Road Deaths - What can the Govt Do?

Stabshauptmann

TempestSabre wrote:

I don't agree. If you think you won't get caught doesn't matter what the fine is.

Enforcement. All other issues are related to that.

I might be wrong, but it looks like you didnt understand my example at all because you're disagreeing with me while trying to say the exact same thing as me.
People dont care about the nominal penalty, they care about the expected penalty, which is the nominal penalty times the probability they will be caught.

Each of the following examples has the same expected penalty and the exact same effect as a deterant:
A) A €50 fine and a 100% chance of being caught
A €100 fine with 50% chance of being caught
C) A €1000 fine with 5% chance of being caught

There is a trade off between enforcement and the penalty, obviously is there is a 0% chance of being caught no penalty will act as a deterant.

This is a very simlified economic model though, if you take risk analysis into account it gets more complicated, but still manageable.

TempestSabre

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

...

C) A €1000 fine with 5% chance of being caught

...

I understand it, I don't agree with it.

So for 95% of those people the expected penalty the next time will be €0 and 95% of them will be correct. The other problem with your model is that people don't exist in a vaccum. They take in information from the people they are in contact with and the media. The overiding perception will be that hardly anyone gets caught, so might aswell risk it. They might be in contact with the 5% who did get caught, but that will be outweighed by the Concensus.

bonkey

robindch wrote:

Neither is the figure "soaring",

What definition of soaring are you using to make that argument?

If you actually look at the statistics, available here:

http://www.garda.ie/angarda/statistics98/rtastats_longterm.html

...you can see that except for the last two years, road deaths have been dropping steadily since the early 1970's in absolute terms.

Indeed. Now, for two years (suggesting that its more than a one-year statistical blip), that trend has not only reversed itself, but reversed itself to almost the same rate. So, we have a 30-year trend that is now broken, as the figures for the last 2 years do not match with it. Indeed, they don't even show the trend flattening out, but rather a sharp, sudden turn for the worse.

It wouldn't seem unfair, therefore, to say that the figures are ascending to a level markedly higher than usual. so I'm not sure what your objection to the term "soaring" is.

Also, if the government effected a policy which resulted in the rate of fatalaties dropping by double the normal year-on-year trend-predicted rate, I somehow doubt that you'd be here telling us that the use of the word "plummeting" was inaccurate...but maybe I'm just cynical.

Since the number of cars on the roads has increased massively since then, safety on the roads has increased proportionately even faster.

Its a convenient argument, but it ignores the fact that we are effectively alone in Europe suffering from this significant upward shift in fatalaties. We are not alone in the numbers of cars on the road increasing, nor is there any signficant difference in the inherent safety of the cars on our roads and mainland ones.

much of the self-important public whining in the media is misplaced.

Why is it misplaced? There is clear evidence that our system is broken. If it wasn't, this trend-reversal wouldn't have happened, and wouldn't stand out so starkly when compared to the rates across Europe.

Regardless of the argument that it isn't party members crashing these cars, the government is responsible for the system and that system is failing / has failed. Who else is going to correct it? Should we try and reduce crime by suggesting that if only people stole less, it would all be fine, and its unfair to blame the government for not providing the necessary bodies (police/prisons/courts etc.) with the right tools to deal with the problem? After all, its not Dail members mugging people or breaking into houses, right?

The trend-reversal in road-fatalities is anything but small. There was no flattening off period. No signs of decrease in rate-of-improvement. From one year to the next, the figures underwent swing from decreaseing at a certain rate to increasing at almost the same rate. This increase has sustained itself for two years, and provisional figures for 2006 show no signs of it improving.

Regardless of what factors one wishes to attribute to the causes of this (and I admit Ireland has claim to some reasonably unique factors), the result is clear. Our system is broken. Our system needs to be fixed.

What is being done?

On the positive side, at least it's a politically neutral situation

Is it? Is the ruling coalition not responsible for failures on their watch? More importantly - what are they doing about it, and since when?

Cork wrote:

Road Deats coud be cut by lowering the drink driving limit.

Could they?

Is there evidence that there's any sort of correlattion between road-deaths and drivers who are ahve alcohol in their systems but who are under the limit? If not, the lowering the limit would not be expected to produce any change.

There are vehicles on our roads that don't require MOTs eg. recovery vehicles, mobile workshops etc.

Indeed there are. I'm not sure of the relevance here either though. Are these types of vehicle statistically more likely to be involved in accidents? If so, are the vehicles involved likely to have not been on the road were there an MOT (i.e. a recovery vehicle that would pass an MOT should be excluded).

We should have a national insurance database

Why would this make a difference? Is there a statistical correlation between road-deaths and drivers who have previously been in accidents and who shouldn't have had insurance or something?

and technology should check to see if cars are taxed and insured and not the garda.

Useless. Technology cannot test for a negative result. The garda aren't interested if your car is tested, they're interested if it isn't. How can technology find untested/uninsured cars?

Some road deaths are down to driver stupidity and no government should be responsible for this.

Unless the Irish people are growing stupider than the rest of Europe at a frightening pace, this argument is also irrelevant.

That said - measures should be taken to improve safety on the roads.

Indeed. One point that I won't question the relevance of. Pity all of the others were apparently the ideas you had about how to do this.

TempestSabre

We need the stats to determine the answers to many of those questions. The insurance companies have that data.

Stabshauptmann

TempestSabre wrote:

I understand it, I don't agree with it.

So for 95% of those people the expected penalty the next time will be €0 and 95% of them will be correct. The other problem with your model is that people don't exist in a vaccum. They take in information from the people they are in contact with and the media. The overiding perception will be that hardly anyone gets caught, so might aswell risk it. They might be in contact with the 5% who did get caught, but that will be outweighed by the Concensus.

You dont understand. I can see you struggling to try, but you're not grasping it.
All 100% of the population have the same expenced penalty, €50

TempestSabre

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

You dont understand. I can see you struggling to try, but you're not grasping it.
All 100% of the population have the same expenced penalty, €50

Well I can't explain it any simpler for you. If you've never got caught you've never experienced any fine at all. The expected fine is 0.

HelterSkelter

I think the driving test needs to me made harder. It is not a good enough test of how good a driver you are. All you have to do is act like you are told by your instructor for 20 mins and you will pass. It is just not realistic. There are simply too many people on the roads who are just not good enough to be driving. I don't know if it's down to bad training or they just don't have the skills. They should fail the test if they are not up to the standard. And it goes without saying that the rule about provisional drivers not allowed to drive alone should be enforced.

HelterSkelter

Captain Trips wrote:

I don't know if it's "soaring" at all. We are around about the middle of the road in the EU for road deaths.

In fact, considering there are literally ****loads of more cars on the road these days compared to the 1970s, I would say we are remarkably safe drivers considering the absence of driving education in schools (Primary schools would be a place to start!) and everyone having a car these days, whether fully licenced to drive or not.

That's a good point. Look at the garda stats (http://www.garda.ie/angarda/statistics98/rtastats_longterm.html), number of collisions is dropping every year. There are over 2 million vehicles on the road now, 1.75m in 2001, 1.5m in 1998, 1m in 1989. So we actually are getting safer.

Victor

HelterSkelter wrote:

That's a good point. Look at the garda stats (http://www.garda.ie/angarda/statistics98/rtastats_longterm.html), number of collisions is dropping every year. There are over 2 million vehicles on the road now, 1.75m in 2001, 1.5m in 1998, 1m in 1989. So we actually are getting safer.

The number of vehicles is misleading. If 400+ people a year are being killed going about their business, while best practice means only 200 people should be dying, then that 400 figure is too much.

If you compare your vehicle number to flying, tens of thousands dying every year would be acceptable, simply because more people are flying these days.

HelterSkelter

Victor wrote:

The number of vehicles is misleading. If 400+ people a year are being killed going about their business, while best practice means only 200 people should be dying, then that 400 figure is too much.

If you compare your vehicle number to flying, tens of thousands dying every year would be acceptable, simply because more people are flying these days.

I'm never said 400 or any other figure is acceptable. The point is there are less collisions (& less deaths) per vehicle on the road now than 5 or 10 years ago.

Victor

And you make that sound like a Good Thing ™, when in fact its neutral, seeing as road deaths have been on the rise since 2003.

HelterSkelter

Victor wrote:

And you make that sound like a Good Thing ™, when in fact its neutral, seeing as road deaths have been on the rise since 2003.

How can it be neutral? If the number of deaths in relation to the number of vehicles is dropping does that not mean it is safer?

TempestSabre

HelterSkelter wrote:

How can it be neutral? If the number of deaths in relation to the number of vehicles is dropping does that not mean it is safer?

Ask the people who get killed. (cheap shot)

Victor

HelterSkelter wrote:

How can it be neutral? If the number of deaths in relation to the number of vehicles is dropping does that not mean it is safer?

There are more gun murders these days, there are even more guns available than there are murders. Does this make things safer?

HelterSkelter

Victor wrote:

There are more gun murders these days, there are even more guns available than there are murders. Does this make things safer?

May I ask why you have an interest in this topic? Do you have a friend/relative who was killed in a crash?

shoegirl

1. Lack of first line enforcement - very little visible presence of police patrols, and when they are there they seem to do very little except watch.
Suggested Solution: Replace mobile patrols with fixed red light, bus lane and speed cameras. Only problem here is the risk of vandalism could offset the cost and persistent offenders will find new ways to avoid being caught. I notice from driving frequently in the UK that people don't break regulations in areas with lots of cameras.

2. Unlikely event of being successfully convicted - high proportion of drunk drivers getting off on tehcnicalites and many receiving apparently soft punishments for dangerous driving.
Suggested Solution: changes to law, and constitution, if required, to prevent offenders from abusing the law to avoid conviction. Better "stress-testing" of proposed laws to prevent weak laws from being introduced.
Mandatory punishments for serious offences - suggest we include mandatory seizure of banned drivers vehicles - and sale of them, in order to prevent banned drivers from driving under a ban. Fines should also be proportionate to the income of the offender.

3. Driving Tests - the 400,000 provisional licence holders are often scapegoated for road safety problems, despite the fact that the 14 month waiting list is no fault of theirs, and if they were offered a test during the next month, about 50% of them would probably pass. The problem with this is the people driving on provisional licences are in many cases not learners at all, but experienced drivers who are uncertified. Aside from this being unfair, it does shield the small minority of insafe drivers who can hide under this cover.
Suggestion: Driver Testing Agency has been underresourced for so long there have been significant waiting lists for over 25 years! Needs to be funded to match the demand - which clearly it hasn't been for many decades. This would at least distinguish "real" learners and make it fesaible to take them off the road without creating a transport crisis affecting hundreds of thousands of people.

4. Unregisterd vehicles - aside from the obvious visiblity of Lithuanian and Polish cars, there are thousands of vehicles from France, Germany, and tens of thousands of UK registered vehicles. There is a strong suggestion that many Irish drivers are bringing over UK cars to evade tax and insurance laws, and many continental men are doing the same - I suspect mainly because of the huge differential in cost for them compared to back home.
Suggested solution - follow the UK in this regard. Allow owners a reasonable length of time to register the vehicle in Ireland, after which it would be a criminal offence. Put the onus on the vehicle owner to prove he is insured and that the vehicle is less than the allowed time in the country. From the UK DVLA: "It is the responsibility for the driver to prove how long the vehicle has been in the country. This can be achieved by producing ferry tickets. Used or unregistered vehicles brought into the UK will be allowed to circulate freely for six months in any 12 month period without the need to register. Certain vehicles will be required to display a temporary ‘Q’ plate. Temporary visitor status is not appropriate to these vehicles." Work with ferry companies to pass a register of incoming/outgoing vehicles to the police (this would also deter importers of stolen vehicles). Work with authorities in other countries to trace stolen vehicles.

5. Many dangerous drivers who manage to evade the law often end up in serious accidents that are not reported to insurance companies because the driver pays the full cost of the accident.
Solution - pass information reported to police regarding accidents to insurance companies to avoid drivers misinforming companies of their real accident record.

6. In the same way, many drivers can effectively "buy" a no-claims bonus by using "protection" policies that actually contradict the whole point of discounting safe drivers.
Solution - make the sale of NCB "protection" unlawful.

7. Improve areas used by pedestrians to create greater visibility - clear footpaths, highlighted pedestrian crossings, as a lot of particularly elderly pedestrians are being hit by vehicles who cannot see them, especially in rural areas.

8. Lastly, shorten the length of the "orange" light on traffic lights - people are using it to accelerate and end up breaking the red light at speed.

The only problem I cannot suggest a solution for is the dangerous young male driver problem - though I think many of the actions above would mitigate this problem.
It is interesting to see that young men from other EU states are adopting the same reckless behavious as young Irish men on the roads as soon as they see that enforcement is very little. Also the tendency for young continental males to bring over (often uninsured) cars is very striking with the fact that very few continental women do the same - which suggests to me that the prohibitive cost of insurance for males combined with pressure to find a means of transport in a country with possibly the highest public transport poverty level in the developed world is causing much of this trend.

At the same time, well-intentioned programs such as the Hibernian Ignition scheme are also being used by highly-skilled but highly dangerous young male drivers to cut their insurance to reasonable levels. The fact that they can temporarily restrain themselves for a one day test hides the fact that they are a dangerous menace - despite sometimes having apparently good driving skills. The problem is the macho attitude and a sense of invincibility. You can't teach them to change that, which is why I haven't suggested a solution.

Victor

HelterSkelter wrote:

May I ask why you have an interest in this topic? Do you have a friend/relative who was killed in a crash?

No I was in an accident myself and am not right in the head.

HelterSkelter

Victor wrote:

No I was in an accident myself and am not right in the head.

Yeah right whatever

Boggle

shoegirl wrote:

Replace mobile patrols with fixed red light, bus lane and speed cameras.

Between watching their speedometers and looking out for camera's drivers in london barely look at the road... Do we have a high incidence of fatalities in our towns and cities that these could fix?

changes to law, and constitution, if required, to prevent offenders from abusing the law to avoid conviction. Better "stress-testing" of proposed laws to prevent weak laws from being introduced.

You can't just change the constutution because it doesn't suit the govt to have to develop the laws properly. I agree that they should be better stress tested.

"It is the responsibility for the driver to prove how long the vehicle has been in the country. This can be achieved by producing ferry tickets.

What if you've lost the ticket? Will never agree with a guilty until proven innocent philosophy.

Solution - pass information reported to police regarding accidents to insurance companies to avoid drivers misinforming companies of their real accident record.

People are already ripped off by insurance companies - you are proposing giving them teh ability to scrap your NCB for a "clipping a wingmirror" scale incident.

6. In the same way, many drivers can effectively "buy" a no-claims bonus by using "protection" policies that actually contradict the whole point of discounting safe drivers.
Solution - make the sale of NCB "protection" unlawful.

The risk of death should be the deterrent from crashing - not how much your NCB is affected. Your NCB are not your penalty points - minor accidents DO happen.

The only problem I cannot suggest a solution for is the dangerous young male driver problem - though I think many of the actions above would mitigate this problem.

Actually, seeing as women have more actual accidents than men shouldn't it be dangerous female drivers according to some of your last points? Mindless comments and a willingness to discriminate like that makes my blood boil... Shouldn't it have been dangerous drivers - Full Stop!!

Also the tendency for young continental males to bring over (often uninsured) cars is very striking with the fact that very few continental women do the same

Now THIS I need stats for - unless your pulling your notions from thin air!!!

At the same time, well-intentioned programs such as the Hibernian Ignition scheme are also being used by highly-skilled but highly dangerous young male drivers to cut their insurance to reasonable levels.

Its allowing them to prove that just because some blokes drive like nutters that we are not all like that. Would you prefer all young males to be priced off the road??

...I'm off for a seditive after reading all such upsetting drivel...

bonkey

HelterSkelter wrote:

So we actually are getting safer.

Its true that simply taking the number of fatalities is simplistic.

Indeed, the correct measure would account for (at least) the number of cars on the road, the average mileage driven per car, and the number of fatalities.

For short time-periods, I would agree that the average mileage can probably be dispensed with, as its delta is likely to be smaller than the overall margin of error anyway.

Having said which, it is a bit strange to argue that the stats are simplistic and misleading, and that we're actually getting safer, based on yoru reasoning which compares 2006 with 2001 and earlier when even the simplistic misleading stats assert as much.

The question is whether or not the trend of improvement has reversed in the past two years, which is what the simplistic stats would suggest.

I've been hunting about, and can't find anything on annual car numbers, so I can't really comment on whether or not your "we're still getting safer" argument holds. What I can say is that applying the logic to compare 2005/06 with any period before the annual-total increase in 2003 is unquestionably invalid.

jc

HelterSkelter

bonkey wrote:

I've been hunting about, and can't find anything on annual car numbers, so I can't really comment on whether or not your "we're still getting safer" argument holds. What I can say is that applying the logic to compare 2005/06 with any period before the annual-total increase in 2003 is unquestionably invalid.

jc

Look at page 3 of 2004 - Vehicle & Driver Statistics, link: http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPub.nsf/wvNavView/RegularPublications?OpenDocument&Lang=en#I4

HelterSkelter

bonkey wrote:

Having said which, it is a bit strange to argue that the stats are simplistic and misleading, and that we're actually getting safer, based on yoru reasoning which compares 2006 with 2001 and earlier when even the simplistic misleading stats assert as much.

The question is whether or not the trend of improvement has reversed in the past two years, which is what the simplistic stats would suggest.

I've been hunting about, and can't find anything on annual car numbers, so I can't really comment on whether or not your "we're still getting safer" argument holds. What I can say is that applying the logic to compare 2005/06 with any period before the annual-total increase in 2003 is unquestionably invalid.

jc

Ok, maybe it is a bit misleading to say we are getting safer, if there are more people being killed then there is obviously an increased chance I will be killed everytime I make a journey. But people are disregarding the huge increase in the number of vehicles on the road. The number of deaths has increased in the last 3 years, true, but there are over 500,000 extra cars on the roads in the last 6 years:

Licenced Vehicles
2004: 2,036,307
2003: 1,937,429
2002: 1,850,046
2001: 1,769,684
2000: 1,682,221
1999: 1,608,156
1998: 1,510,853
1997: 1,432,330

Road Collision Deaths:
2005: 399
2004: 374
2003: 335
2002: 376
2001: 411
2000: 415
1999: 413
1998: 458
1997: 472
1996: 453

bonkey

Thanks for the link.

Throwing those figures through a quick spreadsheet, we get the following stats : fatalaties per 100,000 cars on the road:

18.36658225 2004
17.29095621 2003
20.32381898 2002
23.22448528 2001
24.66976693 2000
25.6815881 1999
30.31400143 1998
32.95329987 1997

As can be seen, here too, there is evidence that since 2003, things also worsened...but without the 2005 figure for cars, I wouldn't say its as definitely indicative of a trend.

jc

Hermione*

silverharp wrote:

I think all teenagers ahould be brought on a tour of the national rehab centre.

This is one of the best suggestions I've come across. My sister was a patient in the NRH for five months after being knocked down by a car, and the sight of little children in child-sized wheelchairs was so upsetting. I know the emphasis is rightly on the four hundred or so who die annually on the roads, but there are thousands whose lives will never be the same after one chance event.

HelterSkelter

Hermione* wrote:

This is one of the best suggestions I've come across. My sister was a patient in the NRH for five months after being knocked down by a car, and the sight of little children in child-sized wheelchairs was so upsetting. I know the emphasis is rightly on the four hundred or so who die annually on the roads, but there are thousands whose lives will never be the same after one chance event.

I don't know if a tour of the rehab centre is such a great idea but I think you are definitely onto something there. I think they should scrap those so-called "shocking" drink driving ads and instead have ads featuring real people who have survived accidents but whose lives have been permanently affected and perhaps lost friends in the accident. Let's face it, young people are not really afraid of dying so I don't think the current ads have any impact. But the thought of being stuck in a wheel chair for the rest of your life not being able to feed yourself or take a piss without help would hit home a lot more.

Take a look at this article below. It's on the MIJAG site but is a reprint of an Irish Times article which looks at the lives of young people and who survived a car accident.
(http://www.mijag.com/other/safety_index.asp)

"...the savage reality of the mother struggling to get a shirt onto her fully-grown son, that funny, generous lad once full of life and mischief transformed to an unrecognisable, dull, fractious child, is bleak beyond words."

Most of the publicity regarding car accidents, particularly involving young drivers, is focused on the number of people killed. However, below is an excellent article published in the Irish Times last December. It deals with the issues and problems facing survivors of car accidents, the side of the story we never hear about.



'God forgive me, there are things worse than dying' - Irish Times (6/Dec/2001)

Not everyone involved in a car accident dies. In the final part of our series , Kathy Sheridan reports on the individuals and families who spend years in rehab "For some young men, it was not the fact that they thought they were invincible, but simply the immediate guaranteed benefit they got from what they referred to as the adrenaline buzz, which far outweighed the possible cost of injury to themselves or to others."

From a North Eastern Health Board report, Men Talking

"Once you think about it, well after you do it, you say, 'Jesus, I shouldn't have done that' but at the time you just hop in and floor it."

A young farmer, quoted in the report

"Life is now and I see nothing there for me. This is what I have."

A brain-injured man on his vision of the future

It's coming up to 5 p.m. on a Friday and staff on the brain injury wards at Beaumont Hospital are clearing the decks. It's about now that the phone calls start coming, looking for beds, and they won't stop until about 5 a.m. on Monday. Yes, it is that predictable, says Dr Rory O'Connor.

Some 40 per cent of brain injuries happen in those few days. There is a three- or four-to-one shot that the patient being rushed in on the trolley will be a young man aged between 16 and 25, injured in a road accident. He will probably have been the driver and the chances are that no other car was involved. So his injuries are probably all his own work, a result of the usual combination of speed, inexperience, drink and/or drugs.

Wonderful advances in acute care and neurosurgery mean that he will probably live, though not necessarily to tell the tale. "No one ever makes a full recovery from brain injury," says Dr O'Connor, a specialist registrar in rehabilitation medicine. There is always some legacy, whether it's to do with the memory, attention span, reading, headaches, fatigue . . . This is so well recognised that there is a name for it: post-concussion syndrome."

And those are the lucky ones.

"The paradox of traumatic brain injury is that survival, or even seemingly full physical recovery (and 90 per cent of head injured people make remarkably good progress in this regard), can merely add to the nature of the catastrophe," writes Dr David Webb, who has carried out research for Headway UK.

"The triumph of the body is poor compensation for the sequestration of the mind, where memory loss, impairment of attention, slowness in processing information, and reduced speed of thought are all common . . ."

The tragedy for the young man who survives a brain injury this weekend through the skill and diligence of everyone from ambulance drivers to neurosurgeons is that he and his family are only then beginning a "long, painful and frightening journey", in the words of nurses at the National Rehabilitation Hospital (NRH), Dún Laoghaire.

For all that, the subject of TBI is almost taboo. Such is its frequency, it has been described as "the silent epidemic of modern times" by Prof Jack Phillips. A recent survey asked young people whether they would prefer death or paralysis (death was the answer) but brain damage never entered the picture. Yet they are 10 times more likely to suffer brain damage than a spinal injury, according to British figures. In the media obsession with fatality figures, these are the forgotten survivors.

Part of the problem is that the classic image of the road traffic victim - the young man in a wheelchair with spinal injury - is powerful and easy to convey. How do you photograph the devastation that may lurk within and around a 21-year-old with brain damage? He may seem physically normal.

But the truth inside each small cubicle, the savage reality of the mother struggling to get a shirt onto her fully-grown son, that funny, generous lad once full of life and mischief transformed to an unrecognisable, dull, fractious child, is bleak beyond words.

"We didn't think he'd survive the first few weeks after the accident," said a woman whose 23-year-old son was seriously injured two years ago. "Between the doctors and ourselves, we dragged him back from the brink of death but when I look at him now, I think, God forgive me, there are worse things than dying."

Nearly 50 and in indifferent health, she has reverted to being the full-time carer of a grown son who has once again become a child. There is no respite care worth the name for him, only a choice between "an old people's home and a mental hospital". The emotional and physical demands have wrecked her marriage.

The devastating personality changes that can accompany brain injury in all ages is like "an unrelenting bereavement" for the family, says Sister Mary Seymour of the NRH. Marie Therese O'Sullivan, a former rehabilitation nurse who has researched the area, found that this grief is never fully resolved and that the mothers continued to search for the "old child" in the "new child".

On top of all this, the lack of social understanding and the scandalous dearth of services once they walk out of the NRH, have isolated her as surely as if she were a social pariah.

But the NRH isn't populated entirely by young men. More than two-thirds of the children under 16 are there because of traffic accidents. They are further disadvantaged because of their "immature brain", says Claire Conway, a senior nurse on the paediatric rehabilitation team in the NRH, "it's almost as if they're frozen in time".

How can that be captured in a photograph? In the meantime, despite the dedication and advocacy of people such as the nurses and medical staff in the NRH and organisations like Headway Ireland (the national association for acquired brain injury), brain injury remains taboo.

There is no national computer database, for example, to gauge the true extent of this calamitous condition which will become more prevalent as survival rates increase.

As long as hard information is not available, priority will always go elsewhere.


Dr Rory O'Connor worked at the NRH before coming to Beaumont a year ago. Many of his patients are only a few years younger than him. What are his feelings about the scenes that confront him day after day? "Anyone driving out of the NRH wears a seat belt and drives a bit slower than when they came in," he replies.

The helpline number for Headway Ireland is 1890-200-278.

HelterSkelter

I always wonder why the link between suicide and car crashes is ignored (i presume) in this country. With the high number of young male suicides and the high number of single car collisions involving young males I think there has to be some link. Was just having a root around on google and found a few US studies on it in. Unfortunatly you need to subscribe to the web site to read the whole report so I don't know what the conclusions are, but here are the links to the abstracts:

Suicide, Motor Vehicle Fatalities, and the Mass Media: Evidence Toward a Theory of Suggestion - http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602(197903)84%3A5%3C1150%3ASMVFAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X


Accident or suicide? Single-vehicle car accidents and the intent hypothesis - http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001649302

*edit
Just found an interesting link about the link between suicide & car crashes in Ireland...
"Each year some 400,000 people kill themselves.' In many countries suicide ranks among the top ten causes of death for individuals of all ages. It is usually listed as the second most common cause of death, after traffic accidents, in those aged 15 to 35 years. In Ireland it is now the principle cause of death in young people, exceeding accidents and cancer Yet, these figures underestimate the true suicide rate in that in most countries it is underreported. The underreporting arises because there is no commonly accepted definition of suicide for data collection purposes, there are legal restrictions on coroners in the latitude given to them in declaring a suicide death, a certain proportion of fatal road traffic accidents and poisonings, which are in fact suicides will not be reported as such, because of lack of evidence and finally the understandable tendency of bereaved families, friends and the medical profession to conceal suicide deaths. The extent of underreporting has varied between countries, with studies reporting a two to fourfold underestimate. In Ireland, where there was significant underreporting, as evidenced by the high number of deaths reported as being of "undetermined cause", there has been a dramatic improvement, as reflected by the drop in deaths of "undetermined cause" from 119 in 1971 to 9 in 1995. However, it does seem likely that some deaths classified as "undetermined" or "accidental" are suicide deaths."
http://www.theblackdog.net/depression.htm

SuperMacs

Hermione* wrote:

This is one of the best suggestions I've come across. My sister was a patient in the NRH for five months after being knocked down by a car, and the sight of little children in child-sized wheelchairs was so upsetting. I know the emphasis is rightly on the four hundred or so who die annually on the roads, but there are thousands whose lives will never be the same after one chance event.

So true.
People do get fixated on the number of deaths.
But, behind every road death, there are countless people wheelchair-bound. Hospitalised, disabled for life.

The human cost is not just the number of people that die.

Hermione*

HelterSkelter wrote:

I don't know if a tour of the rehab centre is such a great idea but I think you are definitely onto something there. I think they should scrap those so-called "shocking" drink driving ads and instead have ads featuring real people who have survived accidents but whose lives have been permanently affected and perhaps lost friends in the accident. Let's face it, young people are not really afraid of dying so I don't think the current ads have any impact. But the thought of being stuck in a wheel chair for the rest of your life not being able to feed yourself or take a piss without help would hit home a lot more.

Today fm actually have a series of ads like this, the Ray Darcy show came up with them after getting p***ed off with the climbing fatalities.

I actually find a number of the ads quite upsetting, more so since my sister's accident obviously, but always did. They had a new one at Christmas and it was about about the long term effects of road accidents, rehabilitation and elderly parents left minding their child, and so on. So many of the scenes felt like they'd come from my life. I don't know if television ads would work because for me anyway, getting into the minute detail of what happened would involve about twenty minutes and tears. But possibly other people are braver, or have more self-control at least. Four hundred peole die, that's a lot of people left behind.