Queensland

The speed and braking distance debate.

The graph above shows the two versions of the "truth" according to Queensland transport. There is quite a striking difference between them.

The (99) figures are taken from a widely distributed brochure that they published, which was also on the www.roadsafety.net website at the time (from 1997 until after February 1999) These figures are based on a 0.75 second reaction time which is reasonable, but use a poor car as their example.

The (01) figures also differ from those that are published on the www.roadsafety.net now (October 2001) but have been published in the Sunday Mail (7/10/01) and are used in television commercials. We have now gone to a 1.5 second reaction time (asleep at the wheel stuff) and an even poorer performing car as the example.

The actual numbers are:

	1999 figures			2001 figures
initial speed	reaction	braking	total	reaction	braking	total	Greater by
50	10.4	14.6	25	20.8	21.2	42	17
60	12.5	21.5	34	25.0	31.0	56	22
70	14.6	28.4	43	29.2	41.8	71	28
80	16.7	37.3	54	33.3	54.7	88	34
90	18.8	47.3	66	37.5	69.5	107	41
100	20.8	59.2	80	41.7	85.3	127	47
110				45.8	104.2	150

The latest Queensland television propaganda campaign shows 3 red commodores screeching to a halt (all wheels locked) and supposedly all stopping from the same mark at 3 different speeds 60, 65, and 70.

There are several problems with these advertisements

In order to space out the cars enough for effect, they have to greatly exaggerate the braking distances. Anyone with a clue can see that these distances are unrealistic.
The cars are shown in "full lockup" condition - this imprints people with the notion that this is the correct and most effective manner to bring a car to a stop in a panic situation. Locking the brakes will reduce the effectiveness of the braking and add considerable extra distance to the stop (although not as much as they have claimed)
The argument about braking distances, although relevant is only one factor in most life and death situations. In the case of the pedestrian appearing on the road, in many cases the best manoeuvre would be to steer around them while braking to reduce the impact in the event that you still collide. In all of the commercials ever produced about braking distance there never any acknowledgement that the driver actually has a steering wheel they they can use

This is the graph from what they used to say (Feb 1999) see oldfacts

and now: .... funny how the distances have gotten longer as technology improves (hmmmm)
from: http://roadsafety.net/SPEED/speeding.html

the rest of the roadsafety.net site is a wealth of mis-information too.

Other states - NSW

It gets ever sillier too:

"Every 5 km/hr over the speed limit doubles your risk of a crash" - interesting that their braking distances are less than those in Queensland.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/safety/c151_c.htm

And the notorious Adelaide research
http://raru.adelaide.edu.au/speed/

We always thought Queensland Govt was the master of exaggeration
"Almost one in five fatalities on our roads result from speeding. "
but they have a long way to go to catch up with NSW.

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/road/road-traffic.cfm
It's enough to make you cry! In reality they look pretty silly...
(a) in spite of all the extra speed cameras and programs - their rate went up.
(b) the rate in QLD has been stable at about 12-14% for years. 42% in NSW is
sound evidence that they are cooking the books for their own ends.
If you follow the link to the RTA site....
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/frames/safety/c_f.htm?/frames/safety/c152&/safety/c1521_c.htm&Fixed+Speed+Camera+Locations&1
This shows camera locations AND the actual recorded 85th percentile - always
well above the posted speed limit. I guess they think this shows just how BAD
people are by disobeying the limit. Of course in fact, it is clear evidence that
the limit is set too low (in most cases)