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 :

[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

[RedHotGT]

Oh Dear...

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

[aussie muscle]

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

[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.

[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?

[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...

[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?

[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?

[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".

[Agent86]

After having completed 10,500 odd klms across north america, i will say that the higher roadspeeds and lack of speed BS enforcement made for smooth traveling.

Didnt see a single accident either. We need a complete new government system in place.

The old system is based on Old Brittian, whihc australia is a polar opposite to.

Everything they do here, is based on ideas from the 'motherland'...

Victoria has a housing shortage..
Hello, australia is FULL of nothing, but the system that has caused this is brittish....

[chevypower]

Everyone buy a Mercedes and support people like that!

[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.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by Agent86

After having completed 10,500 odd klms across north america, i will say that the higher roadspeeds and lack of speed BS enforcement made for smooth traveling.

Didnt see a single accident either. We need a complete new government system in place.

The old system is based on Old Brittian, whihc australia is a polar opposite to.

Everything they do here, is based on ideas from the 'motherland'...

Victoria has a housing shortage..
Hello, australia is FULL of nothing, but the system that has caused this is brittish....

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....

[trippytaka]

Speed is an easy target for politicians looking for revenue. Nothing will change as long as mainstream media and politicians keep feeding the public this line. Governments have WAY too much invested in speeding. It's their main business.

[9triton]

read the actual article on the age -

comments closed after 1 comment ....-

mmm me suspects someone put pressure on to ensure no non governemental views were aired

[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.

[Silver Ghia]

Unfortunately theres more to keeping to 100 here.

Its because our uneducated drivers persist in staying in the RH lanes doing 90. Over there the slower drivers must stay in the left (right in Europe as they go the other way) lanes.

So you cant do much more than 100/110 safely anyway (depending on congestion).

And that our pollies have their minds made up on this issue.

But this is so true:

"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,"

[flappist]

The problem here is that any evidence or even proof that paranoid speed limiting does not save lives will be ignored and lambasted by those with a vested interest (and those who are simple or are trolls or both).

Try to tell cigarette retailers, manufacturers or smokers that smoking will kill you always draw huge angry responses and more spin than a merry-go-round.

Try to explain evolution to fundamentalists and you get the same result.

They are right and we are wrong, that is the way the truth and the light because they must be right because it is the core of their beliefs so they must be right because that is the way it is so they must be right...........

The amusing thing about the "pro speed limit" loonies is that they NEVER offer any actual evidence where reducing speed limits has saved lives and whenever any evidence that lowering speed limits has made no difference or infact increased the road toll such evidence must be invalid.

e.g. NT 130 vs open, Bruce Hwy Cooroy to Curra 100 vs 90, Montana USA 55MPH vs open etc. (these are only the ones I can think of right this minute)

In each of these cases the lower limits have not lowered road deaths and in two of these actually increased them significantly.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by flappist

The problem here is that any evidence or even proof that paranoid speed limiting does not save lives will be ignored and lambasted by those with a vested interest (and those who are simple or are trolls or both).

Try to tell cigarette retailers, manufacturers or smokers that smoking will kill you always draw huge angry responses and more spin than a merry-go-round.

Try to explain evolution to fundamentalists and you get the same result.

They are right and we are wrong, that is the way the truth and the light because they must be right because it is the core of their beliefs so they must be right because that is the way it is so they must be right...........

The amusing thing about the "pro speed limit" loonies is that they NEVER offer any actual evidence where reducing speed limits has saved lives and whenever any evidence that lowering speed limits has made no difference or infact increased the road toll such evidence must be invalid.

e.g. NT 130 vs open, Bruce Hwy Cooroy to Curra 100 vs 90, Montana USA 55MPH vs open etc. (these are only the ones I can think of right this minute)

In each of these cases the lower limits have not lowered road deaths and in two of these actually increased them significantly.

The point about 'vested interest' is a good one. Of course stats can be twisted to suit any view but it always puzzles me (having done a bit of academic research) how the government can keep on quoting these 'research papers'. These gov. funded documents always seems to provide nice little quotes to prove that 'speeding kills' and that attacking speeding is the 'number one best way to reduce road deaths'.

My question is both how on earth these australian researchers come up with this conclusion, and is it, as i suspect, because of gov. pressure (via funding) that encourages such a research outcome? I've seen plenty of researchers get leaned on when working on company sponsored work to come to conclusions that were desired by their benefactors....i think its the same in this case.

The research centre at Monash uni seems to be in on this quite heavilly.....they with scruby et. al seem to provide endless amount of 'proof' (of unknown sources) that the aus. gov. approach is both the right one and that it is working. Yet raw data (available if you are prepared to dig deep enough on state. gov. websites) suggests otherwise. Even 'media reported' figures (e.g. the 130km/h vs open limit in NT) don't stack up to the 'speed kills' mantra.

Moreover, publicly available research from overseas sources (both US and Europe) plainly suggests the opposite. US studies have shown 'no measurable safety benefit from lowered limits' and a UK study noted that only 13% of traffic accidents had 'unsafe speed' as the primary factor....that is traveling faster then safe for the road conditions....god knows how low that % would be if if included only the aussie definition of 'speeding' which is faster than the posted limit.....

Why is 50% or more of traffic enforcment effort being put into something that is only responsible for 13% of accidents?? Its worth noting the biggest contributor to road death in the UK based on that (very detailed) study was a failure to properly negotiate an intersection....somethign like 35% of fatal accidents occured when one or more drivers were at fault at a T junction or similar..... yeah bet the road side speed cameras are great at policing T junctions :

[SB076]

Victoria is going the other way - drove home from the airport the other day - speed limit from the tunnel to beyond Toorak Rd was 80 k's (I dont think the digital signs can even show 100) For those from interstate this is a four lane freeway that has recently been resealed with no road work and we are only allowed to do 80k's

[DJL351]

It is the same arguement as the 'guns' one.

Guns don't kill etc....... you will always end up with two groups; and in most cases, the group with the
bigger (biggest) scare campain/tactic will win the support of the 'Joe Bloggs' simpletons.