Road deaths: Another record low year?

MagicSean

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

What do you think my agenda is? I'm sure you don't even know.

Why are you obsessed about the income from my website? It has nothing to do with the discussion. Are you as concerned about the income of all the people who work for the RSA? Are they all working for free? Have you emailed the RSA to ask them?



My metric shows that the safety record on Irish roads has improved to an even greater extent than the Government and RSA tell us. More vehicles on the road and less accidents. That is good news all around, they should be shouting about this from the rooftops and patting themselves on the back, why don't they do this? Oh wait, I forgot, maybe there might be calls to disband the RSA, or cut back on it's budget. They wouldn't want to do that would they?

Your agenda is quite clear. Your name, sig and blatant disregard for any fact that doesn't suit the "speed cameras are bad" way of thinking.

Zubeneschamali

Victor wrote: »

But there are still too many casualties

All the more reason to focus on real numbers, to identify real causes of accidents and deaths, and the actual reasons why deaths are going down.

The RSA are very, very poor at this. See the recent push to lower the drink-drive limit from 80 to 50, even though far, far more drivers are killed with more than double the old limit on board than in that new 50-80 category. The obvious way to address that is to arrest more drunk drivers, not mess with the limits, but messing with the limits is easier, and will drive the DWI figure up without doing any actual extra work. Result!

Similarly, there is a push on to toll more of our Motorways to raise revenue. The RSA should be screaming that this will reverse recent progress and push dangerous traffic back into towns and onto bad roads, and will kill people. Much better to raise the same revenue by taxing fuel, and let people use the safest roads. Safer still to abolish all tolls.

I.S.T.

Victor wrote: »

You appear to be quick to point out flaws with speed limits and speed checks, but seem to make no effort to fix the problems. I've challenged you on this before (you were complaining about a high speed limit on a moinor road in the Dublin Mountains, but refused to identify where it was) and you had no answer.

My tax is used to pay people working for the RSA and NRA to fix the problems. It is not my responsibility to fix these problems. If I see problems with their approach and methods, it is my right to point this out.

Seriously, tell me, what do you expect me to do to fix these problems?

Victor wrote: »

Am I? To my recollection, this is the only time I have mentioned it. Surely not an obsesssion.

I'm sure you asked about it before, maybe I am confusing you with another poster.

Victor wrote: »

Cars don't count. People do. Crash a car and it might cost a few thousand to deal with. Injure a person and it is likely to be a multiple of that.

Cost of collisions have decreased also according to the RSA Road Collision Facts 2009 report:

RSA Road Collision Facts 2009 wrote:

The cost of collisions was based on those as outlined in the 2004 Goodbody Economic Consultants report entitled ‘Cost Benefit Parameters and Application Rules for Transport Project Appraisal’ which was commissioned by the Department of Transport. Using the updating mechanism as set out in the Goodbody Economic Consultant’s report which is to inflate the year 2002 cost values to 2009 values, using the growth in Gross National Product (GNP) per person employed, the estimated cost of all fatal and injury road collisions reported to and recorded by An Garda Síochána in 2009 was €974 million. This is a decrease in cost of collisions of €229 million when compared to 2008 figure

Victor wrote: »

Less headline accidents. As mentioned earlier, large numbers of injuries are going unreported

Not reported to who? All injury crashes have to be reported to the Gardaí. The RSA report is generated using stats from the Gardaí.

Victor wrote: »

But there are still too many casualties.

Agreed, one casualty is one too many.

I.S.T.

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Your agenda is quite clear. Your name, sig and blatant disregard for any fact that doesn't suit the "speed cameras are bad" way of thinking.

That is not the agenda at all. You are very wide of the mark. I am not against speed cameras, I am against speed cameras being used to raise revenue or for PR purposes by the Government. No problem at all with speed cameras in areas of high accident rates.

MagicSean

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

That is not the agenda at all. You are very wide of the mark. I am not against speed cameras, I am against speed cameras being used to raise revenue or for PR purposes by the Government. No problem at all with speed cameras in areas of high accident rates.

And i suppose those speed trap avoidance apps in your sig distinguish between speed traps in good and bad locations?

Victor

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

My tax is used to pay people working for the RSA and NRA to fix the problems. It is not my responsibility to fix these problems. If I see problems with their approach and methods, it is my right to point this out.

If, as you maintain that inappropriate limits are set on certain roads, why don't you report those roads? Add that little bit of functionality to the "Add speed camera" page. Tell you what, if you do that, I'll personally re-write the bye-laws to get them sorted.

Oh, do you have a data protection policy?

cyclopath2001

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

I am against speed cameras being used to raise revenue

To support your statement, please provide details of the net revenue from speed cameras. Note though, that quotes from the 'Daily Mail' will not be accepted as fact.

I.S.T.

Victor wrote: »

If, as you maintain that inappropriate limits are set on certain roads, why don't you report those roads? Add that little bit of functionality to the "Add speed camera" page. Tell you what, if you do that, I'll personally re-write the bye-laws to get them sorted.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer, I already answered in my last post. It is not my responsibility, there are government bodies paid with my tax money to do this.

Victor wrote: »

Oh, do you have a data protection policy?

Yes. But again, not relevant to this thread. You can use the contact us page on the website if you have any other off topic questions.

I.S.T.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

To support your statement, please provide details of the net revenue from speed cameras. Note though, that quotes from the 'Daily Mail' will not be accepted as fact.

Why do I need to "support" my statement. I am against speed cameras being used to raise any revenue. The speeding fine should be abolished and just penalty points given for speeding offenses. This will remove any doubt in motorists minds that they are just there to make money.

Mr. Presentable

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Why do I need to "support" my statement. I am against speed cameras being used to raise any revenue. The speeding fine should be abolished and just penalty points given for speeding offenses. This will remove any doubt in motorists minds that they are just there to make money.

Here's my thing on this IST. If you are going to make an assertion you ought to be able to back it up, otherwise it's worthless.

Whether speed cameras are for raising revenue or not is immaterial - they only catch law-breakers anyway, so it's easy to starve them of revenue.

That there is a fine seems to focus the mind of the motorist more than the points, so I guess that makes it a bigger deterrant, a better tool.

Gophur

Victor wrote: »

This is a metric that is pushed by the motor industry that has nothing to do with allievating the suffering of the dead, injured and their families.

.........

Completely off topic.

Speed cameras catch people who may, or may not, be driving dangerously. The speed limit is a very blunt recommendation as to what is safe, exceeding it does not mean you are driving dangerously.

A much better system would be one where actual dangerous driving was detected, not just exceeding the limit.

The Speed Cameras are a very ineffective tool (they catch a very small percentage of actual dangerous drivers).

There are two regularly stationed on a small road close to me. They are there because of two fatal accidents in the past five years, neither of which were as a result of exceeding the speed limit.

The cameras are stationed, ironically, at the safest points in the road, the points where it is perfectly safe to exceed the speed limit, buy up to 50%, yet further down the road is is positively dangerous to drive even close to the posted speed limit. All these cameras will do is catch some drivers, while driving in a perfectly safe manner, and do very little to improve road safety.

Zubeneschamali

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

The speeding fine should be abolished and just penalty points given for speeding offenses. This will remove any doubt in motorists minds that they are just there to make money.

I think a quick look at the figures on the site linked in the thread opener should do that:

First half of 2011 there were 138,206 fixed charge notices for speeding. At €80 a pop, that's just €1.1 million. It's chicken feed.

No, I think the reason for fish-in-a-barrel speed trapping is not raising revenue, it's being Seen To Be Doing Something. "Look, speeding fines are up 100%! We're doing something, and deaths are dropping! It must be working! We must do more of it!"

Gophur

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think a quick look at the figures on the site linked in the thread opener should do that:

First half of 2011 there were 138,206 fixed charge notices for speeding. At €80 a pop, that's just €1.1 million. It's chicken feed.

No, I think the reason for fish-in-a-barrel speed trapping is not raising revenue, it's being Seen To Be Doing Something. "Look, speeding fines are up 100%! We're doing something, and deaths are dropping! It must be working! We must do more of it!"

One can only speculate how few of those 138,206 "offenders" would have gone on to have a crash, if it wasn't for the speed trap?

Very few.

Of course, if it saved even one life it can be justified but it is grossly inefficient.

And, 138,206 at €80 a pop is €11,056,480, not an insignificant amount.

tmcw

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

...First half of 2011 there were 138,206 fixed charge notices for speeding. At €80 a pop, that's just €1.1 million. It's chicken feed...

lol

seamus

Gophur wrote: »

And, 138,206 at €80 a pop is €11,056,480, not an insignificant amount.

In the grand scheme, €11m is nothing tbh. Since the money goes straight back to the exchequer, and the roads bill is €12bn, the money brought in by speeding fines accounts for less than 0.1% of the money in that area.

It's why the claims of "money generation" have no foundation. They would need to have the Traffic Corps doing nothing but speed checks to bring in a significant amount of money.

Zubeneschamali

Gophur wrote: »

And, 138,206 at €80 a pop is €11,056,480, not an insignificant amount.

Whoops, my bad!

Still not a big revenue source, and never will be.

Gophur

seamus wrote: »

In the grand scheme, €11m is nothing tbh. Since the money goes straight back to the exchequer, and the roads bill is €12bn, the money brought in by speeding fines accounts for less than 0.1% of the money in that area.

It's why the claims of "money generation" have no foundation. They would need to have the Traffic Corps doing nothing but speed checks to bring in a significant amount of money.

Take the costs of collection and the money to be paid to McAuliffe (the owner of the private vans) and you have, maybe, 20% of the budget of the RSA.

Actuarial estimates calculate the cost of each road fatality at €2m, that's taking into account all the costs involved with the personnel at the time of the fatality and the loss to the State of the earnings of that person over his/her lifetime. It's a rough calculation, but it's out there.

Speed Cameras are not there for revenue generation, they are there for PR, they are there to allow the authorities say they are doing something and, in a small fraction of cases, they actually work in preventing an accident.

cyclopath2001

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Why do I need to "support" my statement. I am against speed cameras being used to raise any revenue.

I am against law-abiding drivers having to pay for the operation of speed cameras. It is quite fair that law breakers should bear the cost.

Victor

Gophur wrote: »

Completely off topic.

Perhaps you should raise that with IST.

ShadowHearth

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Drink driving. Driving while tired. Driving too fast on backroads, meeting the unexpected, losing control, hitting a tree, pole, bridge. Typical inexperienced, overconfident young fella stuff.

And before anyone takes offence, I was a young man once myself, and did most of those things, but lived.

I see no reason to bring suicide into it. Smashing up your car seems a very unreliable way to kill yourself to me (short of going over the Cliffs of Moher), and far too likely to end up with the driver just really, really badly injured.

But maybe there is some reason to suppose I'm wrong?

When I was 18 I was on edge of suicide. Two options were in my head: knife or smash with my car in to a brick wall. I almost did it.

Once we had a big fight in a car with my mother, she was so pissed off so she went in to oncoming traffic at 120km/h and a big truck in front, then said: we will end it here and now. My Answer was: have fun, I am ready anyway. She chickened out last few seconds. After few days I ran away from home and newer sow here again, 7 years now. I couldn't be happier where I am now, with who I am now, and what I do in life.

Ireland has a huge problem with suicide. I can bet my balls on this: alot of young males have suicides in cars. You are wrong not to consider suicide as a big factor. Been there done that. If you need prove, I am your prove.

Wolverine_1999

ShadowHearth wrote: »

When I was 18 I was on edge of suicide. Two options were in my head: knife or smash with my car in to a brick wall. I almost did it.

Once we had a big fight in a car with my mother, she was so pissed off so she went in to oncoming traffic at 120km/h and a big truck in front, then said: we will end it here and now. My Answer was: have fun, I am ready anyway. She chickened out last few seconds. After few days I ran away from home and newer sow here again, 7 years now. I couldn't be happier where I am now, with who I am now, and what I do in life.

Ireland has a huge problem with suicide. I can bet my balls on this: alot of young males have suicides in cars. You are wrong not to consider suicide as a big factor. Been there done that. If you need prove, I am your prove.

Bit off topic.. but I have extreme respect for what you have achieved.

I find the bullies/racism in this society can drive anyone to despair (from my own experience..) Faster you get out of secondary school, the better.

However, I think suicide is a very selfish thing to do that only leaves the people you leave behind to deal with the suffering and pain. Seeing the bad relationship you had with your mother I think I would understand you better, seeing I can't say the same for myself. Of course you could look at it from the point of view that you are suffering every day of your life anyway, and want to "pass the buck" so to speak.

Very brave all in all for getting on with it and well done!

Zubeneschamali

ShadowHearth wrote: »

alot of young males have suicides in cars.

Well done to you for getting to a better place!

I don't know how big the suicide-by-car figure is, and I started this thread skeptical at the idea that it's a big number, but that report I linked to earlier from the National Office for Suicide Prevention entirely ignores it. This seems to suggest that the official number of suicides-by-car is zero, and that no-one is looking at tackling it as a kind of suicide rather than a kind of road accident.

Big or small, I think we can agree that the number is not zero.

ShadowHearth

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well done to you for getting to a better place!

I don't know how big the suicide-by-car figure is, and I started this thread skeptical at the idea that it's a big number, but that report I linked to earlier from the National Office for Suicide Prevention entirely ignores it. This seems to suggest that the official number of suicides-by-car is zero, and that no-one is looking at tackling it as a kind of suicide rather than a kind of road accident.

Big or small, I think we can agree that the number is not zero.

Official number? I did not had a note ready in my car when I wanted to do it, I bet lots of young lads didn't too. So I presume if there are no suicide notes, it's not good enough for them m8.

seamus

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Official number? I did not had a note ready in my car when I wanted to do it, I bet lots of young lads didn't too. So I presume if there are no suicide notes, it's not good enough for them m8.

And IMO, emergency services will never classify a car-suicide as a suicide unless they're 100% sure. There are other valid explanations for serious accidents such as falling asleep at the wheel or just plain old human error, so you would never chalk it down as suicide unless you were sure. A suicide verdict usually compounds the suffering of the family.

Fair play to you SH, you've clearly turned your life around. But if the incident with your mother had taken place, it would have declared an accident caused by poor overtaking or "driving on the wrong side of the road", but not a suicide.

ShadowHearth

seamus wrote: »

And IMO, emergency services will never classify a car-suicide as a suicide unless they're 100% sure. There are other valid explanations for serious accidents such as falling asleep at the wheel or just plain old human error, so you would never chalk it down as suicide unless you were sure. A suicide verdict usually compounds the suffering of the family.

Fair play to you SH, you've clearly turned your life around. But if the incident with your mother had taken place, it would have declared an accident caused by poor overtaking or "driving on the wrong side of the road", but not a suicide.

You perfectly pointed that out:

In both situation no one would even think that it would be suicide, but in statistics it would go as car accsidets because:

A) young fella was **** driver and was going to fast.
error by female driver when overtaking or drivers error.

Victor

Wolverine_1999 wrote: »

However, I think suicide is a very selfish thing to do that only leaves the people you leave behind to deal with the suffering and pain.

That is an unfair comment. People who commit suicide are either seriously ill or are in desperate situations.

seamus wrote: »

And IMO, emergency services will never classify a car-suicide as a suicide unless they're 100% sure.

Strictly speaking thats the coroner's job.

mikemac

Yikes what a thread
The most stupid thing I used to do on the roads was work long night shifts, hang around town for a while and then drive home.
So, so close to falling asleep at the wheel a few times, a pure liability on the roads

Yet if I crashed the locals would be chattering and calling a single vehicle, young male accident a possible suicide?

It's a factor alright and it happens but that's for the coroner to decide.
Idle talk does families no good at all and I'm not saying here on boards but it's just something I'd never talk about with locals

And well done to you ShadowHearth