Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
1788 messages, Last post on Nov 14, 2009 at 3:43 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: larsb (Feb 24, 2009 6:24 am) I want safe and efficient highways, and I want our local authorities to be well funded. I just want it done in a legal manner following due processes as enshrined in our Constitution, that's all. 
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Feb 24, 2009 6:21 am) German autobahns have a lower fatality rate than highways in some other countries including the USA despite higher travel speeds. However, the policing of the autobahn, as well as strict standards for driver licencing and vehicle maintenance play their role as well in this level of safety. Therefore, those arguing for higher speed limits on US highways should also consider all the other associated levels of maintenance, training and enforcement and their society wide costs that need to accompany higher speed travel if it is to be done safely. I apologize for the poor formatting. I tried to put in tabs, but the numbers still do not line up. from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_safety#Motorway Motorways (called freeways in North America) have the highest design standards for speed, safety and fuel efficiency. Motorways improve safety by: prohibiting more vulnerable road users prohibiting slow-moving vehicles, thus reducing speed variation and potential δv for same-direction travel segregating opposing traffic flows with median dividers or crash barriers, thus reducing potential δv for opposite-direction collisions separating crossing traffic by replacing intersections with interchanges, thus reducing potential δv into the side, most vulnerable vehicle section (side impacts are also responsible for some of the most serious traumatic brain injuries) removing roadside obstacles. Although these roads may experience greater severity than most roads to due higher speeds in the event of a crash, the probability of a crash is reduced by removing interactions (crossing, passing, slower and opposing traffic), and crash severity is reduced by removing massive, fixed objects or surrounding them with energy attenuation devices (e.g. guardrails, wide grassy areas, sand barrels). These mechanisms deliver lower fatalities per vehicle-kilometer of travel than other roadways, as documented in the following table. Country Killed/Billion km (Motorways) Killed/Billion km (Non-Motorways) Motorway AADT Road Travel by Motorway % Motorway 2003 Speed Limit in km (mph) Austria 5.9 13.4 30,077 23% 130 (80) Czech Republic 9.9 34.3 25,714 11% 130 (80) Denmark 3.0 11.9 29,454 25% 130 (80) Finland 1.4 8.3 22,780 10% 120 (75) France 4.0 12.8 31,979 21% 130 (80) Germany 3.8 12.4 48,710 31% 130 (80) (advisory) Ireland 7.4 11.0 26,730 4% 120 (75) Japan 4.0 11.9 26,152 9% 100 (60) Netherlands 2.1 11.7 66,734 41% 120 (75) Slovenia 8.1 18.7 15,643 19% 130 (80) Sweden 2.5 9.9 24,183 21% 110 (70) Switzerland 2.8 11.8 43,641 33% 120 (75) United Kingdom 2.0 9.3 85,536 23% 110 (70) United States 5.2 10.7 39,634 24% 120 (75) definition: AADT - average annual daily traffic. The bi-direction traffic count representing an average 24-hour day in a year. Sometimes called "traffic density" although it ignores or assumes a constant number of travel lanes. source: International Road Traffic and Accident Database (IRTAD) [1], Risk Values in 2003 and Selected References Values for 2003 -- courtesy of the Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, that is, the (German) Federal Highway Research Institute. Travel was computed by dividing the fatality rate by the number of fatalities; AADT by dividing travel by the length of the motorway network. 2003 speed limits were obtained from the Wiki page and verified with other sources.
|
|
|
Many of these things are not true on the average US highway. Although these roads may experience greater severity than most roads to due higher speeds in the event of a crash, the probability of a crash is reduced by removing interactions (crossing, passing, slower and opposing traffic), and crash severity is reduced by removing massive, fixed objects or surrounding them with energy attenuation devices (e.g. guardrails, wide grassy areas, sand barrels). These mechanisms deliver lower fatalities per vehicle-kilometer of travel than other roadways, as documented in the following table. Almost every highway road I travel on has overpasses with exposed concrete columns, medians which can be traversed easily at high speeds, guardrails, and a very limited number of sand or water barrels. Good in theory and in practice in locations WHERE it can be done, but it is not as common in the USA as in some other places.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Feb 24, 2009 7:38 am) |
|
|
How about this technology to control speeding? The proposed system would work on all roads all the time, not just highways and would not require any speed cameras, photo radar based or otherwise. from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article539988.ece The Sunday Times July 3, 2005 On test: the car that stops you speeding Dipesh Gadher,Transport Correspondent For those with a need for speed, it will take the thrill out of driving, but the government believes an in-car “spy” device could save lives and make speed cameras and road humps redundant. The device, which automatically applies the brakes or blocks the accelerator to prevent a driver from exceeding the speed limit, has been successfully tested on Britain’s roads for the first time. The trial in Leeds was part of a two-year study into “Intelligent Speed Adaptation” (ISA) commissioned by the Department for Transport, which wants to reduce road casualties by 40% by 2010. Transport for London (TfL), Ken Livingstone’s transport agency, is also interested in the technology and has asked researchers at Leeds University — who conducted the DfT trial — to produce a feasibility study for the capital. TfL is considering initially fitting limiters onto public service vehicles, such as buses and taxis. However, it also wants to encourage private motorists to install the devices and could give a discount on the congestion charge, which tomorrow rises from £5 to £8 a day. Experts believe the system — which monitors the speed limit via satellite tracking — would cost up to £1,300 to install now but is likely to be fitted as standard in most cars within a decade. For the initial trial in Leeds — the first of four six-month trials — researchers recruited 20 volunteers to drive specially modified Skoda Fabias. Each car was fitted with a black box containing a digital road map showing the speed limits on every road in the city. A satellite positioning system told the car where it was on the map and alerted the driver, via a digital display on the dashboard, each time he entered a zone with a new speed limit. If the driver attempted to exceed the limit, a signal was sent to the accelerator or brake pedal to intervene. “If the driver is demanding something greater than the speed limit, that demand is ignored,” said Oliver Carsten, the research leader and professor of transport safety at Leeds University. “In a 30mph zone the car will basically not accelerate above 30mph.” Tests following the trial revealed that volunteers were also less likely to break the speed limit when the system was switched off. Previous modelling has suggested that if limiters were fitted to all cars in Britain, the number of people injured on the roads each year would fall by 20%, while fatalities would be cut by 37% from their present level of 3,221. Jeremy Clarkson, co- presenter of the BBC’s Top Gear programme and a Sunday Times writer, disagreed. “If you put speed limiters on cars so that they can only go to a certain limit you end up with terrible bunching which actually causes more accidents,” he said. “Tony Blair is not going to tell me how fast to go.” Car manufacturers are also sceptical about the benefits and would be likely to resist any attempt by the government to make limiters compulsory. A DfT spokesman said it had no plans to make the use of speed limiters mandatory. “It will be for the industry to take forward the technology in response to consumer demand.”
|
|
|
However, here is a much cheaper and elegantly simple solution to reduce traffic speeds: from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/05/553.asp UK: Bath Official Wants More Potholes Bath, UK Councillor proposes to slow traffic by letting roads deteriorate. Bath, UK Councillor Andy Furse wants the city's roads to deteriorate as a "traffic calming" measure akin to, but cheaper than, speed bumps. "When people are confronted by less well-maintained road surfaces with potholes, they tend to drive slower," Furse told the Bath Chronicle. "And taxpayers would make significant savings, first because less would be spent on road surfaces, and second because less would be spent on road-calming measures such as speed cameras and road humps." Furse clarifies that bus and bicycle lanes would be kept free of potholes. Several of Furse's fellow Councillors are less enthusiastic about the idea. Article Excerpt: Cllr Sir Elgar Jenkins (Con, Bathwick), the council's executive member for transport and highways, said: "It doesn't stand up. I assumed at first it was a joke, but if Cllr Furse is considering pursuing it, he needs to ask himself exactly what he is doing." Source: Why potholes are good for Bath (Bath Chronicle (UK), 7/25/2005) |
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Feb 24, 2009 7:31 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Feb 24, 2009 8:21 am) I agree with you that the safety of high speed travel on the autobahn takes a lot of resources. However, to call it a "very stupid waste" is not correct in my view. The German people have decided that for them, the cost is worth the advantanges to them, real or perceived. We obviously need to make up our mind for us, using our situation and our laws and sense. However, I, personally, definitely feel safer at the present speed limits in my country and not at 125 mph. If I had my choice of speeds to have an accident, I know what I would choose surely.
|
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Feb 24, 2009 8:31 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Feb 24, 2009 8:41 am)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
