8 killed on the roads

Ann Elk

eireal wrote:

There is,its called the nct In fairness to them if there are mods on a car they deem dangerous they will make you remove it.

Alot of mod parts come E approved,i know for a fact my rear lights and headlights are stamped and its the case with alot of aftermarket parts available.

But they don't take into account the ability of the car's original chassis to handle the extra power, nor the drivers age/experience, nor anything else outside the remit of their ticksheet. They don't test new cars either -which could be modified straight away, it also doesn't address the possibility that somebody could modify their car straight after the nct - meaning that it can be on the roads untested for up to two years.

A stamp of conformity to standards on a part is not effective if it pas no attention to the car to which it is being attached. Its like the post above - relating to the tyre recommendation by the german government - it seems to be a sensible line to go down.

Sesshoumaru

Ann Elk wrote:

But they don't take into account the ability of the car's original chassis to handle the extra power, nor the drivers age/experience, nor anything else outside the remit of their ticksheet. They don't test new cars either -which could be modified straight away, it also doesn't address the possibility that somebody could modify their car straight after the nct - meaning that it can be on the roads untested for up to two years.

A stamp of conformity to standards on a part is not effective if it pas no attention to the car to which it is being attached. Its like the post above - relating to the tyre recommendation by the german government - it seems to be a sensible line to go down.

Look your arguement is totally flawed. Its the muppets behind the steering wheel that cause accidents. Do you think introducing a law that stops johno or deso down the street from adding an aftermarket exhaust to their 1litre Opel Corsa is going to stop them from driving beyond the limits of their cars ability? Its not! They will still drive like muppets trying to impress themselves, their friends and their girlfriends etc. You are just making excuses for these muppets who are causing slaughter on our roads. These people will not slow down or drive within the limits of their cars ability in relation to the conditions of the road just because they can no longer modify their cars. In fact you will probably find that they will still add performance modifications to their cars, except now it will be done by themselves instead of a proper mechanic. How great would that be?

I haven't even touched on the people who modify their cars performance and drive in socially acceptable manner. What about these peoples legitimate desire to modify their cars?

mackerski

Ann Elk wrote:

But they don't take into account the ability of the car's original chassis to handle the extra power, nor the drivers age/experience, nor anything else outside the remit of their ticksheet.

I feel you're making an unreasonable distinction between aftermarket mods (not that I'm consumer thereof) and high-performance production cars (guiltyish). The NCT chappie doesn't care whether your car is beyond your abilities. Your insurance company does, though, which is why they require you to declare mods - not just performance stuff, BTW, isn't there at least one company that wants to know about aftermarket audio kit? If anything, they probably penalise souped up runarounds more than good solid fast cars. So far, this seems to be consistent with your world view.

The rest of the enforcement is up to the boys and girls in blue. Once again, I'd imagine they pay more attention to modders than M5 drivers.

Dermot

Wibbs

Ann Elk wrote:

I'm saying you should leave the wheels as they were designed by the qualified engineers at the time the car was being built.

Engineers and accountants. Anyway as kbannon has pointed out it's not so clearcut as some may think.

This is my point - why should you be allowed to change a part of a standard specification, designed with tolerances in mind, to non-standard parts which increase the risk of accidents?

For a start many upgrade parts are far higher quality than the OEM parts. Uprated brakes, tyres, suspensions are a case in point. In any case many of the cars out there are designed with economics as much as tolerances in mind. Plus show me the stats that say upgraded parts increase the risk of accidents. The biggest risks seem to be youth of driver, level of intoxicants, time of day and conditions of the road. These far outweigh the risks from "performance" upgrades.

Cars don't kill people - drivers do, and on that point i'm in 100% agreement with you. My point is that most modifications are done with the desire to increase performance in mind. It seems logical to assume that people who wish to increase the performance of their cars wish to do so in order to drive the car at levels which the standard specification will not permit - it is this desrire to drive in such a manner which results in accidents.

Again show me the stats. From what I've seen most of these accidents occur late at night, with younger drivers in cars best described as ordinary 1 litre econoboxes. No souped up skylines do I see. In fact if this was the issue you seem to think it is, surely some hammerhead in the government would be trotting out some daft soundbite or other on the matter?

I'm not advocating a ban on freedom of choice - people should be free to do as they wish once it doesn't threaten the safety of others.

Fair enough, but where does one draw the line? So it becomes verboten to upgrade your car. Just go out and buy a manufacturer built faster car. Back to square one if indeed that's a major cause of accidents.

To continue further on spannerheads point(re billy connolly). I think there is a case to be answered on the perception of car safety nowadays. Most people out there have no clue how dangerous driving any car is. Even a head on crash at 40kmh is far above the stress limits on your body or the car itself. Chances are you'll be dead or badly injured. One of the problems I see is how most modern cars insulate the driver from the speed they're doing. If you drive an older car 120kmh feels pretty fast. In a modern hatchback it feels like nothing. This and the much vaunted safety features make many feel invulnerable. Just a thought.

ambro25

Wibbs wrote:

One of the problems I see is how most modern cars insulate the driver from the speed they're doing. If you drive an older car 120kmh feels pretty fast. In a modern hatchback it feels like nothing. This and the much vaunted safety features make many feel invulnerable. Just a thought.

And I think that's a pretty good point, actually

Particularly put in the context of the 'feels risky/doesn't feel risky' mindset, which varies dramatically depending upon the level of alcohol, substance abuse or just plain old sleepy eyes, affecting a driver at around 3 AM.

I've driven drunk (once) and I've driven to the point of exhaustion (twice), before: from those limited but life-changing (well, to an extent ) experiences, I can vouch that any speed I drove a car at never felt like the same speed when in full possession of my abilities - actually, felt like half, if it felt anything at all. And that was on motorways - hate to think what it would have been like on A or B roads :eek:

But I believe that in all 3 occasions, the 'remote-ing' of external environmental factors (road surface attenuation, noise level dissociated from speed and engine rpm, etc.) due to modern car design were a bad, very bad thing indeed.

That's not to say a drunk driver would be safer in a noisy banger full of holes, fitted with squares wheels on shocks filled with peach stones, note.

Ann Elk

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Look your arguement is totally flawed. Its the muppets behind the steering wheel that cause accidents. Do you think introducing a law that stops johno or deso down the street from adding an aftermarket exhaust to their 1litre Opel Corsa is going to stop them from driving beyond the limits of their cars ability? Its not! They will still drive like muppets trying to impress themselves, their friends and their girlfriends etc. You are just making excuses for these muppets who are causing slaughter on our roads. These people will not slow down or drive within the limits of their cars ability in relation to the conditions of the road just because they can no longer modify their cars. In fact you will probably find that they will still add performance modifications to their cars, except now it will be done by themselves instead of a proper mechanic. How great would that be?

I haven't even touched on the people who modify their cars performance and drive in socially acceptable manner. What about these peoples legitimate desire to modify their cars?

But the muppets will always be muppets - i've already agreed with the fact that it's generally drivers that kill, not the cars themselves. I've also tipped my hat to those who drive modified cars in a 'socially acceptable' (though that should read legally acceptable) manner - the fact is I don't fall for the argument - people don't spend large sums of money on non-aesthetic upgrades unless they plan to get the benefit of them. My argument is that by banning/strictly monitoring aftermarket modifications we can make it harder for the muppets to drive beyond the limits which the car was designed for by not providing them with the necessary ammo- if you think that this is flawed, we will never reach an accord.

Ann Elk

mackerski wrote:

I feel you're making an unreasonable distinction between aftermarket mods (not that I'm consumer thereof) and high-performance production cars (guiltyish). The NCT chappie doesn't care whether your car is beyond your abilities. Your insurance company does, though, which is why they require you to declare mods - not just performance stuff, BTW, isn't there at least one company that wants to know about aftermarket audio kit? If anything, they probably penalise souped up runarounds more than good solid fast cars. So far, this seems to be consistent with your world view.

The rest of the enforcement is up to the boys and girls in blue. Once again, I'd imagine they pay more attention to modders than M5 drivers.

Dermot

I think we're disagreeing on the same point of agreement (if that makes any sense ) I know that the NCT man doesn't care about the drivers ability - that's why I think we need something which goes a little further. As for the insurance companies, I'm in full agreement, the company I work for imposes age limits and excesses on certain modifications and also on certain high performane vehicles which is great. The point, however is that if you dive a performance car you need a lot of money to buy it, and a lot of money to insure it - this is a natural deterrent to many younger drivers, add this to the fact that many companies won't insure young drivers on these cars and at least you have an element of regulation.

With a modified car, you can pick up a stock car for cheap, modify it incrementally and insure it as a bog standard festa/corsa/civic etc - there is no effective means of control - this is why I don't agree with the current approach.

Ann Elk

Wibbs wrote:

Engineers and accountants. Anyway as kbannon has pointed out it's not so clearcut as some may think.

Excellent point re. the accountants - but at least there is an element of statutory regulation regarding safety standards in the automotive industry

Wibbs wrote:

For a start many upgrade parts are far higher quality than the OEM parts. Uprated brakes, tyres, suspensions are a case in point. In any case many of the cars out there are designed with economics as much as tolerances in mind. Plus show me the stats that say upgraded parts increase the risk of accidents. The biggest risks seem to be youth of driver, level of intoxicants, time of day and conditions of the road. These far outweigh the risks from "performance" upgrades.

My argument is that these upgrades, which are to higher specification are fitted so as to allow the car to be stopped faster, corner faster etc and generally make the car better handling at higher speeds - young people are more likely to assume that they can break later if they have better brakes, and whilst this may be the case, it doesn't make it safe to drive in such a manner.

Short of raising the driving age (which i think is harsher then what I'm advocating) driver age can't be changed. Nor can time of day be regulated without a curfew. Drink driving enforcement will never catch all offenders and more effective policing will continue to be cried for for my lifetime. But I'm nt suggesting that we drop all our current rohibitions in order to concentrate on regulating/prohibiting non-standard modfications, merely that we add them to the list we already have. It's no coincidence that the worst category of offender (i.e. young male driver) is also the category most likely to modify their car.

Wibbs wrote:

Again show me the stats. From what I've seen most of these accidents occur late at night, with younger drivers in cars best described as ordinary 1 litre econoboxes. No souped up skylines do I see. In fact if this was the issue you seem to think it is, surely some hammerhead in the government would be trotting out some daft soundbite or other on the matter?

As mentioned a few times above, I would consider a standard Nssan Skyline, brought up to Irish specification to be safer than a 1litre econobox which has a raft of aftermarket additions added. At the risk of bing cynnical, I don't think that the Oireachtas report is a good yardstick by which to judge everyday realities. Our government is notoriously slow to react in any areas outside foot and mouth, that said, I wish someone would raise the issue and commission a report into the area.

Wibbs wrote:

Fair enough, but where does one draw the line? So it becomes verboten to upgrade your car. Just go out and buy a manufacturer built faster car. Back to square one if indeed that's a major cause of accidents.

The manufacturers bilt cars are more expensive and harder for younger people to get hold of plus more difficult to insure, and are designed for higer speeds.

Wibbs wrote:

To continue further on spannerheads point(re billy connolly). I think there is a case to be answered on the perception of car safety nowadays. Most people out there have no clue how dangerous driving any car is. Even a head on crash at 40kmh is far above the stress limits on your body or the car itself. Chances are you'll be dead or badly injured. One of the problems I see is how most modern cars insulate the driver from the speed they're doing. If you drive an older car 120kmh feels pretty fast. In a modern hatchback it feels like nothing. This and the much vaunted safety features make many feel invulnerable. Just a thought.

This brings me back to the idea that the driver of a modified car is more likely to belive that because he has uprated brakes, suspension etc, that he can drive faster - so at one level at least you agree with what I'm saying.

ambro25

Ann Elk wrote:

if you drive a performance car you need a lot of money to buy it, and a lot of money to insure it - this is a natural deterrent to many younger drivers (etc.)

With a modified car, you can pick up a stock car for cheap, modify it incrementally and insure it as a bog standard festa/corsa/civic etc - there is no effective means of control

Point made (about the absence of 'built-in' deterrent in one situation vs the othger, e.g. €€€s), but would you not even concede a cause-and-effect, somehow? Which has a twisted logic, to boot: too young to afford & run an entry-level 'sportscar', but by the time modding is done to the 1L Corsa, it would have been cheaper to go for the entry-level 'sportscar' (with same specs as the modded Corsa, say).

So your logic has a just-as-true reverse: if insurance came down, kids wouldn't mod econoboxes not designed for the extra strain so much, but would instead opt for purpose-designed (your argument) sportier types.

Ann Elk

ambro25 wrote:

So your logic has a just-as-true reverse: if insurance came down, kids wouldn't mod econoboxes not designed for the extra strain so much, but would instead opt for purpose-designed (your argument) sportier types.

The idea is though, that if you have to save the money necessary to buy and insure a higher performance car, chances are drivers would be that much older by the time you can afford it and, hopefully they'd have a little more common sense by then. In the meantime, if there are fewer accidents as a result of the regulation/prohibition premiums may well come down (which is a good thing for all) and insurers can still prevent younger drivers from driving high powered cars by implementing age restrictions.

I think that addressing the 'speed culture' evident in many of these circles of enthusiasts is a necessary part of changing our attitudes to driving, and i believe that this approach would be a good starting point. We need to change the way that many young male drivers view car use until then I think we will have too many 'Donegals' to post threads on.

5500

Ann Elk wrote:

My argument is that by banning/strictly monitoring aftermarket modifications we can make it harder for the muppets to drive beyond the limits which the car was designed for by not providing them with the necessary ammo- if you think that this is flawed, we will never reach an accord.

Who would regulate this tho or who would decide whats legal/illegal or safe?
Even if it was to happen people will still buy parts from online shops(like most do already as its far cheaper)

There's also the policing side of it.How is a gaurd going to know what to check or look for?Ive been stopped before and told by the gaurd that an induction kit increases the bhp of my car by 14bhp and that its a bigger displacement engine :eek I pointed out he was looking at a chrome engine dress up kit to which he just said gwan so the checks are there already but i can see if causing alot of hastle with the gardai sunndenly becoming mechanics

Wibbs

Ann Elk wrote:

Excellent point re. the accountants - but at least there is an element of statutory regulation regarding safety standards in the automotive industry

This also applies to most of the aftermarket stuff too, believe it or not.

My argument is that these upgrades, which are to higher specification are fitted so as to allow the car to be stopped faster, corner faster etc and generally make the car better handling at higher speeds

All good things IMHO.

young people are more likely to assume that they can break later if they have better brakes, and whilst this may be the case, it doesn't make it safe to drive in such a manner

TBH The heavily insulated middle aged muppet in a Merc is likely to think the same.

But I'm nt suggesting that we drop all our current rohibitions in order to concentrate on regulating/prohibiting non-standard modfications, merely that we add them to the list we already have.

Thereby giving the insurance companies another excuse to start loading premiums even more. There's a shock.

It's no coincidence that the worst category of offender (i.e. young male driver) is also the category most likely to modify their car.

Just because someone is young and modifies their car does not mean they're more likely to show up in crash stats. In fact I would suggest because of the cost of said modifications that those drivers are going to be more careful than someone who doesn't care about the car their driving. I've never seen or indeed heard of a heavily modified car being mentioned in all these crashes we see/read about(I'm in my 30s so I'm not exactly one of the young drivers being debated).

As mentioned a few times above, I would consider a standard Nssan Skyline, brought up to Irish specification to be safer than a 1litre econobox which has a raft of aftermarket additions added.

How? A "standard" Nissan Skyline is a souped up monster of a yoke capable of speeds that would boggle most. A 1litre econobox souped up to the nines won't even get within sniffing distance of such a beast. In fact if you have a crash in the nissan you're likely to change the maps.

At the risk of bing cynnical, I don't think that the Oireachtas report is a good yardstick by which to judge everyday realities. Our government is notoriously slow to react in any areas outside foot and mouth, that said, I wish someone would raise the issue and commission a report into the area.

Agreed re the gov. Muppets in general. I think you'll find though, even if they commision a report it'll likely find very little impact of aftermarket mods on crash incidence.

The manufacturers bilt cars are more expensive and harder for younger people to get hold of plus more difficult to insure, and are designed for higer speeds.

By that basis your next quote would equally apply. Just interchange modified for sports car. By that logic all fast cars should be banned.

This brings me back to the idea that the driver of a modified car is more likely to belive that because he has uprated brakes, suspension etc, that he can drive faster - so at one level at least you agree with what I'm saying.

I do agree quite a bit with your last post though

mackerski

Ann Elk wrote:

As for the insurance companies, I'm in full agreement, the company I work for imposes age limits and excesses on certain modifications

Ann Elk wrote:

With a modified car, you can pick up a stock car for cheap, modify it incrementally and insure it as a bog standard festa/corsa/civic etc - there is no effective means of control - this is why I don't agree with the current approach.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. A car insured based on false representations is not insured, as you know. Just as a German car running on unapproved tyres for that model of car is not street legal. In each case, culprits stand a good chance of evading detection and will often only be caught on the back of some other incident. "Make it illegal" is a fine statement, but driving uninsured is already illegal. Adding a second offence doesn't get you all that far, unless it makes detection more likely.

Dermot

RicardoSmith

If people though they would face a severe penalty, fines, banning, jail for bad driving, excessive speeding etc then the majoirty wouldn't do it. The fact is they get away with it.

Capt'n Midnight

[QUOTE=mackerski "Make it illegal" is a fine statement, but driving uninsured is already illegal. Adding a second offence doesn't get you all that far, unless it makes detection more likely.[/QUOTE]Enforce the existing laws first.

RANT - over 98% of people were measured breaking a 30mph speed limit.
1/10 of the population has a provisional license and L plates must have red letters 4" high on a white background and only on your second license can you drive without a full license holder.
If the guards were to pick on the next 100 cars and do a full check on them and their drivers they could almost certainly probably prosecute 5 of them for something.
And don't get me started on the 24 hour BUS lane opposite the Garda station on the Fonthill road. They could do 100's there every day. /RANT

Sesshoumaru

Ann Elk wrote:

But the muppets will always be muppets - i've already agreed with the fact that it's generally drivers that kill, not the cars themselves. I've also tipped my hat to those who drive modified cars in a 'socially acceptable' (though that should read legally acceptable) manner - the fact is I don't fall for the argument - people don't spend large sums of money on non-aesthetic upgrades unless they plan to get the benefit of them. My argument is that by banning/strictly monitoring aftermarket modifications we can make it harder for the muppets to drive beyond the limits which the car was designed for by not providing them with the necessary ammo- if you think that this is flawed, we will never reach an accord.

You won't make it harder for them to drive beyond the abilities of their cars. Modified or unmodified, the muppets will still drive beyond capabilitys of the car and/or their skill level. The answer to our problem is obvious imo. Driver training! and lots of it! Banning modifications to car won't reduce road deaths by a single percentage point. What I would suggest is mandatory training for drivers before they are allowed out on the road. Enforce the existing laws so that provisional licence holders aren't on the road unaccompanied. I know some people who only have 3 or 4 one hour lessons before they start driving by themselves on a provisional licence. Its madness! Mandatory training and better enforcement of existing laws, thats where our resources should go. Banning modified cars is just a distraction.

mike65

from the indo

In a bizarre twist, earlier on the day the five friends from Buncrana and Quigley's Point died, some of the victims had visited the graves of their friends Shane Cuffe (18), Crana View and Owen Doherty (18), Cloncool Park, Buncrana, who lost their lives on July 8th 2004.

They were killed instantly at Ballymagan, approximately five kilometres from Buncrana along with a Skerries schoolgirl, Aine O'Leary (16), when their car collided with a bridge and overturned into a field.

The sole survivor of the accident had been wearing a seat belt.

Two weeks before that, 21-year-old Patrick James Harkin from Crana View, Buncrana, a close neighbour of Shane's, lost his life in a collision just outside the town.

A week before that again, four Latvian nationals died between Muff and Buncrana. Also in the summer of 2004, 11-year-old Buncrana girl Aishling McDaid from Gransha Road, Buncrana lost her life on the roads when the car in which she was a back seat passenger collided with a concrete gate post on the outskirts of the village of Fahan.

The litany of tragedy is not confined to Buncrana. In March Carndonaghe market town of Carndonagh in the north of the peninsula ,was plunged into mourning following the tragic deaths of two young women in another horrific crash.

Alice Rose Mullen (22), and her best friend Kelly Doherty (20). were killed in the early hours of March 19th. when the car in which they were passengers was involved in a horrific three car collision as they returned from a night out.

By a tragic coincidence, earlier on the night they died, the pals had attended a fund raising benefit in memory of their friend Shane Toye who had been killed in a tragic accident in County Mayo a year previously.

Mike.

magpie

4 more killed last night according to the news.

Time to start policing those country roads.

Ann Elk

mackerski wrote:

You seem to be contradicting yourself. A car insured based on false representations is not insured, as you know. Just as a German car running on unapproved tyres for that model of car is not street legal. In each case, culprits stand a good chance of evading detection and will often only be caught on the back of some other incident. "Make it illegal" is a fine statement, but driving uninsured is already illegal. Adding a second offence doesn't get you all that far, unless it makes detection more likely.

Dermot

I don't quite see the contradiction - whilst some insurers do impose age limitations on certain modifications, due to the problems with detection which you highlight, it would be more effective to impose a prohibition. Adding a system of controls and restraints at the point os sale/import stage could concieveably reduce the incidence of non-standard modifications on the roads in the first place. I know that it's not possible to phase out anything completely - there will always be deviants, but a system of deterrance may at least help control some - surely, even if it saves one life it's worth it?

Ann Elk

Sesshoumaru wrote:

You won't make it harder for them to drive beyond the abilities of their cars. Modified or unmodified, the muppets will still drive beyond capabilitys of the car and/or their skill level. The answer to our problem is obvious imo. Driver training! and lots of it! Banning modifications to car won't reduce road deaths by a single percentage point. What I would suggest is mandatory training for drivers before they are allowed out on the road. Enforce the existing laws so that provisional licence holders aren't on the road unaccompanied. I know some people who only have 3 or 4 one hour lessons before they start driving by themselves on a provisional licence. Its madness! Mandatory training and better enforcement of existing laws, thats where our resources should go. Banning modified cars is just a distraction.

It will make it harder for them to drive beyond the cars capabilities as the car is designed to handle the top speed it can produce. After that, it comes down to the individual using commonsense to obey the speed limits and exercise common sense - I know that this latter element can't be regulated, but at least we can attempt to regulate the former element.

Mandatory driver training is a good suggestion but I don't think that it will work straight off, the same with regards the driving lessons - statistics show that the section of the population most likely to pass the driving test on the first atempt is also the most likely to be involved in traffic accidents - young male drivers.

Better enforcement is definately needed, but what we need to do before ay training is properly heeded is change the minset of this group of drivers, I believe that one to do this is to address the boy-racer culture which is growing at a rapid rate.

AS for the point that reducing modifications will not have any impact on the amount of accidents on the road, I firmly disagree, as I said before, I work for a major insurer and am aware of the incidence of accidents involving modified cars - besides we can't know for sure unless a report is comissioned - or regulation implemented.

Wibbs

Ann Elk wrote:

It will make it harder for them to drive beyond the cars capabilities as the car is designed to handle the top speed it can produce.

Huh? In a faster or slower car the temptation for your common or garden muppet is to drive as near to the capability of the car as possible. In a faster standard car the terminal speeds are going to be far higher and as such more mayhem should you crash. I honestly don't see your logic. Faster standard cars are safer? Just because they're standard? the crappiest econobox out there is easily capable of 90+ MPH. Anything above 40MPH and you're in danger territory, regardless of vehicle. Simply put, if you force by regulation or other sanctions to force a young hothead to 1 ltr fiesta, he's still going to drive it fast, regardless.

Mandatory driver training is a good suggestion but I don't think that it will work straight off, the same with regards the driving lessons - statistics show that the section of the population most likely to pass the driving test on the first atempt is also the most likely to be involved in traffic accidents - young male drivers.

There's the nub of it. Young male drivers. They're the ones more likely to crash, modifications aside. Who's more safe? An 18 yr old in a 1 ltr Feista or a 40 yr old in a skyline? I don't like the sounds of the idea, but maybe restrict by law younger/less experienced drivers to cars under 1.2ltrs(that also should apply to the 30+ muppet who only begins to drive at that age too. I Know too many of them who are a danger to themselves and others). Still as I said you're not going to change the brain of someone who likes to speed.

Better enforcement is definately needed, but what we need to do before ay training is properly heeded is change the minset of this group of drivers, I believe that one to do this is to address the boy-racer culture which is growing at a rapid rate.

Like the poor the "boy racer" will always be with us. No amount of regulation, short of speed restriction devices on cars will stop that. What else can you do? Stop the sale of Max Power etc? Hiding to nothing there.

AS for the point that reducing modifications will not have any impact on the amount of accidents on the road, I firmly disagree, as I said before, I work for a major insurer and am aware of the incidence of accidents involving modified cars - besides we can't know for sure unless a report is comissioned - or regulation implemented.

As you've said younger male driver=more likely to modify. Yonger male driver=more dangerous. That does not mean modifications=dangerous. It means younger male driver=dangerous. The mods don't make the crash, the younger driver does. If you regulate the modifications it'll just mean the same number of younger drivers will be involved in accidents in cars with no modifications. The mindset will still be the same. In the end all it will do is show that you're "doing something about it". It won't change anything, but it'll look good.

BrianD3

magpie wrote:

4 more killed last night according to the news.

Time to start policing those country roads.

Wow, a post which doesn't even mention modding and big wheels

Anyhow, I agree with you. Earlier on someone made the point that putting visible speed traps on dual carriageways at rush hour acts as a deterrant because people then know that the gardai are "out there". The idea being that this will encoruage them to drive more carefully at 2 am on saturday night. Well, sorry, but while these people may be muppets, they're not completely stupid. They know right well when the Gardai are likely to be out and when they are and aren't likely to be caught.

It is time to do something about country roads. Obviously a big investment in garda resoruces would be needed. It doesn't mean that there's going to be a static speed check on every country road (even if it was possible, it wouldn't do much good IMO) But what it could mean is a lot more mobile patrols (marked and unmarked) and random checks on weekend nights. Checking for dangerous driving, seatbelt wearing, drink/drug driving, overloaded and unroadworthy vehicles etc. Also, static checkpoints at known trouble spots.

Do something about the roads too. A better maintained verge, some catseyes and better road markings on regional roads would help for night time accidents. Many roads are in shocking state and are very unforgiving of trivial mistakes. Eg an inexperienced driver driving on a regional road. Not drunk and not speeding but is momentarily blinded by an oncoming car's (badly aligned) headlights and cannot see the verge. Puts a wheel six inches off the side of the road, rolls into a ditch, DEAD. That's how easily deaths can happen.

prospect

**YAWN**

This thread is getting boring now...

Wibbs

BrianD3 wrote:

Do something about the roads too. A better maintained verge, some catseyes and better road markings on regional roads would help for night time accidents. Many roads are in shocking state and are very unforgiving of trivial mistakes. Eg an inexperienced driver driving on a regional road. Not drunk and not speeding but is momentarily blinded by an oncoming car's (badly aligned) headlights and cannot see the verge. Puts a wheel six inches off the side of the road, rolls into a ditch, DEAD. That's how easily deaths can happen.

How true that is. I've been driving since '84 and I've been nearly caught out by the whole nearly in ditch problem.

Ann Elk

Taking into account the above posts re. the thread getting boring etc. this will be my last post in this thread on the issue. Having said that, I for one enjoyed the debate.

Wibbs wrote:

Huh? In a faster or slower car the temptation for your common or garden muppet is to drive as near to the capability of the car as possible. In a faster standard car the terminal speeds are going to be far higher and as such more mayhem should you crash. I honestly don't see your logic. Faster standard cars are safer? Just because they're standard? the crappiest econobox out there is easily capable of 90+ MPH. Anything above 40MPH and you're in danger territory, regardless of vehicle. Simply put, if you force by regulation or other sanctions to force a young hothead to 1 ltr fiesta, he's still going to drive it fast, regardless.

Exactly - so the least we can do is try to prevent them from modifying the said econoboxes so they become capable of going even faster.

Wibbs wrote:

There's the nub of it. Young male drivers. They're the ones more likely to crash, modifications aside. Who's more safe? An 18 yr old in a 1 ltr Feista or a 40 yr old in a skyline? I don't like the sounds of the idea, but maybe restrict by law younger/less experienced drivers to cars under 1.2ltrs(that also should apply to the 30+ muppet who only begins to drive at that age too. I Know too many of them who are a danger to themselves and others). Still as I said you're not going to change the brain of someone who likes to speed.

Yes, they are the most likely to crash - so surely we should stop them from further increasing the power of their cars? And yes the 40yr old in the skyline is safer - it's a standard car - but more dangerous again is the 18yr old in the fiesta which he has now souped up so can go even faster. Whilst you can't change their brains, you may be able to influence the culture that compels them.

Wibbs wrote:

Like the poor the "boy racer" will always be with us. No amount of regulation, short of speed restriction devices on cars will stop that. What else can you do? Stop the sale of Max Power etc? Hiding to nothing there.

No, but stopping the practicing of non-standard modifications might.

Wibbs wrote:

As you've said younger male driver=more likely to modify. Yonger male driver=more dangerous. That does not mean modifications=dangerous. It means younger male driver=dangerous. The mods don't make the crash, the younger driver does. If you regulate the modifications it'll just mean the same number of younger drivers will be involved in accidents in cars with no modifications. The mindset will still be the same. In the end all it will do is show that you're "doing something about it". It won't change anything, but it'll look good.

Again, that can't be stated with any degree of certainty without further investigation. But if it is the case (as you have acknowledged) that young male drivers are the most likely to modify and to have accidents, does it not make sense to attempt to stop them from modifying? Being seen to do something is at least a step in the right direction. The alternative is to sit back, do nothing and read more articles like the one posted by Mike65.

Wibbs

Ann Elk wrote:

Taking into account the above posts re. the thread getting boring etc. this will be my last post in this thread on the issue. Having said that, I for one enjoyed the debate.

Same here, but aaaaargh

Exactly - so the least we can do is try to prevent them from modifying the said econoboxes so they become capable of going even faster.

As has been pointed out to you, the standard mods do nothing to increase the speed in any measurable way. Noise yes, speed no. If you're talking about engine swaps or NOX yes, but very very few do that and that would be illegal already. Insuring a faster car under the guise of a slower one, fine. Cut their bits off for that one. Really riles me when I see Glanzas going around when I know they're insured as entry level slow versions.

Yes, they are the most likely to crash - so surely we should stop them from further increasing the power of their cars?

As I said the mods don't increase your power to anything like the extent you seem to think.

And yes the 40yr old in the skyline is safer - it's a standard car

AAAAARGH(tears hair out) The 40 yr old is safer not the car. Standard's got nada to do with it. If you take a standard honda integra 1.8. Fast enough car. If you then take the type r version(standard), which is the official "souped up" version, you'll find it's a slightly faster car. Does this mean if some bloke sticks an air filter and exhaust onto the standard 1.8, the ordinary version becomes more dangerous? See the problem with that logic, it's the driver not the car.

It's like when people say "the car went out of control on me". Now personally I have never left my car parked over night and come down the next morning to find it's skidded into the road, got a tattoo and knocked up the neighbours daughter. Cars, regardless of type or mods don't go out of control, people do.

but more dangerous again is the 18yr old in the fiesta which he has now souped up so can go even faster.

He can't and it won't(short of the above mods). Seriously, research what most of these mods actually do. Not what you think they do. You may be surprised at the lack of difference they actually make.

Whilst you can't change their brains, you may be able to influence the culture that compels them.

Good luck with that. Short of castration you're not going to change the need for risk taking and therefore speed in the male mind. You may not "get" it, but it's there.

No, but stopping the practicing of non-standard modifications might.

No comment.

Again, that can't be stated with any degree of certainty without further investigation. But if it is the case (as you have acknowledged) that young male drivers are the most likely to modify and to have accidents, does it not make sense to attempt to stop them from modifying?

Nope, it'll do nothing to stop risk taking behaviour. I know blokes who have crashed(badly) old style Minis and they have as much power as an arthritic nun.

Being seen to do something is at least a step in the right direction.

Eh no it's not. It's the usual lazy response to a complex problem.

The alternative is to sit back, do nothing and read more articles like the one posted by Mike65.

The alternative is look at the problem logically and not produce an ill informed knee jerk reaction to an emotive subject.

mike65

Taking into account the above posts re. the thread getting boring etc. this will be my last post in this thread on the issue.

Amen to that!

Brians point about the state of the verges is bang-on. Often its impossible to spot where the road ends and the wildlife begins in the dark.

Mike.

Seth Brundle

Regarding Brians point about speed traps at night & on back roads, apparently the privitasation of the system will require many night time and back road traps, which is belated but welcome. However, the system still has to come in before we all start singing and dancing and we know how fast our government is at doing things!

Regarding the state of the roads - have you ever driven in the North? Many roads when approaching a dangerous bend will display a recommended speed with which to take it. Many rural roads have cats eyes on the centre and/or kerbs so that it is much easier to follow the road. Also, despite complaints from drivers up there, their roads are far superior to the ones down here. Far too often, I find myself concentrating on avoiding viscious craters left behind by rain/JCBs/whatever. There is a practice here of filling in a pothole with a shovelful of gravel with a tar coating. After an hours rain the pothole is back. Apart from the financial waste aspect, it shows that the local authorities are not regarding raod maintenance with due respect.

However, going back to the main issue at hand, enforcement of the roads is the greatest thing needed. A garda friend tells me that it is very difficult to get driving a garda vehicle because they are too few - why?
The gardai should be policing the roads all the time - not just when they need a few stats (as confirmed by the GRA IIRC). They should also enforce the road traffic acts properly - ensure commercial vehicles are not overladen, ensure vehicles are roadworthy - for modifications, if a approval cert is needed by an approved mechanic then so be it - this shouldn't take long.
The simple fact is that successive governments have refused to take the issue seriously enough to roll out proper law enforcement. Claims of underfunding by the various bodies (the Gardai, the NSC, etc.) leaves me angry after seeing the financial wastefulness over the last few years by the current government. Given an RTA fatality is estimated to cost €1m, you would thing there would be a financial interest to reduce deaths.
Anyway, until they do sort it out, hundreds more will die.

apologies - didn't realise I was ranting until I finished!

FergusF

kbannon wrote:

However, going back to the main issue at hand, enforcement of the roads is the greatest thing needed. A garda friend tells me that it is very difficult to get driving a garda vehicle because they are too few - why?
The gardai should be policing the roads all the time - not just when they need a few stats (as confirmed by the GRA IIRC). QUOTE]

I agree - peoples' behavior on the roads won't change until there is a good chance of getting caught. When you're in your teens / 20s you feel immortal and speeding is a great thrill, especially for young fellas, sure most of us have done risky things whilst driving at that age, you just don't think about the consequences.

Someone mentioned 99.9% of accidents being due to driver error; this is not far off what a Garda spokesman said on Morning Ireland (?) the other day, he put it at 86%.

The whole modified car debate is a red herring I believe - young men will always seek the thrill of speed no matter what vehicle they drive. I grew up in a rural area and was one of those hot-headed drivers for about my first 5 years on the road. I don't ever recall being stopped at a checkpoint that I didn't know about in advance; on the rare occaisons when there was a checkpoint the word soon spread through the pubs and people took a different route.

I'm in my 30's now & I drive like a granny (!), now I get my speed thrills on a mountain bike instead, at no risk to anyone but myself.

Until there's a good chance of getting caught by a Garda, getting your license endorsed, car impounded or some serious fines for drunk and/or reckless driving I don't believe these 'accidents' will stop.

Macy

The only way to tackle this is enforcement, on the right roads at the right time.

Road blocks on all roads away from clubs and/or villages and towns - check for the lot - tax, insurance, licence, which should give close enough contact to give the smell of alcohol to give suspicion of a breath test.

Speed traps on back roads (and also educating slow vehicles to pull in to let others past - a contributory factor in some of the lunatic overtaking you see).

Unfortunately there isn't the political will to do anything about it. The politicians and media judge the gardai on how many people they catch speeding and the gards use the stats to back up when backed into a corner. The only measure that should be used is the number of deaths/serious injury - and move the focus onto prevention. Patrol cars/ bikes cruising the road network far more effective than static speed traps on dual carriageways and motorways at slowing people down. Even the unmarked cars with the recorder a la the UK cop shows would be more of deterant.