Calls for 80k on highways.

[vztrt]

In the next phase in our nanny country....'expert' calls for 80kph hour limit on undivided roads. Yeah I don't see an increase of head-ons if this ever happened. *rolls eyes*

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...2576F500026E42

Undivided roads ‘deadly at 100km/h’

Police crash investigator calls for ‘survivable’ 80km/h limit on undivided roads

29 March 2010

By JAMES STANFORD

A LEADING Victoria Police road crash investigator has called for the abolition of 100km/h limits on undivided roads.

Speaking at the Society of Automotive Engineers Australasia Change by Design forum in Melbourne last week, Victoria Police collision reconstruction team leader Peter Bellion said cars travelling at 100km/h in opposite directions with less than a car’s length between them were a recipe for disaster.

He said advances in vehicle design meant the chances of surviving an 80km/h impact had improved greatly, but the forces of an impact at faster speeds meant survival was unlikely due to ‘complete structural disintegration’.

“Even with the most sophisticated car, we can’t survive that (above 80km/h), and yet we still have undivided roads with 100km/h limits and a white line separating you from the oncoming traffic,” he said.

“At the weekend a driver was adjusting the radio and all of a sudden (they go) into the oncoming traffic and we have a fatal outcome, just like that.”

Sen-Sgt Bellion said there should be more margin for error.

“Why do we still have 100km/h limits when someone makes the slightest mistake somebody is going to pay for it with their lives?”

He said multiple fatalities on such roads were far too common and suggested that reducing the speed limit to 80km/h, or building more divided roads, would give drivers a far better chance of survival.

Sen-Sgt Bellion also used his presentation to highlight the role of new technology in reducing road fatalities and injuries.

He said electronic stability control (ESC) had saved many lives.

“We have still gone to crashes where they have had ESC, but instead of the vehicle going sideways into the pole or a tree at an impact speed 30km/h impact, which is enough to be fatal, the car is going front-on into a pole or tree (more slowly), and in a modern car you can survive that up to 80km/h or so,” he said.

Sen-Sgt Billion said about 30 per cent of crashes attended by police would involve an incident that would trigger an ESC system. He said the technology was a life saver, but said drivers should be trained to make the most of it.

“They (ESC systems) are making a difference, but it also comes down to driver training and how to steer away from hazards, not just letting it go completely,” he said.

Airbags were also saving lives, said Sen-Sgt Billion.

“That has definitely reduced road trauma in this state. I have found that the frontal airbags, the delta of the speed change during a fatal crash, before airbags was typically about 60km/h, so if someone hit at 60km/h that was it, but now that is going up to about 80km/h,” he said.

He said side airbags appeared to be helping, with occupants more likely to survive a side impact at 40km/h an hour with side airbags while a 30km/h crash would likely kill occupants of a car without side airbags.

Even so, he said crashes at intersections were still particularly dangerous.

Sen-Sgt Billion said speed cameras also saved lives.

“From my point of view, being an engineer and seeing the introduction of the program, the road safety cameras have saved thousands of lives and reduced trauma considerably,” he said.

“There are a certain groups that will have a whinge and take you to court. There are some stumbling blocks sometimes when things aren’t quite right, but generally the program works quite well.”

[buggo]

This guys an idiot. Next he'll ban airtravel, being that high is a recipe for disaster.
""the road safety cameras have saved thousands of lives and reduced trauma considerably,” he said." Is he talking about speed cameras?Is he serious? Where does he get his statistics from? How do they reduce trauma?
This countries sad...

[Brent]

Doesn't surprise me in the least.....and if you criticise this "initiative" then you're being disrespectful to the victims of road trauma, or not a supporter of responsible driving. In fact, you're a poor role model to your kids or to anyone with a P plate on their car. After all, this is all done for safety reasons. How could you possibly object? Yep, great idea. Bring it in tomorrow and we'll all live happy little lives together in our big ever expanding ball of cotton wool......

[snappy]

I dont think we can consider this guy a expert until he puts put his money where his mouth is and crash in to a tree at 100kph . If he dies we should consider the new law and if he wrong and survives well keep the spedd limit as it is.



Time to join
http://www.aussiemotorists.com/

[Nikked]

This idea is heaps good.

Australia has so many good divided highways.

[GavL]

If it's such a problem, how about fixing the roads that are like this and making them divided rather than adjusting the speed limit ;)

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by GavL

If it's such a problem, how about fixing the roads that are like this and making them divided rather than adjusting the speed limit ;)

That doesn't give you the opportunity to fine people and make money.

[flappist]

Senior Police to be place in high risk areas

AAP Reuter:

A senior idiot investigator has found that most crime happens in "criminal" suburbs so to combat this all senior police who have no idea but come up with wonderful plans are to have their residences moved to suburbs such as Redfern and Bankstown or their equivalences in the other states.

This concept has the support of senior police who actually DO have an idea who have been quoted as saying "Yep lets see how their university theories work in real life".

[RG]

Anyone who refers to speed cameras as "road safety cameras" obviously has an agenda other than real road safety to push.

[Elks]

Originally Posted by RG

Anyone who refers to speed cameras as "road safety cameras" obviously has an agenda other than real road safety to push.

RG, Ye Of little faith, next you will be telling me the fact the advertising firm that does the TAC ads and also does the research into their effectiveness and no conflict of interest.

[tweeked]

What an idiot

So many more people falling asleep at the wheel we would probably have 10 times more head ons. If they are 50% more survivable, we end up with 5 times the deaths.

Scares me that these people are called experts, if the best they can do is say slow down, they will have us walking between capitals in a few years

[BHDOGS]

What this guy is saying is true im sure you have more chance of surviving a head on crash at 80 instead of 100 and that esc and airbags make a world of difference im fairly sure that's all true but doesn't mean we should implement slower speed limits because of it

[Rodp]

The only decent thing that came out of his mouth was building more divided roads.

Clearly he doesn't have to travel very far from his home very often.

Does that mean fatigue is no longer an issue?

[galaxy xr8]

We allready see time and time again driver's clocked well over 100klm/h, so in theory lowering the actuall limit will do very little.
People will allway's speed no matter what the specified limit is.
How about serving harsher penilty's that actually fit the crime rather than disabling those that actually obey the rules.

[gokhan]

Originally Posted by galaxy xr8

We allready see time and time again driver's clocked well over 100klm/h, so in theory lowering the actuall limit will do very little.
People will allway's speed no matter what the specified limit is.
How about serving harsher penilty's that actually fit the crime rather than disabling those that actually obey the rules.

What was that saying about how locks only keep the innocent out? It's like that with road 'safety' legislation. The majority of people who do the right thing are punished and there will alwyas be poeple who are idiots that will continue to kill themselves.

[Silver Ghia]

So it will take longer to go from A to B. Thus the greater likelihood of drivers losing concentration and dozing off.

Also there would most likely be an increased frequency of overtaking as well, so the risks and collisions would probably actually go up.

Just look at the Calder "Highway" from Keilor Drive to the raceway which is 80kph on a divided road. Doesnt stop the kamikazi drivers crossing or entering onto the "highway".

I really don't think that guy has any idea from the psychology side of things, and should really attend more to driver carelessness and inattention that is far too prevalent.

[Interceptor]

[sarc]yep, reducing the combined imact speed from 200km/h to 160km/h is sure gonna make a difference [/sarc]

[JC]

He's talking speed deltas of 80km/h are survivable. Was 60. So that's great, but if a car travelling at 80 head ons into a line of traffic also travelling at 80, then the delta is 160, not 80. To achieve the 80 delta, the speed would need to be 40 in each direction. Does it not also depend on the weight of the mass doing the hitting? F = ma? So a truck travelling at 80 hitting a car is likely to do more damage than a car travelling at 80 hitting a car. So do we ban trucks, or cars from travelling at all? Do we want groceries, fuel (if cars are banned, what for??) etc? This argument is a bit simplistic to me.

Why not go the other way and just increase it to 120 on all highways, and 130 on divided highways, and watch the crashes reduce - well, except for those caused by people travelling at 80 of their own free will (though it is likely to be those overtaking them caught in the crash, and not them directly). If there is an accident, at least the health system won't have to support the "survivors". Too simplistic? Yes, but no less so than what "official" experts are saying.

[Piotr]

Originally Posted by JC

He's talking speed deltas of 80km/h are survivable. Was 60. So that's great, but if a car travelling at 80 head ons into a line of traffic also travelling at 80, then the delta is 160, not 80. To achieve the 80 delta, the speed would need to be 40 in each direction. Does it not also depend on the weight of the mass doing the hitting? F = ma? So a truck travelling at 80 hitting a car is likely to do more damage than a car travelling at 80 hitting a car. So do we ban trucks, or cars from travelling at all? Do we want groceries, fuel (if cars are banned, what for??) etc? This argument is a bit simplistic to me.

Your maths is a major fail, If two similar cars hit head-on @ 80km/h it is the equivalent of hitting a solid object at 80km/h NOT 160km/h

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Piotr

Your maths is a major fail, If two similar cars hit head-on @ 80km/h it is the equivalent of hitting a solid object at 80km/h NOT 160km/h

God not this one again...!

If a plane takes off on a treadmill......

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by Piotr

Your maths is a major fail, If two similar cars hit head-on @ 80km/h it is the equivalent of hitting a solid object at 80km/h NOT 160km/h

No, because the "object" is carrying energy, so the impact is greater then hitting a stationary solid object.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Nikked

No, because the "object" is carrying energy, so the impact is greater then hitting a stationary solid object.

FFS, there is a HUGE thread on this. You are completely wrong. It has been proven mathematically, demonstrated using physics models and finally confirmed by testing authorities stating "we crash into a wall as that simulates a head on of two vehicles traveling at the same speed"

[JC]

Originally Posted by flappist

FFS, there is a HUGE thread on this. You are completely wrong. It has been proven mathematically, demonstrated using physics models and finally confirmed by testing authorities stating "we crash into a wall as that simulates a head on of two vehicles traveling at the same speed"

Link please? Just for my own edumacation.

[73gscoupe]

Originally Posted by flappist

FFS, there is a HUGE thread on this. You are completely wrong. It has been proven mathematically, demonstrated using physics models and finally confirmed by testing authorities stating "we crash into a wall as that simulates a head on of two vehicles traveling at the same speed"

When two cars crash, head on, the energy of the crash is absorbed by both cars in the crumple zone. hence, if both are travelling at 80 ks, each must absorb 80 k's worth (assuming the cars have identical crumple zones).

When you crash a car into a concrete barrier, the concrete does not deform, hence absorbs no energy. So all the energy must be absorbed by the cars crumple zone. So, this becomes indicative of a head on collision.

When your driving along, and a semi with a nice big bullbar collects you head on, the bull bar basically does not deform or absorb any energy. So its left up to you car to absorb all that energy. If you were travelling at 80, and he was traveling at 80, your effective speed is in fact close to 160.

So in answer to the problem it depends on how much the object you hit deforms.

Lowering to 80 kms is a rection to bad drivers, falling asleep, not watching the road. What can you do? People just dont care about the consequence of their actions.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Nikked

No, because the "object" is carrying energy, so the impact is greater then hitting a stationary solid object.

:

Next you'll be saying that a plane can't take off on a conveyor belt.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Rodp

:

Next you'll be saying that a plane can't take off on a conveyor belt.

What about if two planes crashed head on while attempting to take off on conveyor belts. Would there be more of less beer drunk at the AFF XMAS party than if one of the planes was actually a safety camera and the conveyor belt was Harold Scruby while the other was a Leopold tank on a W427?

[scoupedy]

when does this stop??? i heard that that the survivability of an accident at 0kmph is almost 100%

Originally Posted by Nikked

No, because the "object" is carrying energy, so the impact is greater then hitting a stationary solid object.

Two objects with energy and two that absorb energy, as opposed to one object with energy and one that obsorbs the energy - your statement would be true if one of the cars in the head on doesn't get damaged or slow down at all in the collision- and therefore transmitting all of its energy into the other

[MAD]

Originally Posted by scoupedy

when does this stop??? i heard that that the survivability of an accident at 0kmph is almost 100%

It'll stop at 5km/h. You only get a bruised leg from that.

[JC]

Originally Posted by Piotr

Your maths is a major fail, If two similar cars hit head-on @ 80km/h it is the equivalent of hitting a solid object at 80km/h NOT 160km/h

How can that be? If two cars travelling in the same direction hit, and one is doing 80, and the other is doing 81, would it not be the same as the car travelling at 1 km/h into a wall? ie bugger all damage? If that's true, then surely if they are headed in different directions and hit, then the speed must be combined - maybe not fully, but it's got to be harder than htting a solid immovable object at 80, since the thing travelling the other way not only has speed but movement too.

Instead of just saying "major fail", how about explaining/proving, because I'm 100% sure that my physics teacher (20+ years ago) taught us that force applied in opposite directions cancels, and we all know that two cars that head hit on don't suffer no damage, therefore I took that to mean that the force cancelling creates massive energy which is in the form of huge damage to each car - more than each car hitting a solid immovable object. Happy to be shown to be wrong, and as flappist suggests, not keen to find out in the real world, so I'd rather just avoid the head on, but an 80kmh limit is not necessarily going to do that.

[joolz]

Seeing i travel from Melbourne to Stawell to see family i may just fall asleep at the wheel after over an hour driving at 80km/h after Ballarat. At least i may survive a head on crash with another car as i doze off from driver fatigue.