Road safety - MAC and Fred Wegman

[koalaboy]

Australian governments and the Motor Accident Commission (MAC) use a completely inappropriate statistical measure to compare us against other countries in the world to justify their continual focus of speed reduction. Fatality rates are currently quoted using the fatalities per 100,000 people measure. Austrlaia's current rate is 6.8 and the Netherlands is an impressive 4.1. So it is no wonder that the government thought it would be a good idea to invite Fred Wegman, from the Netherlands, to tell us where we are going wrong (and to blow the government's trumpet about speed enforcement). The MAC rely on government funding, so they will skew the statistics however the government wants, just so that they can focus on one treatment method - speeding = revenue raising.

There is another statistical measure available to governments, but it is harder to quantify and contradicts everything the government keeps saying. It is fatalities per vehicle km (billion) travelled. Australia is 6.5 and the Netherlands is 7.7. Not so impressive now. It is a real measure, based on exposure.

Let's compare the differences between the two countries:
Netherlands vs Australia
population density (people per km2) - 400 vs 3
public transport usage - 20% vs 7%

On a daily basis, the Dutch drive shorter distances to work and more of them use public transport. The Netherlands is also well known for having one of the highest densities of freeway networks in the world. So when they do travel long distances it is on high standard freeways.

Considering the massive difference between the two countries, why is this guy here at such great expense? His solutions so far have been to reduce speeds on local roads to 30km/h and intersections down to 50km/h. Inciteful. Who would have thought that reducing speeds would reduce the fatality rate? Is he aware half of the fatalities did not occur in the city? Is he aware that inattention and fatigue are the biggest cause of accidents in rural areas? Longer trip time would equal more inattention and fatigue, you will be driving so slow you will tune out even more. The obvious solution is higher standard roads, but who doesn't know that? We just can't afford it because SA is a massive state with a small population.

Some ideas I think would help:
STOP URBAN SPRAWL - unless coupled with good public transport and local facilities - sprawl increases veh km and dependence on cars
Stricter vehicle registration - old car fleet = less safe vehicles - we are too leanient in SA

Anyone else got any ideas?

[AG]

Even if you stop urban sprawl, it doesn't stop the fact that much of the traffic is on the national highways between our major cities as well. In other countries, drives between cities can be at little as an hour or two. The driving time between many of our cities in a country as large as ours is many times that! When you're driving for that long, other issues such as driver fatigue also creep into the picture.

[Wayno]

You are heading in the right direction koalaboy, and we must also compare other factors such as average trip speed (lower speed is probably better), style of roads (skinny suburban vs freeways, etc), trip duration (as AG pointed out, which could be contributor due to fatigue), population education (and not just "how to drive" education), fuel costs (more expensive fuel in the netherlands may create more frugal & safer driving habits), etc...

[koalaboy]

I think governments shy away from anything slightly controversial, like vehicle inspections. I am sure another stat would confirm that the average age of the Adelaide car fleet is well above that of the European nations we aspire to be like. The introduction of the seatbelt showed a significant improvement in fatality rates. New cars now have ESP, side impact protection to name a few. As a wellfare-dependent state, the government seems to be afraid of obvious safety improvements such as this because it will impact on those that can least afford it. What they fail to realise is that their current policy makes older vehicles more expensive. In NSW, second hand cars are cheaper because they need regular compliance checks to keep them registered. Quite often, dealers in SA buy them and sell them here for a good profit. We are the dumping ground for the nation's second hand car fleet.

I still think the smarter solution is to get people out of their cars; anything that reduces the number of km travelled. In the metro area, increasing PT patronage helps. This can be done by making car parking more expensive by putting a tax on each car park or by reducing road expenditure in favour of PT improvements.

The rural roads are more difficult to treat because we have so many of them and they carry such low traffic flows, particularly in SA. Economically, the cost of the solutions outweigh the benefits, perhaps excluding intersections. We are better off throwing the money into other life-saving initiatives completely unrelated to roads or invest in the development of vehicle safety technology, fatigue detection and the like.

[Omicron]

That Wegman fellow is a dill. Apparently the Southern Expressway is a well-designed road. I must have missed the part when exiting a freeway from the right lane suddenly changed from 'facepalm' to 'well-designed'. And I sincerely hope that the Advertiser misquoted him with respect to the 50km/h speed limit through traffic-light intersections, because I don't even know where to start with that.

[Aidan]

Even if you stop urban sprawl, it doesn't stop the fact that much of the traffic is on the national highways between our major cities as well. In other countries, drives between cities can be at little as an hour or two. The driving time between many of our cities in a country as large as ours is many times that! When you're driving for that long, other issues such as driver fatigue also creep into the picture.

SA has very little traffic to other major cities. More vehicles go down the main street of Murray Bridge than across all our state borders combined. And there's plenty of long distance traffic in Europe, so I doubt it's a major point of difference.

As for Fred Wegman, though I'm unimpressed with what I've heard so far, I intend to hear his lecture (6pm Tuesday) so I'm not going to make any further comment before then. For anyone who's interested, it's free but booking is required.

[crawf]

SA has very little traffic to other major cities. More vehicles go down the main street of Murray Bridge than across all our state borders combined. And there's plenty of long distance traffic in Europe, so I doubt it's a major point of difference.

Have you ever been to Murray Bridge?, because I disagree entirely with that comment.

Not all traffic is heading towards major cities either..

[Aidan]

SA has very little traffic to other major cities. More vehicles go down the main street of Murray Bridge than across all our state borders combined. And there's plenty of long distance traffic in Europe, so I doubt it's a major point of difference.

Have you ever been to Murray Bridge?, because I disagree entirely with that comment.

Of course I've been to Murray Bridge, several times. But though the main street is busy, my comment was based not on my impression but on the rural traffic flow map on the DTEI site.

Not all traffic is heading towards major cities either..

Agreed. Most of it is going to minor cities, and a lot of it is not going to cities at all. Either way, most of it is not very long distance.

Is this really that surprising? How many times have you been to Murray Bridge by road? And how many times have you been interstate by road?

[koalaboy]

And there's plenty of long distance traffic in Europe, so I doubt it's a major point of difference.

After recently visiting Europe and driving for a few weeks between countries I can't see any similarity between most of the intercity roads. They have full-scale freeways linking virtually every destination with posted speeds of 130km/h. They can do this because there are no intersections, the opposing carriageways are physically separated by a continuous barrier and generally the outer edge of the road also has a continuous barrier. In most cases there is also high fencing along the corridor to prevent wild animals entering. Even if you were to fall asleep, a barrier would soon slow you down. I think the longest drive I had to do in a day was 350km and at 130km/h it was a breeze. These roads were always busy and came at a reasonable $ cost, so you can understand the expenditure. Admittedly, off the main roads the quality takes a sharp dive, but it's pretty hard to reach speed on most of them.

Despite the fact our rural roads carry such low flows, they account for nearly two thirds of the state fatalities(71 Rural to 44 Metro). Most of our rural roads don't have the opposing carriageways separated, so head on crashes are common. They have regular intersections and private accesses directly onto the roads. Wild animals have free reign, as do the old farmers in their landcruisers. The road clearzone is littered with massive trees so any mistake has fatal consequences. The best thing is that the native vegetation is untouchable because they are the only ones left in most rural areas because of farming. Obvious things like the removal of hazards are not allowed.

Based on Wegman's suggestions so far, I am not holding my breath as he has only focussed on the metro area using speed reduction treatments. Might help reduce injuries slightly, but that's about it.

[Aidan]

Having listened to what he said, I think the government were right to invite Fred Wegman - he had some very good ideas. Devices in vehicles that send out a distress signal in the event of a crash would be really valuable in saving lives - particularly in rural areas. And having in vehicle devices to indicate the speed limit would also be useful. In both those cases the technology already exists.

Making the reasons for the speed limits more obvious would also be a good move.

There's also a lot he said that I don't agree with, like the Gepps Cross intersection being too big and our road network not being hieratic enough. He dislikes there being so many alternative routes, whereas I think it's one of our greatest strengths. And I certainly don't agree with his long term objective of banning right turns. But I don't see that as a problem - it's not as if he's in charge of anything. He's just there to provide ideas, and that's what he's done.

[koalaboy]

If that was the general summary of his ideas, I think for $250,000 that is pretty expensive advice. Not having a go at you here Aidan, just my comments about his "solutions".

Devices in vehicles that send out a distress signal in the event of a crash

A device that doesn't prevent a crash from happening, but instead notifies the funeral director where to go? How much of an impact would that realistically have? Active vehicle devices like ESP that prevent the crash happening in the first place would be a far better investment. You also need to bear in mind that a lot of this technology is well-known in the industry. We don't need an "expert" to come over and tell us that he saw some really cool device in a catalogue that would be heaps good for us to use.
This brings me back to the issue of the car fleet age. As technology becomes more viable, they are introduced to the new car fleet and eventually become standard inclusions. If you you have a state with an average fleet age of 10 years, the obvious solution is to reduce the age of the fleet to increase the average safety features of the fleet. But I doubt the government would want their expert pointing this very obvious fact out.

And having in vehicle devices to indicate the speed limit would also be useful

Ahem, that's what pretty much all GPS devices already do, $250,000 well spent again KAAACHING. For locals, such as 99% of road victims, how would this change their behaviour if they already know the limit?

Making the reasons for the speed limits more obvious would also be a good move.

After the 50km/h limit was introduced, the speed zones in Adelaide became very inconsistent. Identical roads feeding the CBD became a mix of 50 and 60 for no apparent reason. The road and surrounding environment should match the speed limit. Ideally, there should be no need to put up a speed sign if the design is good. Unfortunately in recent years we have had 100km/h designed roads downgraded to 80 or even 60km/h and everyone speeds because it just doesn't feel right.

long term objective of banning right turns

Actually does have some merit. Without right turns intersections are safer and far more efficient. You would be amazed how much more traffic you could get through an intersection by banning right turns, particular minor ones with single lanes. Most of the worst crashes involving 2 cars are due to right turns. Without right turns people will have to plan ahead for their trip. You just do 3 left turns, which are far safer and easier to do. Not so good for the back streets though. Oh, but they will be posted at 30km/h if he has his way.

[Aidan]

If that was the general summary of his ideas, I think for $250,000 that is pretty expensive advice.

He had plenty more ideas than that, and I'm sure there's plenty that didn't make it into his presentation. Of the stuff that did, a fair bit was things that should be obvious but seem to have been ignored (like removing, or at least moving, the dangerous Stobie poles).

Not having a go at you here Aidan, just my comments about his "solutions".

Devices in vehicles that send out a distress signal in the event of a crash

A device that doesn't prevent a crash from happening, but instead notifies the funeral director where to go? How much of an impact would that realistically have?

Never mind the funeral director, it would notify the paramedics and would therefore have a huge impact.

Active vehicle devices like ESP that prevent the crash happening in the first place would be a far better investment.

They're not mutually exclusive, but ESP is much more expensive and not universally retrofittable. Even the most optimistic proponents of ESP aren't claiming it will be in every car on the road within the next few decades. And even if it were, it wouldn't prevent every single accident.

You also need to bear in mind that a lot of this technology is well-known in the industry. We don't need an "expert" to come over and tell us that he saw some really cool device in a catalogue that would be heaps good for us to use.

That wasn't the point of his coming over, but it's something he mentioned that I regarded as significant.

This brings me back to the issue of the car fleet age. As technology becomes more viable, they are introduced to the new car fleet and eventually become standard inclusions. If you you have a state with an average fleet age of 10 years, the obvious solution is to reduce the age of the fleet to increase the average safety features of the fleet. But I doubt the government would want their expert pointing this very obvious fact out.

He pointed it out anyway - I just didn't think it was worth mentioning.

And having in vehicle devices to indicate the speed limit would also be useful

Ahem, that's what pretty much all GPS devices already do, $250,000 well spent again KAAACHING.

Why the double counting?

I was under the impression that speed limit mapping was not a standard feature of GPS devices yet. Am I wrong?

For locals, such as 99% of road victims, how would this change their behaviour if they already know the limit?

It could alert them to it. But where do you get the 99% figure from?

Making the reasons for the speed limits more obvious would also be a good move.

After the 50km/h limit was introduced, the speed zones in Adelaide became very inconsistent. Identical roads feeding the CBD became a mix of 50 and 60 for no apparent reason. The road and surrounding environment should match the speed limit. Ideally, there should be no need to put up a speed sign if the design is good. Unfortunately in recent years we have had 100km/h designed roads downgraded to 80 or even 60km/h and everyone speeds because it just doesn't feel right.

Just curious - where have 100km/h designed roads been downgraded to 60?

long term objective of banning right turns

Actually does have some merit. Without right turns intersections are safer and far more efficient. You would be amazed how much more traffic you could get through an intersection by banning right turns, particular minor ones with single lanes. Most of the worst crashes involving 2 cars are due to right turns. Without right turns people will have to plan ahead for their trip. You just do 3 left turns, which are far safer and easier to do. Not so good for the back streets though. Oh, but they will be posted at 30km/h if he has his way.

I'm sure it would reduce the number of collisions, but that doesn't mean it has merit. For it to have merit the benefits would have to outweigh the extra inconvenience.

[koalaboy]

(like removing, or at least moving, the dangerous Stobie poles).

The state already has a very slow program to replace them (PLEC), but the costs are prohibitive because the footpaths are usually full of services and the undergrounding of electricity is also very expensive. In many cases it doesn't help to move them further away because they would still be too close to the road. The poles remain because there are more efficient ways to make roads safer without spending as much money.

notify the paramedics and would therefore have a huge impact.

For a very small proportion of crashes that happen without witnesses and when the person hasn't already been inflicted with permanent injuries or a fatality, not really a huge impact - millions of dollars of investment for what - a couple of lives saved. Is this for all rural motorists? Do you mean the 300,000 people that don't live in the metro area? Even if it only cost $200 a car to fit, that's a lot of dollars. Then you would need a system to administer it and the cost of false alerts.

ESP is much more expensive and not universally retrofittable

Do you have an installed cost for such a device? ESP (or ESC as it is commonly called) is standard in most new cars, even the basic barina. Tougher registration requirements to turn-over the fleet quicker would see the technology become more common without goverment wasting tax payer dollars on reactive measures. Not sure how a communication device would know the car it is attached to and the people in it require medical attention? Air bags require several instruments around the car to determine if the airbags should engage. I doubt they would send a helicopter hundreds of km due to an unconfirmed phone call from a device. Police would no doubt be sent first to confirm.

It could alert them to it

Another device to distract people while driving. Do people really crash because they did not know the speed limit?

where have 100km/h designed roads been downgraded to 60

Victor Harbor Rd near the northern end I reckon

For it to have merit the benefits would have to outweigh the extra inconvenience

Commonly a single right turn lane at a set of lights takes holds up at least two through lanes heading the other way. The "green" time used by this single right turn lane would be twice as effective it were given to the two through lanes. Basic maths in situations like this. Not always, agreed, but generally benefits outweigh the inconvenience when people adapt to the changes.

[Aidan]

(like removing, or at least moving, the dangerous Stobie poles).

The state already has a very slow program to replace them (PLEC), but the costs are prohibitive because the footpaths are usually full of services and the undergrounding of electricity is also very expensive. In many cases it doesn't help to move them further away because they would still be too close to the road. The poles remain because there are more efficient ways to make roads safer without spending as much money.

He pointed out that Stobie poles in extremely dangerous situations, that have been damaged when vehicles collide with them, have been replaced with new Stobie poles in exactly the same position. Surely you don't think that's justified?

notify the paramedics and would therefore have a huge impact.

For a very small proportion of crashes that happen without witnesses and when the person hasn't already been inflicted with permanent injuries or a fatality, not really a huge impact -

What gives you the idea that the proportion is very small?

millions of dollars of investment for what - a couple of lives saved. Is this for all rural motorists? Do you mean the 300,000 people that don't live in the metro area? Even if it only cost $200 a car to fit, that's a lot of dollars.

If it were anything like as expensive as that, you'd have a point.

Then you would need a system to administer it and the cost of false alerts.

We already have systems in place for controlling emergency vehicles.

ESP is much more expensive and not universally retrofittable

Do you have an installed cost for such a device? ESP (or ESC as it is commonly called) is standard in most new cars, even the basic barina. Tougher registration requirements to turn-over the fleet quicker would see the technology become more common without goverment wasting tax payer dollars on reactive measures.

We've come much further regarding ESP implementation than I thought we had, and it will undoubtedly save lives. But the fact remains that ESP would not prevent the majority of collisions.

Not sure how a communication device would know the car it is attached to and the people in it require medical attention? Air bags require several instruments around the car to determine if the airbags should engage. I doubt they would send a helicopter hundreds of km due to an unconfirmed phone call from a device. Police would no doubt be sent first to confirm.

I think the reason airbags need so many sensors is the need for rapid deployment. And police could save lives as well.

For it to have merit the benefits would have to outweigh the extra inconvenience

Commonly a single right turn lane at a set of lights takes holds up at least two through lanes heading the other way. The "green" time used by this single right turn lane would be twice as effective it were given to the two through lanes. Basic maths in situations like this. Not always, agreed, but generally benefits outweigh the inconvenience when people adapt to the changes.

I disagree. The green time could only be twice as effective given to the two through lanes if both of those lanes had vehicles in them and those vehicles wouldn't get stuck again at the next set of lights. Also the distance the right turning vehicle travels through the intersection is shorter, so it's not as clearcut as you might think.

Anyway, IIRC it was right turns between intersections he objected to.

[koalaboy]

Stobie poles in extremely dangerous situations, that have been damaged when vehicles collide with them, have been replaced with new Stobie poles in exactly the same position. Surely you don't think that's justified?

It doesn't look good, agreed. However, these are unplanned events and people need their power restored ASAP. As I said, footpaths are full of services and stoby poles have very deep and wide footings. You can't just bore a random hole anywhere. It takes weeks to get this information from the service authorities. The footings are designed so that the pole can be lifted out and new ones put in. They have quite a big diameter. Also, like I said, most metro areas have a 3m footpath at best. Safety hazards need to be a minimum 3m away from the road and that is for straight sections, curves are far worse. So even if you could move it to the back of the footpath it would still be too close. Far better to underground them instead of just moving them a token distance in metro areas. Rural areas are obviously a little more flexible. Either way, road authorities are not the controllers of the electricity network, so they can't go and move someone elses asset.

We already have systems in place for controlling emergency vehicles.

When the call is made by a human, but not a machine. The exception is fire alarms, but how many false alarms do firefighters have to attend just because someone just opened the wrong door. It will have a resourse cost for paramedics and someone could die because their ambulance attended a crash unneccesarily.

But the fact remains that ESP would not prevent the majority of collisions.

A large proportion of rural crashes are single vehicle roll over or hit fixed object. Most of these are caused by drivers over correcting when they lose concentration and drive onto the unsealed shoulder. Many head on crashes are caused by the same event. ESP drastically reduces this from happening.

I think the reason airbags need so many sensors is the need for rapid deployment.

No, it is because they are explosive devices that can kill people if they are not doing the right thing, such as sitting too close to the steering wheel. The devices measure impact force to determine if the force is excessive enough to warrant engaging. I don't think they all deploy automatically, the impact determines which ones engage. The force of the collision needs to exceed the force of the air bag. It is also a very expensive exercise to replace each airbag, so insurance companies would not like it if they engaged in a car park bingle.

Also the distance the right turning vehicle travels through the intersection is shorter, so it's not as clearcut as you might think.

Traffic signals is a core part of my work and it is pretty clearcut that if you reduce the number of movements, particularly right turns, you can improve throughput. They do it everywhere on the network during peak hours at busy sites. Right turns generally have more intergreen time (yellow and red) because you have to assume a slower speed for the turn arc. It is also based on the next conflicting movement on the furthest part of the arc, which is usually the pedestrians that cross with the through movement. Like you said though, he was focussing on midblock right turns which are undertaken without any signal control and these do result in nasty T-bone crashes