2008 Road Death Statistics

Voodoomelon

Louth has the 10 highest amount of penalty points, for the smallest county in the country! That's some going...

sdanseo

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Louth has the 10 highest amount of penalty points, for the smallest county in the country! That's some going...

Yeah, but the M1 goes straight through it

SouperComputer

bazz26 wrote: »

275 lives lost on our roads last year is still deplorable. Better than 400 yes but still shocking for such a small country.

I need to find some updated figures, but I would wager that this is still better than our suicide death rate. I'd to see that get some decent consideration in leiu of this road safety "posturing"

L1011

McSpud wrote: »

Bad start to 2009. 3 killed in Tipp

That was on NYE so should be in 2008s figures?

According to the disgraceful rag, sorry, Herald the driver (who's survived so far but still critical) was 16! However, its the Herald so that could be entirely untrue.

samsemtex

MYOB wrote: »

That was on NYE so should be in 2008s figures?

According to the disgraceful rag, sorry, Herald the driver (who's survived so far but still critical) was 16! However, its the Herald so that could be entirely untrue.

No it was in the early hours of 2009 so it will count as 2009.

I reckon a huge amount of it is to do with the amount of new roads opened. I live between on the old main Cork Dublin road between Mitchelstown and Cahir and this road has recently been bypassed. There were without fail 1-5 people killed on this 15km stretch of road every year since ive been living on it until this year where there hasnt even been an accident of any type yet. This is only a tiny portion of the new roads in the country that have opened this year and if that trend is continued elsewhere in the country that alone surely accounts for about 30lives not lost does it not?

Penalty points are normally dished out on the outskirts of small towns/safe sections of dual carriageway from what i can see and i really do wonder how many people have been killed coming out of Abbeyleix over the years. The way the gaurds patrol it you would swear there were actually houses around the area :rolleyes:

L1011

I nearly cracked my head open off the roof of my car coming out of Abbeyleix, the condition of the surface is so poor!

Rovi

samsemtex wrote: »

MYOB wrote: »

That was on NYE so should be in 2008s figures?

According to the disgraceful rag, sorry, Herald the driver (who's survived so far but still critical) was 16! However, its the Herald so that could be entirely untrue.

No it was in the early hours of 2009 so it will count as 2009.

7.30pm on New Year's Eve, according to today's Indo-
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/boy-16-behind-wheel--as-three-friends-killed-1589302.html

...and the Times-
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0102/breaking14.htm

Sandwich

pred racer wrote: »

"Originally Posted by Sandwich
It seems that despite the criticism, the govt/RSA strategy is working. More cameras, speed checks, random breath checks, penalty points, and the roads will become a safer place."

Yet the road deaths have gone down without any of these being in place.
I do 30k+ miles a year, and I have seen none of these.

No sure thats true Pred racer. Are random breath checks, people with penalty points, speed check not all up in 2008 on 2007 ?

Good points from Mumhaabu, and reducing the provo drivers has probably helped also. If the Eastern European thing is a factor we will probably see a big reduction in 2009.

Interesting one for the psychologists among you. The survey on attitiudes to the planned fixed camera scheme : 63% of men think its a money rather than safety oriented, 37% of women think its money rather than safety oriented. Does that suggest that men are smarter than women and see the deceit by the government, or that they are more susceptible to biased reasoning to justify their faster driving, higher risk taking than women?

Bottom line is 2008 was good news. Cause and effect are hard to determine. But when the trend is in the desired direction, more of the same medicine can not really be argued against.

S.I.R

bazz26 wrote: »

275 lives lost on our roads last year is still deplorable. Better than 400 yes but still shocking for such a small country.

people die, i bet most of them deserved it.

peasant

S.I.R wrote: »

people die, i bet most of them deserved it.

That is a very insensitive remark.

Have a week to reflect on it

ninty9er

I still think seat belt wearing by rear seat passengers could seriously cut the number.

I know the remark by SIR was insensitive, but I think he was hinting in the right direction. People die on the roads by being idiots behind the wheel, regardless of speed, drink, seatbelts etc...which are all side issues, ergo some people draw it on themselves....it's the passengers that suffer, but I'd still find it hard to pity someone who got into a car with a drunk driver that was going to be taking a rural N-route home.

Driving at 200km/h in a C63 on the M1 at any time of day is safer than driving at 60km/h in a Cinquecento outside a school gate at 3pm in December.

However much pain can be caused by an accident, if dead people who died because they weren't wearing seatbelts or because they got in a car with a drunk/being drunk at the wheel are called idiots on national TV, the "never speak ill of the dead" taboo would be broken and that has weight to it.

peasant

ninty9er wrote: »

I still think seat belt wearing by rear seat passengers could seriously cut the number.

I know the remark by SIR was insensitive, but I think he was hinting in the right direction. People die on the roads by being idiots behind the wheel, regardless of speed, drink, seatbelts etc...which are all side issues, ergo some people draw it on themselves....it's the passengers that suffer, but I'd still find it hard to pity someone who got into a car with a drunk driver that was going to be taking a rural N-route home.

Driving at 200km/h in a C63 on the M1 at any time of day is safer than driving at 60km/h in a Cinquecento outside a school gate at 3pm in December.

However much pain can be caused by an accident, if dead people who died because they weren't wearing seatbelts or because they got in a car with a drunk/being drunk at the wheel are called idiots on national TV, the "never speak ill of the dead" taboo would be broken and that has weight to it.

Ever think of the people that die on our roads through no fault of their own?

I think you should.

timmywex

Most of these stats are bullshiz frankly, the numbers dying are larger, the stats are glossed up nicely though to cushion it somewhat


Perfect example, if someone is in a car crash and suffers major injuries that would more than likely be fatal, but have a heart attack, either before or after the incident, they are deamed to have died from a heart attack, and not from the rtc, when realisticly, it was caused by the rtc

Climate Expert

timmywex wrote: »

Most of these stats are bullshiz frankly, the numbers dying are larger, the stats are glossed up nicely though to cushion it somewhat


Perfect example, if someone is in a car crash and suffers major injuries that would more than likely be fatal, but have a heart attack, either before or after the incident, they are deamed to have died from a heart attack, and not from the rtc, when realisticly, it was caused by the rtc

Ha, that is ridiculous. Those road death figures are accurate, I think its you who just doesn't like the truth. You'd prefer if more people died on the roads as that probably fits your views on road safety.

ninty9er

peasant wrote: »

Ever think of the people that die on our roads through no fault of their own?

I think you should.

I do and I did if you read:

ninty9er wrote: »

ergo some people draw it on themselves....it's the passengers that suffer, but I'd still find it hard to pity someone who got into a car with a drunk driver that was going to be taking a rural N-route home.

Do you ever think of the lives that could be saved if we stopped molly-coddling people?

timmywex

Climate Expert wrote: »

Ha, that is ridiculous. Those road death figures are accurate, I think its you who just doesn't like the truth. You'd prefer if more people died on the roads as that probably fits your views on road safety.

They arent accurate, i have been on scene of a fatal rtc, where a man in his 80's passed away, but because the autopsy judged that it was a heart attack that he died from, so it doesnt appear under the figures for the deaths.

I have no problem with the truth, and i think its terrible how many people die on our roads

ninty9er

timmywex wrote: »

They arent accurate, i have been on scene of a fatal rtc, where a man in his 80's passed away, but because the autopsy judged that it was a heart attack that he died from, so it doesnt appear under the figures for the deaths.

I have no problem with the truth, and i think its terrible how many people die on our roads

So?? I know of a man who had a heart attack and crashed his car as a result...he died of a heart attack not a MVA.

peasant

ninty9er wrote: »

I do and I did if you read:


Do you ever think of the lives that could be saved if we stopped molly-coddling people?

It's not just passenger that suffer.

That supposeldy "safe" car barelling down a motorway at 200 km/h from your previous post could easily wipe out an entire family in a car that pulled into the overtaking lane not reckoning with another driver "safely" doing 80 km/h above the speed limit.

Now think again (this IS a warning!)

ninty9er

peasant wrote: »

That supposeldy "safe" car barelling down a motorway at 200 km/h from your previous post could easily wipe out an entire family in a car that pulled into the overtaking lane not reckoning with another driver "safely" doing 80 km/h above the speed limit.

People in the "other car" are innocent, I'll take that on board.

But in the situation above, it is the person pulling into the overtaking lane that is the ROOT cause of the accident, you WOULD see that car coming.

timmywex

ninty9er wrote: »

So?? I know of a man who had a heart attack and crashed his car as a result...he died of a heart attack not a MVA.

Yes, but its when he has the heart attack after the incident, from the shock or from the heart trying to pump faster, that the figures are wrong, the person dies of an rtc in that regard, because its the rtc that overall caused the heart attack



Just on another point, mva isnt used anymore because aparently, there are no such things as accidents, because theyre caused!

And to disagree with you on something else, driving at 200kmph is never safe with other vehicles around and no warning devices, if the person is trained and is a good enough driver that speed can be grand, and safe with no-one else around. Just because you have right of way doesnt mean you get right of way all the time, likewise, just because your in the overtaking lane doesnt mean people might pull out in front of you

peasant

ninty9er wrote: »

People in the "other car" are innocent, I'll take that on board.

But in the situation above, it is the person pulling into the overtaking lane that is the ROOT cause of the accident, you WOULD see that car coming.

You would however not expect it to be going 80 km/h faster than yourself if you were doing the limit.

Not the root cause then

ninty9er

timmywex wrote: »

And to disagree with you on something else, driving at 200kmph is never safe with other vehicles around and no warning devices, if the person is trained and is a good enough driver that speed can be grand, and safe with no-one else around. Just because you have right of way doesnt mean you get right of way all the time, likewise, just because your in the overtaking lane doesnt mean people might pull out in front of you

Tell it ot the Autobahn users.

peasant wrote: »

You would however not expect it to be going 80 km/h faster than yourself if you were doing the limit.

Not the root cause then

Poor driving is the root cause...poor observation etc....if the driver pulled out far enough in front not to see, the driver at 200 would be able to slow considerably to 120.

The same could easily be argued of a driver doing 120 coming up the outside of a line of traffic stuck behind a truck doing 80 on a motorway and some idiot pulling out in front of them.

The only difference is the speed limit wasn't being broken, the situation, however, remains the EXACT same.

EDIT: This argument has nothing to do with statistics for 2008.

AugustusMaximus

timmywex wrote: »

Most of these stats are bullshiz frankly, the numbers dying are larger, the stats are glossed up nicely though to cushion it somewhat


Perfect example, if someone is in a car crash and suffers major injuries that would more than likely be fatal, but have a heart attack, either before or after the incident, they are deamed to have died from a heart attack, and not from the rtc, when realisticly, it was caused by the rtc

Can't agree with this in the slightest. If you have a heart attack, you die of a heart attack.

What about the numerous people who commit suicide through driving into a wall or oncoming traffic ? None of these deaths get noted as suicide and there isn't much for a road safety stance that you can do to prevent this sort of accident.

peasant

ninty9er wrote: »

Tell it ot the Autobahn users.

Poor driving is the root cause...poor observation etc....if the driver pulled out far enough in front not to see, the driver at 200 would be able to slow considerably to 120.



EDIT: This argument has nothing to do with statistics for 2008.

It has everything to do with road deaths.

Thinking that you are invincible and a better driver than everybody else, believing that because of that the rules of the road don't really apply to you (at least not when they don't suit) is EXACTLY what gets you or other innocent people killed in the end.

Saying then that the innocent victims are the ones that are really at fault is just pure insolence

Now stop this silly line of argument (final warning)

Climate Expert

timmywex wrote: »

Yes, but its when he has the heart attack after the incident, from the shock or from the heart trying to pump faster, that the figures are wrong, the person dies of an rtc in that regard, because its the rtc that overall caused the heart attack



Just on another point, mva isnt used anymore because aparently, there are no such things as accidents, because theyre caused!

And to disagree with you on something else, driving at 200kmph is never safe with other vehicles around and no warning devices, if the person is trained and is a good enough driver that speed can be grand, and safe with no-one else around. Just because you have right of way doesnt mean you get right of way all the time, likewise, just because your in the overtaking lane doesnt mean people might pull out in front of you

Well the coroner knows better than you in fairness. In any case the same sort of reporting of figures would have occured 30 years ago, so deaths are still down.

Marcus.Aurelius

No doubt Cowen and Ahern will tell us that its all thanks to the utterly useless checkpoints, stupid RSA ads and single cause (speeding) causes all road deaths mantra.

Speeding detections hit the floor in 2008, why are the road deaths so low? Speeding has FA to do with road deaths. If the RSA really wanted to reduce the "carnage" they would have pressured the DoT into training drivers properly and spending money on roads without lining Fianna Fáilure friendly builder's pockets.

This is just a blip in the data and only highlights the futility of such poorly defined parameters for determining actual numbers.

timmywex

Climate Expert wrote: »

Well the coroner knows better than you in fairness. In any case the same sort of reporting of figures would have occured 30 years ago, so deaths are still down.

Surely, all im trying to say is the figures lie, any statistic lies, they can be changed while still being fact, deaths are down which is a very good thing also!

Tbh i think the rsa have the wrong aproach on everything, its all about gaybo targeting speeders and young drivers! Most incidents happen because of reckless behavious on someone's part, or the bad road enviroment, driver training over the long term has to be changed, stuff they require to pass the test just isnt safe alot of the time, all drivers should have to do advanced driving courses, thats when we'll see an improvment in standards and real drop in deaths

Seth Brundle

MYOB wrote: »

That was on NYE so should be in 2008s figures?

According to the disgraceful rag, sorry, Herald the driver (who's survived so far but still critical) was 16! However, its the Herald so that could be entirely untrue.

I read in the Turbine yesterday that the gardai had not released details on who was driving yet.
http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2009/jan/04/gardai-hope-survivors-may-hold-answers-to-tragic-c/

ninty9er wrote: »

I know the remark by SIR was insensitive, but I think he was hinting in the right direction. People die on the roads by being idiots behind the wheel, regardless of speed, drink, seatbelts etc...which are all side issues, ergo some people draw it on themselves....it's the passengers that suffer, but I'd still find it hard to pity someone who got into a car with a drunk driver that was going to be taking a rural N-route home.

Driving at 200km/h in a C63 on the M1 at any time of day is safer than driving at 60km/h in a Cinquecento outside a school gate at 3pm in December.

However much pain can be caused by an accident, if dead people who died because they weren't wearing seatbelts or because they got in a car with a drunk/being drunk at the wheel are called idiots on national TV, the "never speak ill of the dead" taboo would be broken and that has weight to it.

Incidents are usually caused by human error. However, those injured or killed are not always the ones responsible. How many pedestrians die each year? How many motorcyclists die each year? How many passengers die each year?
Now how many of those caused the incident?

pburns

Gaybo, RSA etc. are busy clapping themselves on the back but has reduced economic activity anything to do with it? Fewer young lads buying/running bespoilered Jap whiz-boxs, the fact that some of the crapper Eastern European drivers are leaving in droves (and yeah I know the PC police will be jumpinping up-and-down).

I also think December was quieter on the roads (and public transport) than 12 months previously...

ninty9er

House wrote: »

Speeding detections hit the floor in 2008, why are the road deaths so low? Speeding has FA to do with road deaths.

While I tend to agree that it is only a contributing factor and not a cause, speeding detection has hit the floor because people aren't speeding. Simple as....if you've driven the N25 Fermoy bypass you'll know what I mean...barely anyone creeps above 100, let alone 120.