Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Speeding causes less than 9% of two vehicle road crashes

1356

Comments

  • #62
    I.S.T.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 893 ✭✭✭I.S.T.


    Seanbeag1 wrote: »
    It's an inaccurate figure. I've mentioned before that these stats are based on Garda reports and Gardaí very rarely note speed as a factor if it is not the primary factor.

    If it's inaccurate, why is it used in an official Govenment document? What else in that report is inaccurate?


  • #63
    Atomic Pineapple
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,272 ✭✭✭✭Atomic Pineapple


    Scotty # wrote: »
    Your original question was why was speeding always the focus.

    The answer is: because speed is always a factor. Not "Stop Signs" as you suggest in your OP.

    ...and yes, it is stating the obvious!

    Wait, speed or speeding? Obviously speed is a factor in all crashes, without it everyone would be static!

    The problem is what is speeding? There are so many factors to take into play when it comes to answering that question, road condition, weather condition, tyre type and condition, traffic conditions, braking ability of the car, and so on that using rigid limits like posted speed limits and a single shot in time from a speed camera to police it is taking the easy way out.

    The majority of Irish drivers lack the ability to judge these things for themselves and instead focus on the posted limit and fear the crack down on speed, so instead of increasing driver ability (costs money) we are dumbing it down and using a fear campaign against "speeding" (makes money) in it's place.


  • #64
    Scotty #
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭Scotty #


    IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »
    It is not always a factor in the cause of the crash, only in 9% of them.
    ...but a factor none the less.


  • #65
    I.S.T.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 893 ✭✭✭I.S.T.


    Scotty # wrote: »
    ...but a factor none the less.

    Are you a troll or what?


  • #66
    Scotty #
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭Scotty #


    Nissan doctor wrote: »
    So if thats the view, the only solution is do away with cars altogether, dig up all the roads etc etc and make everyone walk.
    I didn't create physics. It's not my fault that the faster you hit something the more force is applied.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Fighting Irish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,062 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish


    Stupidity/Lack Of Concentration/People Not Knowing The Rules Of The Road

    causes accidents



    And please, to the people who get angry and flash at you when you overtake them doing 110 on a 100, you are not the law, get a life and go fook yourself!


  • #68
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    SV wrote: »
    So it's grand to use statistics to justify higher insurance premiums for younger drivers and such but when it comes to this they don't count, right? :rolleyes:

    Who said that?
    IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »
    If it's inaccurate, why is it used in an official Govenment document? What else in that report is inaccurate?

    You didnt link a report. You linked a jpg with a very narrow context. It would appear to show the primary causes of Two vehicle collisions where specified. And from the looks of the figures it only covers one months worth of fatal collicions.

    The bits in bold are the important parts.


  • #69
    conzy
    Subscribers Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭conzy


    Its a disgrace that some awful roads have a speed limit of 100km/hr and the motorway has a limit of 120km/hr?

    The limit on the motorway should be 140/150km/hr and the limit on a LOT of poor roads around the country should be reduced from 100km/hr to 80km/hr


  • #70
    Atomic Pineapple
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,272 ✭✭✭✭Atomic Pineapple


    conzymaher wrote: »
    Its a disgrace that some awful roads have a speed limit of 100km/hr and the motorway has a limit of 120km/hr?

    The limit on the motorway should be 140/150km/hr and the limit on a LOT of poor roads around the country should be reduced from 100km/hr to 80km/hr

    That wont solve anything.

    What we need in my opinion:
    • A concerted effort to educate and continually re-educate the driving public and not just the basics, proper education on how to observe and adjust to all conditions.
    • A new way of providing a suggested speed per road based on normal conditions but not a strict set limit, this should be a guide whereby people can use it to judge an appropriate speed at which to drive on that road having observed and adjusted to the conditions.
    • A way of monitoring traffic over a distance and checking for people who are not capably driving on the road, including an inappropriate speed, both low and high.


  • #71
    BlackBlade
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 187 ✭✭BlackBlade


    speed doesnt kill lack of skill and bothering your arse to does tho!

    gards were told to enforce the 30kph limit in town because pedestrians and cyclist have the highest amount of fatalities in the city but are harder to police so they go for the car driver instead!


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    I.S.T.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 893 ✭✭✭I.S.T.


    Seanbeag1 wrote: »
    You didnt link a report.
    I mentioned the name of the report, Road Collision Facts 2009, go ahead and read it, you won't find anything that contradicts what is in that table.
    Seanbeag1 wrote: »
    You linked a jpg with a very narrow context. It would appear to show the primary causes of Two vehicle collisions where specified. And from the looks of the figures it only covers one months worth of fatal collicions.
    Nope, it's figures for the entire year.
    Seanbeag1 wrote: »

    The bits in bold are the important parts.

    In your opinion.


  • #73
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Tragedy wrote: »
    I've studied thousands of pages of rsa/UK government reports on road accidents and death statistics. All of them broadly agree that statistically, exceeding the posted speed limit is only a contributor to a minority of cases.

    Don't lie, thank you.




    References and links to some key reports please (but not to the Daily Mail or Telegraph, thank you).


  • #74
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    draffodx wrote: »
    Wait, speed or speeding? Obviously speed is a factor in all crashes, without it everyone would be static!

    The problem is what is speeding? There are so many factors to take into play when it comes to answering that question, road condition, weather condition, tyre type and condition, traffic conditions, braking ability of the car, and so on that using rigid limits like posted speed limits and a single shot in time from a speed camera to police it is taking the easy way out.

    The majority of Irish drivers lack the ability to judge these things for themselves and instead focus on the posted limit and fear the crack down on speed, so instead of increasing driver ability (costs money) we are dumbing it down and using a fear campaign against "speeding" (makes money) in it's place.




    With reference to the OP, the title of the attached table is "Two vehicle collisions: contributory action, where specified".

    The total number of fatalities involved is 32. This is about 10% of the total number of fatalities in 2007.

    In your opinion do the 32 fatalities referred to in this single table in a single Irish report for a single year undermine the recurrent finding in road safety research internationally that higher speed increases both the risk and severity of car crashes?

    Do you believe that the 32 fatalities as reported undermine the evidence for the effectiveness of speed surveillance?


  • #75
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »
    I mentioned the name of the report, Road Collision Facts 2009, go ahead and read it, you won't find anything that contradicts what is in that table.


    Nope, it's figures for the entire year.



    In your opinion.

    I did read it. It doesn't support you very much. In fact that small table that deals with a small amount of collisions is the only reference to causes other than environmental ones. I've explained to you why it isn't very accurate yet you've ignored it because it doesn't suit you.


  • #76
    I.S.T.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 893 ✭✭✭I.S.T.


    Seanbeag1 wrote: »
    I did read it. It doesn't support you very much. In fact that small table that deals with a small amount of collisions is the only reference to causes other than environmental ones. I've explained to you why it isn't very accurate yet you've ignored it because it doesn't suit you.

    It is the only table in the report which sets out the primary cause of collisions. Show me something from the report which contradicts what that table says. I am presenting facts backed up by stats in the report. 9% of two-vehicle collisions are caused by excessive speed, that is a fact from this official Government report which you cannot argue with. What have you got to back up your point of view?


  • #77
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,251 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Seperate wrote: »
    I'd say the main reason why someone 'went to wrong side of road' or 'failed to stop/yield' would be mostly due to speed as well.

    Not necessarily..

    Piss-poor lane discipline generally has to account for some of that - only last night for example did I witness the car in front cut the corner (turning right) from a standstill at a junction and then continue up the road half in the other/oncoming lane for a good 200m before drifting back into the correct lane.

    Then you have the idiots who'll overtake on a bend (which in a lot of cases is stupidly marked as being "safe" to do so with dashed lines) regardless of cars coming at them.


  • #78
    Tea drinker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭Tea drinker


    Well it's not 9% from speeding or breaking the speed limit. As I read "exceeding safe speed" it could be less than speed limit, e.g doing 50 kmh around a bend that takes 30km/h or driving at the speed limit in adverse conditions, or when it's just busy.

    So exceeding the speed limit might be the cause of 5% of crashes? or only 1% ?


  • #79
    Tea drinker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭Tea drinker


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    Then you have the idiots who'll overtake on a bend (which in a lot of cases is stupidly marked as being "safe" to do so with dashed lines) regardless of cars coming at them.
    the winner is the formation fliers / aerobatic teams whoc stick together no matter the conditions. D1chkhead one overtakes on bend so d1ckhead 2 MUST overtake too.


  • #80
    Sobanek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,354 ✭✭✭Sobanek


    Nissan doctor wrote: »
    So still nowhere near the main cause as the RSA et all claim.




    Rubbish, end of.

    German autbahns in many cases have no speed limits and they are among the lowest accident/fatality roads in europe.

    There has to be limits of course, but current limits, braking distances etc etc are based on car abilities and information from the 60's.

    Driver education is also a huge factor.

    Well it depends. I do agree with you - the speed is not an issue, it's irresponsibleness. I don't agree with the information from the 60's though.

    A 1993's BMW 318i's braking distance from 60mph to 0mph is 112ft.
    A 2004's Volvo S40's braking distance from 60mph to 0mph is 114ft.

    So it is something you have to take into consideration.


  • #81
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »
    I was just reading through the RSA Road Collision Report 2009 and notice that "Exceeded safe speed" is responsible for less than 9% of all ....Why then all the focus on speeding and speed cameras?
    Because speed is a major contributing factor to the extent and seriousness of outcome of an accident regardless of the primary cause, which may or may not be speed.

    Depending on the speed, people may be killed, families may be devastated, impoverished, people might be burnt alive, maimed, paralysed for life or hopefully, just suffer recoverable injuries. That's why controlling speed is important.

    Or, to put it another way, would you prefer to be hit by an idiot at 50 kph or 80kph?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Atomic Pineapple
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,272 ✭✭✭✭Atomic Pineapple


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    With reference to the OP, the title of the attached table is "Two vehicle collisions: contributory action, where specified".

    The total number of fatalities involved is 32. This is about 10% of the total number of fatalities in 2007.

    In your opinion do the 32 fatalities referred to in this single table in a single Irish report for a single year undermine the recurrent finding in road safety research internationally that higher speed increases both the risk and severity of car crashes?

    Do you believe that the 32 fatalities as reported undermine the evidence for the effectiveness of speed surveillance?

    A question for the OP perhaps, I didn't mention said report in any of my posts or refer to it for any of my comments or opinions. In my opinion presenting facts for or against the effectiveness of speed surveillance is pointless as we currently have no way to effectively gather and present all relevant statistics required from every single crash and hence its relatively easy to spin the statistics for either view depending on how the current limited findings are looked at.
    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    Or, to put it another way, would you prefer to be hit by an idiot at 50 kph or 80kph?

    I'd prefer if proper measures where taken to decrease the likelihood of me being hit at all, eduction would turn that idiot into a competent driver, a speed camera won't.


  • #83
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    draffodx wrote: »
    eduction would turn that idiot into a competent driver, a speed camera won't.
    All drivers consider themselves to be wonderfully competant.

    Education is not the problem, discipline is.

    A speeding fine and some points teach a valuable lesson.


  • #84
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »
    It is the only table in the report which sets out the primary cause of collisions. Show me something from the report which contradicts what that table says. I am presenting facts backed up by stats in the report. 9% of two-vehicle collisions are caused by excessive speed, that is a fact from this official Government report which you cannot argue with. What have you got to back up your point of view?

    Years of experience and attendence at close to a hundred collisions.

    You have used a narrow statistic to try and prove a point about something much wider. Even your thread title is misleading. Your statistic covers a very small percentage of collisions and only covers the primary cause. Even at that I've explained to you why it can be misleading but you won't accept it. You won't argue it you just refuse to acknowledge it.


  • #85
    gyppo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,649 ✭✭✭gyppo


    Another fine thread started by a poster who doesnt have a vested interest or doesnt derive income from the sale of speed camera locations.

    While I won't disagree with the fact stated regarding the 9% figure, speed, whether excessive for the given conditions, or above the posted levels, has a huge significance where an accident is concerned.

    Why not take a look at this study
    http://http://www.rte.ie/news/features/roadsafety/publications/MaxillofacialInjuries.pdf

    Speeding and maxillofacial injuries: Impact of the
    introduction of penalty points for speeding offences

    For those who can't be bothered to read it, it was conducted 1 year after the introduction of the penalty points system. This was when there was a widely perceived view that there was a great risk of being caught and penalised for breaking the speed limit.
    "The introduction of legislation led to a 61% reduction in the need for emergency maxillofacial operations."

    So, its ok to be complacent about speed, as it only accounts for 9% of accidents - Fair enough then so:rolleyes:


  • #86
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    draffodx wrote: »
    A question for the OP perhaps, I didn't mention said report in any of my posts or refer to it for any of my comments or opinions.

    In my opinion presenting facts for or against the effectiveness of speed surveillance is pointless as we currently have no way to effectively gather and present all relevant statistics required from every single crash and hence its relatively easy to spin the statistics for either view depending on how the current limited findings are looked at.



    Are you posting in the wrong thread then, or just a little off topic?

    The thread title is "Speeding causes less than 9% of road crashes" and this claim relies on a single table which refers to a total of 32 fatalities in a single year.

    Quote: "I was just reading through the RSA Road Collision Report 2009 and notice that "Exceeded safe speed" is responsible for less than 9% of all crashes." Emphasis added.

    Presumably you have some opinion of the OP and the claim made explicit in the thread title and repeated in the quote above, or maybe you wouldn't have thanked it (along with a dozen others so far)?

    bluewolf, Bullseye1, Divorce Referendum, dr.fuzzenstein, draffodx, Fighting Irish, Jimmy Bottlehead, koth, Limerick man, Nissan doctor, opinion guy, Vertakill, Voodoomelon

    Do you believe that the OPs attached table can be used to draw generalisable conclusions about speed and speed surveillance or do you not?

    And btw are you possibly implying that it is "pointless" to rely on established evidence regarding the effects of speed cameras?


  • #87
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    gyppo wrote: »
    Why not take a look at this study
    http://http://www.rte.ie/news/features/roadsafety/publications/MaxillofacialInjuries.pdf

    Speeding and maxillofacial injuries: Impact of the
    introduction of penalty points for speeding offences

    For those who can't be bothered to read it, it was conducted 1 year after the introduction of the penalty points system. This was when there was a widely perceived view that there was a great risk of being caught and penalised for breaking the speed limit.

    "The introduction of legislation led to a 61% reduction in the need for emergency maxillofacial operations."



    I wasn't aware of that study. I haven't looked at it yet either, but presumably it gives a plausible explanation as to why there might have been such a significant drop in injuries of that type within 12 months of penalty points being introduced.

    Of course there are penalty points for a range of road traffic offences, not just speeding (though speeding is perhaps the single biggest reason for receiving penalty points).

    IIRC there was also a marked drop in fatalities the year random breath testing was introduced.

    Such beneficial effects can wear off a bit, however, if enforcement is not kept up. More is needed, along with better driver education too.


  • #88
    Atomic Pineapple
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,272 ✭✭✭✭Atomic Pineapple


    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    All drivers consider themselves to be wonderfully competant.

    Education is not the problem, discipline is.

    A speeding fine and some points teach a valuable lesson.

    Education and re-education would deal with discipline in most drivers.

    Lessons learnt from points are short lived at best. And all it does is slow people down for a while, not improve their driving.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Are you posting in the wrong thread then, or just a little off topic?

    The thread title is "Speeding causes less than 9% of road crashes" and this claim relies on a single table which refers to a total of 32 fatalities in a single year.

    Quote: "I was just reading through the RSA Road Collision Report 2009 and notice that "Exceeded safe speed" is responsible for less than 9% of all crashes." Emphasis added.

    Presumably you have some opinion of the OP and the claim made explicit in the thread title and repeated in the quote above, or maybe you wouldn't have thanked it (along with a dozen others so far)?

    bluewolf, Bullseye1, Divorce Referendum, dr.fuzzenstein, draffodx, Fighting Irish, Jimmy Bottlehead, koth, Limerick man, Nissan doctor, opinion guy, Vertakill, Voodoomelon

    Do you believe that the OPs attached table can be used to draw generalisable conclusions about speed and speed surveillance or do you not?

    And btw are you possibly implying that it is "pointless" to rely on established evidence regarding the effects of speed cameras?

    There are many reasons I would thank a post, thanking it does not automatically mean I agree with 100% or with any links presented in the post. I didnt quote the OP in any of my posts and instead I was clearly commenting on further comments on the thread which had expanded the topic somewhat.

    I believe it is pointless to present it for a topic of conversation on an internet forum as it can easily be "skewed" to suit one or the other point of view.


  • #89
    Scotty #
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭Scotty #


    draffodx wrote: »
    Education and re-education would deal with discipline in most drivers.
    I doubt it. I know most, if not all drivers, know it is illegal to use a mobile while driving and yet I see hundreds doing it everyday. Driving over the speed limit, the use of lanes, (as is being advertised on TV at the moment). People do actually know the rules of the road for the most part. Education does not mean compliance - unfortunately. Knor does penalisation - but it helps.




    (Personally I think motoring fines is this country are ridiculously low but I dare'nt bring that up here!:p)


  • #90
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Less than 9% of opinions are caused by solid evidence.



    Clash.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Tea drinker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭Tea drinker


    Both education and discipline are issues. But dealing with ignorance thru education is the most fruitful approach imho.
    Until we are all doing a mandatory full 1 day training course every 2 years we are not dealing with the issues. You can have an "Uncle Gaybo" or rambo cutout on every second corner and a speed camera on the rest, still won't fix ignorance of other road users. Until all people are trained, cyclists, pedestrian truck drivers, and trained from the point of view of each other we won't get it. As we are talking about car accidents here sure more education is good, much better than speed camera's on straight stretches of road. I mean the lie of the camera there to help while it's just printing money is galling. We were lied to that they would only be put in blackspots and it seems it everywhere except.

    Road safety is simply not taken seriously, and until we get over that, kiss someone you know goodye. Better that than making a fuss or noise - what would people think?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement