50kph speed limits in Queensland
Below is an e-mail from a Queenslander with a beef about the new 50kph limits. It discusses the dishonest propaganda associated with the introduction of 50kph limits in Queensland and provides an extremely interesting discussion of braking distances. Because the e-mail discusses the propaganda more than the actual limits, feel free to visit this page on urban limits.
From: qldspeed@geocities.com
To: Michaeljbates@hotmail.com
Subject: Speeding Lies and Propaganda
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:33:22 +1000Speed: Is it the big problem we are told?
Are we are being hoodwinked into accepting 50km/hr, speed cameras, getting fined for it and STILL feeling guilty about it?
Read the following and make your own judgement.
Here's a few interesting facts:
Speed and its effect on Braking Distance
Much has been made of the effect of 'the extra 10 km/hr' regarding braking distances in several intensive media campaigns designed to soften the public up and implant the idea that speeding is perhaps the most serious offence one can commit on the roads. Unfortunately, the entire campaign is based on gross exaggerations and lies.
In the latest campaign, aimed at justifying the 1999 introduction of 50km/h speed limit in South East Queensland, we've even seen an exaggeration of an exaggeration. The official Queensland Government road-safety brochures (and web site) show a graph that lists the following:
Speed km/h, Reaction Distance, Braking Distance, Total
50 10 15 25
60 13 22 34
70 15 28 43
80 17 37 54
90 19 47 66
100 20 60 80The reaction time is based on a very slow witted person taking three quarters of a second to react. Most people will record a reaction time between one and two tenths of a second not 0.75 as stated in official explanation.
Note that even the inflated official graph shows only 9 metres more (60 vs. 50) yet on the TV adverts they say 12 to 16 metres!!! What are they talking about? It's just blatant lies and propaganda!
Almost any car can completely stop in from 60 km/h in about 17 metres. (a typical car can do it in about 15.5 metres, and a good one can do it in 13.5m)
SCIENTIFIC REALITY (see graph at bottom of page of this link)
If you would like to confirm the above, it's easy. Pick up any copy of the American published "ROAD and TRACK" magazine – available from virtually any newsagent. The magazine lists tested braking distances for about 120 different cars stopping from 60mph and 80mph in a section called "Road Test Summary". Now compare the tested braking distances for 60mph (96km/h) with the 60 metres (197ft) quoted by the good old transport department.
Most cars fall between 130 and 150 ft which means the official figures are inflated by 30% or more for a start.
The Braking distances for any other distance can be calculated by using the square of the two speeds as a ratio. This is because braking distance is a function of kinetic energy dissipated, and kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity.
So if we want to calculate the braking distance at 60km/h we can use the 'typical poor car' distance 145ft from 60mph – or 44.2 metres from 96km/h
(Note: 90% of the cars listed stop in a shorter distance, with a Ferrari 550 Marranello capable of doing it in only 112ft (34.13m))
Calculating the ratio: 60 squared, divided by 96 squared, is 0.391. Multiply this by the 96km/h braking distance and we get:
0.391 x 44.2 = 17.28 metres.
Remember this is from 60km/h to a complete stop.
But won't a lot of pedestrian lives be saved?
Well we all KNOW that "50km/h on local streets will save lives" – they've been TELLING us that for months! But where is the research that backs this up, and perhaps more importantly, just how many lives can we expect will be saved? I doubt anyone in the transport department has even bothered to do an estimate since it is all rhetoric and propaganda.
Here's the official statement that only "up to 30% of casualty crashes occur on local streets"
Unfortunately, the published statistics do not give any breakdown that would allow this statement to be confirmed, and given their record so far it is entirely likely that this too is a fabrication.
What we do know is that the total PEDESTRIAN fatalities for 1998 was 47 across the whole of Queensland. (Update: 1999 fatalities = 47) Assuming that about 50% of these occurred in South East Queensland and that the 30% casualty rate applies to fatalities as well, we can infer that about 45 x 0.5 x 0.3 = 7 - yes an estimated (up to) SEVEN pedestrians died on SEQ local streets last year.
Realise also that it is by no means guaranteed that ANY of these seven people would have survived had the speed limit been lower, however IF what they are saying is correct it is just a little bit statistically more likely.
Even if all of these seven survived this would make only a 2.5% impact on the road-toll, yet other much larger risk factors have not had anywhere near the focus – e.g. seatbelts 12.2%, fatigue 12.1%, and alcohol still topping the bill at 17.6%. This gross missallocation of resources is almost criminal negligence!
Let's call on the government to agree, that if the pedestrian road-toll is not reduced this year, that the complete 50km/h project be abandoned - Surely that's fair?
Another interesting fact:
All cars are designed to be able to travel (just barely) in top gear at 60km/h – It's part of the engineering design spec.Now we have to drive in a lower gear causing more pollution and wear. (Heck, maybe Greenpeace will take up the cause?)
The State Government also seems to have forgotten their promise that, if the 50km/h local limit was introduced, that the main road speed limits would be reviewed and raised! Almost all of the 4 and 6 lane arterial roads in Brisbane still have a 60km/h limit.
It is also an engineering fact that increasing the travel speed of a road increases its effective traffic carrying capacity. Surely it is in the government1s own interest to take advantage of this fact so as to alleviate the need to widen streets and build more roads.
The official line states that "Almost one in five fatalities is a result of speed"
Put another way,
"LESS THAN 20 PERCENT of fatalities is a result of speed"In reality the figure is much less than 20%. This is due to the fact that when assessing the cause of an accident, speed can be listed as a contributing factor, even if there are other more significant causes, such as the driver is found to have been well over the legal blood alcohol limit.
The number of accidents where excessive speed is the sole cause is actually only around 4%.
The 1998 statistics show only 34 out of 279 fatalities were classified as "speed was a contributing factor" (not, caused by speed or speeding – this distinction is important) This represents only 12.2%. Can someone explain how less than one in eight, can be regarded as almost one in five? Ooops, Caught out lying again!
So why is speed the area that receives the most publicity and the most enforcement attention?
Answer: Simple - it is the easiest to enforce AND the most profitable for the government.
One final point that's guaranteed to amuse.
The copyright notice on the roadsafety.net website states:"The State of Queensland makes no statements, representations, or warranties about the accuracy or completeness of, and you should not rely on, any information contained in this publication."
I guess that says it all.
http://www.roadsafety.net/MENU/copyright.html
Also for further information try
this: