Speed and stopping

Submitted: Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 17:12
ThreadID: 101853 Views:2537 Replies:11 FollowUps:37
This Thread has been Archived
Some may be interested in this link and some of the BS we are sometimes fed. So please read the whole link as has some good info.

It has some interesting fanciful stopping distances.

I am not condoning speeding but we all do, either accidentally or on purpose, that is unless your daily driver is an Austin 7.

Breaking distances

Back Expand Un-Read 1 Moderator

Reply By: Member - J&R - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 17:52

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 17:52
Even an Austin 7 can speed in a school zone.........
And we all know speed does kill.
And road conditions vary.
And reaction times vary enormously.
And age is a factor.
As is the car we drive, and where we drive it.

And now the NMAA are the experts. Go figure.
AnswerID: 509678

Follow Up By: Rockape - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 20:13

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 20:13
Yep so can a push bike.

Accurate info is what people require not one eyed BS.

Yes! there are many factors that change breaking distance but when the truth is clouded it is not good.



0
FollowupID: 787654

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 20:23

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 20:23
The message is accurate. The science the experts are using to get you there isn't.
Impossible to argue against the fact. Faster you go, the longer it takes to stop. Why does it matter that the paid experts get it wrong. They can't agree on which washing powder is the best!

Graeme
0
FollowupID: 787657

Follow Up By: Rockape - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 20:39

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 20:39
Yep rocket science
0
FollowupID: 787661

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 20:45

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 20:45
And that's just the thing isn't it? It's not rocket science so why do the experts have to carry on and make it so complicated? Leave themselves open to the sort of examination in the article.
Keep it simple I say. Can't argue with simple and everyone will understand the message.

Graeme
0
FollowupID: 787663

Reply By: Bob R4 - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 17:54

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 17:54
Very interesting RA.
I'm screachless. They're just after my money.
Bob
AnswerID: 509681

Reply By: Axle - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 17:56

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 17:56
G/Day RA, ...Interesting Figues !,... Tell you what though,! drive a Defender with a excavator bucket in the back, and you will soon learn about stopping distances, you learn by the 100mtr distance...lol... By the way Do they change brake pads and linnings in Qld?


Cheers Axle.
AnswerID: 509682

Follow Up By: Rockape - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 18:05

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 18:05
Axle,
tell me is that bucket in the back so you can dig yourself out of the bleep or what.LOL.

Mate! in Queensland we just add more rivets to the brake lines as the linings wear out. That may explain the difference in stopping distances.
0
FollowupID: 787644

Reply By: Pathycop - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 18:52

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 18:52
It really is a shame that our governments spend/waste so much money trying to convince the public that they need to slow down to save lives. And that organisations like this one spend so much time and money trying to dis prove the evidence provided by experts.
Best thing to do is stop spending all the money, remove all the speed limits, cameras and police and just let natural selection do its job. Cost the govt's so much less in administration and beurocracy, no one ever gets a fine or loses their licence which is more important and we can all live in a happier world. If we lose a few extra lives, so what? At least our rights are not impinged on and the revenue raisers will be proved wrong at last.
Is that the alternative we want?

Graeme
AnswerID: 509686

Follow Up By: Member - Outback Gazz - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 21:45

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 21:45
I just find it odd that the government don't care about us when our houses get burgled, they don't care about us when we get bashed walking down the street at night, they don't care about us when we can't afford to feed our families, they don't care about us when our children are getting inundated with drugs, they don't care about us when there are no beds in the hospitals - they only seem to care about us when we do 10 kph over the speed limit !

There are now more people dying from suicide in this country than road deaths but why is it that the government still spends millions of dollars on $peed cameras and road $afety campaigns etc etc and bugger all on preventing suicides - I'm guessing it has something to do with $$$$.

Speed doesn't kill - it's the sudden stop that does the damage !


Happy and safe driving

Gazz
1
FollowupID: 787676

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 22:03

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 22:03
Not sure where you get your info from. Probably the Herald Sun. There are 14000 police in Victoria. Everyone of them out day and night trying their best to protect your house, your safety and that of yours and my children. That is not cheap but it is also not advertised or spoken about in the popular press because its not sensational enough. They just get on with the job. Trust me, they care.
I agree with you that the dollars spent on traffic safety campaigns may seem excessive, but with every fatality costing the community around $1mil I believe it is money well spent if it can save some lives being taken by another persons stupidity. To link traffic fatals with suicides is ridiculous and can not be compared If you go check our facts I think you may be surprised what is spent on suicide protection through all the social services etc. again all done quietly as suicides are not newspaper sellers unless someone famous.

Certainly is the bump at the end that hurts. At 50 it will be less of a bump than at 100. Scientific fact. And I have plenty of personal evidence to back up my claim.
Graeme

1
FollowupID: 787681

Follow Up By: Member - Outback Gazz - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 22:30

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 22:30
Mate - I won't enter into any argument with you, especially on this site but as my partner has been " in the job " and had a badge for 30 years - I know what goes on and where the government's priorities are when it comes to this matter. The trouble with her, and many of my police friends ( and I'm guessing you ) is that you are all brainwashed through the original and ongoing training you have and only see things one way !

I won't say anything else as it looks like having a discussion with you is just like talking to my missus and I will get nowhere !


Graeme - keep up the good work that "I KNOW" you do and stay safe !


Cheers


Gazz
0
FollowupID: 787686

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 23:47

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 23:47
Brainwashed ? Thanks for that and the clever use of the "I know" phrase. I'm not sure "you know" or have any clue about what I do other than your own presumptions And I don't appreciate your patronisation. Fortunately my training tells me it is time to make a tactical withdrawal from this conversation. I have never gotten the best ,of any armchair expert who uses media driven "facts" to drive an argument

Dial 000 if you need us. We will try and get there once the quota is covered!

Graeme
0
FollowupID: 787693

Follow Up By: Tim - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 07:01

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 07:01
Brainwashed? I would ask you to explain your theory more however anyone who claims to know more about a job they have never done then someone who has put on a uniform has zero credability.
Tim
0
FollowupID: 787704

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 09:33

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 09:33
Oops. Another side issue developing into a slinging match. I thought that the subject was about the innaccuracies of speed claims in the media.

Good on you Graeme for getting involved and an extra pat on the back for the strategic withdrawal. I joined up for what I believed in first and definitely not for financial grounds. I am sure you did the same. So when such a thread as this comes along you are very game to join in.

If I can say one thing it's this. I took the "one eyed" criticism of my job to heart and over the years it grew into a "cancer" and eventually destroyed my career and nearly my life. I hope that you look after yourself and have a way of offloading any ill feelings and hopefully insulating yourself from those who criticise without knowing the facts.

Thanks mate and I would share a beer with you any day to have a chat.

Phil
0
FollowupID: 787713

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:13

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:13
Hi Phil and thanks. Always thought you were a level headed young fella and now I know why! It is a shame when people jump in with the usual media driven sensationalism but not back it up with qualified facts. As you well know in our proffesion that standard of srgument will get you sliced up by a barrister!!
You don't need to worry about my health or mental state. I'm one of those guys you saw around the station who looked like nothing at a all phased them and they would be right. I'm very lucky in that respect and bring nothing home and sleep soundly every night. I feel no hurt or anxiety at being criticised at all. Its just part of the job. My wife still tells everyone she has no clue what I do for a job which I like. No need to share that stuff.
I get involved in these sort of threads as sometimes the kind of information is dangerous and misleading as pointed out by Rock ape at the start. And I mean on both sides of the fence. I know speed kills. Seen it with my own eyes. Qualifies me a bit better than just reading a newspAper article I can name every deceased child I have had dealings with. I know their parents as friends. Not because I am obsessive about road trauma but because its only human to care.
So I will always jump into these threads around road safety. It's my job and I would be failing in my duty if I didn't speak up. You never know. I might save another life by doing it!!
Thanks again Phil. I'll hold you to that beer. We can swap war stories!

Graeme
1
FollowupID: 787722

Follow Up By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:05

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:05
Drop me an email to vk1dx@bigpond.net.au

0
FollowupID: 787730

Reply By: pop2jocem - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 19:04

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 19:04
"In NSW a Falcon takes 37.72 mtrs to stop from 60 kph. In QLD the same car takes 71 mtrs. Hmmmm that XXXX must be worse than I thought. (;-))
AnswerID: 509688

Follow Up By: Rockape - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 19:54

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 19:54
Pop,
I can't understand how you can't fathom this. Sorry old mate but I am going to have to set you straight.

Because Qld is further north the tests were taken out with the vehicles travelling north. Stay with me old son.

Now we all know that the poles have a magnetic pull on everything magnetic. This is why the difference in braking distance. All the other vehicles in southern states were travelling south when the tests were done. We all know that the vehicles are positively charged so the south pole repels the vehicle and stops it quicker.

I hate bullshit info that changes the way we look at things.

You are lucky as your skinned fitter knuckles have healed now you have retired. Mine are still dragging on the ground. LOL.
1
FollowupID: 787653

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 20:19

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 20:19
Hi RA

not sure which BS it is that changes the way you look at things. The experts may get the figures wrong. They never agree with anyone that isn't paying them. ,but it doesn't take an expert to understand. Even my 7 yr old understands that the same object travelling at 100 kph will take longer than the one travelling at 50kph.
Simple physics. Not BS.
The only thing the article proves is that the experts can't agree on how long it takes to stop. So what. Doesn't change the underlying message and doesn't disprove that message.

Graeme
0
FollowupID: 787655

Follow Up By: Dingojim - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 20:45

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 20:45
Do any of the aforementioned hypothesis help work out the eternal mindboggler "If determination overcomes resistance how long will it take a mosquito to fly through a puddle of molasses in a west to east direction."
0
FollowupID: 787664

Follow Up By: Rockape - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 20:46

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 20:46
Greame,
I can't handle published bs from experts.

Yes it does change the underlying message.

I am about 8 years old and if bs is fed to me then that is how I will see the world. Think about it.



0
FollowupID: 787665

Follow Up By: Bob R4 - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 20:53

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 20:53
The biggest dissapointment I experience these days is the difficulty I have in understanding why the powers that be, whether bureaucratic or government, have such a hard time in allowing us, their constituents, to be told the truth without embellishment (now there's a big word for BS).
We are required to trust them, but are left to ponder why we don't deserve to be trusted. And I do know there are a lot of us out here who betray trust, but you can't legislate or create campaigns to prevent that.
Equally you can't legislate common sense.

Bob
1
FollowupID: 787667

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 20:55

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 20:55
Unfortunately the published bs is everywhere. Just depends who is paying for the outcome desired. We don't need to understand the minuscule mechanics of how things work to get the message that faster equals longer to stop. I think we can all see through the bs when we need to. But I do agree with you, " they" need to be careful on how " they" get the message across. I just think the article is a cheap shot at a serious issue and nowhere does it acknowledge the actual fact about fast over faster. Just picks the experts apart. That's the bs!

Ps, not trying to have a go at you. I like reading your posts on many threads. Just a friendly difference on a point! Would hate to get in a fight like some do on here. ;)

Graeme
1
FollowupID: 787668

Follow Up By: Bazooka - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 21:40

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 21:40
"I just think the article is a cheap shot at a serious issue and nowhere does it acknowledge the actual fact about fast over faster. Just picks the experts apart."

Pretty much how it came across to me also Graeme. I wonder what the catalyst/motive for collating this data was and whether the person(s) involved have provided it to the ministers and authorities responsible. If not it's just a cheap shot, albeit an interesting one.

Who exactly is this NMAA? The website could hardly be less vague if it tried. Membership in 5 states apparently. Lol, 5 members? Mates? Family? Is it a registered organisation with a constitution/articles of association?
0
FollowupID: 787673

Reply By: Bazooka - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 21:14

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 21:14
Whoever it is has made an interesting point, just as road safety messages using stopping distances have attempted to do. Iirc in multiple choice tests done a long time ago people invariably underestimated stopping distances considerably so a bit of advice based on conservative figures hardly does any harm. That said you'd think the various authorities would attempt to get some agreement and consistency.

I note no mention of manual V auto reaction times in the article and this bit of unscientific guesswork makes me dismissive of it generally:

"When driving, your foot will move virtually automatically at the first thought that you need to brake. It is such a well rehearsed manouver that it happens without much conscious thought so we expect your foot will move at least as fast as your mouse/finger."

Nothing worse than assumption dressed up as science. Apart from the obvious physiological differences in the two actions, a test where you are waiting to take an action will invariably return a shorter reaction time than a rare and random braking action. Racing drivers and similar excepted of course.

AnswerID: 509696

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 21:42

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 21:42
Like the automatic foot lifting reaction when you see a police car or a speed camera. It's like a sneeze. Impossible to stop. !!
0
FollowupID: 787674

Reply By: Member - Arsenal Phill - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 22:13

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 22:13
Pathycop. Sorry to impinge further on your time. Looks like you've been putting in a bit extra with this thread.
I am just curious on your perspective as an officer, and that of others on here regarding speed. I have a theory/opinion and wonder if anyone considers it valid.
They say that fatigue kills. Also they obviously say that speed kills. I just wonder though that given the vast distances we have to travel here in WA, would it not be acceptable to say increase the current limit of 110, to say 130? My reasoning being that on those trips of considerable distance, you would in fact be cutting the journey time. Thus reducing fatigue. To my mind, coming off the road at 110 km/h or 130km/h the results are pretty much going to be similar.
Sorry if I should have started a new thread.......
AnswerID: 509699

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 22:34

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 22:34
Hi Phil.
The speed limits should obviously reflect he roads conditions as well as many other factors. I certainly agree with your theory that it may be better to arrive quicker so you are not so tired. But where do you stop? 150 is faster than 130 but the result of a crash will be similar and then 160 and on it goes. Similar arguments have been made stating that being able to drive faster keeps the driver more alert. The reason you are more alert is because the brain needs to work faster to deal with the added danger if covering the same ground quicker. Hope that makes sense! Does in my head!
The problem is there has to be a limit otherwise we would have mayhem. I believe "they" set the limits to the best of there ability based on the given conditions etc and that limit has to take into account the whole array of drivers with different skills. Not everyone is as good a driver as you and I and so they need boundaries/ limits to guide them. Unfortunately these rules have to apply to everyone equally including us expert drivers. That can be frustrating but there HAS to be a limit.


At

Graeme



0
FollowupID: 787687

Follow Up By: dazren - Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 23:01

Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 at 23:01
Phil I agree with your logic, not only do you cut down the time a little, but I think most importantly, you are far more ''alert'' travelling at around 130 than you are travelling at a boring, sleepy 110


Graeme, I also see your point of view, However I would prefer to meet an Alert driver on the highway doing 130, ?? than meet a bored, sleepy, tired, driver doing 110

As far as where do we draw the limit of speed ?? As Phil said, 130kph
But Personally, I would set the MAX, speed at 125 Kph, and if caught exceeding it by 10 0r under $2000 FINE AND 6 POINTS and if caught exceeding at over 10 Klm $5000 fine and 6 months Loss of Lic.
This would only be on special major Highways between towns or interstate, and of course as with All speed zones, it would only be the max speed ''when safe to do so '' Rgs Daryl
0
FollowupID: 787692

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 00:03

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 00:03
Wow. Daryl. The state treasurer will love you lol. I can't disagree with you on some speed limits. They do seem silly on some roads and I have paid a days wage more than once to state revenue when I thought I should be allowed to go faster.
No matter what the limit, someone will always want them increased. Even if it was 130 out on those roads, how long would it be before people got used to that speed and hen complained that its too slow.
There's no magic bullet fix for any of it really. If everyone could be trusted to do as you say and adopt the " when it is safe to do so" attitude then it would be easy. But as in every walk of life there are those who can not make the distinction between what is safe and what isnt and spoil it for the rest of us. And when those people make a mistake then someone is killed or injured. So as I said we all pay for it with lower limits, speed cameras and cops with lasers.
The govts do listen though. A couple of years ago, it was having too many different speed limits that was in the media and being complained about. You may have noticed that now when coming out of say a 100 zone into a town the only signs you see are yellow 60 ahead signs then the 60 sign. Most of the 70 and 80 have gone leading into them. Now we get complaints that its not fair to drop the speed so suddenly and it's just another revenue raiser. You can't win!


Graeme
0
FollowupID: 787695

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 00:33

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 00:33
Phil,


Maybe factor this into your consideration of travel time saved:


Travelling at 130k/h is an increase of 18% over 110K/h.
But the kinetic energy of the vehicle has increased by 39%


So not only has the deceleration/stopping distance dramatically increased but so has the consequence of collision.


Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 787699

Reply By: Honky - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 00:09

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 00:09
When the previous NSW Government reduced the speed of the Newel highway the spoken was interviewed on the radio on why it was reduced.
He could not produce statistics in the end and just said that the if the drivers ran off the road at a lesser speed than less injury.
Since the speed limit has been increased back to 110 there has been no massive road kill.
My personal opinion it was done to reduce road maintenance and also increase revenue.
If speed kills than how come NT again has no deaths over the holidays even if they can travel at 130. Still not forgetting they reducing the speed limit from an open limit and killed more people but hey, they increased the revenue.
I get very angry when if you do a burn out in an area that is away from the public you can loose your vehicle and end up in gaol but if you home invade and bash or kill an elderly couple you can get a good behaviour bond.
Mandatory sentencing is not satisfactory in criminal cases but is in motor vehicle legislation.
I am sure if you check the statistics most accidents and deaths are under the posted speed limits ( excluding police chases and unlicensed and under age drivers). So the most dangerous drivers are the ones driving to or less than the speed limit. If you do not agree than show me details of one that going 10 ks over has caused an accident.
For the City do gooders this is in relation to country speed limits not city.

Honky

Honky
AnswerID: 509704

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:25

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:25
Hi honky. I woul live to see where you are referencing your facts from?
Google Newell highway review and there you will find some interesting fact. The review was conducted due to deaths and serious injuries trending upwards. One interesting fact is that the speed limit was increased in 1991 when there were 12 deaths. 1992 15 deaths 1993 24 deaths and 1995 25 deaths. Sort of blows your theory a little bit. The review recommended a raft of initiatives to improve this unnecessary waste of life (75 in 4 years). Reducing the speed limit was just one initiative but also lots of road improvements to help cope with the increased volume of traffic including hgv and b doubles. Also road widening and removal of tight radius curves. Installation of crash barriers, ripple sdtrips and more rest stops. As these have been implemented then the speed limits have been reviewed and some increased where possible. I couldn't find anything to support you opinion on lower speeds reducing maintenance and increasing revenue. Happy to bd corrected.
"Speed kills" has hot nothing to do with posted speed limits. It is merely a simple phrase that demonstrates that the faster you drive the more likely you will be involved in an accident. The faster you are going the bigger the hit and more chance of serious injury or death. Simple physics. I agree that on some country roads the limits could be higher. The only issue is that even if you are n expert driver and fully capable and comfortable at high speeds, the guy coming the other way may not be. He needs to be limited to a slower speed. We can't have different speeds for everyone so we all get lumped with the same limit.
Here is another fact straight from bureau of statistics and this makes a mess of the NT argument. Deaths per 100,000 of population. 2011 Victoria 5.1. NT. 19.12. That means if I live in NT I am 25 % more likely to be killed on the road than in Vic. But that rate is coming down. Interesting ?
I agree with you on scentencing. But the solution is to increase the punishment for bashing old people not reduce other punishments that you think are unfair. Doing burnouts is illegal and has cost many lives and caused many serious injuries. It should be punished accordingly.
Unfortunately your last statement on fatal crashes being related to driving over the posted limit makes no sense i have never read any evidence that suggests anything other than most accidents happen below the posted limit. What the stats show is that the faster you drive in most given circumstances, the more likely you will have an accident, your fault or not, and when you do the outcome will be worse.
More facts. In the last decade 30% of fatal crashes have been in speed zones upto 60k. 48%in speed zones of 90 or over. The good news is that overall Deaths have been reduced by nearly 25% in the last 10 years. Govt must be doing something right?
Hope that's enough facts for you. Happy to give you the links if interested. Sorry about any typos. I'm tired.
Graeme
1
FollowupID: 787702

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 14:36

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 14:36
Sometimes I wish I was a neurosurgeon. No one would ever pretend that they knew the game better than you.


As an electrical engineer, everyone who has put batteries into a torch believes they know more about electrics than you.


And as a cop, 'all you know about is the quota'. You are a special breed to keep your cool and put up with it!

Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 787743

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 14:54

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 14:54
LOL Thanks Allan. Nah nothing special. I get called names and criticised every single day in my job. Actually enjoy hearing something different occasionally but I think I may have heard them all by now.
The good thing is, for every armchair hero out there who thinks he knows better because some bloke down the pub saw something on the telly about corrupt cops, the only people I remember are the randoms that walk up to me, shake my hand and say thank you for no reason at all. That makes it worthwhile!

Graeme
1
FollowupID: 787746

Reply By: Pathycop - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:37

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:37
Just 1 last fact from the bureau stats. The average number of people killed per fatal crash in Australia is 1.10. In low speed zones it is around 1.05. In high speed zones it is 1.15. In NT THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE KILLED PER FATAL CRASH in speed zones of 110 and above IS 1.21. So more dangerous to travel faster. Graeme
AnswerID: 509706

Follow Up By: Rockape - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 05:28

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 05:28
7/17/2009
Australia: Deaths Go Up After Speed Limits Imposed
Imposing a speed limit on the Australian equivalent of the Autobahn created an increase in fatalities.

Up until 2007, rural roads in the Northern Territory, Australia had no speed limit. Claiming that speed limits were essential to saving lives, the state government imposed a 130km/h (80 MPH) limit on the Stuart, Arnhem, Victoria and Barkly highways and a 110km/h (68 MPH) speed limit on all other roads, unless otherwise marked lower. Despite the best of intentions, however, the number of road deaths actually increased 70 percent after the change -- despite worldwide drop in traffic levels (view chart).

"Our roads are safer, vehicles are safer, paramedics more skilled, drought affected roads are dry, the public have never been more aware of speed limit enforcement, penalties have never been tougher," RoadSense founder Harry Brelsford explained. "These factors should have driven the road toll lower than before. They have not, it is rising. Clearly more of the same is not only not working, it is killing people."

The Australian motorist rights group compiled the latest road fatality data provided by the Northern Territory Police. In 2006, the last year without rural highway speed limits, the road toll was 44. Last year, with speed limits on all roads, the death toll grew to 75 (view data, 400k PDF). The proliferation of speed cameras throughout the country has also increased the level of hazard faced by motorists.

In all of Australia, the death toll decreased by nearly a third between 1989 and 1996 -- without automated enforcement. In the next eight years following the introduction of speed cameras, 1997-2004, fatalities only dropped ten percent. Between 2005 and 2007, the death rate began to skyrocket.

"A major reason for the failure of the policy is the extreme focus on the dangers of above the limit travel to the exclusion of nearly all other risk factors," Brelsford said. "This implies that traveling below the speed limit is safe, leading to complacency, inattention and increased fatalities. Additionally, the current policy of hidden speed cameras has actually impaired driver awareness through adding to an increasing list of dangerous distractions."

RoadSense advocates setting speed limits at the 85th percentile speed, or the speed at which the vast majority are comfortable traveling. The group suggests that government efforts would be better directed at the 98 percent of accidents that happen while traveling at or below the posted speed limit.
1
FollowupID: 787703

Reply By: Pathycop - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 09:21

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 09:21
Ra. I assume your posting thirds stats as another example of this BS you started the ghee ad about originally? Not sure but if it is then yes I agree this sort of selective quoting of stats by the usual biased "rights" group is the best example I have seen so far. The usual very selective use of a narrow band of stars to try and prove a point is typical of the BS you say you hate.
The snap shot on 2007 stats and claiming it was only influenced by speed limit introduction doesn't make sense particularly when they state all deathss rose to 75 the year limits were introduced whilst failing to point out that the year following that all deaths dropped to 30. A staggering decrease that no right minded unbiased group would claim is due to one single factor. Yes I do agree with you. I hate it when paid experts spew out exactly what they are asked for to try and sway my thinking. Thanks for finding this example. Virtually all those stats they quote are selective and deliberately aimed at the masses to influence opinion their way. I like the Bureau of Statistics site. Pure unbiased long term stats with no claims about anything. Leaves the likes of us who hate BS to make up our own minds. Very interesting stats relating to speed zones in there too.
The conclusion about most crashes happening at or below the posted speed limit is spot on and exactly what I said. One problem though. The higher you set the limit, the more crashes will be captured as happening within the limit. thats how these rights groups confuse the masses. Interesting paradox?
Graeme
AnswerID: 509720

Follow Up By: Rockape - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:17

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:17
Greame,
don't get me wrong. The amount of miss information out there is staggering and what I was on about was exactly that.

I agree the bureau of stats are the best source but they are often to pure and don't give the full story until each case is analysed.

Seems to me that inattention is the cause of many accidents now, be it from fatigue or gadgets in vehicles.
0
FollowupID: 787724

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:47

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:47
Spot on Rock ape. I have access to all detailed analysis of every fatal in Victoria and that can be sad reading I can tell you that. Speed and alcohol are a Factor in nearly 2/3rds of all fatalities. Note the word factor. Not cause. There are a whole host of events that can come together at the wrong time to cause a disaster. Some are just plain bad luck.
You are dead right about the Inattention. Not just drivers though. The numbers of pedestrian injury and fatality are going up. Thank Apple for that one!
Here's the problem that all jurastictions face though. More pedis being hit by cars.public outcry of lack of action from the police on Today Tonight. Police target peds crossing roads un safely. News story on Currnt Affair about waste of police resources handing out fines for J walking when people's houses are being burgled!!!. That actually happened last year!

Graeme
0
FollowupID: 787729

Follow Up By: Member - Laurie K (WA) - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 14:29

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 14:29
This is probably off topic, and I apologize if it is, and I accept that I may get given a rocket because of it.
My problem is with hidden cameras and the great lengths police and camera operators go to, to hide themselves. I would have thought that if the authorities were genuinely concerned about speeding, that they would use the deterrent of nipping it in the bud and having their agents exposed. (re Pathycops reaction time to seeing a police car).
I fail to see how a fine notice received a week or so AFTER the offence has been committed is a serious deterrent. It seems to me entirely possible that if an offender is clocked at a high speed through a speed trap, then it is imperative that the offender be apprehended at THAT moment. What damage could he do in the next few minutes.
If the offending motorist is stopped at the time of speeding, detained while details are taken, vehicle looked over, possible illegal cargo discovered, breath tested ........ the disruption to the drivers current schedule (as well as the fine and demerits earned) would be a far more effective solution, as well as supporting the other areas of policing.
In the days of amphometers, that was possible. But it seems that we are using electronics to increase our revenue base, and not taking advantage of the potential that it affords.
0
FollowupID: 787741

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 14:44

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 14:44
Hi Laurie. Completely agree re hidden camer etc. not a big fan. Fortunately though those sort of tactics are only a tiny part of the overall efforts to reduce road trauma and even though sneaky they do serve some purpose. Whilst it is always better to stop the offending driver and give him the once over on the spot, and yes the mere sight of a police car even causes this cop to lift his foot, the object of the cameras be it static, mobile hidden or otherwise is to create the sense of " I could be caught anytime, even when I think no one is watching" thoughts. Don't know about you but when I'm on roads I don't know we'll, I am extra cautious about my speed so I don't blow a days pay to the treasurer via a camera car or similar. So they do have an effect, just the idea is deterrent in the first place. As I said though , not a big fan myself but unfortunately there will never be enough money to get enough cops out on the road so the electronic cops have to fill the gap.
As far as revenue goes. All contributions are voluntary, paid some myself, and without that revenue, the state would be broke or other taxes would be required to be imposed on everyone, not just the voluntary contributors. ;)

Graeme
0
FollowupID: 787744

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 14:55

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 14:55
Laurie, I would think that the benefit of concealed speed detectors is that motorists do not know where they are or when they are, so the lead-foot motorist is more likely to keep below the limit at all times. Even delayed penalty will eventually result in licence loss due to points lost.
Their employment has not precluded the activity of police patrols who are able to intercept as you have described.
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 787747

Follow Up By: Member - Laurie K (WA) - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 15:15

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 15:15
My point is that "It seems to me entirely possible that if an offender is clocked at a high speed through a speed trap, then it is imperative that the offender be apprehended at THAT moment. What damage could he do in the next few minutes. "
A vehicle travelling at 20kms or more over the speed limit has a closing speed at that speed or greater, and a misjudgement at that speed could be disastrous.
A letter a couple of weeks later isn't going to help the victims if the offender does "strike"

Just my thoughts
Cheers
Laurie

0
FollowupID: 787748

Follow Up By: Pathycop - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 15:25

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 15:25
Hi Laurie

As I said I entirely agree that in a perfect world of limitless money then a cop on very corner 24 hrs a day will be better than an electronic device. But this will never happen. As Allen says, the mere thought of being caught is the deterrent, and then getting a fine in the post later is a kick in the proverbials to get the message home that you could be caught anytime. Just talking about it happening to you to your peers will also serve as a deterrent. So yes, it is arse about face but does have the same final effect in modifying driver behaviour as part of a whole raft of other measures. No one measure on its own will work, and no one on the police side of the fence ever claims that, but a combination of them will get better outcomes. It's only the hard core camera haters that focus on that one measure and not look at the wholistic approach being adopted around the state.

Thanks. Graeme
0
FollowupID: 787750

Follow Up By: Rockape - Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 20:08

Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 at 20:08
Graeme,
it is about time you became a member so you can give a balanced view from your side of the fence. It isn't that expensive. Thing about it anyway.

From an ex truckie I very seldom had problems with your side of the fence except when I pushed the limits. I always worked on the principal
of. Well I got busted but I am just paying penance for all the times I didn't.

Have a good one
RA.
0
FollowupID: 787771

Reply By: Penchy - Friday, Apr 26, 2013 at 13:13

Friday, Apr 26, 2013 at 13:13
I didn't read the link, but have a fair idea of it's contents. As Pathycop pointed out, braking distance increases with speed, its not hard. But what I would like to point out myself, is I like to leave a safe distance from the car in front - 2 to 3 seconds (I drive a 2.5T Patrol) and I am sick of all these idiots in small cars fly up the left lane that is ending, and jam their way in front of me to save themselves an extra 5 seconds on their trip and put their safety, and other road uses safety at risk. I have made it habit now (where possible) to position my car half in the left lane, half in the middle lane to p*** these people off - does a good job too going off recent responses so I encourage other 4wders to do the same.
AnswerID: 509834

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)