N25 crash

gavmcg92

keithclancy wrote: »

Your weren't and Olga wasn't, why waste your time getting so emotional about something that didn't affect you in any way.

I don't want to get in on this argument but this is completely the wrong approach to take when these issues arise. If we continue to fob off stories about people being killed by drunk drivers, people going the wrong way down a dual carriage way, dangerous driving etc you never know, it could be one of our family members/ friends who are killed as a result.

These sorts of issues need to be tackled. You can't just sit back and say well it wasn't me this time so why care. We all share the same roads.

keithclancy

Max Power1 wrote: »

We all have the same % chance of something like this happening to us. I don't live my life in what ifs, but for severe occurences like this I think we all do to some extent.

If there was no element of "what if", we would all have no fear and also not know to not take stupid decisions like walking in front of red lights etc.

The truck brakes failing are obviously unavoidable but the morons driving down the wrong way can be stopped with better testing, and more regular retests for the "at risk" groups like older people.

I don't think so, you spend over 3.5k for your Driving license in Germany and it still happens:

In a survey 8% of respondents said they would avoid motorways altogether:
http://www.autozeitung.de/auto-news/geisterfahrer-statistik-deutschland-umfrage-2013-sicherheit-gn85684

There's big signs saying wrong way etc, happens all over Europe if not the world, I guess you only read the Irish news though.

Cuddlesworth

ironclaw wrote: »

Those two statements are completely contradictory. If someone is confused / altered enough to enter a motorway the wrong way, be that medically or psychologically, they are not going to notice signs, on coming cars etc in the same way a rational, clear thinking person is.

You have taken a assumption that he might have been the victim of a stroke and translated it to a fact.

ironclaw wrote: »

Boggles the mind that people can't grasp the deep affect that a medical or physiological issues can have. And yet we all point fingers and assume they are an 'idiot' for not noticing signage etc etc.

Boggles my mind that you can't consider the fact there are drivers who are just incapable of the act of driving.

ironclaw wrote: »

That said, we have no idea what actually happened. I just feel its disrespectful to someone to assume they are an idiot, moron etc when in the last few moments of their life they may have been impaired to this extent where the previous 50+ years were accident free.

I know what happened. He drove the wrong way down the dual carriageway. Like many other bad drivers.

AugustusMinimus

Why are people bring up the driver having a stroke all the time. There has been no report at all on whether the driver had a stroke or not.

All I know is that there is a large minority of drivers on our roads who if retested, wouldn't have a chance of passing a driving test. These are the same drivers who take little notice of what is going on around when driving a car and in some cases are the ones who drive down the wrong side of a dual carriageway and yet are completely oblivious to the fact that there are cars coming against them in both lanes.

Boggles the mind. What's worse is the fact that the authorities are blaming everything but the drivers. The reason ? Because the driver doesn't fit the key demographic of a being a young male who by the government's and RSA logic should be ripe for castigation at all times.

allinthehead

Max Power1 wrote: »

We all have the same % chance of something like this happening to us. I don't live my life in what ifs, but for severe occurences like this I think we all do to some extent.

If there was no element of "what if", we would all have no fear and also not know to not take stupid decisions like walking in front of red lights etc.

The truck brakes failing are obviously unavoidable but the morons driving down the wrong way can be stopped with better testing, and more regular retests for the "at risk" groups like older people.

i suppose at the end of the day its about risk and statistics. doesnt insurance start to rise for over 70's so if the shoe fits.

unfortunately tho you cant have bi annual tests for gob****es

pa990

Ireland has this attitude that its always someones else's fault.

I fell into a hole.. cos there wasnt a sign / or was because you werent looking where you were going

i slipped on the floor / or did you not realise that it was raining and that the whole city was wet.. look where you're going

I walked into a Giant VAT cos there was no sign / wtf, do you need to be spoon fed

If you drive down the wrong side of a road you are clearly not paying attention and are not aware of your surroundings.
OK, its possible to make a mistake if tired/drugs/alcohol/medical condition etc, but the mistake should be realized pretty shortly after, otherwise natural selection kicks in.

as cruel as it sounds, at least an innocent person wasn't killed.

ardmacha

Better signposting will help some types of driver, for instance those who have become distracted, those from countries where they drive on the right. But some are beyond help from such simple measures.

Some sort of retesting seems a no-brainer to me, but drivers of limited capacity (old) always elicit more sympathy than those who drive dangerously for kicks (young).
However many accidents are caused by temporary incapacity, deliberately induced (drink, drugs, tiredness), inadvertently induced (prescription drugs), or illness. Testing won't necessarily solve these problems.

niloc1951

Perhaps it's time for the NRA to carry out an audit of all access roads to motorways and dual carriageways to risk rate them in terms of probability of being driven down the wrong way.

Those with an obvious risk like the entrance/exit on the west bound N25 at Little Island should be modified, as it was after a double fatality a couple of years ago.

Those which do not lend themselves to modification should perhaps be fitted with red traffic lights activated by approaching traffic coupled to a flashing message. Similar technology is employed at the Jack Lynch Tunnel to warn drivers of over-hight loads, and that's only to avoid the cost of fixing damage to the tunnel and any disruption to traffic flow, an inconsequential cost compared to a lost live or a seriously injured person.

It is of little use to focus on the unfortunate driver, show me one which has not made a mistake. Some mistakes cause little more than temporary embarrassment, others permanent death and there is plenty in between.

It is a good designer who accepts a design may be flawed, is open to feedback from the users of his/her product then acts on the feedback to modify its design.

Some posts in this thread would have one believe that mistakes are not to be permitted or that no criticism can be allowed of a product, in this case a road design.
However in real life mistakes do happen with frightening regularity by both the designers and users of all types of products, including roads.

It's one of the issues to do with being human, but when human frailty raises its head action to improve the human performance and/or the environment we operate in is imperative.

coolisin

Having never being there I'm going to make assumptions that this road has the standard no entry signs and road markings at the top of the on ramp.

If so why do we need flashing signs for these people too miss?

Once i was sitting at a newly constructed roundabout on the old n7 at roscrea up too this point there was no roundabouts in the area.

A person who was of an older age came to the roundabout and made the decision to use the shortest route which was turn left and around the roundabout the wrong way then exit the roundabout where the traffic was entering.

So call me ageist if you wish, but sometimes some of the older generation just don't get the road signs.

Because they have never noticed them on the single carriageways or two way road they are used too.

It's sad he is dead, RIP but the poor chap nearly accidentally took somebody else out with him.

As I said it scares me thinking I may find myself staring down at one of these people as I cruise along at 120kmh.

But remember RSA it's speed and young drivers that kill people. 1 point me nutsack for this ludicrous behaviour.

Sam Russell

ardmacha wrote: »

Better signposting will help some types of driver, for instance those who have become distracted, those from countries where they drive on the right. But some are beyond help from such simple measures.

Some sort of retesting seems a no-brainer to me, but drivers of limited capacity (old) always elicit more sympathy than those who drive dangerously for kicks (young).
However many accidents are caused by temporary incapacity, deliberately induced (drink, drugs, tiredness), inadvertently induced (prescription drugs), or illness. Testing won't necessarily solve these problems.

OLD people do get tested. When you get to 70 years of age, your licence ends. To get a new one you must get your eyesight tested, and you must get a doctor to certify that you are fit to drive. You then get a licence for three years when you must repeat the exercise. When you get to eighty, you have to get the above done every year from then on as only annual licences are issued. So OLD people are tested. They are naturaly cautious and err on the side of slow rather than fast, stop rather than go, wait rather than rush. They do not drive if they consider it risky.

You get your eyesight tested when you get your first licence (at maybe 17 years of age) and then not again until you get to 70. You are only certified fit to drive by a doctor when you get to 70 years of age, unless you suffer from specific ailments.

Our current president is over 70, and out Taoisigh is 62 which is old in some peoples mind. Less of the old.

There are many drivers on the road who have never passed a test on their driving or their eyesight, but would not consider themselves old..

If a drivers has a medical incident like a stoke or heart attack, the results are unpredictable, and often unexpected and sometimes disasterous - both for themselves and others. I assume some such occured with this poor fellow.

May he rest in peace.

mb1725

While certain keyboard warriors here were hang, drawing and quartering the driver in this accident, his family had to come to terms with the tragedy and had to pick up the pieces over the last few days. Today, an old lady stood by the side of her husband's grave as he was laid to rest. That family has suffered enough without having to read the insulting bickering on here.

mooman

mb1725 wrote: »

While certain keyboard warriors here were hang, drawing and quartering the driver in this accident, his family had to come to terms with the tragedy and had to pick up the pieces over the last few days. Today, an old lady stood by the side of her husband's grave as he was laid to rest. That family has suffered enough without having to read the insulting bickering on here.

And another mans family are picking up the pieces with their father/husband/son in a hospital bed because of that other mans incompetence, the fact that he died is irrelevant...there is absolutely no other way to put it. Its not insulting or bickering its fact.
I can guarantee you wouldn't be so understanding if it was you, or a loved one he hit. The fact that he died shouldn't excuse what he done.

Cedrus

Sam Russell wrote: »

OLD people do get tested. When you get to 70 years of age, your licence ends. To get a new one you must get your eyesight tested, and you must get a doctor to certify that you are fit to drive. You then get a licence for three years when you must repeat the exercise. When you get to eighty, you have to get the above done every year from then on as only annual licences are issued. So OLD people are tested. They are naturaly cautious and err on the side of slow rather than fast, stop rather than go, wait rather than rush. They do not drive if they consider it risky.

You get your eyesight tested when you get your first licence (at maybe 17 years of age) and then not again until you get to 70. You are only certified fit to drive by a doctor when you get to 70 years of age, unless you suffer from specific ailments.

Our current president is over 70, and out Taoisigh is 62 which is old in some peoples mind. Less of the old.

There are many drivers on the road who have never passed a test on their driving or their eyesight, but would not consider themselves old..

If a drivers has a medical incident like a stoke or heart attack, the results are unpredictable, and often unexpected and sometimes disasterous - both for themselves and others. I assume some such occured with this poor fellow.

May he rest in peace.

You're thinking of the UK, doesn't work like that here. Assessment is required after a stroke or other major illness alright but it's driven by GPs and insurance companies rather than the law.
If you get your licence at 17, you get your next one at 27 not 70, if you renew your licence at 69 you have it until 79. If driving here on a UK licence you have to trade it in for our "system" after a fairly short period or you are breaking the law.

slimjimmc

Cedrus wrote: »

You're thinking of the UK, doesn't work like that here. Assessment is required after a stroke or other major illness alright but it's driven by GPs and insurance companies rather than the law.
If you get your licence at 17, you get your next one at 27 not 70, if you renew your licence at 69 you have it until 79

No you don't.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/driver_licensing/full_driving_licence.html

The period of time a driving licence is issued for depends on the age of the applicant. There are 4 age brackets that the period of a licence falls under.

If you are under 60 years of age, you may apply for a 3-year (on medical grounds) or a 10-year licence. Since 19 January 2013 the maximum period is 5 years for a bus and/or truck driving licence.

If you are older than 60 but younger than 67 years of age, you may apply for a licence that will expire the day before your 70th birthday. The maximum period is 5 years for a bus and/or truck driving licence.

If you are older than 67 but under 70 years of age, you may apply for a 3-year licence.

If you are over the age of 70, you will need a certification of fitness to drive by your doctor to apply for a 3-year or a one-year licence.

Cedrus wrote: »

If driving here on a UK licence you have to trade it in for our "system" after a fairly short period or you are breaking the law.

Nope

Holders of licences issued by an EU/EEA member state
If you have a driving licence issued by an EU/EEA member state you can drive in Ireland as long as your existing licence is valid. If you wish to exchange your driving licence for an equivalent Irish driving licence, you must do so within 10 years of your driving licence expiring.

gutteruu

The Chairman of the RSA is a pensioner who never done a driving test. This is the problem in my eyes.

"Young drivers are dangerous". So they have to have:
1. 10 hours of lessons recorded.
2. Drive with a fully licensed person whilst on provisional licences.
3. Pass a theory test.
4. Pass a rigorous driving test.
5. Pay massive insurance
etc etc

Old people are dangerous. So they have to:
1. 10 hours of lessons recorded.
2. Drive with a fully licensed person whilst on provisional licences.
3. Pass a theory test.
4. Pass a rigorous driving test.
5. Pay massive insurance
6. Be able to see and not have a crippling illness.

"The road is the problem"......No its not! This happens on all roads.

"Don't insult the dead guy"......Why not. He could have killed a few other peoples fathers/kids/mothers

Sam Russell

Cedrus wrote: »

You're thinking of the UK, doesn't work like that here. Assessment is required after a stroke or other major illness alright but it's driven by GPs and insurance companies rather than the law.
If you get your licence at 17, you get your next one at 27 not 70, if you renew your licence at 69 you have it until 79. If driving here on a UK licence you have to trade it in for our "system" after a fairly short period or you are breaking the law.

I am not thinking of the UK. This is the law here and now.

Renewals (for applicants of all ages up to 70) are granted here in Ireland on the self declaration of the applicant that they are fit to drive with respect to eyesight and to health. Certain conditions, such as epilepsey, must be declared and in those cases a doctor must certify that the applicant is OK to drive. However, when you get to 70 years of age, your licence expires the day before your birthday and will only be renewed if you provide a certificate from your doctor (for which he will charge) that your eyesight and your health do not preclude you from driving. The state then give you the three-year licence for free. You repeat this until you are eighty or over when the licence is for just one year.

You could be blind and be given a licence if you are under seventy and prepared to say your eyesight is OK. Only the first licence requires a certificate that your eyesight is satisfactory.

All licence renewals should require an eyesight test (imo). Eyesight changes in the twenties (when a lot of people get their first pair of spectacles) and particularly in the fifties when longsight happens and loss of accommodation (ability to focus distant and near objects) and find they need the presciption changing because they can no longer read the paper or telephone directry as their arms are not long enough.

Sam Russell

gutteruu wrote: »

The Chairman of the RSA is a pensioner who never done a driving test. This is the problem in my eyes.

"Young drivers are dangerous". So they have to have:
1. 10 hours of lessons recorded.
2. Drive with a fully licensed person whilst on provisional licences.
3. Pass a theory test.
4. Pass a rigorous driving test.
5. Pay massive insurance
etc etc

Old people are dangerous. So they have to:
1. 10 hours of lessons recorded.
2. Drive with a fully licensed person whilst on provisional licences.
3. Pass a theory test.
4. Pass a rigorous driving test.
5. Pay massive insurance
6. Be able to see and not have a crippling illness.

"The road is the problem"......No its not! This happens on all roads.

"Don't insult the dead guy"......Why not. He could have killed a few other peoples fathers/kids/mothers

I remember when the theory test was to be introduced and the Irish Times sent out a reporter to try and test some drivers. Four males and four females were teated (including the reporter). The four males passed as did one female. In fact the failures were the three youngest tested. Age not gender.

As people get older, they get more cautious and drive more carefully. Young people are statistically more likely to have accidents, and males more likely than females. That is just the way it is. Other dreadful accidents occur involving young drivers as well as old drivers. Was there not an accident in Donegal a few years ago where a poor fellow died as a result of young males, in a NI Passat iirc, crashing into him and killing him along with most of the occupants of the Passat?

You cannot use one incident as proof enough to change all the rules.

gutteruu

Sam Russell wrote: »

As people get older, they get more cautious and drive more carefully. Young people are statistically more likely to have accidents, and males more likely than females. That is just the way it is. Other dreadful accidents occur involving young drivers as well as old drivers. Was there not an accident in Donegal a few years ago where a poor fellow died as a result of young males, in a NI Passat iirc, crashing into him and killing him along with most of the occupants of the Passat?

You cannot use one incident as proof enough to change all the rules.

Young people are dangerous which is why they have $hit load of hoops to jump through. Old people....well, as long as they say they can see. Judging by all the ads you would think the young are crazed death machines and old people never crash. So...

Fatalities:
2011
(Young people under 25) - 22 deaths
(Older people over 65) - 15 deaths

2010:
(Young people under 25) - 22 deaths
(Older people over 65) - 15 deaths

Sam Russell

gutteruu wrote: »

Young people are dangerous which is why they have $hit load of hoops to jump through. Old people....well, as long as they say they can see. Judging by all the ads you would think the young are crazed death machines and old people never crash. So...

Fatalities:
2011
(Young people under 25) - 22 deaths
(Older people over 65) - 15 deaths

2010:
(Young people under 25) - 22 deaths
(Older people over 65) - 15 deaths

Those statistics would need a bit of analysis as to the cause of the incident causing the deaths and the general circumstances surrounding the whole affair. Many accidents involving young people occur at times that would suggest socialising. You should also analyse the populations. How many drivers are over 65 and how many are under 25? How many of the deaths were passengers? etc etc.

According to the RSA, most deaths are caused by drink, speeding and not wearing a seat belt. Maybe. Statistics can be interpreted to suit a particular arguement.

Back to the original thread, was the driver confused due to age or illness or some other factor? Was he new to the area? Was he under pressure from financial or social factors? Was it a suicide attempt? I do not know and probably no-one does.

Let him rest in peace.

gutteruu

Sam Russell wrote: »

.... Many accidents involving young people occur at times that would suggest socialising......

According to the RSA, most deaths are caused by drink, speeding and not wearing a seat belt. Maybe. Statistics can be interpreted to suit a particular arguement.

Let him rest in peace.

According to the RSA stats, most accidents happen between 10am and 4pm on the slowest driving day of the week (Sunday) suggesting their point of dangerous young people, speed and drink is the total BS.

Can't understand putting people on the road who never passed a test and then blaming drink and speed when stats show otherwise. But "ara shur"

Sam Russell

gutteruu wrote: »

According to the RSA stats, most accidents happen between 10am and 4pm on the slowest driving day of the week (Sunday) suggesting their point of dangerous young people, speed and drink is the total BS.

Can't understand putting people on the road who never passed a test and then blaming drink and speed when stats show otherwise. But "ara shur"

Quite.

RSA have their own agenda. However, it is fatal accidents that is their major concern. They have been working away at making sure the driving test is harder/better so (mainly) young drivers are better drivers. Hopefully that will show results. Maybe now is the time to start putting untested drivers through the test, starting with the theory test.

Today I had a lady driver in front of me doing her make up and another (unaccompanied) one behind me with a big L plate in the window. Big fuss about it a while ago but now safely ignored. How many penalty points for doing your make-up while driving?

gutteruu

I still think a 1 day information course (similar to a safepass course) should be done on renewal of your licence. Impossible to fail, but still a test as such.

When I passed my test, I was taught to drive around a roundabout different, I know nothing of these new lines they are painting in the middle of the road everywhere etc etc. It would help everyone, not just old people who never done a test.

pa990

gutteruu wrote: »

The Chairman of the RSA is a pensioner who never done a driving test.

Are you sure.

Didn't he do a test for a motorbike when he was gifted with a harley by u2

visual

Isnt this the problem with RSA jobs for the old boys who seek the public as a cash cow.

ba_barabus

visual wrote: »

Isnt this the problem with RSA jobs for the old boys who seek the public as a cash cow.

I don't believe he is actually paid but I could be wrong.

I know he has lost a lot of his money for the second time so it is possible

visual

ba_barabus wrote: »

I don't believe he is actually paid but I could be wrong.

I know he has lost a lot of his money for the second time so it is possible

Gay never done anything without being handsomely paid.

ba_barabus

visual wrote: »

Gay never done anything without being handsomely paid.

Evidence?

In fairness as annoying as I find him about road safety I actually understand he gives most of his time for free

ART6

niloc1951 wrote: »

Perhaps it's time for the NRA to carry out an audit of all access roads to motorways and dual carriageways to risk rate them in terms of probability of being driven down the wrong way.

Those with an obvious risk like the entrance/exit on the west bound N25 at Little Island should be modified, as it was after a double fatality a couple of years ago.

Those which do not lend themselves to modification should perhaps be fitted with red traffic lights activated by approaching traffic coupled to a flashing message. Similar technology is employed at the Jack Lynch Tunnel to warn drivers of over-hight loads, and that's only to avoid the cost of fixing damage to the tunnel and any disruption to traffic flow, an inconsequential cost compared to a lost live or a seriously injured person.

It is of little use to focus on the unfortunate driver, show me one which has not made a mistake. Some mistakes cause little more than temporary embarrassment, others permanent death and there is plenty in between.

It is a good designer who accepts a design may be flawed, is open to feedback from the users of his/her product then acts on the feedback to modify its design.

Some posts in this thread would have one believe that mistakes are not to be permitted or that no criticism can be allowed of a product, in this case a road design.
However in real life mistakes do happen with frightening regularity by both the designers and users of all types of products, including roads.

It's one of the issues to do with being human, but when human frailty raises its head action to improve the human performance and/or the environment we operate in is imperative.

I don't know if it played any part in the accident, but the Kinsale roundabout in Cork is a pig for anyone who is unfamiliar with it. There are traffic lights every few yards and lane changes needed to steer to the right outlet. The lights change rapidly, and traffic flows are fast and furious. I have driven that many times returning to Waterford from Cork airport, so I am used to traffic sweeping through the lights and changing lanes like something in a circus, and doing it at 50 clicks. I can just about imagine how someone who is not too confident and easily distracted could get it badly wrong there, particularly if they are eighty years old.

Our road systems should not be designed for the professional driver or the F1 champion. They should be designed for the 'average' driver, who might be an OAP or a woman with two screaming kids in the back seat.

mitosis

gutteruu wrote: »

The Chairman of the RSA is a pensioner who never done a driving test. This is the problem in my eyes.

How do you know this? Can you support it?

visual

ba_barabus wrote: »

Evidence?

In fairness as annoying as I find him about road safety I actually understand he gives most of his time for free

Evidence ..... dogs barking in the street can answer that. Guy raped the public bodies he was employed with. While you might say fair play to him and the real question is who gave him that salary out of the public purse it does not distract that his appointment with RSA was old boys network as clearly he had no qualifications for this role.

ba_barabus

visual wrote: »

Evidence ..... dogs barking in the street can answer that. Guy raped the public bodies he was employed with.

Evidence?

allinthehead

ART6 wrote: »

I don't know if it played any part in the accident, but the Kinsale roundabout in Cork is a pig for anyone who is unfamiliar with it. There are traffic lights every few yards and lane changes needed to steer to the right outlet. The lights change rapidly, and traffic flows are fast and furious. I have driven that many times returning to Waterford from Cork airport, so I am used to traffic sweeping through the lights and changing lanes like something in a circus, and doing it at 50 clicks. I can just about imagine how someone who is not too confident and easily distracted could get it badly wrong there, particularly if they are eighty years old.

Our road systems should not be designed for the professional driver or the F1 champion. They should be designed for the 'average' driver, who might be an OAP or a woman with two screaming kids in the back seat.

nowhere near the accident and i dont think there have been fatalities at this roundabout. its a little tricky but follow the signs and road markings and its not a problem. now something that drives me mad is the midleton side of the n25 near water rock where you can drive straight across the dual carriageway madness i was heading to water rock on friday from castlemartyr and had to change into overtaking lane at a busy time then slow down in that lane with someone up my ass then stick my nose out into oncoming traffic and wait for a gap then floor it across the two lanes. imagine if you stalled it. kinda reminds me of a game i used to play on the commodore called hopper you played a frog trying to cross a dual carriageway while cars flew past.

https://maps.google.ie/?ll=51.915111,-8.198443&spn=0.001332,0.003554&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=51.915106,-8.198444&panoid=OSI2g2jYq-KImITW53Jcxw&cbp=12,320.84,,0,0

AugustusMinimus

As allinthehead has said, there really isn't that much confusing about the Kinsale Road roundabout and I cannot fathom how you could end up driving up an entrance to go contra flow on the SSR by mistake.

To do so would require you to turn a 270 degree corner from the roundabout. This is what makes roundabouts so much safer than using signalised junctions for motorway junctions.

visual

ba_barabus wrote: »

Evidence?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gay+byrne+rsa+salary

urajoke

visual wrote: »

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gay+byrne+rsa+salary

The proof was requested initially for the claim on his driving test, this isn't exactly proof of his salary either, other than apparently he was only on €10000pa.

So your attempt at being smart actually turned out to be a FAIL.

visual

urajoke wrote: »

The proof was requested initially for the claim on his driving test, this isn't exactly proof of his salary either, other than apparently he was only on €10000pa.

So your at at being smart actually turned out to be a FAIL.

Its to get some one to do their own research rather than just type " evidence ? "

My comments relate to Gay got the paid job through old boy network. Nothing to do with license or test, I doubt if it was considered in his appointment. But it brings the bigger question what was his qualifications and experience.

It also highlights the problem with RSA chasing fines and points and ignoring the main cause of death on our roads being human error.