Speed doesn’t kill...

[vztrt]

http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-new...0304-pjin.html

Speed doesn’t kill, says Benz

RICHARD BLACKBURN
March 5, 2010

Safety expert for Mercedes says strict speeding laws are not the answer to lowering road tolls.

A leading safety expert says a crackdown on speeding is not the answer to reducing the road toll.

The vice president of safety development for Mercedes-Benz, Ulrich Mellinghoff, says crash avoidance systems, better roads and more roundabouts would do more to cut the road toll than tougher speeding laws.

The approach is in direct contrast to state governments in NSW and Victoria, who have been preaching the "speed kills" mantra as the number one panacea for the road toll.

Mr Mellinghoff says motorists often fell into the trap of thinking they were driving safely because they were doing less than the speed limit.

He says the German road toll had reduced significantly in the past 20 years, despite much higher speeds on the roads.

" In Germany you can drive as fast as you want. I don't think that speed alone is the problem. It's the wrong speed in a special situation. With speed limits you will not stop those situations. If you have fog and drive at 100km/h, which is allowed, you are really in high danger of having an accident. On the other hand, if you drive 250km/h on the German autobahn in clear weather conditions with no traffic, it's not really a risk and no accidents happen in those situations," he says.

His claims are borne out by German road statistics. In 1972, there were 20,000 deaths on West German roads. In 2009, there were 4100, despite 20 million more people on the road (including the old East Germany).

"That was with much worse traffic and significantly more vehicles on the road," says Mellinghoff.

"What we have seen is there are a lot of very different reasons for accidents. Sometimes it is not the high speed, it is the wrong speed. If you limit the speed, the driver often thinks all they have to do is drive the speed limit and they don't have to think," he says.

It was better to put the responsibility for driving at the right speed on the shoulders of the individual driver.

Accident avoidance technology, including pedestrian avoidance systems, also had the potential to drastically reduce the road toll.

When stability control was introduced on all cars in Germany, there was a 30 per cent reduction in accidents where a single car leaves the road.

He says Australia's New Car Assessment Program, which crash tests cars and awards safety ratings, should reward vehicles more for crash avoidance, rather than the protection they offered in a crash.

"They should focus more on these assistance systems. It makes more sense to avoid an accident than to reduce the severity of it," he says.

Mercedes was working on a variety of advanced systems designed to cut the road toll, including infra-red systems that detect pedestrians at the side of the road in the dark and spotlight them to alert the driver.

The company also had brake assistance technology that intervened to provide maximum braking force in an emergency situation.

He says the assistance, which occurs in the last 100 milliseconds before a crash, can reduce impact speeds by 5 to 6km/h.

He says Germany has seen good results from increasing the number of roundabouts, as they reduce the number of severe accidents at intersections, while better separating vehicles from cyclists and pedestrians also helps to keep the toll down.

He believes car to car communication can also play a big role in reducing the toll, with cars able to warn drivers behind them about hazardous road conditions including ice on the road or accidents ahead.

[hydraulicmonkey]

WOOOOOOO finally. :

Will be ignored by those who make the decisions though :

[aussie muscle]

and everyone gets to work sooner. australia needs an autobahn system, especially with our vast distances and low population.

[TUF_302]

Originally Posted by hydraulicmonkey

WOOOOOOO finally. :

Will be ignored by those who make the decisions though :

Sad but True! :

[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

[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....

[RedHotGT]

Oh Dear...

Tracey Grimshaw will be shattered... Jeremy Clarkson said it first!

[Jondalar]

We are in a resources boom the like of which we may never see again, now is the time to built the autobahn or aussiebarn is you prefer.. The stimulus package would've been much more wisely spent on highways and other infrastructure than imaginary insulation, oh well.

[Wally]

Speed has always been blamed, when it's really velocity that is culprit. Crash avoidance addresses the velocity problem.

[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.

[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...

[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....

[EDManual]

And thats why I speed, I dont believe all the media and government tell me :-)...

I have driven everywhere (including German autobahns) and as far as I see if theres no one around me, who is there to hurt? I'm not going to hurt myself as I drive to the conditions.

I get caught a fair bit by cops in deserted places which as a consequence I have no respect for. I dont even care. I have no worry, no feeling of guilt... To me speeding is no worse than a parking ticket.

In fact I dont mind paying a 4 or 5 hundred dollars a year in fines. Keeps my fun up, speed up, I concentrate more, drive better, safer, etc etc and I get to places heaps quicker so I can work better.

In France the other week, we drove on the Autoroutes, 130 zones, most cruise a little faster at 140 tp 150ish. However you have to pay about as much money in tolls as fuel.

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 :-)

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by EDManual

And thats why I speed, I dont believe all the media and government tell me :-)...

I have driven everywhere (including German autobahns) and as far as I see if theres no one around me, who is there to hurt? I'm not going to hurt myself as I drive to the conditions.

I get caught a fair bit by cops in deserted places which as a consequence I have no respect for. I dont even care. I have no worry, no feeling of guilt... To me speeding is no worse than a parking ticket.

In fact I dont mind paying a 4 or 5 hundred dollars a year in fines. Keeps my fun up, speed up, I concentrate more, drive better, safer, etc etc and I get to places heaps quicker so I can work better.

In France the other week, we drove on the Autoroutes, 130 zones, most cruise a little faster at 140 tp 150ish. However you have to pay about as much money in tolls as fuel.

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 going for demerit points?

[just_pazz]

Originally Posted by EDManual

And thats why I speed, I dont believe all the media and government tell me :-)...

I have driven everywhere (including German autobahns) and as far as I see if theres no one around me, who is there to hurt? I'm not going to hurt myself as I drive to the conditions.

I get caught a fair bit by cops in deserted places which as a consequence I have no respect for. I dont even care. I have no worry, no feeling of guilt... To me speeding is no worse than a parking ticket.

In fact I dont mind paying a 4 or 5 hundred dollars a year in fines. Keeps my fun up, speed up, I concentrate more, drive better, safer, etc etc and I get to places heaps quicker so I can work better.

In France the other week, we drove on the Autoroutes, 130 zones, most cruise a little faster at 140 tp 150ish. However you have to pay about as much money in tolls as fuel.

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 :-)

This is exactly my attitude minus the international travelling though.... unfortunately. :

Only thing is it hurts the hip pocket.... currently paying of around 5k in speeding fines.... lost my licence three times via demerit points. Still.... I'd rather pay through the nose... and not have to put put around 20k under the speed limit, bored outta my brain, like most of the other drivers on our roads.

Like you said ED... as long as you drive to the conditions there is no harm done. Besides ol' man Brumby banks on people like me.... my monthly contribution goes "to making our roads a safer place"... what would they do without it?

[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 :

[EDManual]

Well, I have had lots, and done the 12 point probation thing 3 times.... Still :-)

[ebxr8240]

Show me the percentage where alcohol, licensed, under age, defective cars, no seat belt, drugs etc etc are involved.. These would be much higher than the speed alone...
There are many accidents at the legal speed where death's acure !!!

[Outback]

Speed doesn't kill, its the sudden stop that kills you when you hit the tree.

110 is a perfect speed.

[ebxr8240]

Originally Posted by Outback

Speed doesn't kill, its the sudden stop that kills you when you hit the tree.

110 is a perfect speed.

I wouldn't like to hit a tree at any reasonable speed...
Inattention to driving is most the problem...

[Scott]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

I wouldn't like to hit a tree at any reasonable speed...
Inattention to driving is most the problem...

Correct - here is my broken record statement "complacency is the biggest killer on our roads".

Speed, Alcohol, Hooning etc are very minor contributors to our road toll - they are however major contributors to revenue raising.

It is just too hard for the Government to tax "clusterf&^ks".

[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?

[Jondalar]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

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



How does more round abouts save lives?

It's very hard to have a T-bone type crash at a roundabout, maybe that's how, plus they are way cheaper to run than traffic lights.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

How does more round abouts save lives?

Dunno, maybe has something to do with running traffic lights. I see the occasional serious accident at lights. Rarely do I see something as serious at a roundabout.

[GT290]

Originally Posted by cs123

Dunno, maybe has something to do with running traffic lights. I see the occasional serious accident at lights. Rarely do I see something as serious at a roundabout.

They are simple to use. Give way too your right, how hard is that! Safer than running an amber or red light aye!

[prydey]

Originally Posted by GT290

They are simple to use. Give way too your right, how hard is that! Safer than running an amber or red light aye!

not really very practicle on roads with high traffic volume, esp in peak hours. it would take you much longer to get through the intersection (if you ever did) than with traffic lights.

i personally wouldn't have an issue with red light/speed camera's on every major intersection.

i'm sure there are many who think they can think up a multitude of scenario's where that wouldn't work but the fact is, whenever you approach an intersection, you should be expecting it to change and be 'covering' your brake. if you have someone up your tail, its still better to pull up a car length over the line than risk going through.

its a sensitive topic because often its a split second judgement call but thats all part of the privilege of driving on the road. you should be aware of your vehicles capabilities and drive accordingly.

as much as we all accept the govt is barking up the wrong tree, they will continue to do so while mindless acts of stupidity happen on our roads.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by prydey

not really very practicle on roads with high traffic volume, esp in peak hours. it would take you much longer to get through the intersection (if you ever did) than with traffic lights.

i personally wouldn't have an issue with red light/speed camera's on every major intersection.

i'm sure there are many who think they can think up a multitude of scenario's where that wouldn't work but the fact is, whenever you approach an intersection, you should be expecting it to change and be 'covering' your brake. if you have someone up your tail, its still better to pull up a car length over the line than risk going through.

its a sensitive topic because often its a split second judgement call but thats all part of the privilege of driving on the road. you should be aware of your vehicles capabilities and drive accordingly.

as much as we all accept the govt is barking up the wrong tree, they will continue to do so while mindless acts of stupidity happen on our roads.

Some very good points there.

Anyone from Brisbane will probably remember the old Centenary Hwy/Southwest Freeway, a highway that was 4 lanes in places but had a roundabout at each end. Every morning and every afternoon that place became a car park. Yes roundabouts may be better from the aspect of preventing morons that can't drive safely from bumping into each other but it is deficient from a traffic flow point of view.

There is nothing wrong with traffic lights, once people realise that green means "proceed through the intersection if safe to do so", not "quick mail it before it turns yellow". I too see no problem with speed/red light cameras on every major set of lights and black spot smaller intersections. If you have to accelerate to make it through on the yellow, considering your vehicle can decelerate faster than it can accelerate, you could have stopped.

[T3man]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

How does more round abouts save lives?

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.

[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?