Printable View
They definitely should be. It may lead to changes in driver behaviour and it would show where we need to focus resources. The cops should also publish where and when they've carried out enforcement.. Being a cynic, I would suggest that these stats are not published due to them showing that the Government, RSA and the Cops are not really focussing on the right issues at the right times.Quote:
Originally Posted by compo
I believe there is a section on the Garda website listing accident numbers. Not sure if there is detailed breakdown.
I suppose its part of the appeal of driving that people exist in their own little world oblivious to anyone else. Lack of dimmed lights when it is starting to get dark is clear side of idiot driver & best to avoid (if can see him/her).
I think its funny that people blame the lack of sight warning them about fog for accident - if there was fog would you be able to see the sign? :eek:
I think drivers are generally getting better as even on busy bank holiday long weekends most people seem to be calm & realise overtaking on corners & general idiotic driving won't make much different when traffic jam around the next corner. The addition of more motorways definitely reduces the stress levels though.
I think that News reports should call car crashes "car crashes" rather than simply "accidents" as if the incident was unavoidable. They should also have the freedom to say why the crash occurred (e.g. Driver A was 20km/h over the speed limit or Driver B was tailgating). I suppose the news media are afraid of libel action if they are seen to attribute blame, but I do think that drivers would consider their actions better if this happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by compo
But that information isn't published, which is kinda the point. We never here about blood alcohol levels of crash drivers, or information on speed etc. All of which must be part of the investigation? If not, then that's even more shocking...Quote:
Originally Posted by crc
All the Garda road accident reports are (or used to be - my mum worked there) collated by a governement agency. They were called An Foras Forbartha but may be something else now. All the stats were gathered - types of vehicles, ages of anyone involved, map grids, weather conditions, state of the road, nature of injuries / fatalaties, the works.
They showed some clips on the news today about the new shock road carnage ad. Have they not realised by now that these ads are so professional it just looks like movie preview clip?
I presume its the latest brainwave of the RSA.
:eek:
Any chance they could train the driving instructions, build & repair the road with proper markings & try to enforce road laws?
:rolleyes:
The only people affected by those ads are the ones that have to turn them off, because they're so disturbing. The people that cause accidents with incompetent driving don't give a monkey's mickey. Money down the toilet, as you rightly point out.
Research has shown that graphic ads are the most effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
One sthat don;t actually show accidents (like the one a couple of years ago where all these people stood in a big crusher machine) are not effective.
Agree that it would help if causes of crashes were publicised.
How is effective defined? Where's the research?
All over the place. The research tends to be tricky to find because of the number of news articles just reporting the results, but there's this for example. http://www.campusglobal.com/muarc/reports/muarc102.pdf . Page nine references a relevant study,
Forsyth, I. & Ogden, E.J.D. "Marketing traffic safety as a consumer product in Victoria, Australia", Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, T92, pp 1437-1442, 1993.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be archived anywhere I can find.
That report was compiled in 1996!. Once i saw that on the first page knew it was a waste of time looking further. The world has changed a lot in 11 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
I agree the "crusher ad" was pathetic as did not link to actual events. I would suggest that the current ads do not link to actual events either.
The best ads I have seen I think were from Australia where they showed 2 clips - one showed accident at 35mph & the next showed the car stopping in time because was travelling at 30mph in built up area.
I also remember at the time of the "crusher ad" that the Safety Authority told us at the time that irish people would not accept graphic ads but about 10 years too late they did a u-turn. IMO the RSA (new bodies same culture) & the NRA (e.g. crash barriers) are two of the worst government bodies & that is saying a lot.
I would have more respect for those bosies if they staffed with qualified engineers, planners & road designers instead of bureaucrats.
Yes, that Theory of Gravity research was from the 17th century. The World has changed a lot in 300 years ;)
That paper was very interesting. The research reference is contained therein:
Forsyth I & Ogden EJD "Marketing Traffic Safety as a desirable consumer product in Victoria, Australia", Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety (T92), Cologne, Utzelman H.-D., Berghaus G. & Kroj G (Eds), Verlag TÜV Rheinland, Cologne, 1993, pp 1204 -1209.
"The development of the television commercials relied heavily on the use of group discussion research with the respective target groups. The style Do’s and Dont’s resulting from their research experience are summarised by Forsyth and Ogden (1993).
In essence these were:
The “Dos”
Do-be as shocking as you like.
Do-be as emotional as possible.
Do-ensure that any communication leaves us thinking that
“this could happen to me”.
Do-emphasise the link between drink/drive, speed, and
real accidents.
“The Dont’s”
Don’t-concentrate on twisted metal.
Don’t-bore us with statistics.
Don’t-lecture us.
Don’t-threaten us with authority, uniforms or financial
penalties.
Don’t-suggest that we cannot have a drink."
(Personally, I disagree with the last one. But Pete's point is fair in this regard - the world has changed a lot in 11 years and I think the last one would be unacceptable nowadays.)
Here's another more up-to-date reference (2004)
http://www.roadsafety.qld.gov.au/qt/LTASinfo.nsf/ReferenceLookup/Stuart_Newstead_presentation.pdf/$file/Stuart_Newstead_presentation.pdf
drawing on some of the same research.
Their view of the last point is as follows:
"Don’t even begin to suggest he can’t have a drink. Alcohol
consumption up to .05* is OK. That’s the law. Suggest
otherwise, and again, they’ll tune out."
*this campaign was in Australia also
Actually, that 2004 document is built around the campaign to which Pete refers, called "Wipe off 5"