Speed doesn’t kill...

[TUF_302]

Originally Posted by hydraulicmonkey

WOOOOOOO finally. :

Will be ignored by those who make the decisions though :

Sad but True! :

[castellan]

Flappist is on the right track.
Fundamentalist look at a book as if 'it were God.' and they can't seem to comprehend beyond it. it's like the blind leading the blind.

Like a cop could be just like a robot, and go about just dishing out any thing that's in a law book.

Or it's like a builder can get away with a lot of stuff. by just following all the regulations.
But when common sense comes into it. :
At times they can't see that something is just so stupid or don't want to know it.
And the end result is something that is pathetic. :
But the thing is they some times know it but will take the easy way out for them self. the gutless low life scum bags.

[xdc351]

The funny part about all this is when I'm out driving the little voice in my head saying "You vill not exceed the speed limit! We have vays of making you slow down..." was of the wrong accent all along!

[opto]

This guy has got it right, so why does the state governments impose speed limits and massive fines, for revenue, and they dont spend it on roads.

Admittedly roads in cities need to be limited but reality says freeways or say 3 lane roads should be 80 Kms, ****off this 50 Km ********, if pedestrians are clueless well what can I say, kids omitted.

Out on the country roads should be 150 Kms or more, only problem is other drivers, some can be road skills illiterate.

Problem is government likes revenue.
As a footnote I havent been fined for speeding for 6 years plus.

[DJR-351]

Sorry but this is just way to radical, he can forget about applying for an Australian visa right now.... :

[388cube_edxr8]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

The comments of Ulrich Mellinghoff on Australias road safety are completely irrelevant and show a misunderstanding of how our safety authorities work. Effective safety incentives based on common sense which will undoubtedly save lives have absolutely no place in this country - the reduction in revenue would be simply unpalatable.

+1...

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by prydey

he is spot on, but what he probably doesn't realise is, our governments aren't trying to reduce the road toll. they are simply using it as a means to fill their coffers.

they have realised what a goldmine it is, with the media on side pushing their cause.

you have to wonder how other countries, with much higher populated roads and higher speeds have a lower % of deaths on the road than australia. road conditions? different training?

what i want to know is where all the fuel tax goes? why is it that whenver they embark on any road upgrades they always make out like that money isn't available and they have to go into more debt? maybe if they started using the fuel tax for what it was designed for, instead of the flyaway junkets and holidays for pollies and their families and their mates and cousins and uncles and aunties etc etc

Id prefer a "speed tax" than higher income tax.... Atleast i can choose weather i contribute or not.

If they loose income from 1 they'll have to increase the other to compensate....

[Agent86]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

I did a road trip in the US in late 2008, mainly in California. It was often safe to travel at 100mph, so I did. (except through the indian reservations, ALWAYS obey speed limits through those) No problems at all, there weren't any accidents that I saw, or any radar traps - smooth travelling, enjoyable driving - not so easy in Australia.

You lost me on your housing shortage/british system tangent though....

My point was that the brit systems that are in use here, are tottaly irrelevant and not benificial out here.

[YOOT]

Originally Posted by vztrt

speed-doesnt-kill

No, it doesn't.

The sudden impact does.

[Bam]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

The comments of Ulrich Mellinghoff on Australias road safety are completely irrelevant and show a misunderstanding of how our safety authorities work. Effective safety incentives based in common sense which will undoubtedly save lives have absolutely no place in this country - the reduction in revenue would be simply unpalatable.

And this of course leads to the wider picture. Fines and taxes for motor traffic & parking infringements, cigarettes, alcohol and gambling can all be considered as 'user pays' taxes which seem fair enough in principle. Loss of the revenue from these sources would put the balance sheets seriously in the red thus requiring an increase in general taxation from everyone. This would not be acceptable unless there was a slow transition that went unnoticed.

Unfortunately there are inequities with the implementation of these user-pays sources in my opinion. Firstly, I suspect that all of them rake in much more money that the actual cost of the specific user-generated problem that they are supposed to counter. Secondly, they are imposed on all users as though every one will evolve into a real problem (eg. all speeders will crash, smokers will get cancer, drinkers will have liver failure and gamblers will go broke).

What sets traffic infringements apart from the rest are the demerit points. In all of the other cases you can keep doing it as much as you like provided that you have the money. Cigarettes, alcohol and gambling are not illegal. Speeding is.

I can only assume that traffic infringements like speeding are treated differently because of what you might do to others. If that premise is not actually supported by evidence however then perhaps a slight adjustment is warranted, eg. get rid of the demerit points but keep the fine (err 'tax).

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Bam

And this of course leads to the wider picture. Fines and taxes for motor traffic & parking infringements, cigarettes, alcohol and gambling can all be considered as 'user pays' taxes which seem fair enough in principle. Loss of the revenue from these sources would put the balance sheets seriously in the red thus requiring an increase in general taxation from everyone. This would not be acceptable unless there was a slow transition that went unnoticed.

Unfortunately there are inequities with the implementation of these user-pays sources in my opinion. Firstly, I suspect that all of them rake in much more money that the actual cost of the specific user-generated problem that they are supposed to counter. Secondly, they are imposed on all users as though every one will evolve into a real problem (eg. all speeders will crash, smokers will get cancer, drinkers will have liver failure and gamblers will go broke).

What sets traffic infringements apart from the rest are the demerit points. In all of the other cases you can keep doing it as much as you like provided that you have the money. Cigarettes, alcohol and gambling are not illegal. Speeding is.

I can only assume that traffic infringements like speeding are treated differently because of what you might do to others. If that premise is not actually supported by evidence however then perhaps a slight adjustment is warranted, eg. get rid of the demerit points but keep the fine (err 'tax).

Well said.. and i can only shudder to think what income tax would be like without all those hidden taxes/revenue streams....

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by T3man

I'm sure you can't be asking this question seriously ... if you are; then please go directly to your nearest police staion or traffic authority office and hand your licence back because you certainly aren't fit to be behind the wheel.

Other than being incredibly unhelpful thus far, do you have anything constructive to post?

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

[copy and past my standard post on 'speed kills' here]

Also, Mercedes will not change the minds of the government.

How does more round abouts save lives?

Mercedes can and has changed the mind of the government, in Victoria anyway. Mercedes and VW got Vic Govt to change their P plate rules to allow low boost safe turbo cars, rather than a blanket ban.

[bangm001]

Yeah well said first post. Now to get the better roads from our tax money.. BAHAHAA!

[Trevor 57]

Europe, Germany, Mercedes Benz cars, Autobahns are all irrelevant in Australia, and I wish people would stop dragging this stuff into Australian debates.

This is Australia, with ******** roads, Falcons and the Hume Highway, get a grip of Aussie, FFS.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

Europe, Germany, Mercedes Benz cars, Autobahns are all irrelevant in Australia, and I wish people would stop dragging this stuff into Australian debates.

This is Australia, with ******** roads, Falcons and the Hume Highway, get a grip of Aussie, FFS.

i suppose newton' laws of physics also dont apply in australia?

The differences in the areas you note is not anywhere as relevant as you think....know why? Because accidents dont' happen on highways...they happen in suburbia...on intersections. This is where the greatest % of fatal accidents have and will always occur. The UK research i quoted in my earlier post would be more relevant given their crappy rural roads and it confirmed the same thing...if that makes you feel better.

Either way the debate is about a focus on speed enforcement to the exclusion of other policing actions. Can't see what that has to do with the atcual set limits on the particualr roads or particular cars....

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

The differences in the areas you note is not anywhere as relevant as you think....know why? Because accidents dont' happen on highways...they happen in suburbia...on intersections. This is where the greatest % of fatal accidents have and will always occur.

Um...not quite...

"In both 2001 and 2006 the majority of fatal crashes occurred on roads where the posted speed limit was 100 kilometres/hour (km/h) and above (44% in 2006), followed by roads with a speed limit of up to 60 km/h (33%). A further 23% of fatal crashes occurred on roads with speed zones of between 65 km/h and 95 km/h.

In both 2001 and 2006 the highest proportion of fatal crashes was single vehicle crashes (41% and 47% respectively). Pedestrian crashes accounted for 18% of crash types in 2001 and 15% in 2006."

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@....4?opendocument

[Trevor 57]

Thanks Gas

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

This is Australia, with ******** roads, Falcons and the Hume Highway, get a grip of Aussie, FFS.

I thought most of the Hume Hwy was built to cope with 160km/h.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Um...not quite...

"In both 2001 and 2006 the majority of fatal crashes occurred on roads where the posted speed limit was 100 kilometres/hour (km/h) and above (44% in 2006), followed by roads with a speed limit of up to 60 km/h (33%). A further 23% of fatal crashes occurred on roads with speed zones of between 65 km/h and 95 km/h.

In both 2001 and 2006 the highest proportion of fatal crashes was single vehicle crashes (41% and 47% respectively). Pedestrian crashes accounted for 18% of crash types in 2001 and 15% in 2006."

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@....4?opendocument

So the MAJORITY that is 56%, or more than HALF, were BELOW 100km/h, that is in built up areas and suburbia.

Thank you for the reference to support Swordsmans' case.

[Bam]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

"In both 2001 and 2006 the majority of fatal crashes occurred on roads where the posted speed limit was 100 kilometres/hour (km/h) and above (44% in 2006), followed by roads with a speed limit of up to 60 km/h (33%). A further 23% of fatal crashes occurred on roads with speed zones of between 65 km/h and 95 km/h...."

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@....4?opendocument

I wouldn't put much stock in those stats.

Firstly, they are incomplete, especially the lack of:
* Discussion about other years.
* Fatalities per km driven (probably the most useful ratio) for the USA.
* Any data for Canada (USA, Canada and Australia are absolutely necessary in order to compare apples with apples).

Secondly, the analysis is incomplete, especially with regard to:
* Steady drop in fatalities per registered vehicle from 1970.
* Steady drop in fatalities per capita from 1942.

[kezzer]

Originally Posted by EDManual

And thats why I speed

I drive perhaps 25 over everywhere here (when safe) and get fined for that everyso often, so my speed limit is 125 in 100 zones or 130 in 110s which is like an Autoroute in France, but cheaper :-) as I only get fined every so often :-)

How are you still alive?? Are you the second coming of Jesus? :

If you believed what the government and what a few members on here have sprouted you should be dead 10 times over. Good job mate!

I don't see the problem with what you did, assuming you accept responsibility for it, every k over is not a killer no matter what they say.

I remember confessing I did a 0-100km/h time recording up past bairnsdale early one morning and getting flamed for it by a few of the members commenting in this thread :

[OZQUAD44]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Other than being incredibly unhelpful thus far, do you have anything constructive to post?

I think what he was trying to say, LTDHO, was that round-abouts compared to traffic lights and uncontrolled intersections are a far safer option because of the following reasons:

Roundabouts force the driver to slow down in order to negotiate the bend or curvature of the island. It is very easy for a driver to run a red light (in fact many drivers accelerate on the orange light, thus increasing their speed as they enter an intersection). Roundabouts naturally force the driver to slow on approach every time.

Consequentially accidents that happen at roundabouts are usually at a lower speed than accidents that happen at traffic lights, thus meaning the impacts are less destructive. Doesn't mean there are less accidents, it just means that when there are accidents the difference in speed between the cars is reduced dramatically.

All the traffic on a roundabout is traveling in a similar direction, I.E. clockwise. Again this reduces the instances of a head on accident. In addition to this, traffic is channeled around an obstacle which separates much of the traffic that is using the roundabout at any given time. Its pretty difficult to run over the cyclist on the other side of a roundabout.

There are fewer variables for the driver as he enters a roundabout. Traffic almost always comes from the right as a driver approaches a roundabout, and as hard as it may seem for some to comprehend, the rules are simple. Give way to traffic on the round about. It dosen't get much simpler than that.

After being on the receiving end of a silly old tart that ran a red light and T boned my car. I approach all traffic lights with a degree of caution nowadays, even when the light is green. I suspect not many drivers approach green lights with a degree of caution. I also suspect that by the very nature of roundabout design, helped by the ignorant view that many drivers have of roundabouts, that many drivers approach a roundabout with a degree of caution.

Your never going to stop the random factor, Ie A driver that did not notice that light was red, or run straight over the island of a roundabout. But pound for pound there is less chance of fatal injuries on a roundabout. That is why they are safer.

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

Europe, Germany, Mercedes Benz cars, Autobahns are all irrelevant in Australia, and I wish people would stop dragging this stuff into Australian debates.

This is Australia, with ******** roads, Falcons and the Hume Highway, get a grip of Aussie, FFS.

This sort of crap is really starting to p*** me of, why do we think that Australia is so different from the rest of the world, why do you think we are so special....you need to get out of your own back yard and travel around a bit, Australia aint that much different to the rest of the world....

You need to stop feeling so precious FFS.....

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

i suppose newton' laws of physics also dont apply in australia?

The differences in the areas you note is not anywhere as relevant as you think....know why? Because accidents dont' happen on highways...they happen in suburbia...on intersections. This is where the greatest % of fatal accidents have and will always occur. The UK research i quoted in my earlier post would be more relevant given their crappy rural roads and it confirmed the same thing...if that makes you feel better.

Either way the debate is about a focus on speed enforcement to the exclusion of other policing actions. Can't see what that has to do with the atcual set limits on the particualr roads or particular cars....

I can see what you are saying but you have muddled it up a little.

You are actually correct in saying that most crashes don't happen on highways, they happen in city and suburban streets and happen at speeds at less than 60 km/h. This is because the majority of crashes are low speed front to rear and side impacts at intersections. Notice I said crashes, not fatalities. The result of these crashes in the vast majority are no injury ranging up to minor injury requiring hospital assessment but not admission.

The larger percentage of road fatalities in australia do happen on highways and rural roads, it has been that way for a long time. As far back as I can remember in the 6 years I have been a paramedic and a Firefighter (volunteer fire and rescue in WA) before that, I can only think of one fatality in a 60 zone that did not involve excessive speed of one of the vehicles, that was the pedestrian that later died as a result of a crash at an intersection early this year. All the rest have involved cars crashing with speeds in excess of 100 km/h in 60 zones or happened in zones of 80-110 km/h limits (the vast majority in the latter). For example QLD at this time are up to 37 fatalities but only three have occurred in Brisbane (2 in one crash, one in the other). This year has been unusual for me as the fatalities I normally attend are in speed zones of 80-100 km/h (highway and semi rural), but so far the 3 fatalities I have seen have both occurred in a 60 zone, this is not normal and the first time I have seen so many in suburban speed zones in 6 years.

So you are right in the fact that the vast majority of accidents happen in built up areas and at low speed (generally <60 km/h), but the vast majority of all crashes involve little to no injury. The Minority of crashes occur in highway and rural roads but this minority also hold the majority of fatalities.

So I see what he is getting at in the article and I could not agree more, the answer is not lowering limits, the answer is in better safety prevention devices, driver training, better roads etc.

Having said that, the claim that "speed does not kill" is not entirely correct. With speed comes velocity, with velocity comes rapid deceleration, which cause trauma to the occupants and this results in fatalities. The big point however is, this can happen at any speed depending on a range of factors but it is more likely to happen at speeds > 80 km/h, which where these accidents occur is often the legal speed.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

Europe, Germany, Mercedes Benz cars, Autobahns are all irrelevant in Australia, and I wish people would stop dragging this stuff into Australian debates.

This is Australia, with ******** roads, Falcons and the Hume Highway, get a grip of Aussie, FFS.

Actually, AUS and EU have much in common.

Lets take say the autobahn comparision:-

In a typical cross-section, the autobahn bears a 2,5-3,5m wide left shoulder. Two or three 3,5m traffic lanes. A 0,5-1,0m 'right' paved shoulder.

To that extent, our standards in design layout match. German on-ramps can be as suggestively 'short in length' as our own. German and EU motorways always carry median barrier.

BUT EU motorways bear a typical median width of 4.0 metres, AUS adopts the US design methodology of 10-13meter widths, and often lacks median barrier. (Changing).

The (//) autobahn has a 6deg maximum grade.

I could easily and readily go on for multitudes of pages here, but the lessons in road transport gained by the EU experience are passed onto the world through the UNECE Transport Divisions 'road safety' and 'vehicle design rules' agreements.

Uniformity of road use - EVERYWHERE, is made via the UN Convention on Road Traffic, Road Signs and Signals, so our BASIC rules of the road are the same everywhere, even extending to suggested or required vehicle equipment (vest, triangle, first aid kit, extinguisher).

Australia is, and has always been part of that process. True, that we dumb-down some International deisgn rules (One example rear fog) to placate local knuckle dragging manufacturing and the domestic insular 'dumb'.

That we have *****d roads is simply a matter of government and funding. Politics! Ditto with Australia's fetish with exceeding the speed limit, where our experts - 'try' to impact the rest of the world by having domestic study published at UN level.

Typically noted and mostly duly ignored:-)

[EB#]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

Europe, Germany, Mercedes Benz cars, Autobahns are all irrelevant in Australia, and I wish people would stop dragging this stuff into Australian debates.
This is Australia, with ******** roads, Falcons and the Hume Highway, get a grip of Aussie, FFS.

Agreed....

To highlight a few of the fundamental differences, for those who are not
familiar with an autobahn......

The autobahns and euro drivers:
- wide, flat, 4 lanes, minimal curves and undulations, great sight lines
- euro drivers actually know what 'lane selection' is
- trucks or small cars at 100km and cars at 250km get along together safely
- the cars doing high speed are designed and built to do it, eg. Merc, BMW etc

Aussie freeways and drivers:
- road design & quality is a joke in comparison
- lane selection is in the 'brain fade' department for many many drivers
- the average clapped out EF or VS with dodgy ball joints is NOT a high speed option

In the case of lower grade roads such as country highways, I reckon their
quality does not warrant higher speed limits. How do potholes and
subsided road portions figure at 160km/h...???

Australia has vast distances to provide roads for, as opposed to european
countries. NSW alone is over twice the size of Germany, yet has a fraction
of the tax payers to fund the roads. For Australia, the math does not
add up to high quality roads.

In the absence of good road quality and widespread sound driving skills,
I actually agree with the 'speed limit' promotion from the government...
they have no choice, as our roads are junk. However, there are also many
other safe driving skills besides speed that could well do with promotion and
education.

Really, at the end of the day, a 100km journey at say 160km/h will get you
there about 17 minutes ahead of the average punter doing 110km/h.
About enough time for a cup of coffee..... What's the big deal ??

I thought the following comment from the opening quote deserves much,
much more attention from government policy makers...

"It makes more sense to avoid an accident than to reduce the severity of it"

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by EB92

To highlight a few of the fundamental differences, for those who are not
familiar with an autobahn......

The autobahns and euro drivers:
- wide, flat, 4 lanes, minimal curves and undulations, great sight lines
- euro drivers actually know what 'lane selection' is
- trucks or small cars at 100km and cars at 250km get along together safely
- the cars doing high speed are designed and built to do it, eg. Merc, BMW etc

Aussie freeways and drivers:
- road design & quality is a joke in comparison
- lane selection is in the 'brain fade' department for many many drivers
- the average clapped out EF or VS with dodgy ball joints is NOT a high speed option

Repeat - our typical cross sections are the same. A difference applies in climb and decent where Germany maximises 6deg. Delinneation is similar.

Agree re lane discipline. VIC is finally adopting NSW practice of prohibiting trucks from the RH lane of freeway class roads.

I intend to chase an ARR amendment to restrict caravans, horse floats and vehicles towing over a certain GVM from using that lane, UNLESS all lanes are congested and the RH lane is the only lane moving.

We also remain bound to restrict cycles from motorway class roads under contracted Convention. Its one of the international rules of the road we politically correct, ignore....

Vis effect.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by EB92

I thought the following comment from the opening quote deserves much,
much more attention from government policy makers...

"It makes more sense to avoid an accident than to reduce the severity of it"

Agree completely.

The law makers should be focussing more on driver skill (which they have been doing recently with the introduction of learner logs and 100 hrs of driver training), as well as active crash avoidance systems on cars.

I believe it should be compulsory for all cars sold in australia to have EBD, DSC and ABS etc. It is also my belief that all cars sold in australia should have compulsory dual front, side and curtain airbags.

I know my 13 year old daughter, when she is up for her license and buying her first car, will not be allowed to look at any car that does not have airbags, ABS and DSC, not if she wants any assistance in funding it from me.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Agree re lane discipline. VIC is finally adopting NSW practice of prohibiting trucks from the RH lane of freeway class roads.

I intend to chase an ARR amendment to restrict caravans, horse floats and vehicles towing over a certain GVM from using that lane, UNLESS all lanes are congested and the RH lane is the only lane moving.

We also remain bound to restrict cycles from motorway class roads under contracted Convention. Its one of the international rules of the road we politically correct, ignore....

Vis effect.

The problem here is how do you enforce those laws when we see a steady increase in road users each year but not a comparative increase in police presence?

In reality we have seen a reduction in the police to road user ratio since the introduction of speed cameras, but the speed camera can only enforce one law, the cop can enforce all of them.