Is clamping down on speeders really that necessary?

Marcus.Aurelius

The Road Safety Authority claims that:

Excessive speed was a factor in almost 30% of road fatalities in the Republic of Ireland between 1996 and 2004 and a factor in 24% of road fatalities between 1996 and 2005 in Northern Ireland*.

If these figures are accurate, are we perhaps concentrating too hard on one issue? If speeding is simply a factor in the crash itself, i.e. damage to the vehicle, what is causing crashes?

This is not an ethics question. It appears that the RSA admits that speeding doesn't cause accidents as much as the Govt would like us to think, but that speeding may alter the result of the accident. With this in mind, I ask again: What are the REAL causes of accidents, besides ordinary speeders losing control of a car?

Is it driver education, driver manners, pure blissful ignorance of driving rules or lack of post-test training? Any other ideas would be most welcome.


*http://www.rsa.ie/NEWS/News/NEW_CROSS-BORDER_ANTI-SPEEDING_ROAD_SAFETY_CAMPAIGN_LAUNCHED.html

astraboy

I agree with you man, as I have on other threads. But you really are opening up an argument that has been on the motors fourm for the last 6 weeks. can of worms here. Just wait until the PC "all speeding is against the law so......" brigade to get hold of this.

Marcus.Aurelius

True, but ethics aside, I'd like to see people actually consider that speeding is not the cause of all the road carnage we see. I think speeding has dropped hugely. The amount of cars driving at (or below GRRRR) the speed limit is incredible, yet the road deaths are still as high as when we were all bommin it around the place. What are we missing?

astraboy

Like you said, driver training, also people not paying attention on the road and people watching their speedo instead of the road!

Gary ITR

I do a lot of driving with work (20,000kms since I changed car in Feb) I used to speed a lot, ridiculous speeds. Drove past a bad accident last month in Galway and since then I've slowed down. Speeding is a major factor in accidents just look at the pictures of the accident where mother and child were killed in Urlingford. Speed obviously a factor in that one

drdre

Onkle wrote:

I do a lot of driving with work (20,000kms since I changed car in Feb) I used to speed a lot, ridiculous speeds. Drove past a bad accident last month in Galway and since then I've slowed down. Speeding is a major factor in accidents just look at the pictures of the accident where mother and child were killed in Urlingford. Speed obviously a factor in that one

May i ask how many points you have, Just out of curiosty.

jhegarty

I think the thing is that speed doesn't cause many accidents , it just makes them worse when they do happen...

eg. "drink driver hit wall at 10kph becuase he is drunk" v "drink driver hits wall at 50kph becuase he is drunk".... while speed was not the cause , one is dead and the other isn't...

Sandwich

maoleary wrote:

This is not an ethics question. It appears that the RSA admits that speeding doesn't cause accidents as much as the Govt would like us to think,

The RSA would be aware that speeding per se does not cause as many accidents as might be generally thought, but they take care of this information being misunderstood. Speeding is the cause of a high percentage of deaths (distinct from accidents) due to good old Newton (Force=mass x deceleration). In countries where speeding has been reduced, the number of deaths has fallen, but the number of accidents does not tend to fall as much - people just walk away from more of them.

Deaths is both the ultimate price, and the headline grabbing statistic for road safety, so to strive to promote slower driving is still a valid strategy for the govt to persue.

Gary ITR

drdre wrote:

May i ask how many points you have, Just out of curiosty.

4, dropping to 2 soon.

@ jhegarty, you kind of contradict yourself in what you say. The RSA don't say that speed causes accidents, they say it's a factor in accidents and the outcome of accidents. Say your on a motorway doing 120 and your tyre blows, chances of survival are ok. You're doing 160 and same thing happens chances of survival drop significantly

embraer170

I think speeding has dropped hugely. The amount of cars driving at (or below GRRRR) the speed limit is incredible, yet the road deaths are still as high as when we were all bommin

I don't think it's the speeding you 'see' (the one the Gardai are trying so hard to clamp down on) that is causing most of the deaths, rather people doing 140km/h on a narrow country road at 3am after a drink, two, or more... and there is plenty of that going on down this part of the country.

I also question the point some people argue th that the day-time commuter speeder is the same person who speeds late at night.

drdre

As people here have already mentioned, I dont think speed is the major factor.Its really drink. Once drink driving stops its guarnteed there will be less crashes on the road.Believe me or not but thats the real life problem that the guards need to look into.They should have LOADS of checkpoints at night to stop drink drivers.Drink drivers are the main problem

peasant

I'll tell you what is the major cause of accidents:

HABIT & PERCEPTION

habits & perceptions like:
-I've always taken this bend this fast, it's safe
-I'm fine driving after two pints, done it loadsa times, nothing ever happened
-I know this road inside out
-I know what my car is capable of
-I know I'm a good driver
-I'm a perfectly safe driver
-It's not me that's driving dangerously, just the others.

ctc_celtic

From all the talk lately it would seem that drink driving and speeding are they only two causes of road deaths. although they are major problems, i think inexperience is a big factor.

I'd like to see the driving lessons being introduced to secondly school students. at the moment in Ireland we let people drive (provisional drivers) then teach them (driving test 2+ years later)

gyppo

I've posted this before, and here it is again.
There was a very significant reduction in both road traffic fatalities and injuries for a few months following the introduction of the penalty points system in this country. I'm happy to post sources to back this up.

During its initial phase, almost everyone was scared s**tless of getting points, and was under the impression that they would be caught. However, after a few months it became apparent that there was not the expected garda presence on the roads, so almost everyone reverted back to their pre-penalty-points habits.
Guess what happened next...

Gary ITR

I just saw the pictures on the news of the crash in urlingford today. Speed obviously a major factor in this crash. It may not have been the cause but that mother and child would probably still be alive had speed not beeen a factor

BrianD3

maoleary wrote:

True, but ethics aside, I'd like to see people actually consider that speeding is not the cause of all the road carnage we see. I think speeding has dropped hugely. The amount of cars driving at (or below GRRRR) the speed limit is incredible, yet the road deaths are still as high as when we were all bommin it around the place. What are we missing?

I don't think speeding has reduced dramatically. From what I see the majority of drivers break the posted limit in 50 and 60 km/h zones. Many drivers break the 100 km/h limit on dual carriageways. Also the majority of driver drive at an inapproriate speed (IMO) on narrow country roads.

Also, road deaths have actually reduced dramatically over the years. Some years in the 1970s saw 600 people killed per year even though there were fewer cars on the road than now. In the 80s and 90s deaths were usually around 450 IIRC.

Hard to say what role speed plays in this. I would say that less drink driving, better roads, safer cars and more seatbelt wearing were important factors in the reduction.

Now it seems to me that most of the fatal crashes I hear about are either
a) a young male crashes his car into a tree or ditch at 3 am on Sunday morning
b) a car collides head on with a van or truck on a single carriageway road and the car occupants take the brunt.

Has anyone ever asked what effect more trucks on the road has had on road deaths in this country and is there anything that can be done to address this.

Another question I'd ask is - are there any statistics/reports for those killed in crashes that should have been survivable had they been wearing their seatbelts. I often see pictures of fatal crashes where there is a relatively intact car with a head shaped hole in the windscreen.

To sum up, I'd agree with you that it is a helluva lot more complicated issue than just "speed kills"

Hotblack Desiato

Onkle wrote:

Say your on a motorway doing 120 and your tyre blows, chances of survival are ok. You're doing 160 and same thing happens chances of survival drop significantly

Or - you could just maintain your vehicle properly :rolleyes: If you keep your tyres in good condition and correctly inflated, the chances of a blowout are practically nil.

I just saw the pictures on the news of the crash in urlingford today. Speed obviously a major factor in this crash. It may not have been the cause but that mother and child would probably still be alive had speed not beeen a factor

It was a head-on crash, so at least one of the cars was at least partially on the wrong side of the road.
A head-on crash in a 50km/h limit with both cars observing the speed limit could still cause fatalities. The answer to this sort of accident isn't to drive slower, it's to drive on the proper side of the bloody road ffs. There is NO speed which is safe when you're on the wrong side of the road and there's oncoming traffic.

Type 17

Onkle wrote:

Speeding is a major factor in accidents just look at the pictures of the accident where mother and child were killed in Urlingford. Speed obviously a factor in that one

Be careful how you think about speed and speeding - speed was a only factor there in that at least one of the vehicles (in reality, both) was moving. Speeding (exceeding a set speed limit) was probably not a factor in the accident mentioned - two vehicles colliding head-on at (say) 95km/h have a closing speed of 190km/h. Looking at the wreckage, it looks like the two vehicles' combined speed was actually less than that, to be honest. Although the results are still horrific, it is unlikely that either vehcle was actually exceeding the speed limit.

golden

The Urlingford crash does appear to be on the wrong or partially on the wrong side of road so speed is not a factor in this tragic accident.

I would totally agree with peasant synopsis.

rowanh

I was living in Wales a couple years ago and heard a report on the radio that said after extensive studies based in Ireland they found that after policing areas to the point that speed was noticibly reduced there was no noticible reduction in accidents. I cant remember the exact specifics but im fairly sure it was based over quite a long period of time. I remember it as then much more than now I thought speed limits where not what they should be.

I think there should be a massivley over complicated system where the speed you can drive depends on what type of license you have and what car you own.

skyhighflyer

Some good points made on this thread. However, I'm surprised that nobody pointed out the following.

We live (well, not me anymore thankfully), in a country where cars are massively overtaxed and insurance is insanely expensive. Therefore young drivers have to start off in tin boxes of cars, i.e 1.0l micras, starlets et al with no safety equipment to speak of and which simply fold up in a crash. Compare this with the US where most young people drive jeeps or big sedans handed down from their parents, or, if not, something modern and safe like the new Jetta or a Passat (which is the same price as a Polo there) Couple that with crappy roads and no driver training and it's no surprise so many young people die on the roads here.

I don't think speed itself is as big an issue as people make it out to be, but I would like to see SPECS type cameras (that take an average speed over set distances) introduced on certain dangerous stretches of road in the country that have claimed many lives. It's ****ing ridiculous that they have speed cameras on the M50 where there's so many roads in Ireland where there is a genuine need. And I'm no old fogey, I'm just gone 21.

Take it this way. Young inexperienced driver in the US loses control and hits a wall at 40mph in parents' Volvo / Cadillac / Jeep. Driver walks away. Same thing happens to Irish 20 year old in their 1990 starlet. Driver is taken away in a box.

miju

speeding is not the problem

the problem is the drivers behaviour which is inappropriate for the speeds they are doing , for example tailgating on the M50 in the pissing rain etc etc

Type 17

skyhighflyer wrote:

Some good points made on this thread. However, I'm surprised that nobody pointed out the following.

We live (well, not me anymore thankfully), in a country where cars are massively overtaxed and insurance is insanely expensive. Therefore young drivers have to start off in tin boxes of cars, i.e 1.0l micras, starlets et al with no safety equipment to speak of and which simply fold up in a crash. Compare this with the US where most young people drive jeeps or big sedans handed down from their parents, or, if not, something modern and safe like the new Jetta or a Passat (which is the same price as a Polo there) Couple that with crappy roads and no driver training and it's no surprise so many young people die on the roads here.

I don't think speed itself is as big an issue as people make it out to be, but I would like to see SPECS type cameras (that take an average speed over set distances) introduced on certain dangerous stretches of road in the country that have claimed many lives. It's ****ing ridiculous that they have speed cameras on the M50 where there's so many roads in Ireland where there is a genuine need. And I'm no old fogey, I'm just gone 21.

Take it this way. Young inexperienced driver in the US loses control and hits a wall at 40mph in parents' Volvo / Cadillac / Jeep. Driver walks away. Same thing happens to Irish 20 year old in their 1990 starlet. Driver is taken away in a box.

VRT and Motor Tax are the main causes of this - while insurance is an issue for younger drivers, it has reduced a fair bit in recent years, and is expensive for young people all over the world.

VRT and Motor Tax on engine size mean that the "national fleet" of cars is over-represented by small city cars like Yaris and Micra which, while the are fairly safe in urban settings, do not have the size, strength, handling ability and accelerational capacity to be safe on inter-city national routes (especially the non-dual carriageways which make up large part of the national roads network). The tragedy near Urlingford the other day was a hideous demonstration of this (Volvo S70 vs. Toyota Yaris - Volvo driver: broken leg and other injuries, Yaris: 3 dead).

On top of this, many cars sold in this country have safety features which are standard on those models in other countries omitted for the Irish market, eg: ESP is an €800 option on the Golf, but it is standard on all UK Golfs. More here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055088303

Finally something might get done about the safety features at least:
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/motors/2007/0509/1178623505634.html

Hagar

I think that speeding is a by-product of poor driver education.
The average provisional driver has gone out on the road after the minimum number of lessons possible, cost is probably a factor. Because of the insane waiting time for tests they then spend the next 2 years learning as they go. But who are they learning from? Nobody really, they just make it up as they go along and many learn from bitter experience. Those that don't self destruct spend two years re-inforcing any bad habits they have picked up.

Lack of education + substandard roads + poor law enforcement = disasters waiting to happen.

Ghost Train

makes sense to target speeding. even if somebody is a good driver and can handle the car safely above the speed limit, they're always going to be able to have a better chance of anticipating or avoiding something unexpected when it happens travelling within the speed limit or at a speed safe for the conditions. safer cars means it safer to travel faster, but there'll always be smaller cars and larger trucks and just because you have a volvo or a 4x4 doesn't mean speed is less of a factor(although for you personally it might be true), it just means youre probably more deadly if you hit a smaller car or pedestrian. there will always be multiple reasons/causes for accidents but reduced speed and having people drive less aggresive will in most cases reduce how serious an accident is or might avoid it.

TwoShedsJackson

miju wrote:

speeding is not the problem

the problem is the drivers behaviour which is inappropriate for the speeds they are doing , for example tailgating on the M50 in the pissing rain etc etc

I agree. Also, when someone is speeding (often at least 20kmh over the limit) they will catch up to slower drivers rapidly, then get frustrated at the 'fool' who is going slower. This leads to dangerous overtaking, tailgating etc. etc.

Speed amplifies damage caused in crashes, and aggressive behaviour on the roads in the wrong driving situations - but it's driver education that needs to be addressed in this country.

Duckjob

I think the Government has taken the easy option in terms of road safety - it's a lot easier (and more profitable) to catch a stream of motorists doing limit+15kph on the motorway with a fixed camera than it is to actively go out and catch the reckless knobs that are piling into lampposts and other cars every other weekend.

For me, even their ad campaigns miss their mark - they depict some young lad driving like a tool, then the ensuing carnage. Then at the end up pops the little soundbite they love to spew off - "Speed Kills". Speed didn't cause the accident, driving like a tool did.

matrim

ctc_celtic wrote:

I'd like to see the driving lessons being introduced to secondly school students.

While I agree with you that driver training is an issue in crashes. I disagree with this. I think it would open up a whole new can of worms. How many secondary school students do you know that drive?
When I was in secondary school 5 people out of a year of 70 drove in 6th year. For the rest of the people, do you learn when you are 17 and then just not use it for 3, 4 or in my calse 6 years after I finished school I started to drive.

I also think it would increase the number of very young drivers on the roads, and add a social pressure of I can drive why don't I have a car \ be on my parents insurance.

I'd much perfer a rule where a set number of lessons (10 - 15) have to be taken before you can do the test and \ or drive with someone accompaying you on normal roads. If necessary these could be subsidised by the Government to make it easier to afford.

BrianD3

Just going OT - was it definitely a Yaris in the Urlingford crash? I only saw a pic of the underside and from that angle the passenger compartment looked badly crushed. When you see a floorpan that should be under the occupants feet buckled and pushed back you know that the occupants are going to be in a bad way.

The Volvo S40 looked to have fared far better in this crash. Quite suprised at the Yaris doing so badly in this crash as it even the old model is a relatively modern car.

Athough here is another crash where a Yaris takes the brunt of a head on impact with a (slightly) larger vehicle
http://www.langlovagok.hu/html/galeria/598.shtml

blorg

skyhighflyer wrote:

Take it this way. Young inexperienced driver in the US loses control and hits a wall at 40mph in parents' Volvo / Cadillac / Jeep. Driver walks away. Same thing happens to Irish 20 year old in their 1990 starlet. Driver is taken away in a box.

Nice theory but completely unsupported by the evidence, with more road deaths/capita in the US than Ireland. Taking into account the longer distances in the US, fatalities per billion km travelled are comparable - US=9.4, Ireland=10.9. The only thing that would support your argument is that while fatalities are comparable, injury rates are substantially higher in the US.

Marcus.Aurelius

blorg wrote:

Nice theory but completely unsupported by the evidence, with more road deaths/capita in the US than Ireland. Taking into account the longer distances in the US, fatalities per billion km travelled are comparable - US=9.4, Ireland=10.9. The only thing that would support your argument is that while fatalities are comparable, injury rates are substantially higher in the US.

I have a feeling that this is half due to the extra weight of the yank cars and many states (even counties differ!) do not make seatbelt wearing mandatory, which obviously affects safety. Also the americans are not quite as nutty on safety as we are here with our NCAPs and so on. But I agree that a big US car is damn lot safer than an old micra that young people are forced to drive here.

Insurance in Florida for me was $320 last year (career break :cool:) and tax is only around $20, you pay it as you renew your license plate. Petrol is still around 70c (~€0.55) to the litre and my old Camry 3.0 V6 did 26 mpg.

Tell me that's just as expensive as driving a 1.0 l micra on irish roads as a 23 year old (that's my age!)

I get quoted €1300 for a 1994 Mazda 626 5dr 1.8i here and €511 for tax. The car does 37 mpg but petrol is a staggering €1.11 to the litre here.