So if the Gardaí asked YOU how to stop road deaths, what would you tell them?

Dyr

phutyle wrote: »

Plenty of roads deaths happen at far less than 120km/h, and very few happen on motorways where it's perfectly safe to travel at that (or a greater) speed.

Never said that they didnt. The question remains though: why do we sell people cars that can travel above our maximum speed limits? Why give someone the means to break the law?

Fey!

€100 fines per blown bulb, or if lights are being used incorrectly (no lights in low light situations, fogs used instead of dims (or when not foggy), lack of indicating).

Car seized for defective tyres.

No NCT, you can't tax the car (same as the rule for DoE and commercial vehicles).

PSVs (taxis/buses); defective lights/tyres, €500 fine for driver. 3 offences, no more PSV license. These are vehicles often on the road 24/7, and the number of them with faulty lights is a disgrace. The drivers should be checking their cars before their shift to make sure they're OK.

€100 fine for PSVs blocking people from parking in legal spaces, or blocking roadways/junctions, or turning paths into taxi ranks.

€500 fine for anyone blocking emergency services. Loss of PSV license for same offence.

€100 fine for anyone parked on paths.

Mandatory carrying of spare bulbs and hi-vis vests (I would include first aid kits and extinguishers, but the majority of people don't know how to use them, rendering them useless).

Average speed speed cameras (2 cameras with ANPR calculating a cars average speed between them over a fixed distance), rather than fixed point (like the one at the Spa Hotel).

€100 fine for anyone caught using lanes incorrectly (60kph in the overtaking lane of a dual carraigeway with a 100kph limit, refusing to allow other motorists pass safely on the right).

€1,000 fine, a ban, and 100 hours picking the rubbish up off the side of the road whilst wearing a bright pink hi-vis vest for anyone convicted of drink driving. Fine and community service doubled on each conviction for repeat offenders. Car seized and auctioned at 3rd offence.

€500 fine and 50 hours picking the rubbish up off the side of the road whilst wearing a bright green hi-vis vest for anyone convicted of driving without an appropriate license/no insurance. Fine and community service doubled on each conviction for repeat offenders. Car seized and auctioned at 3rd offence.

Full reports of road deaths being disclosed, including anything relevant which may have preceeded the accident (driver fatigue/fight with partner/etc). Gruesome pictures included (although this may only serve to numb the senses).

If I think of anything else, I'll add them later.

O'Coonassa

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Yes but only 7.3% of those crashes were caused by speeding! Its bad drivers that cause accidents. Just because you drive fast doesn't make you a bad driver. More accidents are caused by drink/drug driving, dangerous driving and people falling asleep at the wheel

Speeding as defined by current legislation! It's apes hurtling round in fast metal boxes that cause accidents. Like I say the split-second things start to go wrong they're biologically lacking the required reflexes.

O'Coonassa

Saab Ed wrote: »

Then you try overtaking something with a restricted engine. I dont really fancy 10 seconds on the other side of the road as a truck comes towards me.

Don't overtake then in that case. The reason people are overtaking are because people driving more slowly are holding them up. If engines were restricted then everybody would be driving slowly.

Saab Ed

Fey! wrote: »

€100 fines per blown bulb, or if lights are being used incorrectly (no lights in low light situations, fogs used instead of dims (or when not foggy), lack of indicating).

Car seized for defective tyres.

No NCT, you can't tax the car (same as the rule for DoE and commercial vehicles).

PSVs (taxis/buses); defective lights/tyres, €500 fine for driver. 3 offences, no more PSV license. These are vehicles often on the road 24/7, and the number of them with faulty lights is a disgrace. The drivers should be checking their cars before their shift to make sure they're OK.

€100 fine for PSVs blocking people from parking in legal spaces, or blocking roadways/junctions, or turning paths into taxi ranks.

€500 fine for anyone blocking emergency services. Loss of PSV license for same offence.

€100 fine for anyone parked on paths.

Mandatory carrying of spare bulbs and hi-vis vests (I would include first aid kits and extinguishers, but the majority of people don't know how to use them, rendering them useless).

Average speed speed cameras (2 cameras with ANPR calculating a cars average speed between them over a fixed distance), rather than fixed point (like the one at the Spa Hotel).

€100 fine for anyone caught using lanes incorrectly (60kph in the overtaking lane of a dual carraigeway with a 100kph limit, refusing to allow other motorists pass safely on the right).

€1,000 fine, a ban, and 100 hours picking the rubbish up off the side of the road whilst wearing a bright pink hi-vis vest for anyone convicted of drink driving. Fine and community service doubled on each conviction for repeat offenders. Car seized and auctioned at 3rd offence.

€500 fine and 50 hours picking the rubbish up off the side of the road whilst wearing a bright green hi-vis vest for anyone convicted of driving without an appropriate license/no insurance. Fine and community service doubled on each conviction for repeat offenders. Car seized and auctioned at 3rd offence.

Full reports of road deaths being disclosed, including anything relevant which may have preceeded the accident (driver fatigue/fight with partner/etc). Gruesome pictures included (although this may only serve to numb the senses).

If I think of anything else, I'll add them later.

Would you like to extend that attitude to other aspects of day to day life?
Great country you want us to live in. Just stay inside all day every day and surrender all your rights at that rate

Saab Ed

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Don't overtake then in that case. The reason people are overtaking are because people driving more slowly are holding them up. If engines were restricted then everybody would be driving slowly.

Oh get real. One word ....Tractor. Come back to the real world will ya :P

Twin-go

Fey! wrote: »

€100 fines per blown bulb, or if lights are being used incorrectly (no lights in low light situations, fogs used instead of dims (or when not foggy), lack of indicating).

Car seized for defective tyres.

No NCT, you can't tax the car (same as the rule for DoE and commercial vehicles).

PSVs (taxis/buses); defective lights/tyres, €500 fine for driver. 3 offences, no more PSV license. These are vehicles often on the road 24/7, and the number of them with faulty lights is a disgrace. The drivers should be checking their cars before their shift to make sure they're OK.

€100 fine for PSVs blocking people from parking in legal spaces, or blocking roadways/junctions, or turning paths into taxi ranks.

€500 fine for anyone blocking emergency services. Loss of PSV license for same offence.

€100 fine for anyone parked on paths.

Mandatory carrying of spare bulbs and hi-vis vests (I would include first aid kits and extinguishers, but the majority of people don't know how to use them, rendering them useless).

Average speed speed cameras (2 cameras with ANPR calculating a cars average speed between them over a fixed distance), rather than fixed point (like the one at the Spa Hotel).

€100 fine for anyone caught using lanes incorrectly (60kph in the overtaking lane of a dual carraigeway with a 100kph limit, refusing to allow other motorists pass safely on the right).

€1,000 fine, a ban, and 100 hours picking the rubbish up off the side of the road whilst wearing a bright pink hi-vis vest for anyone convicted of drink driving. Fine and community service doubled on each conviction for repeat offenders. Car seized and auctioned at 3rd offence.

€500 fine and 50 hours picking the rubbish up off the side of the road whilst wearing a bright green hi-vis vest for anyone convicted of driving without an appropriate license/no insurance. Fine and community service doubled on each conviction for repeat offenders. Car seized and auctioned at 3rd offence.

Full reports of road deaths being disclosed, including anything relevant which may have preceeded the accident (driver fatigue/fight with partner/etc). Gruesome pictures included (although this may only serve to numb the senses).

If I think of anything else, I'll add them later.

Hey Fey!,

I am in total agreement with most of your post but, I have yet to hear of a fog light killing anybody.

Great idea about the picking of rubish by offenders. Fines and pelenty points don't work to stop some people breaking the Law but the shame of been seen by your peers have to do this just might work. I would hope it would not become a badge of honor like the ASBO has for some sections of Society.

O'Coonassa

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Don't overtake then in that case. The reason people are overtaking are because people driving more slowly are holding them up. If engines were restricted then everybody would be driving slowly.

Come on, maybe you have the time and patience to creep along the roads but most people have places to go and things to do. 100km/h is too bloody slow never mind 80km/h.

Fey!

Twin-go wrote: »

Hey Fey!,

I am in total agreement with most of your post but, I have yet to hear of a fog light killing anybody.

Great idea about the picking of rubish by offenders. Fines and pelenty points don't work to stop some people breaking the Law but the shame of been seen by your peers have to do this just might work. I would hope it would not become a badge of honor like the ASBO has for some sections of Society.

Thanks for the support; it's a shame that SaabEd feels that they'd interfere too much with peoples rights.

As for the foglights (I know it's against the charter, but it's a valid point); when it gets dark and there's noone else around, turn on your dimmed headlights. Then switch them to parking lights and turn on your foglights. Then come back here and and let us know how much your visibility dropped by.

It's incredible how many people drive around using fods and parks instead of their dims thinking that they can see the same amount, and that includes quite a number of taxis in Galway.

Then there's the blinding other motorists that a lot (not all) of them cause...

Jumpy

CianRyan wrote: »

Better driving tests, take the finnish one for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_licence_in_Finland

Heh, look at the one I had to do. Look at the New South Wales section.
No wonder I am an exthellent drivah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_licence_in_Australia

Gregor Samsa

Bambi wrote: »

Never said that they didn't. The question remains though: why do we sell people cars that can travel above our maximum speed limits? Why give someone the means to break the law?

Every time you sell someone a kitchen knife, you give them the means to break the law. Doesn't mean that kitchen knifes shouldn't be sold, or should be blunted with corks on the pointy end.

This thread is about measures that would save lives, and I pointed out that this measure wouldn't necessarily do that. The point is that the issue of road deaths is not just a simple as having an unbreakable speed limit.

To answer your topic about the law (as opposed to road deaths), limiting a car to 120km/h still wouldn't prevent people from breaking the law on the vast majority of our roads. You could limit a vehicle to 50km/h, and there are still places it could break the speed limit. So how low do you want it to go to be sure the law isn't broken?

On January 20th 2005, the speed limits in Ireland went metric. The old motorway speed limit was 70 mph (112.65 km/h), which went up to 120kmh overnight with metrification. Driver education didn't change. The roads didn't change. Cars didn't change. But now, for some reason, you're saying that this particular speed should be set in stone as the maximum any vehicle should ever be able to travel at.

To directly answer your question, cars shouldn't' be physically restricted to 120km/h because

- it wouldn't save lives

Futher to that central point, it:

- would increase the cost of vehicles
- wouldn't prevent speeding on the vast majority of roads
- would prevent us from using our vehicles legally in other countries where the speed limit is higher
- wouldn't have any effect on vehicles visiting from other countries
- would be very easy to circumvent (think the power restrictors on learner motorbikes), and so would not deter those who want to break the law anyway.

towel401

Twin-go wrote: »

Great idea about the picking of rubish by offenders. Fines and pelenty points don't work to stop some people breaking the Law but the shame of been seen by your peers have to do this just might work. I would hope it would not become a badge of honor like the ASBO has for some sections of Society.

More people by the side of the roads picking up rubbish = more people to knock down while driving. It might be a good idea but it wont necessarily reduce deaths

Also having a piece of paper in your windscreen that says you paid your 3,000 euros to some multinational insurance company doesn't make you any less likely to kill anyone. just means they can get a bit of money for the funeral if you do

Dyr

phutyle wrote: »

Every time you sell someone a kitchen knife, you give them the means to break the law. Doesn't mean that kitchen knifes shouldn't be sold, or should be blunted with corks on the pointy end.

You analogy is deeply flawed on every level. No ones suggesting a ban on kitchen knives or car's. Most table knives are blunted for that reason, its just so long since that law come in (1700s??) that its just custom now. Certain Knives are banned because they present a risk to people.
As It is a car cannot exceed 120 kmps per hour without breaking the law so there is no reason for a car to to be able to have that capability in this country.

- it wouldn't save lives

Sez you.


Futher to that central point, it:

- would increase the cost of vehicles Tough
- wouldn't prevent speeding on the vast majority of roads True
- would prevent us from using our vehicles legally in other countries where the speed limit is higher again Tough, happens in other walks of life all the time
- wouldn't have any effect on vehicles visiting from other countries True
- would be very easy to circumvent (think the power restrictors on learner motorbikes), and so would not deter those who want to break the law anyway.[/QUOTE] that people would break a law is not a reason not to apply it, might as well decriminalise murder if thats the case

I have a feeling the last bullet point is
- Drivers like having the option to break the law when they feel its safe to do so :eek:

thebman

I'd ask them to enforce the laws that already exist since a lot of them aren't enforced.

Penalty points should be introduced for almost all traffic offenses.

They have to stop letting people off on offenses as the stories spread and people start to think sure even if I am caught I'll probably get off with a warning.

Bambi wrote: »

Never said that they didnt. The question remains though: why do we sell people cars that can travel above our maximum speed limits? Why give someone the means to break the law?

Replying to all your posts not just this one (first one I went to quote), we don't live in a police state.

What you are suggesting is policies that would be introduced in a police state.

We aren't just giving people the means to break the law, there are legitimate reasons for cars going above 50MPH.

High speed doesn't kill on its own, reckless driving kills, not paying attention kills, drink/drug driving kills, tired and driving kills, not taking into account for conditions kills etc...

Driving at speed does not kill on its own and can be done safely if other people are driving safely too and paying attention.

eringobragh

Jumpy wrote: »

Heh, look at the one I had to do. Look at the New South Wales section.
No wonder I am an exthellent drivah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_licence_in_Australia

I have to agree....I'm in Australia & the standard of driving is light years ahead of the sh1te I've witnessed in Ireland. The place is also littered with speed cams and guess what there's 'accordian traffic' syndrome everyone knows where the cams are, so when you see someone braking for no particular reason 9/10 its a speed cam even my rental had all the camera POIs.

I've mainly seen 110km speed limits but alot of drivers drive between the 120 - 130 mark.

and to the OPs question a better driving test is definately needed, not a test where your doing an avg 40 - 60kmph (in some cases) There's people passing the test that have never been in 5th gear!

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

Sez you.


Futher to that central point, it:

- would increase the cost of vehicles Tough
- wouldn't prevent speeding on the vast majority of roads True
- would prevent us from using our vehicles legally in other countries where the speed limit is higher again Tough, happens in other walks of life all the time
- wouldn't have any effect on vehicles visiting from other countries True
- would be very easy to circumvent (think the power restrictors on learner motorbikes), and so would not deter those who want to break the law anywaythat people would break a law is not a reason not to apply it, might as well decriminalise murder if thats the case

I have a feeling the last bullet point is
- Drivers like having the option to break the law when they feel its safe to do so :eek:

But do you really want to be living in such a nanny state where the government try to control everything. What next: Ban drink because you could fall and get hurt, ban fatty foods because some people cannot control how much they eat, ban contact sports because someone could get hurt.

It comes down to the fact that its bad driving that is causing car crashes in this country, Limiting cars would do nothing to stop this and would have zero effect on road deaths, it would actually make driving more dangerous. It would also take away the enjoyment of driving a well sorted car on a good road which would be a big loss to a lot of car enthusiasts.

Zube

Malaysia Scrawny Oasis wrote: »

Limiting cars would do nothing to stop this and would have zero effect on road deaths, it would actually make driving more dangerous imo.

How many fatal accidents involve drivers exceeding 120 kph? We don't know.

In my experience (not that it's real data but...) most people only do that speed on motorways/dualcarriageways, which are the safest roads even with all the speeding, so limiting cars couold have little effect.

But it would make all the self-righteous people feel smug about stopping some lawbreaking, which would be the point.

Cuddlesworth

I would like the RSA to agree on a few things.

There is always going to be a certain level of un-preventable road deaths and we are on that mark now or close enough to it now for any more money to be a waste.

The speed cameras and stupid advertising campaigns have had much less of a impact on road deaths then other things like better brakes, tyres, traction control and crumple zones.

The advertising money to be better spent on teaching people proper road manners, how to indicate, how to drive at a speed appropriate to road conditions, how to use a motorway, what a yellow light means, awareness of the problems faced by HGV drivers(blatant blind spots and huge turning circles).

Insurance company's should have to release all details of claims placed after they are four years old for statistical purposes relevant to the RSA. They have the most up to date statistics of where and why motor accidents occur far beyond that of the RSA.


As for the ops original request. I don't think the money currently being spent on trying to prevent road deaths is worthwhile in any way. Human error is always going to be a factor while we are in control of the cars and a balance has to be struck.

Gregor Samsa

Bambi wrote: »

Certain Knives are banned because they present a risk to people.

No, some types of knifes are banned because politicians like to be seen to do *something* about a problem, rather than doing the right thing (the same can be applied to road deaths). Any of the 7 kitchen knifes I legally have are just as dangerous as any knife banned under the Firearms and Offensive Weapons act.

Bambi wrote: »

that people would break a law is not a reason not to apply it, might as well decriminalise murder if that's the case.

But breaking the speed limit is already against the law. What you're proposing isn't just criminalising something, it's an attempt at the absolute removal of the ability to do something at all, and that hasn't been done for murder, so I don't see why it should be done for speeding.

And I'll stand by my assertion that limiting cars to 120km/h would not significantly reduce road deaths - in the absence of statistics, but based on the anecdotal evidence of news reports, it's at least as valid a position as your assertion that it would.

eringobragh

Leia Numerous Thigh wrote: »

But do you really want to be living in such a nanny state where the government try to control everything. What next: Ban drink because you could fall and get hurt, ban fatty foods because some people cannot control how much they eat, ban contact sports because someone could get hurt.

It comes down to the fact that its bad driving that is causing car crashes in this country, Limiting cars would do nothing to stop this and would have zero effect on road deaths, it would actually make driving more dangerous imo.

Second that

What honestly do we need to expect from 'Big Brother' next:

Car won't start before the seatbelts aren't fastened
Blow into a Breathalyser before the car will start
GPS / GSM Blackbox Tracking :rolleyes:

Obviously your a muppet if your driving 100k through a village (and a dangerous bstard at that) but common sense should prevail, drive the conditions and to your / your cars limitations.
The GATSO van would be of greater use parked on the main street of the village to catch the muppet doing the 100k rather than Joe Public speeding in the 80k zone northbound of the M1 :rolleyes:

I for one wouldn't want live in a '1984' Totalitarian society... * shudders *

Zube

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

There is always going to be a certain level of un-preventable road deaths and we are on that mark now or close enough to it now for any more money to be a waste.

No, our death rate has been coming down for many years, but it's still going down, there's no sign that we've reached a limit. It's still only top 10 in Europe, not really the best it could be.

Some of the factors which lower our death rate are also good for drivers: newer, safer cars and more motorways are good all round.

I do agree that focussing on speed traps and shocking ads is a waste of resources.

thebman

I think the real problem is rural roads which needs to be addressed. You very rarely see police on these roads and I drive on them frequently. People use them especially younger people who have just got on the road as rally courses IMO.

Need to police these roads especially late at night.

GreeBo

Stopping road deaths is pretty simple. Lower the speed limits.

Stopping road accidents is a much harder problem involving all of the above ideas.

thebman

GreeBo wrote: »

Stopping road deaths is pretty simple. Lower the speed limits.

Stopping road accidents is a much harder problem involving all of the above ideas.

You can kill someone at slow speed. It doesn't stop anything.

Cuddlesworth

Zube wrote: »

No, our death rate has been coming down for many years, but it's still going down, there's no sign that we've reached a limit. It's still only top 10 in Europe, not really the best it could be.

I don't doubt it could come down further, I just think the amount of money spent is not in proportion to the amount of deaths involved.

The Cso has road deaths at 1% of all deaths in 06. If you agree that at least 50% of all road deaths here are unavoidable in current curcumstances, then your left with .5%.

As somebody with a large amount of common sense, I would rather see the money spent on community gyms and swimming pools and actively advertising them. Would save way more lives then the current "speeding" budget in the long term.

Dyr

phutyle wrote: »

No, some types of knifes are banned because politicians like to be seen to do *something* about a problem, rather than doing the right thing (the same can be applied to road deaths). Any of the 7 kitchen knifes I legally have are just as dangerous as any knife banned under the Firearms and Offensive Weapons act.

Absolutely, I own knives that are just as dangerous as the various prohibited items in the legislation but the point you're failing to miss is that those examples have utility or applications that doesn't break the law. Car's that can exceed our top speed limit offer no extra utility than a governed engine has other than to break the law.

Cuddlesworth

Bambi wrote: »

Absolutely, I own knives that are just as dangerous as the various prohibited items in the legislation but the point you're failing to miss is that those examples have utility or applications that doesn't break the law. Car's that can exceed our top speed limit offer no extra utility than a governed engine has other than to break the law.

And I suppose overtaking is nice and safe when travelling in a speed limited car. Where did you learn to drive?

GreeBo

thebman wrote: »

You can kill someone at slow speed. It doesn't stop anything.

I'll give you a chance to prove this theory of yours.
You hit me at 10kp/h and I'll get up and hit you at 60kp/h and we can compare notes afterwards.

thebman

Bambi wrote: »

Absolutely, I own knives that are just as dangerous as the various prohibited items in the legislation but the point you're failing to miss is that those examples have utility or applications that doesn't break the law. Car's that can exceed our top speed limit offer no extra utility than a governed engine has other than to break the law.

Lol, cars aren't just for roads. People are perfectly entitled to bring them to a track day and drive them there if they are road legal cars as long as they obey the law.

Then you have other countries with different limits.

I don't believe the government should be allowed to limit speeds to legal limits in this country just to keep some people happy that it will stop loads of road deaths.

It won't, it will frustrate drivers in many cases that would speed and they'll just drive more agressively within the limits. People will always find ways to kill themselves and others while behind the wheel. The best policy is to ban these people as they break the laws not try to make it so we can't detect them.

Dangerous drivers are dangerous no matter what speed they are doing. Focusing on speed so much just makes people that don't know how to drive feel that they are good drivers when they obey the limits when they may be reckless and not paying attention.

I'd like to see the evidence that restricting cars to the max speed limit in the country would save lives.

eringobragh

Bambi wrote: »

Absolutely, I own knives that are just as dangerous as the various prohibited items in the legislation but the point you're failing to miss is that those examples have utility or applications that doesn't break the law. Car's that can exceed our top speed limit offer no extra utility than a governed engine has other than to break the law.

Not much use restricting the engine if someone can do our "top speed limit" in a 50k zone, ALOT more dangerous than doing 140 in a 120 M road.

I think we can all agree that the roads with the "top speed limit" that being our motorways aren't a cesspool for road fatalities.

Gregor Samsa

Bambi wrote: »

Absolutely, I own knives that are just as dangerous as the various prohibited items in the legislation but the point you're failing to miss is that those examples have utility or applications that doesn't break the law. Car's that can exceed our top speed limit offer no extra utility than a governed engine has other than to break the law.

Driving over 120 at a Track Day at Mondello doesn't break the law.

Dyr

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

And I suppose overtaking is nice and safe when travelling in a speed limited car. Where did you learn to drive?

So are you breaking the speed limit when you overtake?

People are perfectly entitled to bring them to a track day and drive them there if they are road legal cars as long as they obey the law.

Driving over 120 at a Track Day at Mondello doesn't break the law

yup, those are valid reasons not to have a limit, or to be exempt from such a limit. They're also rare circumstances which wouldnt apply to most cars.
Theres valid reasons to have a shotgun on your property but they aren't valid reasons to wander around grafton street with one.

the_syco

Put a Garda or two randomly nearby blackspots, doing speed checks. Should cut down on people zipping about on bad spots.

Cuddlesworth

Bambi wrote: »

So are you breaking the speed limit when you overtake?

Yes and I have been seen by traffic corps doing this. You know what they did?

Nothing. When overtaking you find a appropriate spot and you speed up to complete the overtaking manoeuvre at fast as possible in order to minimise risk to yourself and other road users.

Overtaking a car doing 72kph on a 80kph stretch of road while obeying the speed limit is stupid to the extreme.

Zube

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I don't doubt it could come down further, I just think the amount of money spent is not in proportion to the amount of deaths involved.

So we could save, let's say, another 100 lives per year. Bear in mind that these are mostly young people, in their prime.

How much do you think that's worth exactly?

thebman

Bambi wrote: »

yup, those are valid reasons not to have a limit, or to be exempt from such a limit. They're also rare circumstances which wouldnt apply to most cars.
Theres valid reasons to have a shotgun on your property but they aren't valid reasons to wander around grafton street with one.

Lol hardly the same thing, anyway where is the evidence that this will safe lives?

The simple reality is it is much easier and cheaper to let people obey the limits themselves and they do with a few exceptions which is why we have police to catch them for these and other crimes.

I see no justification for such a blanket, expensive measure and neither does any other country in the world as far as I can see so why do you think it will be effective?

Zube

thebman wrote: »

why do you think it will be effective?

It will be very effective at making the anti-car lobby smug, which is the point of the exercise.

eringobragh

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Overtaking a car doing 72kph on a 80kph stretch of road while obeying the speed limit is stupid to the extreme.

x infinity:

Even in a scenario where I can pass at the speed limit, I prefer to opt to complete the manouver as quickly as possible.

Cuddlesworth

Zube wrote: »

So we could save, let's say, another 100 lives per year. Bear in mind that these are mostly young people, in their prime.

How much do you think that's worth exactly?

How many young peoples lives are destroyed through obesity, heart disease, drug use, alcoholism?

How much do you think that's worth?

With proper funding these problems could be hugely decreased in under privileged areas. Funding that currently goes on stupid things like e-voting machines, advertising campaigns for speeding that scare nobody and equipment for "reducing road deaths" being placed on roads that statistically are the least likely to produce deaths.


The whole system is a fallacy projected onto problems we believe we can fix and problems we believe we should ignore. Its about what we can see so politicians get their votes, not what is really important to our well-being as a whole.

You can throw all the money in the world at road deaths, and there are only going to be one outcome. People will die or we simply won't get anywhere in the time we have been accustomed to by a huge margin.

In a choice between the two, I choose the deaths.

Zube

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

You can throw all the money in the world at road deaths, and there are only going to be one outcome.

This is an odd point of view to have when road deaths have fallen enormously recently, and are still falling, year on year. 2008 had the lowest road death count since 1959 when records began.

You may argue that this ad campaign or that speeding campaign isn't responsible, but you can't argue that deaths won't be reduced when it's a fact that they are being reduced.

thebman

Zube wrote: »

This is an odd point of view to have when road deaths have fallen enormously recently, and are still falling, year on year. 2008 had the lowest road death count since 1959 when records began.

You may argue that this ad campaign or that speeding campaign isn't responsible, but you can't argue that deaths won't be reduced when it's a fact that they are being reduced.

I think his argument is mostly of a dollar to life saved ratio.

If you put the same effort into another less popular area to try to saves lives then you'd probably save more lives.

I don't know if that is the case.

Zube

thebman wrote: »

I think his argument is mostly of a dollar to life saved ratio.

That's why I asked what's a reasonable price for 100 lives a year. He's sure that our current efforts aren't worth it, so how much are they worth exactly?

A quick google suggests that the RSAs budget peaked at 44 million in 2007. In 2008, 59 fewer people died than in 2007. That's about €750,000 per life saved.

Quoting the RSA's PR dude: "He said the cost of each road death had been estimated by Goodbody Economic Consultants at €3 million, while serious injuries,which were more numerous, cost €386,000."

So that's a pretty good return.

cnocbui

People who think speed kills - and that includes the Gardai, politicians and holier than thou wowsers, should consult the statistics on the matter.

Since I believe Ireland doesn't bother to keep meaningful statistics, the next best option is to look at those for the UK.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Data from 13 Police forces for 2001 reveals the following most frequent accident contributory factors:[/FONT]

• [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Inattention 25.8%[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Failure to judge other person's path or speed 22.6%[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Looked but did not see 19.7%[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Behaviour: careless/thoughtless/reckless 18.4%[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Failed to look 16.3%[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Lack of judgement of own path 13.7%[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Excessive speed 12.5%[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Excessive speed" includes both "speed in excess of the speed limit" and "inappropriate speed for the conditions". Data from Avon and Somerset - the only such data available in the UK - warns us that 70% of these "excessive speed accidents" take place entirely within the speed limit. We should therefore assume that in all probability only some 3.75% of our road accidents involve exceeding a speed limit.[/FONT]

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr110.html

So breaking the speed limit is actually a factor in only a very small % of accidents.

The number one cause of road accidents is inattention. So you would do more to prevent accidents and death by making it illegal to use a mobile phone in a car that is moving, even with a hands free kit. You should also make it illegal for passengers in a car to talk to each other or the driver. This is obviously never going to get off the ground, so it must be accepted that there is actually an acceptable level of fatalities.

Ireland has an appalling road network. The main problem is that almost all of it is single lane in the direction of travel. This results in traffic flows being dictated by the slowest vehicles on a given stretch of road, which are usually well below the speed limit or safe speed for the conditions. This leads to considerable frustration for the rest of the road users who find their speed limited unnecessarily.

Many fatal accidents in Ireland are due to unsafe overtaking. If one were to modify the road network slightly, the necessity for overtaking could be reduced enormously and be replaced with safe passing.

Many N roads and some R roads are already wide enough for there to be three lanes of traffic, if you were to remove the hard should and replace it with a third lane. You could then have overtaking lanes every few kilometers, obviously alternating the availability of it from one side of the road to the other, so as to benefit the flow in both directions.

You could do this at a fraction of the cost of building motorways, as it would require little more than a large amount of paint, some cats eyes and a few signs.

You would of course have to introduce a keep left rule and enforce it with the same devotion as is currently expended on speed limit infringement.

Mr. Incognito

BUILD DECENT ROADS.

It's no accident Donegal has worst roads and highest fatailites.

As for the poster that said we have decent roads get real- I was in France on a road hiking trip walking hundreds of Km, their worst roads are straight, newly surfaced and wide. Our country roads are narrow, covered in potholes and are unmarked. A maze of death if you ask me.

Even the inter city roads- drive from Dublin to Limerick. One hour of Motorway and then BANG 10 Km of bendy twisty road culminating in a huge tailback at Mountrath. It's a joke.

He use the example of Dublin to Cork- one word buddy Abbeyleix- get used to it you'll be spending some time there.

cyclopath2001

cnocbui wrote: »

So breaking the speed limit is actually a factor in only a very small % of accidents.

You've misinterpreted what was stated. To put it more accurately, excessive speed was a contributory cause in 12.5%. It does not say if the excessive speed involved breaking a speed limit.

It's also true to say that the speed of the vehicle is a factor in 100% of the degree of severity of injuries and liklihood of deaths.

thebman

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You've misinterpreted what was stated. To put it more accurately, excessive speed was a contributory cause in 12.5%. It does not say if the excessive speed involved breaking a speed limit.

It's also true to say that the speed of the vehicle is a factor in 100% of the degree of severity of injuries and liklihood of deaths.

TBH, it depends on what you hit.

challengemaster

Better roads
Improve the tests so they're actually useful to drivers, and keep idiots off the roads.
Increase the speed limits (You're after eliminating any reason to keep them low, stupidly low limits only cause road rage tbh, especially on decent roads)
Actually enforce the laws
Gardaí should stop fupping about doing random breath tests on drivers who don't drink, in the middle of the day, instead of at 1-4am when people are leaving pubs absolutly pished and getting into their cars when they should be. I don't know how many times I've seen it. Sure, at 1am the town will be packed with cars, next morning there's about 7 cars around the town.

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

Make it illegal to purchase any vehicle that can exceed our maximum speed limit. Lets see how serious we are about this premise of saving lives.

what happens when i try to overtake a driver like you? i hit 60mph and am on the wrong side of the road for alot longer.

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Make the manufacturers limit the speed that cars are capable of travelling to 50mph. Apes have useless reflexes when moving at high speed.

where are these manufacturers that we have control over?




very little crashes are caused by speeding, stop making it the only thing that is checked. i've been driving 10 months or so and have never been checked for anything. through one checkpoint in clones and didn't get license, tax, nct or tyres checked. couldn't believe it.

cyclopath2001

Zube wrote: »

Road deaths have dropped already, to about the lowest levels on record. Why? Safer cars, lower speeds, better roads, less drinking - who knows?

Or lower average speeds caused by traffic congestion.

Johnny Utah

Build high-quality 3-lane motorways between all the major cities in Ireland. They should be built to the best standard possible, with proper lighting, proper road markings, signposts etc. There should be a speed limit of 120 mph on these roads and they would require minimal level of policing at most.


Build 2 lane dual carriageways between the major towns around the country. Again, a minimal level of policing is reuired on these roads as they are quite safe.

Realistic speed limits for the boreens we see around the country, not 80 kph!


ANPR cameras to detect uninsured drivers, untaxed cars set up on gantrys on motorways/dual carriageways. No policing required at the roadside, send out the summons with a picture from the anpr camera.


Gardai should focus more on the secondary/back roads, rather than the major motorways/dual carriageways. Higher presence at night too on these roads.


Locate the 200 most dangerous places for road fatalities on the national/secondary roads around Ireland, and place a speed camera at this point. The camera should be painted bright neon pink, and there should be a sign warning of its presence 500m before you meet it.