Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Road accidents, speeding and re-design of of cars.

Closed for Business Time

14:05 / 08.09.08

"SPEEDING is the cause of 30 percent of all traffic deaths in the United States — about 13,000 people a year. By comparison, alcohol is blamed 39 percent of the time, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. But unlike drinking, which requires the police, breathalyzers and coercion to improve drivers’ behavior, there’s a simple way to prevent speeding: quit building cars that can exceed the speed limit."

From today's NY Times (link)

It's certainly an interesting proposition. I'd be all for it - after all, how often is there a need for anyone anywhere to drive faster than 75 mph? Or am I hopelessly and dangerously wrong?

14:25 / 08.09.08

I hate anything that errodes freedoms, but I agree 100%. Besides, as you said, the speed limits are already in place, but are not enforced enough. Capping the car's potential would enforce the law and help consumption as well.
In Quebec the speed related accidents are closer to 50%. Another funny statistic is that 50% of all serious accidents in Quebec involve drivers who are under 20, with speed usually playing a factor. Inexperience, fast cars, and shitty roads = death.

14:55 / 08.09.08

But... how likely is it any car manufacturer is going to have an advert with a sleek machine and the tag The new Metallicock- maximum speed fifty, because you're a shit driver- feel the need for medium speed.

I can't see it. And while people want to buy fast cars, manufacturers will keep making them. Besides, you can kill someone while doing 30mph no problem, what we need are less cars full stop.

15:07 / 08.09.08

I don't see it either, but until manufacturers (and/or "performance shops") are made liable...

Sure you can kill at less than 30kph, but that arguement is like a company that makes fully automatic submachine guns saying, "Well, people want automatics and besides, you can kill someone with a single shot .22..."

I think that we need to review the entire concept of a "right to drive".

Closed for Business Time

15:09 / 08.09.08

Not very likely at all, Q. Hence the need for elfin safety legislation, no? The market, as it stands, will never IMO make it so that producing slower cars is the economically rational response to the cost of lives and limbs lost.

I agree that less cars would be a better solution though, in the grander context.

Closed for Business Time

15:10 / 08.09.08

Cue the discussions on liability and "right to unrestricted movement".

16:05 / 08.09.08

I think the right to unrestricted movement is trumped by the right-to-not-get-killed-by-a-pillock-driving-too-fast.

Regarding legislation, I'd be all for it, but again it's a matter of there not being any will to change things. There's a massive, well funded car lobby and the anti-car lobby is mostly grieving families with no money.

Road traffic accidents kill more people than war, if there's a way to slow people down and get cars off the road I'm in, where do I sign up?

00:40 / 09.09.08

Regarding legislation, I'd be all for it, but again it's a matter of there not being any will to change things. There's a massive, well funded car lobby and the anti-car lobby is mostly grieving families with no money.

I suspect there is no will to change things because the American public does not want it to happen as opposed to general apathy to such a law. Out of curiosity, why is the anti-car lobby full of people with no money?

Doesn't Germany combat speeding by making speeding so expensive that people don't want to risk it? If so, that would be the easier, cheaper, and more revenue-generating option.

03:18 / 09.09.08

Except that you're not living in America...and neither is anyone else in this thread...

07:25 / 09.09.08

I suspect there is no will to change things because the American public does not want it to happen as opposed to general apathy to such a law. Out of curiosity, why is the anti-car lobby full of people with no money?

Oh for gawd's sake; is this attempting to put the "car lobby" and the "anti-car lobby" on some kind of even footing whereby the side with the best arguments will always win? Surely it's really bloody obvious why one side has economic and political power which dwarfs that of the other? One side happens to be mostly comprised of car manufacturers (and to a lesser extent, probably various other industries such as oil who have a vested interest in the matter) who make billions of pounds (/dollars/yen/etc.) and have strong financial incentives to keep the status quo. Whereas there is absolutely no reason why those on the other side, beyond some stray billionaire happening to take up their cause or something, is going to have any substantial amount of money.

(Incidentally, does it make sense to suggest that non-availability of super-powerful cars might have a bonus environmental side-effect of increasing the proportion of electric cars? If one of the main reasons few people buy such cars is that they can't compete in terms of maximum speed, it seems likely that removing or at least reducing that difference might help somewhat.)

Closed for Business Time

07:52 / 09.09.08

Your last point is a good one methinks, pingle. More later, gotta catch a meeting.

11:56 / 09.09.08

Doesn't Germany combat speeding by making speeding so expensive that people don't want to risk it?

How do you mean? By making tickets really expensive or fast cars really expensive?

I really don't know about Germany, but in North America you can buy a cheap car and add mods fairly cheaply, over time. Many kids living at home who have part time jobs could pull it off.

Here in Canada you could get a second hand Chevy Cavalier (A popular "cheap" choice) for under $5K and double the horsepower for an additional $5K or so.

Either way, cost doesn't seem to be much of a factor when it comes to speeding.

And besides: What are you saying Slim? Poor folk move aside the Rich are coming through?

14:05 / 09.09.08

I did hear one suggestion that rather than add airbags etc. to make drivers safer all cars are equipped with a steering spike to encourage safe driving.

15:40 / 09.09.08

I like the Idea, Quantum, but then I realised that I'm more worried about all the other idiots on the road...

I suggest

Laser sensors! You can drive as fast as you like, but if you come within 50 metres of anything in a 45 degree radius from the front of your car, the engine automatically downshifts/brakes to 30kmph.

Closed for Business Time

15:46 / 09.09.08

That's amusing, but ultimately doomed I think, Q.

#########

I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to implement this proposal though. Trucks and buses in Norway are physically unable (in the absence of tampering) of doing more than 90 km/h as a result of design regulation. It's gotta be more than the car lobby that stands in the way of this. The romance of the car - and geezers' (mostly Brit, US, French and Japanese) fascination with speeeeeeeeeeeeeed!!!! uber alles, comes to mind.

Taking a birds-eye view, there are broadly three ways of increasing road safety:

1 Persuade persons at risk to change their behavior, ie drive slower or more cautiously

2 Require behavior change by law or administrative rule, ie having lower speed limits and higher sanctions for breaking rules

3 Provide automatic protection through product and environmental design, ie the proposition in the OP and similar interventions.

1 has been tried and tried and tried without seemingly making much of an impact. It's exceedingly difficult to get people as a group to voluntarily change their habits.

2 might be the most effective way of reducing dangerous driving, as the fear of economic loss might deter people more than "safe driving" campaigns.

3 is possibly the best solution. However, some evidence suggests that designing cars to be safer might actually lead people to take more risks, the so-called risk compensation effect.

Of course, type 1 and 2 are ongoing, while some type 3 measures (like seat belt laws and other design measures improving driver and passenger (but NOT pedestrian/cyclist)safety) were implemented from the 60s onwards.

I dunno. This is all blue-sky thinking of of course, as there's 0 chance that proposals like these will get off the ground in any legislature I can think of.