National Safety Council and Road Deaths

Ronan, if it's any comfort I agree with you. Glad to hear you're reading Freakonomics by the way. Excellent book.

You're on to a loser here though if you try to make the case you're making. Life is priceless, no amount of money should be too much to save the life of a child yada yada yada.

It's a nonsense of course. Let's imagine that the NSC have to decide how to spend their money and they have to choose between....

A Campaign to tell parents about the importance of properly restraining children.
or
A Campaign about driving safely in bad weather conditions.

We'll come to the possibility that they have enough for both in a minute.

You have the statistics, I believe they are published annualy. If as you say there have been 0, NONE, NADA, ZIP deaths of children under 10 due to being incorrectly restrained, then what does that suggest?

Either Parents are already restraining their children properly, or parents with children in the car adopt a different driving style to adults driving alone, or to young male drivers.

It's quite possible both are true, either way it's working. Kids aren't dying due to bad restraints.

People are dying because of driving inappropriately on bad roads or in bad weather conditions. People are dying because of Falling asleep. The NSC have done some work in these areas, but people are still dying, so my opinion is similar to your, take the money from the Restraining Children budget and put it into areas where people are DYING.

Next question..... Is it ever a good idea to have a campaign about something that isn't a current problem. Yes, but only if three things hold true

1. It's about to become a problem, and you want to head it off before someone dies.

2. It's the most pressing potential problem, i.e. the one most likely to start happening.
There is no more pressing problem that should be funded first.

3. The NSC has so much extra cash that it is already doing all it can about the areas in
which people are currently dying.

I don't know if 1 is true. I doubt that 2 is true, and unless the NSC is the only
over funded organisation in Ireland 3 defintiely isn't true.

If we want to save the lives of toddlers. And if the NSC IS over funded. What should be do?????

Do we have figures for how many children died on Farms last year? I know it was more than 0 because I heard something on the radio before I left.
Do we have figures for how many children died on building sites?
Died in falls around the house?
Died in household accidents, poisonings, burns etc.

I think your point is that we should be putting the funds into areas where they are likely to have the best effect. Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean it's the best idea.

-Rd
 
Hi Ronan - Can you quote your source for this information? Do you have data on injuries in children?

daltonr said:
Kids aren't dying due to bad restraints.

People are dying because of driving inappropriately on bad roads or in bad weather conditions. People are dying because of Falling asleep.
Click to expand...
Hi RD - Facts or opinions?
 
Hi RD - Facts or opinions?
Click to expand...

Fact of course. People who know how often I'm right know that one is as
good as the other.

Now can I ask you a question.
Do you disagree or have some evidence that I'm wrong?
The recent tendancy by some to insist on figures everytime someone posts an opinion they don't like even if it's an opinion they know to be true is really annoying.
Asking for evidence when you disagree is fine.

I think I recall you strongly arguing that ALL accidents were caused by human error. You defended that position almost to the point of absurdity when challenged on it.
I don't recall you offering statistics, and we didn't ask you to. (We just told you you were wrong).
Have you now changed your mind to say that NONE are caused by people driving inappropriately? Because all I sugested was that SOME were, and you challenged me on it.

Let's take the two statements.

1. Kids aren't dying because of Bad restaints.

If Ronan says he has the figures to show that Kids aren't dying because of Bad restaints or no restraints then that's good enough for me. I could go searching for the stats on this but if ronan has them I'd rather he save me the hassle. For the moment my statement is based on his being true. If his turns out to be false I'll obviously withdraw the first part of my statement.

2. People are dying because of driving inappropriately on bad roads or in bad weather conditions. People are dying because of Falling asleep.

The National Safety Council website shows the factors involved in accidents. I have the link, it's not hard to find, but I'll give you a bit of homework to do to find it yourself. If you really can't find it let me know and I'll help you out.

I don't believe you'll need find it because no-one in their right mind (including you) would suggest that 0 people die on Irish roads due to innapropriate driving (speed, alcohol, drugs etc.) and no-one in their right mind would suggest that none of the accidents are caused by people falling asleep at the wheel.

If you have evidence that sleeping at the wheel does not kill people you should pass it on the the NSC, because they seem to think it's as serious as Alcohol.


Interestingly the NSC website shows NO HITS for a search on suicide, even though
in my OPINION, at least some of the "accidents" each year are suicides, and some of those manage to take out innocent people in other cars. This is an attempt by the suicidal driver to make their death look like an accident, presumably to either spare family some element of pain, or to allow insurance claims to proceed.

This is an opinion supported by nothing more than the FACT that Ireland has a remarkably high suicide rate, and the FACT that suicide by car (for driver or pedestrian) is a known phenomenon in other countries.

-Rd

-Rd
 
I'll take that as a fairly long, convoluted way of answering 'opinion' to my original question. And btw, I spent a little time on the Garda/NSC/CSO sites before asking the question, and I could find nothing there to support either your or Ronan's positions.

I'd suggest that all posters have a look at the crash-test-dummy films from the Britax site. Obviously, Britax has a commercial vested interest in these matters, but it is definitely still worth viewing.
 
I'll take that as a fairly long, convoluted way of answering 'opinion' to my original question.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, which part precisely of my post do you think is not factually correct?

>Kids aren't dying due to bad restraints.

I've explained that I'm relying on Ronan for this. Are you aware of a child who was killed in the past 12 months due to a lack of restraints? Or incorrectly fitted restraints. Have you found any figures to dispute it.


No-one is questioning the effectiveness of restraints, or that an unrestrained child would probably be killed. All that's in question is whether the Irish in general are already good or bad in this area.

>People are dying because of driving inappropriately on bad roads or in bad weather >conditions.

86% of accidents caused by driver error.
2.8% caused by road factors.
1.4% caused by environmental factors.

As none of the above are 0% I'd consider by opinion a fact.


I'm guessing that some of the 86% of driver errors were errors in handling adverse conditions. Unless you have evidence that all accidents in Ireland occur on good roads in clear dry weather.

>People are dying because of Falling asleep.

From the NSC:
Although the phenomenon has not been investigated in Ireland research conducted in Loughborough University in the UK has shown that for all vehicles about 4 in 10 fatal country crashes and close to 1 in 6 urban crashes are attributable to fatigue.

Further evidence unearthed by the Loughborough research indicate that fatigue related crashes are more likely to result in a fatality than a serious injury

[broken link removed]



You seem to have formed the impression that people here are saying seat belts and child restraints are a bad idea, or an unimportant issue. Noone has said that at all, or anything like it. We don't need to see crash test dummies to know what happens in an accident to people especially small people without seat belts.

The question is whether Irish People in general have already gotten the message.
Not whether the message is inherantly good or bad.

I think we might be having two different discussions.

To clear this up again, subject to ronan's statement being true, my comments were facts, and with the exception of ronan's comments, everything I said is in agreement with what you believe and have argued yourself on AAM in the past.

If there is something specific that I've said that you disagree with please point it out.

-Rd
 
I haven't read Freakonomics but I must say that I found the article linked above to be another example of the type of half-baked simplistic "analysis" popularised in recent years by Michael Moore. Anyone who takes this sort of stuff half-seriously should reflect on the article's conclusion that a DVD player will distract children sufficiently so that they will sit still for the entirety of a car journey. Not in the real world, mister, not in the real world!
 
Just a few observations on this interesting subject. But first I do have a bias against the NSC, who apparently have been reported by the Dublin Cycling Campaign as having suggested something along the lines that children should not be allowed to cycle to school.

So I would adopt a skeptical approach to them and ask that they justify their campaigns.

How many deaths or serious injuries are caused by lack of child restraints? If it is insignificant then they should be applying their resources elsewhere.

That is not to say that a short sharp campaign to highlight the issue at back to school time is not justified.

But the main focus of their campaigns seems to me to be telling people to slow down and stop drinking and driving. But this is difficult to convey to people. Many people seem to think that they know more than the engineers about the safe speed limits.

Brendan
 
RainyDay said:
And btw, I spent a little time on the Garda/NSC/CSO sites before asking the question, and I could find nothing there to support either your or Ronan's positions.
Click to expand...

That's because the information is not easily available from any of those sources. The NSC are spectacularly insular when it comes to providing any information on accident statistics.

The Gardai, as I said already, cannot provide any extra information other than that a death occurred in a particular location. As there are inquests after every accident, they can't say any more than that.

The information that I have is from every newspaper/radio/tv report on every accident that's happened in the last 18months.

And an interesting point - not every accident that happens in this country where someone dies is actually reported in the "media".



Finally - With regards to the point made regarding suicide and road traffic deaths, going down this road causes me serious difficulties. We already have a very half-assed way of reporting road traffic deaths - "the car went out of control" or "the car went into a wall at 3am in the morning".

By now associating car accidents with another cause of death in this country that is notoriously under explained and under reported, it strikes me that it's becoming another way not to properly report on the cause of accidents.
 
Hi Ronan - No offence intended, but I'm struggling to understand how any poster could have reliably collated this kind of information from media reports. Indeed, your follow-up 'interesting point' shows up a flaw in your own statistics. Do you have a professional interest in this matter? If so, it is not unreasonable to ask you to declare this. If not, I'd appreciate more detail on how you manage to track every newspaper (does this include local papers) and every radio (does this include local radio) and every TV (does this include TV3) report on road traffic accidents.

The original reason for my query was not so much about testing the reliability of your statement. It was about seeing what other data you might have. I was wondering if you have access to information about years other than 2003. I was wondering if you have access to information about injuries, as opposed to just deaths.

Hi RD - Yes, I accept that your original opinion was technically correct. However, the difference in depth between the original bald statement and the numerical data is startling. The quantitative data shows that the road and environmental (aka weather?) factors are so small as to be largely insignificant.

daltonr said:
I'm guessing that some of the 86% of driver errors were errors in handling adverse conditions. Unless you have evidence that all accidents in Ireland occur on good roads in clear dry weather.
Click to expand...
While you are of course quite entitled to make guesses, I am also quite entitled to point out that they are just that - guesses. Let's be clear that the professional experts in this area (i.e. the guys who spend 9-5, M-F working on this stuff) have produced the quantitative research you quoted above. Your guesses are, well I can't think of any better way to say it, guesses. And if you think that I feel some obligation to provide hard research to contradict your views, I don't. Common sense dictates that if you want give your opinions the weight of hard fact, you need to do the work yourself.


This stuff is quite interesting, and I guess (word chosen carefully) there must be substantial parallels for Ireland from the UK experience. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that child car-seat safety is the most important issue for the NSC to focus on. But I do think it is very important that we judge them on a solid rational basis, rather than a pub-talk/Adrian Kennedy FM104 call-in show basis.
 
RainyDay said:
Hi Ronan - No offence intended, but I'm struggling to understand how any poster could have reliably collated this kind of information from media reports.
Click to expand...

I fully accept that there is an issue in the reliability of the statistics. However, up to late August there were 253 deaths on Irish roads. I have reports on 248 of these.


RainyDay said:
Do you have a professional interest in this matter? If so, it is not unreasonable to ask you to declare this.
Click to expand...

Do I have to have a professional interest of some sort to be concerned about the deaths on our roads? As an interested and concerned citizen, I have an interest in what's happening here. And I have no professional interest whatsoever.


RainyDay said:
If not, I'd appreciate more detail on how you manage to track every newspaper (does this include local papers) and every radio (does this include local radio) and every TV (does this include TV3) report on road traffic accidents.
Click to expand...

I monitor 3 news websites, the websites of 4 national newspapers, and the RTE website. As I said above, I'm missing 5 out of 253, a margin of error of less than 2%


The information is for the last 18 months, not 2003 (don't know where that came from). And I have the past 18 months only because I'm working my way backwards.

I don't have access to information on injuries (apart from numbers injured in each crash) - as I said before, the NSC protect this information and won't make it easily available.
 

Rainyday,

In a case where a driver drove inappropriately for a given set of weather conditions it would fall into the 86% because the causes would have been the driver. If a Tree fell on you in a storm the cause would have been the weather.

The following from those guys who work 9 to 5 monday to Friday. Though, I I suspect you didn't need to hear it from them to know it's true.


-Rd
 
Hi RD - Thanks for the clarifications. IMHO, the data that has come out on the thread is immensely more valuable than the original bald statements. But maybe that's just my little quirk.
 
Rainyday, the stats are indeed interesting. They're not hard to find if that kind of thing floats your boat.

For future reference if you want someone to help you find statistics there are better ways to do it. Posting a flat "Fact or Opinion?" making reference to "Convoluted ways of saying Opinion" and labelling a conclusion drawn from statistics as "Guesswork" is not likely to endear you to the person you are talking to.

-Rd
 
daltonr said:
labelling a conclusion drawn from statistics as "Guesswork" is not likely to endear you to the person you are talking to.
Click to expand...
Actually, you managed to label your 'conclusion' as a guess all by yourself - didn't need my help for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register