Speed doesn’t kill...

[GT290]

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

I do know if they do 60 kph on the RH lanes on a motorway in England, they will very soon get the message. Also remember that overtaking on the left is illegal over there.

Here, we just pass on the left dont we? As a result they are none the wiser.

Yes and the other thing about it all is that some drivers in the right lane think they have the right to sit there just because they are doing 100 ks or the speed limit.
The speed limit in the UK being 70 miles per hour, you can actually travel at 80 to 90 miles per hour with out being booked. So the right lane is for the faster flowing traffic, and those happy doing the posted limt can do so but in the other lanes.
Unfortunately there is not much advantage here as you can be booked for doing 5 ks over the limit.

[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.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

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.

All good in theory especially if you have good brakes.

Unfortunately the moron right behind you in the giant 4WD or crap drum braked holden or falcon can't stop as quickly as you and may run you over.

I have several memories of clouds of blue smoke drifting over my car after a long squeal only to look in the rear view and see something crossed up about 5mm behind me and have been hit once.

Sometimes it is actually safer to accelerate to avoid those behind you as well as those in the cross streets.

Very few things are black and white........

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by flappist

All good in theory especially if you have good brakes.

Unfortunately the moron right behind you in the giant 4WD or crap drum braked holden or falcon can't stop as quickly as you and may run you over.

I have several memories of clouds of blue smoke drifting over my car after a long squeal only to look in the rear view and see something crossed up about 5mm behind me and have been hit once.

Sometimes it is actually safer to accelerate to avoid those behind you as well as those in the cross streets.

Very few things are black and white........

Agreed, as someone who tows a heavy trailer behind a 4wd everyday, I have experienced quite a few close calls where the person in front of me has all but locked up the brakes when seeing an amber light where most people would go through.

My wish is they learn the error of their ways by doing this in front of a truck instead of me. :

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

All good in theory especially if you have good brakes.

Unfortunately the moron right behind you in the giant 4WD or crap drum braked holden or falcon can't stop as quickly as you and may run you over.

I have several memories of clouds of blue smoke drifting over my car after a long squeal only to look in the rear view and see something crossed up about 5mm behind me and have been hit once.

Sometimes it is actually safer to accelerate to avoid those behind you as well as those in the cross streets.

Very few things are black and white........

If every one lifts of the accelerator and covers the brake approaching a green light and approaches with due care with consideration that a green actually means proceed if it is safe to do so, there will not be an issue. If everyone remembers to give adequate distance when following another car, i.e. the 2 second rule as advised by QLD Transport, the cloud of blue smoke from the truck or 4WD will not be a problem. That is black and white, proven by the fact that the majority of the motoring public get it right.

If people can't get used to this idea, then what are we to do? The only thing that could then be considered is to drop the speed limit through all intersections at traffic lights to 40 km/h and force people to back off the gas and travel at a speed that they can stop in an emergency if they need to. I know I do not want that and would prefer that we improve driver attitude rather than legislate according to the minority with crap driver attitudes.

Accelerating through a yellow, is never a safe option, it may be the lesser of two evils but it is never a safe option. I have seen too many examples of where it has gone wrong.

My suggestion is a increased enforcement effort on tail gating, yellow lights and keeping left along with a nationwide publicity campaign on these issues. I believe that will make headway into reducing some of the accidents that I attend, more than people sitting 5 km over the limit. Then maybe we will see a further decrease in road crashes and I can get more time on shift to do some education with my student or watch some really good DVD's.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Agreed, as someone who tows a heavy trailer behind a 4wd everyday, I have experienced quite a few close calls where the person in front of me has all but locked up the brakes when seeing an amber light where most people would go through.

My wish is they learn the error of their ways by doing this in front of a truck instead of me. :

Hate to say it and I mean no offence, but the incident you refer to means you were traveling too close for the load you were carrying and the changed vehicle dynamics. It is your responsibility to adjust your traveling distance according to your vehicle's braking abilities in respect to your load. It is not the responsibility of the person in front to decide if it is safe to stop or not because of your vehicles load and your ability to stop.

What if that person threw out the anchor because a child walked out between two cars, or a pedestrian saw the yellow light, assumed the cars would stop and started to cross. Does that car in front still have to consider your braking distance? No they don't.

That is also black and white.

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Hate to say it and I mean no offence, but the incident you refer to means you were traveling too close for the load you were carrying and the changed vehicle dynamics. It is your responsibility to adjust your traveling distance according to your vehicle's braking abilities in respect to your load. It is not the responsibility of the person in front to decide if it is safe to stop or not because of your vehicles load and your ability to stop.

What if that person threw out the anchor because a child walked out between two cars, or a pedestrian saw the yellow light, assumed the cars would stop and started to cross. Does that car in front still have to consider your braking distance? No they don't.

That is also black and white.

No offense taken.

Geko you making out as though an incident took place or i would not be ready for one, this is not the case. I have never hit another car and always pull up in time. (touch wood)

This however does not excuse someone from using the amber light as a brake test for their vehicle when they are close to entering the intersection doing 80kph.

I also ride motorbikes which brake much better than cars, if i was to use the same technique my life expectancy would be in weeks not years.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

No offense taken.

Geko you making out as though an incident took place or i would not be ready for one, this is not the case. I have never hit another car and always pull up in time. (touch wood)

This however does not excuse someone from using the amber light as a brake test for their vehicle when they are close to entering the intersection doing 80kph.

I also ride motorbikes which brake much better than cars, if i was to use the same technique my life expectancy would be in weeks not years.

'

Granted, but the mention of "close call" means too close.

My point is, and the point of any driving instructor is, that any intersection that you approach, if you have to accelerate to make it through on a yellow, you could have safely stopped. That is the way the police look at it and with the timing of the lights there is no need to accelerate through, doing so is unsafe.

This subject has really been done to death in previous threads, there really is not point in discussion. I have my view that is based on numerous course in heavy and emergency vehicle operation, as well as 6 years experience cleaning up the mess of unsafe vehicle use. No scenario anyone throws at me will convince me that running up the back of someone is ever the fault of the person in front, the laws sees it this way too. That is black and white, there is no other way to consider it.

[Falcon Coupe]

Argue all you want, we shall have to disagree. Being punted through an intersection by a truck must make one feel better (by consolation) if they know they're in the right.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Argue all you want, we shall have to disagree. Being punted through an intersection by a truck must make one feel better (by consolation) if they know they're in the right.

what Gecko says is correct, but it is prefaced by 'IF'. the reality is, people don't follow simple rules regarding following distances etc, and those that do often find that space eaten up by other inconsiderate impatient drivers.

worrying about people too close behind you while approaching an intersection is one thing, but what about the person waiting to turn right accross the intersection. it is legal for these people to wait in the intersection and when the lights turn orange, they must then wait to make sure everyone stops. often the light goes orange and they assume it is then safe to turn, not knowing that the approaching car is looking in his rear view mirror and deciding to continue through.

it isn't a perfect world. all we can do as individuals is make sure we are doing the right thing.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Argue all you want, we shall have to disagree. Being punted through an intersection by a truck must make one feel better (by consolation) if they know they're in the right.

Yes we will disagree because you are missing my point. If the vehicle behind is traveling at a safe distance this situation will not happen. The QLD department of transport recommends a following distance of 2 seconds which at 80 km/h equates to 45m, double that for wet roads or heavy vehicles which equates that to 90m. I am sure all other states follow similar recommendations.

Hence, my argument that the best management for traffic light safety is not to allow or support people accelerating through as it is never a safe option. The best method is to promote safe driving habits such as using due care and attention through intersections and safe following distances.

I am pretty sure you will agree with that.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by prydey

what Gecko says is correct, but it is prefaced by 'IF'. the reality is, people don't follow simple rules regarding following distances etc, and those that do often find that space eaten up by other inconsiderate impatient drivers.

worrying about people too close behind you while approaching an intersection is one thing, but what about the person waiting to turn right accross the intersection. it is legal for these people to wait in the intersection and when the lights turn orange, they must then wait to make sure everyone stops. often the light goes orange and they assume it is then safe to turn, not knowing that the approaching car is looking in his rear view mirror and deciding to continue through.

it isn't a perfect world. all we can do as individuals is make sure we are doing the right thing.

Agreed, it is not a perfect world and dangerous situations occur as a result of people doing dangerous things in a number of areas. The thing is, it does not have to be that way. With a change in driver attitudes we can all get home safe at night, no one here wants legislation changed and speed limits decreased to a point to make the dangerous driver safe. It does not work and it just make travel that bit more annoying.

If you keep a safe distance and some idiot jumps in between, so what. Just slow down a tad, keep that safe distance and make sure you get home safe. Better to lose 20 seconds of your day than to be involved in a crash and lose the whole day, sustain an injury or even lose your life.

I always laugh at the heavy vehicles with the advisory sign on the back stating the vehicle requires 100m to stop safely at 100 km/h and asks motorists to take this into account when overtaking. Yet that truck is following the car in front, allowing only 30m and traveling at 100 km/h :

[vztrt]

http://www.caradvice.com.au/60110/fa...fe-in-germany/

Fast is Safe in Germany

March 8, 2010 by Anthony Crawford

It seems that the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) of New South Wales just doesn’t get it when it comes to the principal causes of driver related deaths on our less than perfect roads. At least, that’s according to an article in last Friday’s Sydney Morning Herald.

The blame game, played enthusiastically by the RTA, is summed up in the all too familiar words from one of their spokespersons.

“Speed remains a major factor in crashes throughout NSW, with 40 per cent of fatalities speed related”.

As we have come to expect from the rhetorical folks at the RTA, there is not a single mention of the fact that the poorly maintained roads in this state, may have been a contributing factor in many of these tragic deaths.

Moreover we have far too many people behind the wheel in this country, who seem utterly oblivious to their fellow drivers and as a result, are dangerously unpredictable and incredibly frustrating.

Let’s take the first issue, roads. I thought they had to be evenly surfaced structures rather than the all too familiar convex shaped roads that seem to form after the countless re-surfaces on the same stretch of road.

And if it should rain cats and dogs on this fresh piece of tarmac, then you might want to avoid driving on it, as the road is just as likely to crumble away under you. Worse still, it may also be littered with nasty little potholes, which would then require another Sunday night resurface job by the highly paid and ultra covert, RTA special ops road building unit.

Driving down the side of a hill while negotiating clusters of wheel warping craters, just doesn’t seem all that that safe to me.

So I’m guessing it’s the half-assed attempt at road building in this state, which why we are so often presented with lavish 8-lane roads, which are sign posted with a maximum speed of just 70km/h. That just wouldn’t work in Germany.

And what about the ever growing numbers of drivers who continue to join the high and mighty “60km/h in right hand lane club”, many of whom appear to be life members with absolute immunity from the rathe of the Highway Patrol. What happened to the “keep left unless overtaking” rule in the learner driver’s handbook?

But heaven help you, should you fail to take your eyes off the road and check the speedometer for the 99th time in a single hour, and you’re caught doing 8km/h over the RTA’s maximum speed limit.

The result is, you could lose your licence, your job, and a truckload of money, which certainly won’t go to the ‘better roads” budget, at least not in this cash haemorrhaging state of ours.

It’s a vastly different story in that Mecca of speed Germany, where fast is safe, and 110km/h in the slow lane will get you high beam flashes and some very angry stares from Ma and Pa Kettle, who are just as likely to be of your grandparents age.

I know this for a fact, as on our way to drive the world’s fastest car (Bugatti Veyron) in 2008, our Ford Mondeo had a puncture and the space saver tyre was only rated to 80km/h, which we tried to adhere to until the level of angst by other drivers became almost dangerous.

But drivers in Germany live under an entirely different set of rules that we Australia do, where “Speed alone is not the problem. It’s the wrong speed in a special situation”, says Ulrich Mellinghoff, Vice President of safety development for Mercedes-Benz.

He goes on to say, “With speed limits you will not stop those situations. If you have fog and drive at 100km/h, which is allowed, you are really high in danger of having an accident. On the other hand, if you drive at 250km/h on the German autobahn in clear weather conditions with no traffic, its not really a risk and no accidents happen those situations” he says.

He’s right, with over 4000 kilometres logged over the last two years, at speeds well over 250km/h on the German autobahn road system, we have never witnessed a single accident.

For a start, the left lane is the fast lane in Europe, which means, that if you have a clear stretch ahead of you and you happen to be behind the wheel of an Audi R8 tuned by ABT, you can quite safely wind it up to 321km/h or cruise at 270km/h without giving it a second thought.

You may even pass a slower moving car of the AutobahnPolizei, who won’t blink an eye as you blast on by them.

But should you pass another driver on the right hand lane at high speed, then look out, as you might end up behind bars. Overtaking on the right (that would be the opposite ‘left side’ in Australia) is treated as a criminal offence in Germany, given the potential catastrpohe it could cause on the autobahn.

It’s just not something that German drivers do (or drivers in Italy, France and Spain for that matter). In fact, nine times out of ten, you won’t need to flash your lights at the car in front of you, as they will instinctively move to the right without any hesitation whatsoever.

Like I said, it’s a vastly different driving culture from what has been allowed to develop in Australia, where more often than not, anything over 80km/h is considered unsafe on multilane roads.

Mr Mellinghoff makes an important point, which is not being heard by Australian authorities, when he says, “motorists often fall into the trap of thinking they are driving safely because they are driving under the speed limit”

He says, “The German road toll has reduced significantly in the past 20 years, despite much higher road speeds” and the 20 million drivers on their roads.

He also stresses the importance of accident avoidance systems like Electronic Stability programs and ABS in reducing the number fatalities. Like he says, “It makes more sense to avoid an accident than reducing the severity of it”. But that’s common sense isn’t it?

But the real problem in Australia is that our cars are too old. The average Aussie car is no less than 10 years old, which is alarming when you consider that many of our youngest and most inexperienced drivers have no ABS or Electronic Stability fitted to their cars.

While I fully support traffic enforcement, can I suggest that the RTA’s singular obsession with speed needs to be tempered with significantly better road funding.

In addition, and perhaps even more important, is the requirement for the RTA to work with the NSW State Government on incentives to get our kids into newer (and preferably 5-star) cars as a matter of extreme urgency.

We have some fine roads in NSW, namely the freeway from Sydney to Newcastle and the M5 towards Bowral and beyond to Tumut. These roadways are examples of quality road building and are capable of accepting much higher speeds than the maximum speed limit of 110km/h.

I can only hope that RTA focus more on what the experts from Germany are saying, and less on revenue collecting. Only then might driving become as enjoyable as it is in many parts of Europe, where the responsibility for driving at the right speed, is put squarely on the shoulders of the driver.

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by RTA spokesperson

“Speed remains a major factor in crashes throughout NSW, with 40 per cent of fatalities speed related”.

speed related?
Over 90% of pedestrian deaths were caused whilst walking, so using this way of thinking, they should ban walking as it contributes to pedestrian death
Over 90% of cyclist fatalities occured whilst riding a bike, so ban bike riding.

TAC/RTA/Government will alway have 'speed kills' as their scape goat. Simple fact that we all know.

[geckoGT]

And 100% of motorist deaths occurred in cars, busses, truck and motorbikes, so ban them too

[DJR-351]

Anthony Crawford has just earned a place on my "Most Inteligent" list...

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

If you keep a safe distance and some idiot jumps in between, so what. Just slow down a tad, keep that safe distance and make sure you get home safe. Better to lose 20 seconds of your day than to be involved in a crash and lose the whole day, sustain an injury or even lose your life.

Try this in Sydney (especially in a Truck.) Leave a safe distance and, as you say, someone fills the gap. Over the entire day of pickups and deliveries this does not equate to 20 secs.

If most people looked 3 or 4 cars ahead instead of the one directly in front most nose to tail crashes wouldn't happen.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I always laugh at the heavy vehicles with the advisory sign on the back stating the vehicle requires 100m to stop safely at 100 km/h and asks motorists to take this into account when overtaking.

Never seen one of those, must be a company thing.

[stang65]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

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.

I think the big issue here is the driver has no way of knowing when the lights are going to change, i think if they could put a 10 sec led clock that counted down with before the light changed to red would avoid alot of these spit second desicions.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Try this in Sydney (especially in a Truck.) Leave a safe distance and, as you say, someone fills the gap. Over the entire day of pickups and deliveries this does not equate to 20 secs.

If most people looked 3 or 4 cars ahead instead of the one directly in front most nose to tail crashes wouldn't happen.

If you are one person doing the right thing, you do get time disadvantaged, if everyone does, you do not. How time disadvantaged when making deliveries are you when you crash into the back of another car?

You can not effectively see all hazards that may eventuate in city/urban traffic by looking 50 m ahead and through 3-4 other cars, you need clear space to allow effective, safe and controlled braking. Also by looking ahead and identifying the accident, you can not predict with 100% accuracy what the car in front of you will do, or the other three cars. You find one advanced driver trainer that disagrees with this, good luck.

For anyone that disagrees with this, answer this. If you are driving along and have to stop quickly, causing another car to rear end you and write off your car. Do you get out and give the driver a hug, tell him its all cool and explain how it is acceptable to be driving too close? According to some of the comments here, you should.

Although you are right motorists should correctly scan ahead in order to identify hazards earlier rather than drive at the end of their bonnet.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by stang65

I think the big issue here is the driver has no way of knowing when the lights are going to change, i think if they could put a 10 sec led clock that counted down with before the light changed to red would avoid alot of these spit second desicions.

Why do they need a 10 sec countdown to warn of a red, that is what amber is for.

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

If you are one person doing the right thing, you do get time disadvantaged, if everyone does, you do not. How time disadvantaged when making deliveries are you when you crash into the back of another car?

You can not effectively see all hazards that may eventuate in city/urban traffic by looking 50 m ahead and through 3-4 other cars, you need clear space to allow effective, safe and controlled braking. Also by looking ahead and identifying the accident, you can not predict with 100% accuracy what the car in front of you will do, or the other three cars. You find one advanced driver trainer that disagrees with this, good luck.

For anyone that disagrees with this, answer this. If you are driving along and have to stop quickly, causing another car to rear end you and write off your car. Do you get out and give the driver a hug, tell him its all cool and explain how it is acceptable to be driving too close? According to some of the comments here, you should.

Although you are right motorists should correctly scan ahead in order to identify hazards earlier rather than drive at the end of their bonnet.

So far i agree with all your posts in this thread.....

What i cannot understand though, is the huge amount of effort some people will go to to try and explain away why they cannot conform to simple good practice, surely if this effort was directed to a better safer attitude things would be a lot safer for everyone on our roads....

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Why do they need a 10 sec countdown to warn of a red, that is what amber is for.

in NSW - getting booked or rear ended .

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by DJR-351

So far i agree with all your posts in this thread.....

What i cannot understand though, is the huge amount of effort some people will go to to try and explain away why they cannot conform to simple good practice, surely if this effort was directed to a better safer attitude things would be a lot safer for everyone on our roads....

And I would have nice quiet shifts, please, why can't it be so?

[gtfpv]

the 2 second gap rule i totally agree with . only problem being that i had an accident obeying it . at 100kms an hour a 2 second rule in sydney means; 4 cars can get in between you and the car in front , breaking this down further means - atleast 2 high beam flashes , 3 horn beeps, , given the finger 4 times, lip reading the word FU**IN IDIOT atleast 8 times , smashing the brakes within 10 seconds to slow down to 60km/hr 100% of the time , locking up the brakes 5% of the time, and i nice rear ended at fault collision occasionally, with no witnesses but a few horn beeps , and i nice read of a thread about driving safely on the forums .
i conclude that people think they are better than they are at driving, 100% of the time, wether they are a good driver or a bad one , fully alert or tired.
one thing is certian 100% of the time. The faster the speed the higher the risk . along with many other ratio related factors . like car condition , alcohol volume, curve agles, road surface, time of day etc etc etc. with the only constant, being people diregarding speeding as a factor in public .

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Being punted through an intersection by a truck must make one feel better (by consolation) if they know they're in the right.

I dont know if its because I tend to do a bit of driving through industrial estates but I have had two cases similiar to the above scenario. The first one was when I was driving along Princess Hwy and had a B double behind me, he wasnt sitting that close and both of us were doing the same speed. When the lights up ahead turned amber I touched the brake pedal, but thought about the vehicle behind me and took my foot off the brake pedal and proceeded through the interesection. The truck followed through the intersection. I could have safely stopped but was unsure of what the truck could do. Anyway next set of lights we did stop and I was in a different lane - truck driver gave me a big thumbs up - which I took as thanks for not stopping at the light before. I guess I will never know if he could have safely stopped. Few weeks later simliar thing

I hope (for people like GeckoGT, other paramedics and all the families involved) that there can be some serious inroads made to the reduction of the road toll. I do however beleive that driver attitudes contribute a lot to the road toll.

[vztrt]

Interesting, the laws in the US for speeding aren't as bad as Australia but better cars is reducing the deaths over there. It could also be people drove less, next years figures will tell the real story.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/11/n...continue-down/

NHTSA announces 2009 fatalities lowest since 1954, continue downward trend

by Jonny Lieberman (RSS feed) on Mar 11th 2010 at 5:30PM

Safety doesn't sell cars. At least that's what Detroit executives walked around saying back in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The whole of them were convinced that if you even mentioned the word "safety" in a marketing campaign it would imply that cars were unsafe. In fact, it took a crusader like Ralph Nader to stand up to the auto industry and say enough with the death traps, like he did when he published his infamous Unsafe at Any Speed (only one chapter is about the Corvair!) in 1965. Like him or loathe, if you've walked away from a serious car accident in the last forty or so years, you probably owe him.

And it looks like many more of us have been walking away from car accidents lately. According to a new report from The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the death rate for calendar 2009 plummeted by a frankly significant 8.9-percent from 2008. 33,963 Americans were killed on our roads last year, as opposed to the 37,261 people that perished in 2008. Still terrible, but much, much better. In fact, 2009's fatality rate (measured with the totally morbid metric, "death per mile") is actually the lowest such rate since 1954. Were cars safer back then? No, not even kinda sorta. It's just that a much smaller percentage of the population drove back then. The Interstate system was still two years off, so road trips were rare and mostly for truckers and beatniks.

Why the drop in the death rate? Many factors. Cars are getting safer. More air bags, crumple zones, better construction techniques, stability control, better tire technology – all of it is adding up to help prevent accidents, or at least make them more survivable. Also, campaigns like "Click It or Ticket" have increased seatbelt usage, and cops nationwide are cracking down harder than ever on drunk drivers. However, there's one other reason the death rate fell so far in 2009: people drove less. Meaning that if our economy recovers and we start driving more, the death rate could – and probably will – increase. Make the jump to read the press release.

[Source: NHTSA | Image: Bantam Dell Publishing Group]