ok, since there is so much talk about how unsafe our FPV's are, and how speed is soooo dangerous, take a look at how they came up with the "Wipe off 5 Campaign"...
Quote:
the "wipe off 5" campaign was developed from a study performed at the university of adelaide accident research centre group. it studied a sample size of less than 1000 crashes in the last 20 years that resulted in a fatality. it then used anecdotal evidence where possible, or accident reconstruction techniques where possible from the accident reports to estimate the speed.
it then grouped the fatalities in percentage groups ie: 0-10km/h 10-20km/h, etc. and looked at the percentage change in fatalities. In one particular group (i think 60-70km/h) it showed that the number of fatalities doubled. It also showed the same thing in some of the other groups. What they failed to mention is that there was also data that suggested that if you reduce your speed from 50-60 km/h to 40-50km/h your risk also increases significantly!! That makes perfect sense doesnt it....
well it does if you consider that they did not weigh in road types. Of course there is more likelihood of a fatality in that lower speed region: these speeds are typically done in built up areas. Also the higher ranges are in non-built up regional areas , ie: highways.
So there u have it. They took the few cases where speed increased and doubled fatalities and came up with the slogan "for every 5 km/h you increase your speed, you double your chance of a fatal crash".
Did i also mention, that the accident reconstruction software that these organisations utilise (one is called SMAC2) is a simulation tool that has the same basic features of Automotive simulation software that was used 20 YEARS AGO!! I have been to conferences where accident researchers for both the government bodies and universities have quoted the sofwares accuracy at "somwhere between 5 - 10 percent" from my experience this is an accurate quote, as we would consider an answer within 5% as a good correlation. What is 5-10 percent of 100km/h?????
There is nothing wrong with accident research. In fact is it essential for our understanding of road safety. What angers me is the way in which certain interested parties interpret the data for supporting their own agendas.
Yeah any savvy motorist knows its a crock of shit.
Its also coincidence how these findings were published to coincide with the Wipe Off 5 legislature, no doubt with support from the powers that be.
As they say, the government has a huge interest in perpetuationg this myth and pumps millions into it. Until theres a group willing to dish out on ads, court costs and other much needed counter-propoganda solutions us motorists will always be stepped on...
__________________ Welcome To Victoria, Home Of The Speed Camera
Ever since i started driving (7 yrs ago) i had two minor dings, one with a kangaroo which wasnt my fault, and the other 2 i was going under 5km/h (one was my fault). but 90% of the time i am travelling over the speed limit, and 40% of the time i am going quite a fair bit over the limit (at least 20km/h) Geee, i must be a walking miracle....and considering i avg about 50,000km a year.... going by their odds, it should be impossible to be where i am.... in fact so impossible, they shouldnt bother sending me out any warnings or fines... cos obviously i couldnt have done it!
Everyone tells me (who are sucked in by the pollies) that one day i will have a crash.... but funny, i have never had one speed related, and yet most other people who dordle along crash more frequently than they would like to admit.
A simple lane change has more danger in it than increasing your speed by 5km/h (3mph)... let's hope they don't ban lane changing!
The wipe off 5 argument is a crock. Imagine two roadworthy cars, a ten year old hiace work van, and a brand new GT with the brembo brakes were side by side, the van doing 60 and the GT doing 65, and they had to pull up quick, i can tell u which car id rather be in. But of course due to the wipe off 5 argument, the van would be a much safer alternative
In real extremes it can make a difference. At the end of the basic John Bowe course they do a swerve and brake exercise. You can make it through at 60 km/h, they get you to raise your speed to 65 km/h and it becomes a bit more difficult. Finally they raise speed to 70 km/h and I couldn’t make it through (although I might’ve if given a few more goes at it). It opens your eyes a bit. On the road you may only get one chance at survival. It certainly opened my eyes.
Having said that the majority of people that I see driving don’t seem to be able to perceive a hazard (even the lane ahead being blocked for road works with signage), yet alone react to it. Most peoples driving skills seem to start and end at being able to accelerate in a straight line.
And dont forget the ridiculous ad that they put with that. Basically, two cars braking at the same time. One hits the truck, one dosnt. Great theatre, HOWEVER, as someone pointed out. If the truck pulled out 30 metres in front of both cars, they would both be dead. Its a little like the pedestrian argument, that lowering the speed limit gives a pedestrian a greater chance of survival. Well, yes and no. Yes, if he steps out far enough in front to allow the drive to decrease his speed to 20kph or less. No, if he dosnt. End of story.
What is cruicial however is how the driver reacts when confronted with that situation. Remarkably, the factor that governments refuse to invest any money what so ever into, driver training :-)
ALSO, factor in the increased injury and death rates due to the increase of 4x4 cars on the road (read last saturdays The Age article on crash statistics and findings on 4X4's its terrifying) and you might just get an answer as to why the road toll will not reduce and in some cases has increased. Pedestrian deaths are on the increase, 4 x 4 now represent 1 in 5 cars in urban areas....hmmmm conicidence...nah must be speed!
Again, governments take easy way out, and blame speed, it has to be speed, speed is evil? Well maybe it is, but the fact you are 10 times more likely to suffer death or spinal injuries in a 4 x 4 that rolls over as compared to the family sedan, and that a 4 x 4 is 3 times more likely to roll than the family sedan and small cars in urban areas... points to the fact these guys are ingoring the facts and need to wake up to themselves. Start targeting the real cause of death and injury on our roads, and stop with the easy, simplistic, and revenue POSITIVE areas.
__________________
Chevs may go, but theres nothing like a HO!
Proud LSUG Member, and 9" Nodular Iron driveline test pilot.
Member FGTCoA
www.falcongtclub.org
I couple of months ago I blindly walked out onto Victoria Street without looking (Stupid I know, but my mind was somewhere else) anyway I was nearly cleaned up by a Police Car of all coincidences.
Anyway, I called myself a F'wit and said sorry. This is what astounded me. They didn't book me for Jaywalking!!!
It got me thinking that maybe if pedestrians were as heavly fined as motorists for not acting responsabily they would actualy think before crossing the road even if it were to only look up for police. I know i woud have.
It just seems like the pedestrian thing is getting worse. Saturday and Sunday driving in the city is becomming nerve racking. I am continually dodging meat bags steppng out onto the road.
and that a 4 x 4 is 3 times more likely to roll than the family sedan.
Watch that quote. Once the Corvette had the lowest calculated rollover potential out of all the cars for sale in the USA, unfortunately the 'vette was involved in a lot (most?) of rollovers.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
