Safe Speed Forums

Fast drivers and a falling road toll: Germans show how

A safety expert says a crackdown on speeding is not the answer to reducing the road toll.

The vice-president of safety development for Mercedes-Benz, Ulrich Mellinghoff, says crash-avoidance systems, better roads and more roundabouts would do more to cut the road toll than tougher speeding laws.

The approach is in direct contrast to governments in NSW and Victoria, who preach the "speed kills" mantra as the best solution to reducing the road toll.

Mr Mellinghoff says motorists often fall into the trap of thinking they are driving safely because they are under the speed limit. He says the German road toll had reduced significantly in the past 20 years, despite much higher road speeds.

"I don't think that speed alone is the problem. It's the wrong speed in a special situation. With speed limits you will not stop those situations. If you have fog and drive at 100km/h, which is allowed, you are really in high danger of having an accident. On the other hand, if you drive 250km/h on the German autobahn in clear weather conditions with no traffic, it's not really a risk and no accidents happen in those situations," he says.

His claims are borne out by German road statistics. In 1972, there were 20,000 deaths on West German roads. Last year, there were 4100, despite 20 million more people on the road (including the old East Germany).

"That was with much worse traffic and significantly more vehicles on the road," Mr Mellinghoff said.

"What we have seen is there are a lot of very different reasons for accidents. Sometimes it is not the high speed, it is the wrong speed. If you limit the speed, the driver often thinks all they have to do is drive the speed limit.''

It was better to put the responsibility for driving at the right speed on the shoulders of the driver. Accident-avoidance technology, including pedestrian avoidance systems, also had the potential to drastically reduce the road toll.

When stability control was introduced on all cars in Germany, there was a 30 per cent reduction in accidents where a single car left the road.

Mr Mellinghoff said Australia's New Car Assessment Program, which crash-tests cars and awards safety ratings, should reward vehicles more for crash avoidance rather than the protection they offered in an accident.

"They should focus more on these assistance systems. It makes more sense to avoid an accident than to reduce the severity of it," he said.

Responding to the comments, a spokesman for the RTA said: ''speed remains a major factor in crashes throughout NSW, with 40 per cent of fatalities speed-related. Motorists are becoming complacent about the dangers of speeding and the belief that a crash won't happen to them.''

Mr Mellinghoff said Germany had also seen good results from separating vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. He believes car-to-car communication can also play a role in reducing the toll, with cars able to warn drivers behind them about hazards.

Good to see others say what we have been saying for ages.

The standard response by politicians will be to say that he isn't a road safety expert, that his research is not peer reviewed and he works for a company making very fast cars so he is biased. It won't matter if these statements are true or not as long as they cast doubt on his integrity.

The Sydney Morning Herald Here
http://smh.drive.com.au/fast-drivers-an ... -plsi.html

The standard response by politicians will be to say that he isn't a road safety expert, that his research is not peer reviewed and he works for a company making very fast cars so he is biased. It won't matter if these statements are true or not as long as they cast doubt on his integrity.

You make a point of highlighting "if you drive 250km/h on the German autobahn in clear weather conditions with no traffic, it's not really a risk and no accidents happen in those situations," he says."

Would you care to tell us how an accident happens in those circumstances without resorting to the absurd or 'Act of God' event Mr Greenshed?

It is very easy to not rely on a report when it says some of what you don't want to believe.

The conditions described represent when most collisions and casualties occur

Simple analysis that concludes that low risk/ideal conditions coupled with additional risk to injury potential is what it says on the tin "simple" but more importantly naive and mistaken.

The exact mechanism of each collision is not important nor is it common to all collisions; what is common are the conditions and driver attitudes in those conditions.

That’s funny, I always thought “most collisions” occured at junctions.

Who told me that motorways are the safest type of road? Come on, own up!!

“Simple” like Speed Kills then?

Speed kills must be "naive and mistaken" then?

I think you're defeating your own argument...

No, but you’re nearly there.. What is common are the conditions and driver attitudes in all conditions.

I request that you either substantiate or withdraw that claim.

The standard response by politicians will be to say that he isn't a road safety expert, that his research is not peer reviewed and he works for a company making very fast cars so he is biased. It won't matter if these statements are true or not as long as they cast doubt on his integrity.

I doubt he is a road safety expert and his analysis will have probably amounted to a single read of part of the German casualty figures; puts 2+2 together and makes 66! You may have hit on the reason he has said what he did.

His elementary assessment of the total German casualty figure is based upon what "he believes" the safest driving situation to be.