http://www.aaroadwatch.ie/traffic/story.asp?id=83920
Printable View
Seems a bad one.The County emergency plan in operation.Really bad fog the problem.
Read that 28 people were injured.
Some people that were stuck behind the crash didn't move for over 4 hours:eek:
First in the history of the state, apparently. Sign of the times.
In the great entrepreneurial tradition, some guy arrived on in a chippy van to the traffic jam.Quote:
Originally Posted by the 12 th man
Driver error should be made public here so that everyone can be made aware what the real cause of the carnage was. People need to have their responsibility, as road users, drilled into them.
Tragically, one person has lost their life in this but it could have been so much worse.
Clearly driver error was the main cause, however, there's a few contributory factors as well.
People not having lights on and not leaving a big enough gap shows up driver education in this country, as does the number of people this morning driving around with their fog lights on when visibility was fine as a result of the coverage of the crash.
Now that barriers have been put on the motorways and duallers, can they finally be brought up to a proper standard with electronic signage that can give information like "fog ahead" or speed limits/ recommendations?
Should dipped heads be a requirement all the time, as many drivers (going back to driver education) simply can't grasp the difference between being able to see where you are going, and other's ability to see you?
For so many drivers to be so poor, it must be down to more than driver attitude. The minor frustrations that we all experience such as lane discipline on motorways/ dual carriageways and indication at roundabouts are just symptoms of the wider problem of education that results in pile ups like yesterday.
I'm waiting on someone to blame the government and demand that de Minister is hauled out before PrimeTime/LateLate Show/Questions and Answers/Bryan Dobson to explain what happened.
I blame the government and demand that de Minister is hauled out before PrimeTime/LateLate Show/Questions and Answers/Bryan Dobson to explain what happened.
Because failure to address the licencing/ testing system or the road signage is clearly not the responsibility of the people that have been in power for 10 years? Bertie, Cullen, McDowell, Noel Brett and Gay Byrne et al are quick enough to take credit when road deaths are down why shouldn't they be held responsible for contributory factors within their control?Quote:
Originally Posted by d f x-
Macy i believe the vast majority of accidents are due to 3 reasonsQuote:
Originally Posted by Macy
1. Some people are just as thick as 2 short planks
2. Some people are just bad drivers
3. some people are both 1 and 2.
Regarding signage and recommended speed limits for fog, if you cant see far ahead of you slow down for fcuks sakel. I was travelling from Armagh to Monaghan to work one day and the fog was particulality bad in fact the worst i had ever seen and i was down to 10m/h as I litterally couldnt see past the end of the car.
An articulated truck passed me must of been doing 50m/h. the driver was one of the 3 options. You dont need the law to tell you to turn on your windscreen wipers when it is wet and you dont need to the law to tell you to slow down, keep your distance, turn on your lights when there is bad visibility, it is common sense.
I did say contributory factors, the main one being the appauling level of driver education. Drivers have to take responsibility, but that doesn't absolve the law makers and the RSA from any responsibility now. How long were we told there was no need for median crash barriers? How long after the fuss has died down before they quietly start introducing electronic signage on motorways too?
A mate of mine from college works in road design and he's quite angry about this. He's adamant that the original decision was correct, that crash barriers reduce safety in a lot of cases and that they're being put in because the politicians were embarrassed into doing it, not because it's the correct thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Sorry but that is ********. The NRA based their original decision on 30 year US research. How can anyone suggest that an open median is better than a median with a crash barrier. How can a car to stopped by a hedge at 60 mph. Central barriers prevent head on collisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
:rolleyes:
If you're going to call someone's opinion on a something so factual in nature *******, quote your reference. Otherwise, you're trolling, which is rich coming from a mod.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
I'm only quoting what I was told but the argument is that central barriers prevent head on collisions but increase the number of collisions with barriers. After that it's a question of numbers, in what proportion do the two collisions occur and what are the chances of a death or serious injury in each one.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
I don't want to see any more posts on road safety in this thread without references and links. I'll delete anything that doesn't.
adam
Dail reply to question on crash barriers
Previously the NRA policy was to fit crash barriers to medians of less than 15 metres. A lot of new roads built with narrow medians so crash barriers fitted. However the NRA retro fitted roads already built with no crash barriers with no explanation.
IMO 15 metres is still not enough to stop a truck let alone a truck travelling at 60mph. At least if it hits the barrier & the traffic behind car see & has greater chance of avoiding. A vehicle moving at speed through a hedge into on coming traffic means a head-to-head collision (speed with naturally be higher) & almost no chance to avoid.
Gardai investigate and make reports on all road accidents they're called to. In the case of a plane crash or "incident", the report is made available to the public. Maybe the same should be done in the case of road traffic accidents. That way, we'd have statistical verification of how most accidents are caused. Might even embarrass people into being more careful. BTW, I think the main cause is the nut behind the wheel!Quote:
Originally Posted by Peadar
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"