It may not be every kay over that’s a killer, but your fixation on the speedo

[csv8]

"It may not be every kay over that’s a killer, but your fixation on the speedo

Against the backdrop of a 7.6 per cent increase in the national road toll so far this year, new research published last month indicates that Australia’s strict speed enforcement may actually be increasing – rather than reducing – the risk of car crashes.

Just as concerning is the questionable research on which authorities base their zealous policing of low-level speeding, the unscientific crash analysis that leads to speeding being one of the leading causes for road crashes and the increasing revenue gleaned from low-level speeding infringements.
Using a driving simulator, the University of Western Australia tested 84 participants to see if lowering speed enforcement thresholds would have any effect on a driver’s mental and visual abilities.
Knowing they could be fined for travelling one, six, or 11km/h over a 50km/h speed limit, participants were given a peripheral detection task to measure their mental and visual workload while driving in the simulator.
They were also given a questionnaire which asked how difficult or demanding they found the experience of driving under the different enforcement conditions.
The stricter speed limit enforcement levels resulted in drivers rating the experience as more demanding and also reduced their peripheral vision.
Dr Vanessa Bowden, one of the authors of the study, said: “Our overall finding was that stricter speed enforcement may impair a driver’s ability to detect hazards, especially those on the side of the road, because drivers are dedicating more attention to monitoring their speed.”
The UWA research adds to existing cracks in speed enforcement, a pillar of road safety programs nationwide.
All nine state/territories jurisdictions (which are responsible for policing speeding) use the 1997 study by Kloeden et al called ‘Travelling Speed and the Risk of Crash Involvement’ to justify their focus on low-level speeding enforcement.
The never-repeated 20-year-old study assessed 148 crashes in suburban Adelaide in 1996 and concluded that: “In a 60km/h speed limit area, the risk of involvement in a casualty crash doubles with each 5km/h increase in free travelling speed above 60km/h”.
The study’s results have since been questioned under peer review.
John Lambert, ex-Manager of Road Safety Research at VicRoads, said that he “had concerns about the concept of an absolute relationship with speed and crashes”.
He re-analysed the original data and surmised that driver selection of travel speed is based on many factors, with the prevailing speed limit and speed enforcement being only two of these factors; in a 60km/h zone, average free speeds on dry days during daylight hours exhibit significant variability and a more consistent approach to the data is to use speed differentials from the mean speed.
For the authors of an academic paper to respond to a peer review is unusu-al in academia, but Messrs Kloeden and Haley did exactly that in September 2003. Defending their methodology and conclusion, the pair of academics also made some telling points:
“…A large enforcement tolerance sends the message that the speed limit is a target speed rather than an upper limit (as implied by the use of speed limit). To the extent that a large tolerance leads to higher speeds, it increases the number and severity of crashes which is why we recommended that it be reduced or removed.”
It is worth noting that all of the speeds the study assessed were estimated, yet the conclusion (that 5km/h over 60km/h doubles the risk of a casualty crash) has been taken by all nine state and territory governments as a speeding ‘fact’ (for example, in NSW).
Speeding is responsible for 30 per cent of fatal road crashes, according to the various authorities, and this figure is gleaned from actual crashes where police have attended.
However, the way the information is gathered is unscientific. The actual speed of crashing vehicles cannot be determined from standard reports so estimating methods are used in all states.
Some of the parameters for giving speeding as the reason for the crash can be compelling, such as if the vehicle or vehicles were detected by police as speeding prior to the crash.
Yet other circumstances in which can police tick the speeding box do not stand up well under any form of scientific rigour.
For example: “While on a curve the vehicle jack-knifed, skidded, slid or the controller lost control” or “The vehicle ran off the road on a bend or turning a corner and the driver or rider was not distracted by something, or affected by drowsiness or sudden illness, and was not swerving to avoid another vehicle, animal or object, and the vehicle did not have equipment failure”.
The catch-all sentence in the protocols for assessing speed-related crash is this: “Police said the vehicle was travelling at excessive speed”.
Then there is the governments’ pecuniary interest in low-level speeding.
Of the $86 million revenue in speeding fines Victoria took in just three months from April to June 2016, a total of 303,312 fines were issued and 233,574 of them – 77 per cent – were for drivers detected at less than 10km/h over the speed limit.
Governments argue that speeding fine revenue is channeled back into road safety measures.
In 2013-2014, the Queensland government spent $65.9m of speed camera revenue on road improvements, with a further $8m on road safety aware-ness, and a little under $5m on other hospital and injury programs. In the same period the state's revenue from fines was estimated at more than $300 million.
There is no silver bullet to reducing the road toll, but what is becoming increasingly apparent is that governments’ ever-increasing focus on low-level speeding has been successful only in one area — increased government revenue.
Powered By Motoring.com.au
words - Philip Lord
Published : Saturday, 26 November 2016
http://www.carsales.com.au/editorial...ampaign=buffer

[Ben73]

Not surprising.
I would say technology (phones) would also be something which is probably increasing crashes.
There are more speed cameras than ever before, cars are the safest they have ever been, but serious crashes keep happening. Wonder why.

[prydey]

i also question the data of the original study and so it should be peer reviewed as well as reviewed by all state govt's. of course that will never happen given the cash cow it has become.

they always bang on about the risk, and how it increases the faster you go, but they only ever refer to it in vague terms, never in absolute numbers.

i vaguely remember reading once that the actual risk of crashing at 60km/h was something like 0.0000001%. (thats not the figure, but it was an extremely low percentage) of course if they used the actual numbers, it wouldn't have anywhere near the impact as saying the risk 'DOUBLES'! they tend to imply you will almost certainly self destruct if you dare try.

these articles are becoming increasingly more common, which is good to see. you can only pull the wool over the eyes for so long (too long) before people start to question the motives and science.

the biggest drops in the road toll occur when car safety increases. think seatbelts, there was a big drop in the road toll when they were introduced. now with passive and active safety systems filtering through to even the base models, even though the number of cars on the road is increasing along with the population, the road toll isn't rising at the same rate and is largely trending down, even if it does have the occasional upward spike.

car manufacturers, not govt's, need the accolades.

[GO FURTHER]

IMO, if governments are serious about lowering the road toll, then mobile phones should be completely banned in open view in the cabin of private cars, except buses / taxies, etc.

They should be turned off and locked in a small box and placed in the boot of sedans, or if you don't have a boot (ute etc) then placed in a locked box under the passenger seat or glovebox, etc.

It would also apply to all passengers in the vehicle.

If the police find your mobile phone in the cabin while not parked, with engine off, then the penalty should be mandatory 6 months loss of licence.

This is the only way the road toll will be reduced where the toll is due to mobile phone usage.

[simon varley]

if they were serious about safety, then the state budget would include $0 for speeding revenue income

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by BAXRSIX

IMO, if governments are serious about lowering the road toll, then mobile phones should be completely banned in open view in the cabin of private cars, except buses / taxies, etc.

They should be turned off and locked in a small box and placed in the boot of sedans, or if you don't have a boot (ute etc) then placed in a locked box under the passenger seat or glovebox, etc.

It would also apply to all passengers in the vehicle.

If the police find your mobile phone in the cabin while not parked, with engine off, then the penalty should be mandatory 6 months loss of licence.

This is the only way the road toll will be reduced where the toll is due to mobile phone usage.

And what portion of the road toll is actually due to phone use? I haven't seen any figures on that, but I'd reckon the number would be quite low.

Texting or using any app on a phone while driving is insane and obviously dangerous, it's being cracked down on with increased penalties and enforcement - rightly so. But as bluetooth tech and features like car play etc filters down, more people will have full use of their phone without actually touching it - win win.

I saw a headline the other day along the lines of how car makers are receiving pressure to program the infotainment system on new cars to lock the phone that it's connected to - allowing the driver to use the phone features via the car but blacking out the phone screen completely. That to me seems like a slightly more palatable solution than locking the switched off phone in a box in the boot...

[Seasoned One]

Having 2 kids on p plates at the moment has highlighted to me the pressure on them for no tolerance on speeding and the dangers of phones in cars. Told both of my kids, put phone in boot or back of drivers seat pocket so there is no temptation to look at it, also, whilst driving with my son, coming into road works on dual lane carriageway cars in left lane 10 km UNDER speed limit heavy traffic, son overtakes them at speed limit , still in 'fast' lane enter road works and slow to new limit, traffic closes up and the tailgating begins, impatient drivers trying to sit up in left lane to get past P plate in right lane, he can't get left, only options are A, accelerate to get in front of cars in left lane and break limit to do so, B, Obstruct tailgaters behind and infuriate them more, no tolerance or police discretion any more. Maybe we should have some 'tolerance' to overtake (especially on single lane highways or overtaking lanes), speed limits have been the same as long as I can remember, cars, tyres, safety have improved dramatically but still using old limits. We all know places where posted limit is probably too high, but just as many to low.... any thoughts?

[noflac52]

I agree wholeheartedly with what you say on all points except one Seasoned One. Speed limits being the same. In some areas that's correct but in a lot of areas it makes the mind boggle as to the reasoning behind speed limits that have dropped. Many country roads have been subject to this for no apparent reason. The road is improved the cars are better there is no appreciable increase in traffic but the limit is lowered by 10k's or more.

An example in my area is a straight road that had a 100k limit a number of years back, that was in average condition, had an upgrade to make it very good stretch of road, smooth and quite wide and as soon as the work was finished the limit was dropped to 90k's. More recently the limit was dropped to 80k's. The traffic load is still reasonably light. the road is still much better than when it was a 100k limit.

The irony here is that less than a week after the last speed drop I had occasion to assist at a single vehicle accident in good weather in daylight where a vehicle had run off the road and hit a tree. It wasn't speed that caused the accident.

There are so many other factors involved in any crash that it is a downright lie that one or two k's over will have you involved in a crash with dire consequences.

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by noflac52

I agree wholeheartedly with what you say on all points except one Seasoned One. Speed limits being the same. In some areas that's correct but in a lot of areas it makes the mind boggle as to the reasoning behind speed limits that have dropped. Many country roads have been subject to this for no apparent reason. The road is improved the cars are better there is no appreciable increase in traffic but the limit is lowered by 10k's or more.

An example in my area is a straight road that had a 100k limit a number of years back, that was in average condition, had an upgrade to make it very good stretch of road, smooth and quite wide and as soon as the work was finished the limit was dropped to 90k's. More recently the limit was dropped to 80k's. The traffic load is still reasonably light. the road is still much better than when it was a 100k limit.

The irony here is that less than a week after the last speed drop I had occasion to assist at a single vehicle accident in good weather in daylight where a vehicle had run off the road and hit a tree. It wasn't speed that caused the accident.

There are so many other factors involved in any crash that it is a downright lie that one or two k's over will have you involved in a crash with dire consequences.

But if the driver had been travelling at the old 100km/h limit would they have still survived hitting the tree?

[noflac52]

You don't know that and neither do I. The only way to ascertain that would be to make her do it again at 100k's and see if she survives. But that's not the point.

The point is that limits are being lowered all the time to cater for the lowest common denominator while the lowest common denominator is eroding even further due to the fixation on speed rather than an intelligent approach to diminishing the rest of the problems inherent in road use by addressing them as well. Most of which are encompassed in driver competency and behaviour.

[71cop]

Originally Posted by BAXRSIX

IMO, if governments are serious about lowering the road toll, then mobile phones should be completely banned in open view in the cabin of private cars, except buses / taxies, etc.

They should be turned off and locked in a small box and placed in the boot of sedans, or if you don't have a boot (ute etc) then placed in a locked box under the passenger seat or glovebox, etc.

It would also apply to all passengers in the vehicle.

If the police find your mobile phone in the cabin while not parked, with engine off, then the penalty should be mandatory 6 months loss of licence.

This is the only way the road toll will be reduced where the toll is due to mobile phone usage.

Waste of time taking licence of people, there's a hell of a lot of unlicenced drivers on the road now do you think taking someone's licence off them will stop them from driving ? good luck with that.

[Rockape]

Originally Posted by BAXRSIX

IMO, if governments are serious about lowering the road toll, then mobile phones should be completely banned in open view in the cabin of private cars, except buses / taxies, etc.

They should be turned off and locked in a small box and placed in the boot of sedans, or if you don't have a boot (ute etc) then placed in a locked box under the passenger seat or glovebox, etc.

It would also apply to all passengers in the vehicle.

If the police find your mobile phone in the cabin while not parked, with engine off, then the penalty should be mandatory 6 months loss of licence.

This is the only way the road toll will be reduced where the toll is due to mobile phone usage.

I haven't got the words to describe how much i disagree with all this.

[OzriderXR8]

In my opinion the biggest issue on our roads today is the lack of patrol cars, why would anyone bother with laws if there is no one around to enforce them?

Speed cameras, blatant revenue raising, if the concern was safety the cops would be pulling you over.

I drive 160klms a day and spend a lot of it on the phone with no issues (hands free, built in on the FG, $15 ebay bluetooth in the AU). I've spent most of my driving life with either a two way radio or a phone in the car.

I will admit though that smart phones that now have messaging and email are a major distraction and as a result I've turned alerts on both off.

When I travel into town I'm on the bike and the biggest issue in traffic is without a doubt mobile phones and people playing with their 'gadgets' in the car. White lines become optional and traffic around them is invisible.

I can't understand why people don't use hands free even in the most expensive cars, and I cant comprehend why people think it's ok to text whilst their driving...

Rant over.

[whitelion65]

I've got to say, the speed limiter in the Mondeo is a God-send. Set it on your desired margin to speed limit and drive! No need to watch the speedo at all :-)

[Seasoned One]

Originally Posted by OzriderXR8

In my opinion the biggest issue on our roads today is the lack of patrol cars, why would anyone bother with laws if there is no one around to enforce them?

Speed cameras, blatant revenue raising, if the concern was safety the cops would be pulling you over.

I drive 160klms a day and spend a lot of it on the phone with no issues (hands free, built in on the FG, $15 ebay bluetooth in the AU). I've spent most of my driving life with either a two way radio or a phone in the car.

I will admit though that smart phones that now have messaging and email are a major distraction and as a result I've turned alerts on both off.

When I travel into town I'm on the bike and the biggest issue in traffic is without a doubt mobile phones and people playing with their 'gadgets' in the car. White lines become optional and traffic around them is invisible.

I can't understand why people don't use hands free even in the most expensive cars, and I cant comprehend why people think it's ok to text whilst their driving...

Rant over.

I agree, would much rather see more patrol cars than a speed camera, or point to points, watch a drunk speed past and kill someone up the road, but hey, we got a good photo of them before they killed them, and maybe then they would have someone near to attend b&e's or accidents, I'm sure the police would appreciate the manpower on the road than sitting in a camera

[Mercury Bullet]

A bit too much common sense going on in here...

[axe]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-0...perate/8091104

But what about all those extra speed cameras they've been rolling out over the last few years, I thought they were meant to stop this sort of thing...

[last fairlane]

Three things re speed limits
1 Here in Brisbane theres a fairly main road called Compton road
well it was a rough as guts single lane each way with an 80k limit
well the govt in its wisdom made it a 4 lane road
and guess what its now has a 70k limit (makes a lot of sense to me)
2 I drive a 45 Tonne truck and dog
and if travelling along the highway at 99ks
and hit a little hatchback all will be OK
but if Im doing 101ks and hit the same car all will be dead
every K over is a killer yea right
3 in the same truck I was booked on a four lane highway
doing 66ks in a 60k zone not another car in sight
just not concentrating on the speedo or it could have been speedo error
different tyres etc
anyway I paid up the $120 and 1 point better than going to court and losing a days pay
I think thats the presumption they work on cheaper to pay up than take a day off
thanks John with over 40 years behind the wheel of a truck

[Seasoned One]

Originally Posted by last fairlane

Three things re speed limits
1 Here in Brisbane theres a fairly main road called Compton road
well it was a rough as guts single lane each way with an 80k limit
well the govt in its wisdom made it a 4 lane road
and guess what its now has a 70k limit (makes a lot of sense to me)
2 I drive a 45 Tonne truck and dog
and if travelling along the highway at 99ks
and hit a little hatchback all will be OK
but if Im doing 101ks and hit the same car all will be dead
every K over is a killer yea right
3 in the same truck I was booked on a four lane highway
doing 66ks in a 60k zone not another car in sight
just not concentrating on the speedo or it could have been speedo error
different tyres etc
anyway I paid up the $120 and 1 point better than going to court and losing a days pay
I think thats the presumption they work on cheaper to pay up than take a day off
thanks John with over 40 years behind the wheel of a truck

drove my truck through Compton rd several times over last few months and couldn't agree more, also speed limits hard to know if you don't know rd that well, 60, 70, 80, up and down, and every one wants to pull in front of you at the lights , between watching the speedo, and the clown pulling in front of you reducing your braking distance, it's a wonder we don't get booked more, or is that the plan?

[last fairlane]

Sounds about right to me and have you noticed that the cops sit just past the bridge heading towards Woodridge and you cant see them till its to late and of course its on a down hill slope John

[Seasoned One]

Haven't struck them yet, but several trips to Port Macquarie recently have seen police standing on over passes with pursuit cars waiting on onramps, with speed limits changing so ridiculously often with the road works/ towns/etc , it is only a matter of time for a ticket. Its like licence Russian roulette, I try to stick to the posted limit, but I nearly defy anyone to not make a mistake or be distracted at some point

[chizzy86]

HWP LOVE that section between Port and Kempsey. They literally do laps of it all day catching the unwary.

I was travelling southbound near Herons Creek (where the northbound is pretty new) and I was speeding a bit about 120 and a cop was parked on one of the north bound on ramps and I'm sure he had me locked on because he started accelerating and then stopped when I braked (rather suddenly). Probs couldnt be bothered doing a u turn and catch me for only 10 over

[TheInterceptor]

I hate it when I look at my speedo as I approach one of many speed/red light cameras I go through each day to make sure I don't get done for speeding, then I look up and the light is yellow/Amber.

Do I risk running through as it may have only just clocked yellow? Or do I hit the brakes hard and play it safe even though I may cause a pileup which is very common in Perth every week.

Yeah nah I'd rather not get fined.

[Sabantien]

Originally Posted by last fairlane

Three things re speed limits
1 Here in Brisbane theres a fairly main road called Compton road
well it was a rough as guts single lane each way with an 80k limit
well the govt in its wisdom made it a 4 lane road
and guess what its now has a 70k limit (makes a lot of sense to me)
2 I drive a 45 Tonne truck and dog
and if travelling along the highway at 99ks
and hit a little hatchback all will be OK
but if Im doing 101ks and hit the same car all will be dead
every K over is a killer yea right
3 in the same truck I was booked on a four lane highway
doing 66ks in a 60k zone not another car in sight
just not concentrating on the speedo or it could have been speedo error
different tyres etc
anyway I paid up the $120 and 1 point better than going to court and losing a days pay
I think thats the presumption they work on cheaper to pay up than take a day off
thanks John with over 40 years behind the wheel of a truck

I wonder if the speed limit dropped on the road they improved because the lanes became narrower.

I also believe the every k over thing has more to do with driving in the suburbs. Stopping distances when the kid runs out in front of your car, etc.

Personally I think they should be a bit more lenient on the highways. If a kid happens to run out in front of you on a highway, it won't matter either way. In the suburbs and school zones is where it can make a big difference.


As for being fixated on the speedo, I know that my car is about 3km/hr slower than the speedo says (I believe that's the same for most cars), so I am not so fixated on it. My foot isn't pumping up and down wildly so my speed tends not to change drastically and a quick glance keeps things under control.