver.. There's a lot of bad drivers out there, and I highly doubt the majority of them are young tbh.

There's people who can't go near bigger towns/cities because they can't manage to follow signage. People who can't use roundabouts because they didnt exist when they had their test. I even came across someone with the spacial awareness of a brick over the summer - older woman in a micra clutching to the steering wheel, driving at 60+km/h with the right half of the car (yes, half, as far as the grille) in a ditch on the side of the road, despite the fact the road was wide enough for 2 cars to pass easily, it just didn't have markings.

I see no reason to bring suicide into it. Smashing up your car seems a very unreliable way to kill yourself to me (short of going over the Cliffs of Moher), and far too likely to end up with the driver just really, really badly injured.

But maybe there is some reason to suppose I'm wrong?

Generally people who're contemplating suicide aren't exactly thinking 100%

Few years back when I was doing a first aid course, paramedics told us about one person who tried absolutely everything all at once. Took bottles of tablets, did the wrists, then got into the car and went driving at speed. He managed to crash the car into some water somewhere. It all backfired, as the tablets and cold water slowed down his heartrate to stop him bleeding out, paramedics arrived fairly promptly, got him to hospital and had his stomach pumped... talk about fluke

I'm not saying that every single car RTA in the early morning is a suicide, but come on, it's a bit naive to presume that none of them are either? And even with suspicion, they cant or wont rule it as one for the families sake.

Sofiztikated

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Drink driving. Driving while tired. Driving too fast on backroads, meeting the unexpected, losing control, hitting a tree, pole, bridge. Typical inexperienced, overconfident young fella stuff.

And before anyone takes offence, I was a young man once myself, and did most of those things, but lived.

I see no reason to bring suicide into it. Smashing up your car seems a very unreliable way to kill yourself to me (short of going over the Cliffs of Moher), and far too likely to end up with the driver just really, really badly injured.

But maybe there is some reason to suppose I'm wrong?

Trust me, I'm not long out of being classed as a young fella, and did every one of them.

I don't believe all, or even most, are suicide, but it should be considered. Again, having a smash is an unreliable way to off yourself, but aren't we bombarded with "He Drives, She Dies" and "IF YOU GO OVER 50KPH AND CRASH, YOU WILL DIE, AND DIE SO HARD, YOU KILL YOUR FAMILY!!!one!111!!!"

I just think there is a huge number of factors in the reduced number of deaths on the roads, and not simply down to, what will be in the end, Safety Cameras are Saving Lives (TM)

seamus

savagecabbages wrote: »

Well many people brush every fatal young driver single car accident off as a suicide, not saying you do, but a lot of people do!

I wouldn't say "every", but if you speak to any Garda who's done his/her time on the road, they'll tell you that the number of apparent suicides is a lot higher than people think.

Basically when you've got a vehicle which was quite clearly tipping long at a high speed, a direct collision with an immoveable object, no sign of any attempt to brake or avoid the object and no seatbelt, then it all looks a little fishy.
And these kinds of collisions are not rare at all.

But the nature of reporting (and of society) is such that these deaths may never be recorded as suicide (for a number of reasons) but will always be counted as road traffic fatalities.

It skews the reality, in the same way that an accident is recorded as "alcohol related", if any occupant of any of the vehicles is known to have consumed alcohol (though that may be an urban myth).

Zube - a head-on collision at 100kph+ with an immovable object is almost guaranteed to kill you. People who commit suicide don't really consider statistics or probabilities of their attempt. Men are also proven to choose more violent methods of suicide with a higher chance of success. It would seem to me that a collision with a tree at 100km/h+ would be a fairly reliable way out, at least as reliable as anything else. We very rarely actually see the aftermath of such high-speed collisions because in a normal scenario most people manage to massively reduce their speed before impact.

Zubeneschamali

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Obviously not all are down to suicide. But seriously, what do you suggest they are?

Drink driving. Driving while tired. Driving too fast on backroads, meeting the unexpected, losing control, hitting a tree, pole, bridge. Typical inexperienced, overconfident young fella stuff.

And before anyone takes offence, I was a young man once myself, and did most of those things, but lived.

I see no reason to bring suicide into it. Smashing up your car seems a very unreliable way to kill yourself to me (short of going over the Cliffs of Moher), and far too likely to end up with the driver just really, really badly injured.

But maybe there is some reason to suppose I'm wrong?

savagecabbages

Well many people brush every fatal young driver single car accident off as a suicide, not saying you do, but a lot of people do!

Without having access to the full statistics I'm only guessing, but I'd say many are down to driving too fast for the conditions/roads over which they are travelling, loosing control and not having enough experience to regain control. In other words, speed.

Sofiztikated

savagecabbages wrote: »

Better cars and roads, coupled with less younger drivers on the road. There are a LOT of the highest risk category in Australia/Canada at the moment. I wonder how the govt/RSA will play the safety camera element. Cameras come in, deaths go down. I can see a lot of political points scoring with this... I'm skeptical myself as to exactly how much of an influence the vans have on road deaths, it take a while before those statistics become apparent.

One thing which infuriates me is people putting the 2am single car deaths down to suicide:mad: Massive cop out...

Obviously not all are down to suicide. But seriously, what do you suggest they are?

savagecabbages

Better cars and roads, coupled with less younger drivers on the road. There are a LOT of the highest risk category in Australia/Canada at the moment. I wonder how the govt/RSA will play the safety camera element. Cameras come in, deaths go down. I can see a lot of political points scoring with this... I'm skeptical myself as to exactly how much of an influence the vans have on road deaths, it take a while before those statistics become apparent.

One thing which infuriates me is people putting the 2am single car deaths down to suicide:mad: Massive cop out...

Sofiztikated

trad wrote: »

So I'll stick with the price of fuel and emigration. Just my 2c worth

Exactly. These lead to less people on the roads. How many young poeple (and older ones for that matter) that were road goers have emigrated? Immediately, that's less people on the roads.

Same again, factor in the price of petrol/diesel. This would keep an awful lot of people off the road, as they just can't afford to go for a spin whenever now.

Combine that with a less tolerant view of drink driving, and maybe, just maybe, people are slowing down and/or being more careful on the roads. (I doubt this last bit, I'm seeing more and more stupid things on the roads, and it's only a matter of time.)

Mar4ix

trad wrote: »

So I'll stick with the price of fuel and emigration. Just my 2c worth

Agree...

Fines not stop people drink and drive or speeding. If compare to my native country, drink and drive fines are enormous (average 2 month wages + pay nearly half of that for seized car parking in police carpark while in jail) + 2 week jail+loose driver license for 2 years, and people still getting cough every day.... people die on roads, getting injured....

Cionád

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Have we not hit a plateau in road deaths, where no matter how much money we throw at it we are going to see comparable numbers year on year? I would have said that at around 200 we are looking at the level of human error in existence on our roads.

Looking at the statistics, they are down consistenty year-on-year.

Better Roads (motorways) and safer cars are the main factors I'd say.

Interesting post showing the trends, and how the motorways/improvements have replaced some dangerous roads... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69830055&postcount=5

trad

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I meant from this time last year. We're comparing year on year statistics here, not 3 decades ago.

So I'll stick with the price of fuel and emigration. Just my 2c worth