Excessive speeding? I was excepting higher because I thought Hungarian drivers are shitty.

:lol:Actually,the number of wounded is high,~17000 just this year,but "only" 599 death so far,though none on motorways. It was 18000/808 last year.

That's impressive!

There were 31 deadly accidents(39 death) on motorways last year in the period I-XII. Overwhelming majority is because of either speeding or not yielding.

And the lack of safety belt.

Edit: This Hungarian data looks neary impossible. Noone hurt on motorways? Can't imagine!
I think the police changed the statistic method and doen't count separate motorway.
The motorway accidents are integrated into the contys.

And the lack of safety belt.

Edit: This Hungarian data looks neary impossible. Noone hurt on motorways? Can't imagine!
I think the police changed the statistic method and doen't count separate motorway.
The motorway accidents are integrated into the contys.

Check my source,I cant say anything else.

Check my source,I cant say anything else.

I've checked.
1st page: Numer of accidents with injury.
Motorways: 0 @ 2008. Nobudy hurt on motorways? Nothing minor (2007: 34 accident, 71 injury) and mayor (18/27) injury?
Impossible, I think.

I've checked.
1st page: Numer of accidents with injury.
Motorways: 0 @ 2008. Nobudy hurt on motorways? Nothing minor (2007: 34 accident, 71 injury) and mayor (18/27) injury?
Impossible, I think.

Well,its not necessary that one might get hurt in an accident. I think "hurt" means,in this case,that you were taken to hospital->needed medical help. And since you dont really have accidents with 180km/h speed difference on motorways(which is quite possible on 2x1 roads,where cars go only with 90),I can believe these numbers. Colliding with 30 speed difference is not that much of a trauma...of course,if you dont land in the ditches.

Well,its not necessary that one might get hurt in an accident. I think "hurt" means,in this case,that you were taken to hospital->needed medical help. And since you dont really have accidents with 180km/h speed difference on motorways(which is quite possible on 2x1 roads,where cars go only with 90),I can believe these numbers. Colliding with 30 speed difference is not that much of a trauma...of course,if you dont land in the ditches.

No minor "hurt" means "heals within 8 days" and major means "heals beyond 8 day" (I hope've used the right expressions:ohno:). So a broken arm is a major injury.

A few things, I'd like to mention about statistics:

Considering only death rates is a little simplistic. People who die a couple of days, weeks, months as a direct result of the accident don't show up. Same thing with permanent injuries and disabilities, psychological aftermaths, etc. A low death rate, but large number of injuries doesn't exactly mean roads are safe, even though politicians or the media sometimes try to make that point (conveniently leaving out the number of injuries).

A single bad accident involving a large bus and lots of fatalities - which can happen even on the safest roads for various reasons (alcohol, fatigue, human error, etc.) - and the death rate may jump way up. That doesn't necessarily imply roads are more dangerous overall.

Also medical advances, improvements in rescue operations (response time, availability of choppers, etc.) can make an impact on the death toll.

^^ In the UK, people who die up to 30 days after a collision and as a result of it are counted as fatalities. You're right that in other countries the definition can vary. I think in Portugal as long as you make it off the road alive it's not a fatal accident, even if you die in the ambulance!

On the Trans Canada Highway between Banff, AB and Lake Louise, AB, there are a two to three overhead wild-life crossings, and as I understand all highway bridges have been set up as under-grade crossings.

http://www.cpawscalgary.org/campaigns_nationalparks/trans_performance.php

On the Trans Canada Highway between Banff, AB and Lake Louise, AB, there are a two to three overhead wild-life crossings, and as I understand all highway bridges have been set up as under-grade crossings.

http://www.cpawscalgary.org/campaigns_nationalparks/trans_performance.php

A 26-kilometre, $972-million road project in B.C.
6 August 2008
The Globe and Mail

As Prime Minister Stephen Harper yesterday announced $100-million to widen a 14-kilometre stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway through Banff National Park, another major highway twinning project is under way in neighbouring British Columbia.

The roadway through the Kicking Horse Canyon, east of Golden, B.C., is a narrow, winding, two-lane highway that hasn't had a major facelift since it was built in the 1950s.

As with the road that cuts through Banff park, this section of the Trans-Canada Highway is being widened to four lanes.

Combined, the two construction projects are designed to make driving safer and more efficient, while improving trade ties, officials say.

The B.C. government said that revitalizing this portion of the highway – a link to the province's ports and southern routes – will strengthen Asia-Pacific trade through the Pacific Gateway, and increase tourist travel.

The route carries more than 10,000 vehicles a day during the summer.

The 26-kilometre Kicking Horse Canyon Project not only involves highway widening, but also involves reducing sharp curves and steep grades and replacing narrow bridges.

The first two phases, jointly funded by the province and Ottawa, involved replacing the Yoho National Park 3.2-kilometre bridge and another 5.8-kilometre bridge.

Both replacements have been completed.

The government estimates that changing the entire 26-kilometre stretch will cost $972-million.

***

KICKING HORSE PASS

Posing significant construction, maintenance and operational challenges, Kicking horse Pass has not had major improvements since it was built in the 1950s.

Now, the highway is being upgraded to a modern, four-lane standard with an expected speed limit of 100 km/hour to move traffic more safely and efficiently. The total cost is estimated at $972-million.

***

PHASE 1: complete Yoho Bridge

Distance: 3.2 km

***

PHASE 2: complete Park Bridge

Distance 5.8 km

***

PHASE 3 (segments 1-3): in design

Golden Hill to West Portal

Distance: 8.6 km

***

PHASE 3 (segment 4): in design

Brake check to Yoho Park

Distance: 8.8km

***

Safe passage

To reduce the number of wildlife-vehicle collisions, a number of animal-crossing systems have been introduced around Banff.

***Elliptical, metal culvert underpass

***Prefabricated concrete box tunnel

***Open-span concrete bridge underpass

***Wildlife overpass

UN backs conference on global road safety in Russia next year

UNITED NATIONS, March 31, 2008 (AFP) - The UN General Assembly on Monday approved by consensus a resolution welcoming Russia's offer to host the first ministerial conference on road safety next year with the aim of curbing the global epidemic of road deaths.

The resolution, sponsored by more than 40 countries, also urged member states "to actively participate in the development of the global road safety status report being prepared by the World Health Organization (WHO)."

Each year, more than 1.2 million people die and 50 million are injured in road crashes.

"Failure to act could not only double the number by 2020, but would see injuries from road traffic placed at the third highest contributor to the global burden of disease and injuries," Slovenia's UN Ambassador Sanja Stiglic told the assembly, speaking on behalf of the 27-member European Union.

She noted that many of these deaths are preventable since road crashes and injuries are mainly caused "by drunk-driving, lack of helmet use, seat belt non-compliance, excessive speed and poor infrastruture design and management."

"I am delighted that the UN has today recognized the scale of human suffering and economic loss caused by road traffic deaths and injuries," said George Robertson, chairman of the Commission for Global Road Safety, which first proposed a global conference in 2006.

"Now we must ensure that the UN conference is not just another talking shop, but secures real commitments and takes real action to reverse the tide of global road deaths," said Robertson, a former NATO Secretary General and former British Defense Secretary.

The resolution hailed the Russian government's offer to host, at an unspecified date in 2009, and "provide the necessary financial report" for a the conference that is to bring together delegations of ministers and representatives dealing with transport, health, education, safety and related traffic law enforcement issues.

Writing in The Washingon Post Monday, Norman Mineta, a former US transportation secretary and currently honorary chairman of Make Roads Safe, the Campaign for Global Road Safety in North America, highlighted a "widening gap" in road safety between rich and poor nations.

He touted the success of highway safety programs in countries such as Sweden, the Netherlands and Australia, largely due to sustained political commitment to the use of seat belts and motorcycle helmets, curbing speeding and drunk driving and investment in safer road and vehicle designs.

"If current trends continue and we leave developing nations to turn this around by themselves, as many as 100 million lives worldwide could be lost to road injuries before this epidemic begins to reverse course," Mineta wrote.

"Countries struggling to meet the UN (poverty-reducing) Millenium Development Goals cannot afford the losses in human and economic potential that these deaths represent, especially when the means to stop this disaster are at hand," Mineta added.

As the debate on the speed limit thread threatened to get way off topic, I thought I'd start a more suitable thread for all traffic-safety related issues. I didn't find any such thread, so here goes...

First, a disclaimer. I like driving fast, I'm not particularly good at paying attention to rural speed limits, I hate most of our 60 zones (there are quite a few up here...), I love all foreign motorways where a restricted Norwegian can open up... but still, I realise that in order to fight the plague of road fatalities, one needs to try something different. The Swedish "Zero Killed Vision" (adopted in Norway as well) does just that. The goal isn't just a 10, 25, 40 or 50 % reduction, but to aim for no traffic fatalities at all.

As I've said several times in the speed limit thread, 70 kph is the highest speed at which you can expect to survive a head-on crash. Thus, that's the limit one should introduce on bidirectional 2-lane roads. But there are more to this. They propose central crash barriers, more motorways, better guardrails, improved terrain features along the roadside... It's pretty obvious that without such measures, the 70 kph zones are nowhere near adequate. But they're needed, too.

However, even before we get into a serious no-fatalities-mode, there are things to be done. In addition to the aforementioned, bike and pedestrian paths separate from the road makes sense, as does over- and underpasses. T and X junctions can be replaced by roundabouts or, on busier sections, trumpets or diamonds, variable speed limits might make sense... I'll be back with more comments and suggestions, feel free to contribute.

The goal isn't just a 10, 25, 40 or 50 % reduction, but to aim for no traffic fatalities at all.

Those guys who invented that lack realism...

In the Netherlands, annually 81.000 people are hospitalized after work-related accidents, yet we don't ban working? Understand me, every road fatality is one too much, but it just happens.

Agree with Chris.

As I've said several times in the speed limit thread, 70 kph is the highest speed at which you can expect to survive a head-on crash. Thus, that's the limit one should introduce on bidirectional 2-lane roads. But there are more to this. They propose central crash barriers, more motorways, better guardrails, improved terrain features along the roadside... It's pretty obvious that without such measures, the 70 kph zones are nowhere near adequate. But they're needed, too.

But if you remove the chance of getting hit by a coming car,then the 70 safety speed also gets higher. If you go with 70,and the other car comes with 70 also,that means a collision at 140. So to have a similar impact with terrain or a car going in the same direction,one would have to have a speed difference of 140.
(0 vs 140 in case of terrain, x vs x+140 in case of an other car).

Those guys who invented that lack realism...

No, they seriously don't, but they do have a massive job ahead of them, not least to convince all doubters like you guys. Remember, when one finally got seat belt laws in place, fatalities dropped by a third (at least in Norway). Around 1970, more than 500 were killed on Norwegian roads annually, currently we're at 250 - even though traffic volumes have at least quadrupled. So if you're willing to make long-term plans and long-term commitments, these ideas aren't merely flights of fancy.

Another thing, worse for the speed lobby, is that governments might just take a much more severe stand in a few years and use technology. It's very possible to make computers overrule drivers, I prefer to be allowed to do most of my driving unassisted.

In the Netherlands, annually 81.000 people are hospitalized after work-related accidents, yet we don't ban working? Understand me, every road fatality is one too much, but it just happens.

No, there's always one or more reasons. More often than not, speeds higher than the road conditions can take are involved. As for the work-related accidents, I don't know a single Norwegian work place which doesn't aim for zero injuries. I would be really surprised if the Dutch are very different in this respect...

Besides, this thread is not intended only to deal with the Swedish vision of truly safe roads. Which methods are effective and/or cost-effective? Which are less useful? Which are pointless? In short, how can we improve statistics further.

You will always keep people not paying attention or driving recklessly, no matter what kind of things you design or traffic laws are in operation... People will drive with alcohol in their blood, or with drugs.

Really, a zero-fatality traffic is an utopia... Only tiny countries like Liechtenstein or San Marino can reach that.

But if you remove the chance of getting hit by a coming car,then the 70 safety speed also gets higher. If you go with 70,and the other car comes with 70 also,that means a collision at 140. So to have a similar impact with terrain or a car going in the same direction,one would have to have a speed difference of 140.
(0 vs 140 in case of terrain, x vs x+140 in case of an other car).

Absolutely. As I've said all along, the 70 limit from the Zero Killed Vision deals with undivided 2-lane highways, not 1+1/2+1 highways with a central barrier or motorways. Some Swedish motorways have seen the limit raised to 120 lately, even though safety is a major concern.

You will always keep people not paying attention or driving recklessly, no matter what kind of things you design or traffic laws are in operation... People will drive with alcohol in their blood, or with drugs.

Really, a zero-fatality traffic is an utopia... Only tiny countries like Liechtenstein or San Marino can reach that.

One should still aim for such figures. Besides, a Big Brother-style highway management system would remove concerns regarding speeding, reckless, drunk or drugged drivers... but of course also all fun in driving. It might just happen, and that would be really bad.

One should still aim for such figures. Besides, a Big Brother-style highway management system would remove concerns regarding speeding, reckless, drunk or drugged drivers... but of course also all fun in driving. It might just happen, and that would be really bad.

The only way to have completely safe environments is to remove all responsibility and treat everyone like children. Frankly, I'm not a child and damn if I'm going to be treated like one.

Remember, when one finally got seat belt laws in place, fatalities dropped by a third (at least in Norway). Around 1970, more than 500 were killed on Norwegian roads annually, currently we're at 250 - even though traffic volumes have at least quadrupled. So if you're willing to make long-term plans and long-term commitments, these ideas aren't merely flights of fancy.

It's not so hard to lower the number of deaths by some new method, when the number is high, but when it's already low, that will be hard to accomplish. Maybe you think numbers are still high in developed countries, but unless you prohibit driving or make another radical decision, I doubt you'll lower them significantly. As for cars driving all by themselves, I'm all for it (it wouldn't be fun any more though).

The only way to have completely safe environments is to remove all responsibility and treat everyone like children. Frankly, I'm not a child and damn if I'm going to be treated like one.

I disagree. That's largely how the government treats drivers here, with excessively low speed limits that don't leave it up to the individual to drive to conditions, zero blood alcohol tolerance for the first three years of driving and signs which say things such as "New Work, No Lines Marked - Do Not Overtake Unless Safe".

I think the best way to improve traffic safety is to do the opposite; drop regulations such as speed limits in rural areas and introduce a proper driver training program as part of the public education system, to give drivers the skills they need to decide for themselves what is and isn't safe.

Of course, some regulations are strictly necessary - the basics such as which side of the road to drive on and to stop at a red traffic light - but does a 2x2 freeway with smooth curves, a wide median and several kilometres between each junction really need a 110 km/h speed limit? (There are at least three examples of this near Sydney, because apparently the NSW state government has decided that nobody can safely handle a car going any faster than 110.) Or, indeed, any speed limit at all?

So to have a similar impact with terrain or a car going in the same direction,one would have to have a speed difference of 140.


That's not true. If you hit a car of about the same mass with 70 km/h head on, you have the SAME distance to come to a full standstill as in the situation where you hit a tree. It's all about the distance you have to loose the kinetic energy.

That's not true. If you hit a car of about the same mass with 70 km/h head on, you have the SAME distance to come to a full standstill as in the situation where you hit a tree. It's all about the distance you have to loose the kinetic energy.


I must disagree, to put it complicated: if the speed vectors are parallel but have opposite directions, the difference in speed is sum of the absolute vector values (if the mass of both cars is the same...)

Or simple: it is not same if the tree is standing or rushing to you at 70 kph. If it is standing it is waiting for you to hit it, if it is not, when you start the crash, it is still going towards you and you have less distance to loose the kinetic energy.

The goal isn't just a 10, 25, 40 or 50 % reduction, but to aim for no traffic fatalities at all.

thats easy: handcuff everybody to something very stable and there will be no traffic fatalities at all... :lol:

I Or simple: it is not same if the tree is standing or rushing to you at 70 kph. If it is standing it is waiting for you to hit it, if it is not, when you start the crash, it is still going towards you and you have less distance to loose the kinetic energy.

nope.

a moving tree with the same weight as the car has the same affect as the standing tree... :lol:

You will always keep people not paying attention or driving recklessly, no matter what kind of things you design or traffic laws are in operation... People will drive with alcohol in their blood, or with drugs.

yeah.
and dont forget the suicides... which can be done (and hide) by "traffic accident"...

nope.

a moving tree with the same weight as the car has the same affect as the standing tree... :lol:

So... if moving tree and standing tree have same effect...

I am in my car, standing, in neutral, with brakes on (just to be detailed), and tree hits me with 70 kph... nothing happened?

Or lets say i am in a car moving at 30 kph, and hit a car head-on that was driving in opposite direction with speed of 70 kph it is same as i hit standing tree with 30 kph?!?

I mean, for non-relativistic speed, you can look situation of head on collision from perspective of side beholder (each object has its speed) or from perspective of one object, where other object is only moving with sum speed of both speeds the side beholder sees... (i guess there is simpler way of explaining it)

But all in all, we agree you have to get rid of kinetic energy which is: (m*v^2)/2... or i am wrong from that point?

I am in my car, standing, in neutral, with brakes on (just to be detailed), and tree hits me with 70 kph... nothing happened?

the result is mainly depends on the attitude of the tree...

here is a demonstration vidio (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orRpAcB_prU)... :lol:

Why not aim for perfection? If you dont you will not do the best you can. Thats what they were trying. Is it not obvious?

^^ people are unperfect, so the transport is unperfekt too...

it has no sence to choose a goal which cant be reached... (this is not the moon... :lol:)

It would be better to choose a goal of a 20-50% reduction...

it is impossible to prevent suicides (commited by intentional accidents), and to prevent negligence, DUI, DUD and Dw/oL...

(even policemen are doing these crimes... :nuts: )

you can only punish them... (if they survive)

i hate safety fascism but i hate hypocrisy even more
therefore:


1 - build roads that are safer (get rid of potholes for example...)
2 - encourage public transportation, build cycle lanes etc
3 - get rid of speed cameras
4 - check the mechanics of the vechicles much more thoroughly, especially heavy vechicles

meh

here 40-50 % (!!!) of people NEVER use the safety belt
here 80-90 % of the drivers NEVER keep a safe following distance
here 30-40 % of trucks ALWAYS run with more weight than allowed
here you cant drive more than 1 km withouth seeing a dangerous pothole
here even the main roads cross railroads
here we lack about 500 bypass roads, close to 3000 kms needed ... so traffic flows through towns


and yet what do the authorities concentrate on? alcohol, speed and whether or not you have a spare lightbulb !!!!!!!!!!!!



i read somewhere, that out of the 4-5000 annual car-related deaths only a few dozen are because of alcohol, only a few hundred are because of speeding......but over a 1000 are related to the lack of using the safety belt

if people used their safety belt, hungary could cut deaths by 20-25 % in one year


so you see, safety nazis should frankly hang themselves from their speed camreas

If the people in the car dont realize they are playing with their lives(=irresponsible),then by all means let them commit suicide.

The worst reason I've evr heard was "but I drive carefully"...this only works if only they live on this planet(including animals!)...

yes, except if 1000 people die than its safe to assume that at least that many get retarded, therefore we will have to pay a LOT for the rest of their lives

so you see, safety nazis should frankly hang themselves from their speed camreas

you are a little bit overreacting this speedcam thing, arent you? :lol:

that at least that many get retarded

you mean: disabled
(unfortunately: many more... :ohno:)

i was once accelerating out of a roundabout and without looking i reached 59, for which they fined me
i was in 2nd gear....

and of course you are correct: people who dont use the safety belt are already retarded

^^ you are mixing the importance of speed limit enforcing with the problem of the causeless and excessive speed limits... :)

in that case the limit was 40km/h (maybe as an overall limit in the settlement), wasnt it?

here 40-50 % (!!!) of people NEVER use the safety belt
here 80-90 % of the drivers NEVER keep a safe following distance
here 30-40 % of trucks ALWAYS run with more weight than allowed
here you cant drive more than 1 km withouth seeing a dangerous pothole
here even the main roads cross railroads
here we lack about 500 bypass roads, close to 3000 kms needed ... so traffic flows through towns


and yet what do the authorities concentrate on? alcohol, speed and whether or not you have a spare lightbulb !!!!!!!!!!!!



i read somewhere, that out of the 4-5000 annual car-related deaths only a few dozen are because of alcohol, only a few hundred are because of speeding......but over a 1000 are related to the lack of using the safety belt

if people used their safety belt, hungary could cut deaths by 20-25 % in one year


That's mentality mostly. I think I can safely say 80 - 90% of the Dutch motorists always use their seatbelt...

It's even 94% (http://www.swov.nl/nl/research/kennisbank/inhoud/50_maatregel/30_handhaving/toezicht_op_gordelgebruik.htm)...

^^ you are mixing the importance of speed limit enforcing with the problem of the causeless and excessive speed limits... :)

in that case the limit was 40km/h (maybe as an overall limit in the settlement), wasnt it?

first of all, about speed cameras:
bvtvfSJi2fg



SPEED CAMREAS ARE A FORM OF TAXATION. PERIOD.

second, in my case, it was 50. if i went 3kph faster i would have gotten 2 points on my license just because my car is to fast in 2nd gear

Should easily let computers do the driving in the future, but untill then - humans do mistakes, and the point of the 0-vision is to achnowledge that mistakes should not cost you your life.... And if that costs someone to have a bit more boring drive, or get to work a little slower, the lives are much more important.... I think all new cars should have:

- Breathing test, to make sure you are not drunk.
- Refuse to start unless your seatbelt is fastened.
- Abs/Esp.
- Gps-controlled speeding-control. (Keeps the speedlimit for you)
- Radio/CD on steering wheel.

All new roads of 70 km+ should have soft shoulders, soft signs and barriers. Divide facing trafic.

Ped. crossings should have lights blinking when a ped. pushes a button.

Motorways are for safe and effictive transportation, if you want to ride fast, you go take a roller-coaster or the TGV. Still, 110km/h is good speed for motorways...

And it's not ok for people to be recless, they leave behind loved ones and society looses a lot of money...

How good is Hungarian drivers ed?

I think all new cars should have:

- Breathing test, to make sure you are not drunk.
- Refuse to start unless your seatbelt is fastened.
- Gps-controlled speeding-control. (Keeps the speedlimit for you)



and i think you are a nazi

I think all new cars should have:

- Breathing test, to make sure you are not drunk.
- Refuse to start unless your seatbelt is fastened.
- Abs/Esp.
- Gps-controlled speeding-control. (Keeps the speedlimit for you)
- Radio/CD on steering wheel.

Except for the ABS/ESP, I disagree. Those things will make a car so much more expensive, while you can question the (good-meant) effects of it. People need to have freedom to choose for these things. This would really make the 'Big-Brotherfeeling' only worse. :ohno:

All new roads of 70 km+ should have soft shoulders, soft signs and barriers. Divide facing trafic.

I'm absolute for making roads wide enough, where possible. Central dividers make roads very inflexible though...

Ped. crossings should have lights blinking when a ped. pushes a button.

I don't think it would help that much. You see those things here quite often, but it almost makes you want to look at the light itself more than at the pedestrian who wants to cross.

Motorways are for safe and effictive transportation, if you want to ride fast, you go take a roller-coaster or the TGV. Still, 110km/h is good speed for motorways...

150km/h can be a good speed too. Depending on the vehicle, maybe even a bit faster. Motorways are designed to get people for fair travelling times from A to B. Imo you don't justify a low speed limit when it's designed for much higher speeds...

And it's not ok for people to be recless, they leave behind loved ones and society looses a lot of money...

The society also looses a lot of money by more and more regulations. How cruel it may sound: you can't just prevent accidents for every price.

How good is Hungarian drivers ed?

CPR training + exam, 20 (?) hrs of studying + exam, 20 (?) hrs of driving on the track + exam, 20 (?) hrs of driving on the road (incl night, highway) + exam

takes several months and costs a fortune



after that you can safely operate a car....but of course you cant drive just yet..

...

naive ideas...

- Breathing test, to make sure you are not drunk.

can be easily deactivated by specialists...

- Refuse to start unless your seatbelt is fastened.

and what if U unfasten your seat belt while moving?
the engine stops?

- Gps-controlled speeding-control. (Keeps the speedlimit for you)

and what if you are just in the middle of an overtaking?
you are pushing the throttle, and nothing happens? :lol:
thats quite dangerous...


Still, 110km/h is good speed for motorways...

yeah... the only promlem: its fucking BOOOORING, and you can easily fall asleep... (maybe forever :lol:)

so you need a device which keeps awake... :lol:

- Breathing test, to make sure you are not drunk.

can be easily deactivated by specialists...

I think it could be useful for drivers who aren't sure if they are below the legal limit or not, but it certainly shouldn't be mandatory.

- Refuse to start unless your seatbelt is fastened.

and what if U unfasten your seat belt while moving?
the engine stops?

I agree, that's a silly idea. If someone wants to endanger their own life by not wearing a seatbelt, I honestly don't care, that's their own stupidity.

- Gps-controlled speeding-control. (Keeps the speedlimit for you)

and what if you are just in the middle of an overtaking?
you are pushing the throttle, and nothing happens? :lol:
thats quite dangerous...

I agree, there are situations where speeding would be safer than not speeding. For instance, say you are driving 80 km/h on a steep descent with an 80 limit, and you look in your mirror and see a large truck coming up behind you with no way of slowing in time. It's a lot safer for you to accelerate out of the truck's way than to keep going 80 and cause an accident.

Still, 110km/h is good speed for motorways...

yeah... the only promlem: its fucking BOOOORING, and you can easily fall asleep... (maybe forever :lol:)

It's not possible to generically say what a good speed limit is for a motorway. I know some inner urban motorways on which I would not be comfortable driving more than 70 km/h or so, but out in the countryside where there are much smoother curves, fewer intersections, less traffic and wider lanes I'll gladly exceed 130 km/h, assuming good weather conditions.

But, one night I was driving on the Hume Highway and there were incredible amounts of mist everywhere, reducing visibility phenomenally. I was driving 60 km/h (the speed limit was 110) simply because visibility was too poor to go any faster. This sort of individual judgment should apply in every situation on such roads; it should never be the government's place to dictate the fastest safe speed of travel on rural roads.

You simply can't apply a "one size fits all" philosophy to speed limits, because not every driver has the same skills, not every car handles the same and not every day has the same weather.

Breathing test, to make sure you are not drunk.

Simply let another breathe, en then drive yourself...

Simply let another breathe, en then drive yourself...

this trick doestn work with the seatbelt check:

the engine doesnt start with unfastened seatbelt, so the undrunk helper have to fasten it, but when s/he wants to get out s/he stops the engine by unfastening the belt...


oops, the seat belt check can be cheated too:
you can fasten it before you get into the seat, and you can simply sit on it... :lol:


I think this safety incerasing thing wont be an easy task cause the stupidity and the ingenuity is infinite... :lol:

Simply the social insurance or what is it called shouldn't pay for the hospital treatment of those, who suffered an accident with a non-fastened seatbelt. I think only such measures could reduce the injuries, at least here in Hungary, since most of the deaths and injuries are because of the lack of using seatbelts. But with fining for speeding at a forgotten 30 km/h sign from a construction 3 months ago, the accident numbers won't be reduced.

and i think you are a nazi

Real mature... Hopefully you're not old enough to drive...

The worst thing about arguments like this is that they'll give the control freaks all the arguments they need to introduce a completely driver-free controlled road system. Average speed measuring speed cameras already excist, as does GPS systems with speed limits, autopilots and a bunch of other pieces of control equipment. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realise that such systems may be made mandatory and used to remove the driver from the driving altogether. And it will happen, unless we're able to root out the idiot drivers and accept less invasive means of control.

I'm not going to elaborate on this part of the subject much further, since I prefer to discuss real safety measures with serious people.

But with fining for speeding at a forgotten 30 km/h sign from a construction 3 months ago, the accident numbers won't be reduced.

I totally agree. That's got nothing to do with safety or sensible traffic management.

These guys convinced me. I used to be a safety nazi when it came to speeding cameras, but not anymore :D
bvtvfSJi2fg

So... if moving tree and standing tree have same effect...

I am in my car, standing, in neutral, with brakes on (just to be detailed), and tree hits me with 70 kph... nothing happened?

Or lets say i am in a car moving at 30 kph, and hit a car head-on that was driving in opposite direction with speed of 70 kph it is same as i hit standing tree with 30 kph?!?

I mean, for non-relativistic speed, you can look situation of head on collision from perspective of side beholder (each object has its speed) or from perspective of one object, where other object is only moving with sum speed of both speeds the side beholder sees... (i guess there is simpler way of explaining it)

But all in all, we agree you have to get rid of kinetic energy which is: (m*v^2)/2... or i am wrong from that point?
You guys should learn some basic physics....

The point is that the momentum, i.e. mass-velocity product is always preserved. I.e., if you have one car of mass m1 traveling at speed v1 crashing into another car/tree with mass m2 and (negative) speed v2, we always have:
m1*v1-m2*v2=(m1+m2)*V,
where V is the speed of the system immediately after the crash.

Hence, if you crash into another car with similar speed and mass, the final speed will be V=0. Assuming that the cars are identical, they will then both absorb an energy of m1*v1²/2.

If that other "car" in fact is a solid tree, which wont absorb any of your energy, your car still has to absorb m1*v1²/2 as the final speed will be zero. This is of course because the tree is connected to the ground which probably has very large masss compared with your car.... However, on a modern highway there should not be such trees along the roads, and light poles and sign posts should give way if you crash into them, or better be behind a well designed crash barrier, in which case the absorbed energy of your car would be significant less. Note that the absorbed energy in this case scales with your vehicle's mass. This is why some rather heavy, but rather badly designed cars, like Crysler Voyager (at least last time I checked), manage to do fairly badly at crash tests.

Now to the worst case: If vehicle two is a heavy truck, the final speed is close to -v2, and vehicle 1 has to absorb something like m1*(v1+v2)²/2 (assuming that the truck is much stiffer than your own vehicle).. I.e., the absorbed energy is close to four times what you get when you hit a tree or another normal car.

assuming that the truck is much stiffer than your own vehicle

Not to mention heavier...

Not to mention heavier...

Thank you for making that clear. Regarding that flying tree, I would be pretty worried if it aimed at my windscreen.....

Thank you for making that clear. Regarding that flying tree, I would be pretty worried if it aimed at my windscreen.....

Agreed. On a slightly more serious note, as you and Ingienøren (I think...) touched upon, one of the most important safety measures is to reduce the injuries sustained if someone ends up off the road at speed. Crash barriers, removing trees and rocks, wide, carefully thought out "exit zones" etc all save lives.

Simply let another breathe, en then drive yourself...

Sure... Do you think sober people would line up to assist a drunk person to start driving? I certainly hope not.

That depends how accepted DUI is in a country. For instance, from what I've heard it's more accepted in Belgium than in the Netherlands. I don't think it would be hard to find someone at a party to help you start your car.

The worst thing is that the state and safety nazis are forever telling us their mantras but don't lift a finger to improve conditions.

Classic cases in point:
- lack of railrod over/underpasses
- lack of tens of thousands of cycle lanes
- lack of proper painting and signals at busy intersections
- lack of bypass roads (NIMBYs are telling us we dont need them and then blame "traffic" for accidents downtown): hungary alone needs at least 500 bypass roads RIGHT NOW, close to 3000 kms. chief among which: M0 western section would have already been built had it not been for NIMBYs
- incredible amount of dangerous potholes (hungary has over 150.000 known potholes after last winter!!!!)
- old backroads that date back to the rebuilding after WWII with LOTS of bumps, small but tight curves, trees "positioned" where the bend would countinue etc.


And then these morons and liars turn around and collect money from old ladies doing 59 at a 50 zone while letting cyclers without helmets or even lights go on. Introduce speed cameras just to TAX people in a covert way. Its sickening

That depends how accepted DUI is in a country. For instance, from what I've heard it's more accepted in Belgium than in the Netherlands. I don't think it would be hard to find someone at a party to help you start your car.

Still, it would make drunk driving much less likely even in countries where DUI is not frowned upon. Also, at least at Norwegian parties, most people who aren't designated drivers tend to be rather tipsy themselves...:cheers:

Real mature... Hopefully you're not old enough to drive...

glad to disappoint :stupid:

glad to disappoint :stupid:

Well, next time you have something as "interesting" to say, feel free to locate the resident cretins. On the off chance you'd rather prefer to discuss serious issues in a serious manner, try behaving as an adult.

Anyway, I think improvement of road safety starts with a decent and safe road network (such as some of the things Gramercy pointed out above), but the mentality of the public is also very important, such as in wearing seatbelts, excessive speeding or DUI.

I think speed cameras have little to no effect to traffic safety, because they're often installed at cash locations instead of near schools or dangerous intersections. Awareness campaigns in the mass media are a better way of influencing the motorists. Also, I think undercover surveillance cars are much better, they can really pull over reckless drivers, and leave the ones that speed a little to no danger.

Also, I think undercover surveillance cars are much better, they can really pull over reckless drivers, and leave the ones that speed a little to no danger.

Why not institute a thought police with telepaths in the back seat.
Every time they pull up behind you and the telepath senses that you are listening to a Tiesto song they overtake you then put a bullet between your eyes.

How's that?

in case some cretin didnt get it: JUST KIDDING

Clarkson said it the best about speed cameras: people who (1) already know they are there will slow down for the duration then go on and people who (2) are new to the location will be fixated on their speedometre going over everything from cats to newborn babies.

I think mentality is more important than quality of roads. Not all roads can be good, and sooner or later you'll have to drive one, you can't drive solely on motorways and other main roads. In many societies people drive incredibly recklessly even on good roads/motorways.

But can driving mentality be changed?

I think so.

Simply the social insurance or what is it called shouldn't pay for the hospital treatment of those, who suffered an accident with a non-fastened seatbelt. I think only such measures could reduce the injuries, at least here in Hungary, since most of the deaths and injuries are because of the lack of using seatbelts.

I can accept this argument, but in this case EVERY self-damaging(and risking) activity should be fined...

e.g.: smoking, excessive drinking, extreme sports, ect. :)

Agreed. On a slightly more serious note, as you and Ingienøren (I think...) touched upon, one of the most important safety measures is to reduce the injuries sustained if someone ends up off the road at speed. Crash barriers, removing trees and rocks, wide, carefully thought out "exit zones" etc all save lives.

I suggested this "removing trees" thing in a hungarian "road" forum, but I was judged a "tree killer"... :lol:

Around 1970, more than 500 were killed on Norwegian roads annually, currently we're at 250 - even though traffic volumes have at least quadrupled.

oh, thats nothing...

in 1990 we have 2500 fatalities, now we are bellow 1000... :)

...will be fixated on their speedometre going over everything from cats to newborn babies.

yeah, I was thinking this "problem":

if I hit something/someone is it an excuse that I was gazing at the speedometer? :lol:

I think mentality is more important than quality of roads. Not all roads can be good, and sooner or later you'll have to drive one, you can't drive solely on motorways and other main roads. In many societies people drive incredibly recklessly even on good roads/motorways.

partly true...

but it DOES matter how long you have to drive on bad/slow roads...

only on 10-30km in a 500km trip, or on all of the 500km...

A bit funny you would call me a nazi because i'm worried about people dying on the roads, it seems more like nazi-thinking to do business as usual, and their deaths are their own fault. I'm sure you all know more than one person killed in a trafic-accident in a young age - how can that not be a tragedy, no matter how stupid and recless they are?

in 1990 we have 2500 fatalities, now we are bellow 1000... :)

The most important lesson to be learnt from such figures, is that it's very possible to combat road deaths. Some means are popular (more motorways, safer cars etc), other less (seat belt laws, lowered speed limits etc), but they all play a part. Of course, mentality plays an important part, if drunk-driving goes from being accepted to being reported, fatality rates will drop considerably.

I think mentality is more important than quality of roads. Not all roads can be good, and sooner or later you'll have to drive one, you can't drive solely on motorways and other main roads. In many societies people drive incredibly recklessly even on good roads/motorways.

Depends on what you mean by good

I'm not saying that every village needs a highway. But the things I listed above should be a minimum, and we are very far away from even that (tens of billions of euros far). And yet the government finds it necessery to harass people if they dont have a spare lightbulb in the car...

A bit funny you would call me a nazi because i'm worried about people dying on the roads, it seems more like nazi-thinking to do business as usual, and their deaths are their own fault. I'm sure you all know more than one person killed in a trafic-accident in a young age - how can that not be a tragedy, no matter how stupid and recless they are?

You suggested a GPS controlled speed limit. If that happens, I'm taking up arms.

You suggested a GPS controlled speed limit. If that happens, I'm taking up arms.

Yeah, I'm 100% against that too. It gives government ways to control ridiculous speed limits, or take it even further, when they don't want people to drive, you simply can't (sounds far-fetched now, but you'll never know what kind of government you'll end up with in 10 years). I'd rather take my freedom.

There are two reasons why accidents happen: human behaviour and the mechanics of the vechicle/road.

As far as humans go, everyone has a responsibility. And yes, the government can and should discourage dangerous behaviour. But NOT by intimidation, not by the means of safety nazism. There are far too many people from NIMBYs to radicals who think its a good idea, but i hated conformists all my life...

As far as mechanics of the vechicle and the road go, the government ALMOST ALWAYS neglects its responsibilities and does a half-assed job costing lives.


My all-time favourite is when NIMBYs protest against a bypass road claiming it will kill trees and bugs.....and then the next day they are protesting downtown against the dangers of heavy traffic.

Yeah, I'm 100% against that too. It gives government ways to control ridiculous speed limits, or take it even further, when they don't want people to drive, you simply can't (sounds far-fetched now, but you'll never know what kind of government you'll end up with in 10 years). I'd rather take my freedom.

Exactly. If they know where you are every second, then they know your exact speed. Maybe they will institute a new tax: you are allowed to go faster but for every second above the limit you pay 1 EUR/accesive kph.

Overtake on the motorway for 30 seconds at 160 kph will you? Pay 900 EUR :nuts:

People are not perfect. So what. By aiming for perfection you set yourself the ultimate goal.

A bit funny you would call me a nazi because i'm worried about people dying on the roads...

no, he used the "nazi" term, cause you want to give to the government too much control...

(maybe it was too excessive... :) )

The most important lesson to be learnt from such figures, is that it's very possible to combat road deaths. Some means are popular (more motorways, safer cars etc), other less (seat belt laws, lowered speed limits etc), but they all play a part. Of course, mentality plays an important part, if drunk-driving goes from being accepted to being reported, fatality rates will drop considerably.

some basic rules:

1. you can ALWAYS reduce the numbers, but you can NEVER reach zero.

2. the lower the number the more difficult to reduce it... :nuts:

There are two reasons why accidents happen: human behaviour and the mechanics of the vechicle/road.

the statistics says interesting things:

- in hungary the accident rate is NOT higher than in WE
- but fatality rate is significantly higher

this difference is because of seatbelt unfastening and the less safe cars...

so: everybody FASTEN that belt, and buy a VOLVO... :lol:

Exactly. If they know where you are every second...

GPS-speedcontrol doesnt mean tracking...

its like current GPS devices would be connected to the cars onboard computer and could control the speed...
...and not only to say: YOU ARE GOING TOO FAST!

(mine says: heyya, slow down now! :lol: )

CPR training + exam, 20 (?) hrs of studying + exam, 20 (?) hrs of driving on the track + exam, 20 (?) hrs of driving on the road (incl night, highway) + exam

takes several months and costs a fortune



after that you can safely operate a car....but of course you cant drive just yet..

I wish we could adapt something like this for driver's ed in the US, but as long as its done on a state level, and depend on our cars for everything, its not going to happen.

GPS-speedcontrol doesnt mean tracking...

its like current GPS devices would be connected to the cars onboard computer and could control the speed...
...and not only to say: YOU ARE GOING TOO FAST!

(mine says: heyya, slow down now! :lol: )


except that there is a proposal to introduce ROAD TAX based on your EXACT ROUTE, which will come into effect for lorries 3.5++ tons next year, and for smaller vechicles later

that means the goverment will have records of every single metre you covered, when you did that, and what your exact speed was

^^ only on motorways...

(note: the "government" ALREADY has records on your movements on motorways, the sticker checking cameras record it...)

true, but that is still a passive way

this way they know where your garage is located...

How about the police pounding your car and taking your license if you are caught without a seatbelt, overtaking in sharp turns, drunk-driving etc. Maybe that would help the no-safety-freedom-loving-rebels.

In Norway we already have the automatic toll-system, you can pay at certain locations to get your record deleted if you want tough. Else it's deleted withinn 3 months if payed by bill...

From 2012 Abs/Esp is mandatory for new cars in EU, eat that!

I have little doubt that in the future cars will drive themselves, and people will wonder why the hell we let two vehicles in opposite directions meet so close to eachother at high-speeds. Well - one can't judge the past with regards to the future....

^^ How about the police pounding your flat/house and taking you under arrest/guardianship if you are caught drinking, smoking, excessive eating or in a suicide attempt?


afterall U cant choose your death, this is the government's right and task... :lol:

ladies and gentlemen, this is the nice new world...

(in hungary there are about:
some 100 unfasten seatbelt fatalities
3000 suicide fatalities
some 10,000 drinking-smoking-overeating fatalities

so, lets concentrate on the largest number... :lol: )

How about the police pounding your car and taking your license if you are caught without a seatbelt, overtaking in sharp turns, drunk-driving etc. Maybe that would help the no-safety-freedom-loving-rebels.


One of the basic ideas of a western justice system is PROPORTIONALITY. Maybe you safety-nazis should get familiar with that.



From 2012 Abs/Esp is mandatory for new cars in EU, eat that!


Eat what? Better brakes and better grip makes cars SPORTIER. Eat that.




I have little doubt that in the future cars will drive themselves,


and I have little doubt that we will one day discover teleportation



and people will wonder why the hell we let two vehicles in opposite directions meet so close to eachother at high-speeds.

erm, maybe otherwise it would be a giant waste of money and asphalt?

I don't understand people who don't fasten their seat belts. Will they eat them up?

I don't understand people who don't fasten their seat belts.

Yeah me neither, I usually fasten it before I even start the engine, kinda lika fixed ritual. It makes me feel safe, and I find it even more convenient because you're not pushed by G-forces on for example roundabouts or sharp turns.

I think for most of the people who don't wear them it's just a bad habit, especially for older people. They learned to drive without them, so they feel safe enough to drive without it. At least, that would be my explanation.

yes definitely an age-issue

On the other hand, I NEVER have my hands at the 10 and 2 o'clock positions... It was the first thing I dropped after drivers ed. I almost always have one hand on the wheel, and on freeways or other freeflow situation only like three fingers.

And the left arm (in left-wheel vehicles) sits on the door. :lol:

Hopefully it doesn't hold a can of Heineken ;) :D

The habit of not wearing a seat belt probably comes from older cars, which sometimes don't have seat belts for the back seats.

Yeah me neither, I usually fasten it before I even start the engine, kinda lika fixed ritual. It makes me feel safe, and I find it even more convenient because you're not pushed by G-forces on for example roundabouts or sharp turns.

I'm the same, just about the first thing I do when I get in the car is fasten my seatbelt. Then, if the conditions cause any doubt at all about visibility, I will turn my headlights on - something that very few other people here seem to do. I was once driving right about sunset with heavy clouds in the sky, so that it was as dark as it normally would be about half an hour after sunset, and around half the other cars on the road did not have their headlights turned on.

Honestly, why do people not realise that visibility is reduced and they need to turn that little knob to the right of the steering wheel? It's not that difficult, and it's not just one or two people that do it, but about 50% of the drivers around here seem to feel that unless it's pitch black they don't need to use their headlights.

Oh yeah, I ALWAYS have my headlights on, regardless of the time of the day. It's not to see, but to be seen :)

Oh yeah, I ALWAYS have my headlights on, regardless of the time of the day. It's not to see, but to be seen :)

I don't turn mine on if it's the middle of the day and sunny weather, but in the early morning, late afternoon, at night or if it's heavily overcast or raining, I'll always turn them on. I also turn them on inside tunnels.

and I have little doubt that we will one day discover teleportation

It already exists. I think australian scientists managed to "copy" a photon a few cm away. But due to the Heisenberg-"law" it is impossible to do it with anything bigger(the way its shown in films),as you cant define the speed and the direction of a given substance at the same time,because:

"In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain physical quantities, like the position and momentum, cannot both have precise values at the same time. The narrower the probability distribution for one, the wider it is for the other."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2049048.stm

It already exists. I think australian scientists managed to "copy" a photon a few cm away. But due to the Heisenberg-"law" it is impossible to do it with anything bigger(the way its shown in films),as you cant define the speed and the direction of a given substance at the same time,because:

"In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain physical quantities, like the position and momentum, cannot both have precise values at the same time. The narrower the probability distribution for one, the wider it is for the other."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2049048.stm


I refuse to believe you. Spock told me it will exist.

It already exists. I think australian scientists managed to "copy" a photon a few cm away. But due to the Heisenberg-"law" it is impossible to do it with anything bigger(the way its shown in films),as you cant define the speed and the direction of a given substance at the same time,because:

"In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain physical quantities, like the position and momentum, cannot both have precise values at the same time. The narrower the probability distribution for one, the wider it is for the other."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2049048.stm

This doesn't mean a thing. You can define a human being in terms of an arrangement of atoms, and each individual atom is large enough that the uncertainties in position and momentum can both be sufficiently low to perfectly replicate a human. There's no need to precisely reproduce every single subatomic particle, which is what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle prohibits.

Of course, that doesn't mean the technology to do that is going to be available anytime soon. You would still need a machine that could locate every one of the billions upon billions of atoms in a person and somehow recreate that somewhere else - not a very easy thing to do.

and do that faster than your nerves work, otherwise its gonna be painful

and do that faster than your nerves work, otherwise its gonna be painful

Not necessarily. Just remove the brain first at the source and leave the brain until last at the destination.

and do that faster than your nerves work, otherwise its gonna be painful

...and boring to sit or even stand in the machine for hours, and possibly you'd be faster by train. Besides, it's kind of OT. :shifty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driverless_car

I have great benefit of seing wich cars are parked and wich are about to drive in mixed street trafic, in Norway lights are lit automaticly when the engine is turned on.

I think for most of the people who don't wear them it's just a bad habit, especially for older people. They learned to drive without them, so they feel safe enough to drive without it. At least, that would be my explanation.

Yor're probably right. However, even up here in the snowy winter hell called Norway, where seatbelts have been mandatory for ages, almost 10% of motorists don't use them, so it's not the entire explanation. Must admit I'm an offender myself; from time to time when I go a km or so in a 30 zone, I neglect to fasten it. Don't know why, really, and I tell myself I should use it. Stupid, I know...

I remember watching a Discovery series about traffic safety a few years ago. One of the claims made was that if you widen a road by a foot (I think...), average speed increases by 2 mph (again, this is my personal recollation...). Thus, it doesn't take long before a safety benefit from an improved roadway is eaten up by an increase in driving speed. Quite interesting, even though I don't think we should stop improving roads because of this... But if true, it shows you need to think carefully about how to improve roads, simply making something that's more efficient doesn't necessarily improve safety.

One of the claims made was that if you widen a road by a foot (I think...), average speed increases by 2 mph (again, this is my personal recollation...). Thus, it doesn't take long before a safety benefit from an improved roadway is eaten up by an increase in driving speed.

That isn't so weird. If you have to pass an other car on a small street with just a few cms difference, you'd also not do that with 50km/h. The more space you have, the more comfortable it will feel to pass at a higher speed. That's a natural reaction. That's also the reason why speeddifferences between vehicles so much more influence have on traffic safety that speed itself.

I think is much-much more important to creat 2x1 roads with spearated intersections, such as there are around - for example - Barcelona.

These roads are NOT highways, and there are only 1 lanes / direction, BUT there are no perpendicular vechicles coming onto the road and everyone turning on/off has an easier way.

When you are going in the main section, you have priority over everyone else. Long straight sections and a higher (possible 100-110 kph) speed, ringroads around towns, no railroad crossings allow for higher capacity as sell.


Below you can see:
- a highway
- a main road with separation (upper left)
- a high speed railline
- a regular rail line

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/8137/picture1tgq.th.jpg (http://img19.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture1tgq.jpg)

That isn't so weird. If you have to pass an other car on a small street with just a few cms difference, you'd also not do that with 50km/h. The more space you have, the more comfortable it will feel to pass at a higher speed. That's a natural reaction. That's also the reason why speeddifferences between vehicles so much more influence have on traffic safety that speed itself.

I'm not saying it's weird, on the contrary, I think it's quite understandable. However, feeling safe and actually being safe are two different things. The main safety problem with an undivided road is head-on crashes, and they become more severe with increased speed. If memory serves me right, this was one of the main suspects when it came to increases in road fatalities. Roads seem safer, cars are safer, thus, we drive faster... and the safety benefit of the improved road vanishes. The same was said regarding T or X junctions: you may improve them, but unless you remake them into roundabouts or grade-separated systems, you won't really reduce the number of serious crashes. Roundabouts are interesting, since they often lead to more collisions, but fatality and serious injury rates drop.

Hi!

http://www.epochtimes.de/pics/2008/06/22/xxl/2008-06-22-xxl--20080619072638_DEU_NI_Verkehr_Schilder_BOH504.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

for the lazy ones
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=shared+space&search_type=&aq=f

Some euro countries try this out and even in USA and Australia!

Seems it works...do you think you can adapt such a concept to a bigger city like LA or New York, Berlin oder London????

Its called pedestrian or limited-access street. Very old concept.

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/529/img8243w.jpg

I think it's good for places with nearly no traffic, such as historical city centers or shopping streets.

Otherwise I think it's a stupid idea. Make it look like Africa (no signs, markings or road layout) so everybody doesn't know what to do and has to slow down so bad that it's "safer".

And in the end we all know traffic "safety" in Africa..

I recently heard a radio show dedicated to the blind and sight-impaired on BBC Radio 4 about this topic. Many in the sight-impaired community are quite concerned about the lack of a curb which helps them determine where the pedestrian zone ends and the car/bike area begins.

I like the idea of this. It can mean instead of having to wait at lights then speed up and slow down you can carry on through at a slow speed but stop much less. Pedestrians no longer have to wait at lights but feel it is safe to cross in front of cars who are happy to slow down for them. It is simlar to the occasions when traffic lights fail, as nobody has priority everyone slows down and proceeds with caution while cooperating with other road users, then everyone passes the crossroads quicker.

It is simlar to the occasions when traffic lights fail, as nobody has priority everyone slows down and proceeds with caution while cooperating with other road users, then everyone passes the crossroads quicker.
Sorry to pick in on just a part of your post, but as far as I'm aware, there are usually still signs on intersections which indicate which road has priority (Stop-signs, Give Way signs or priority diamonds). Those signs are to be followed if the lights are defect. And if there are no signs, there's the priority to the right rule (talking about Belgium, will certainly be different elsewhere).

Greetings,
Glodenox

Sorry to pick in on just a part of your post, but as far as I'm aware, there are usually still signs on intersections which indicate which road has priority (Stop-signs, Give Way signs or priority diamonds). Those signs are to be followed if the lights are defect. And if there are no signs, there's the priority to the right rule (talking about Belgium, will certainly be different elsewhere).

Greetings,
Glodenox

In the UK we don't tend to have that. Often one road will be wider than the side road and have separate lanes for people turning right so you could assume it has more priority but there is nothing to say it has. Whenever this has happened the traffic flows better and you don't find yourself sitting at a red light while nothing moves on the intersection. Generally we would have priority to the right like at a roundabout if there was no signs but as there is no overall rule everyone treats it with caution and moves over slow enough not to cause a collision if someone does something unexpected.

Have fun :)
http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2006/11/most-dangerous-roads-in-world.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yungas_Road

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=most+dangerous+roads&search_type=&aq=f

:baeh3:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/143/321750352_8292168f06.jpg

*EDIT*
normally i dont like and post those videos, but to give a view what makes the most dangerous in the road such dangerous. at 0:55 you see the brave man climbing in his truck. RIP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI6YJv163r4

Could there be any way to rescue the truck??????

Here is one from Greece which always fascinates me everytime I see this video:

tth9krDtxII

Moderator, please help, the video does not load up... Can anyone see it? Here is the link btw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tth9krDtxII

You've put the whole URL between youtube tags. You should only put the code after "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=" between those tags.

Horrible accident, that guy is pretty lucky to survive without a stratch.

Looking at his reaction, survival was probably the least concern.:lol:

This goes to " women driver ".
Check this out:

39qdhbkTko4

^^ haha

Here is one from Greece which always fascinates me everytime I see this video:

tth9krDtxII

It is not that fascinating. My friend was once hit by a car while cycling in a similar way to the guy shown in this video. He thought he was feeling fine and even had an argument with the guy who hit him, but on his way to the hospital he realised that he had pissed all over himself and then some time later he lost his consciousness. Its called shock, I'd like to see a video of this guy 30 minutes later.

Once car smacked my shoulder when I waslking on the street, I fell onto ground but didn't die :D

Here is one from Greece which always fascinates me everytime I see this video:

tth9krDtxII
That guy (with the motorbike) is really very lucky: after that crush looks really O.K.

In Russia there're a lot of car crahes:cheers:
baOSB6CqWH8

^^ some stuff I noticed

1) Red light running
2) lack of traffic lights at wide boulevards
3) high-speed head-on collisions
4) generally stupid behaviour
5) lack of divided roads

I wonder if the Russian government knows about the problems of Russian drivers. Probably not.

Here is another video about driving russians, they can't wait for a red light I see.

AqaQYoQGmNA

But what was that truck driver @ 3.05 thinking?? :nuts:

I see that it takes some effort to survive a drive in Russia, sometimes they really seem to cause an accident on purpose :D :jk:

Nah, Moscow is a city with almost as much inhabitants as the entire Netherlands. More people concentrated in one area = also more accidents concentrated in one area.

No doubt that Moscow /Russia is less safe than the Netherlands though, but we are übersafe.

I noticed that most of the accidents in the first russian video cause by wet road with the extremely fast speed limit of those cars

Nah, Moscow is a city with almost as much inhabitants as the entire Netherlands. More people concentrated in one area = also more accidents concentrated in one area.

No doubt that Moscow /Russia is less safe than the Netherlands though, but we are übersafe.

I know, but that's why I added the :jk: smiley :D

Most of those accidents seem to happen at the same junctions anyway, it's not like the whole city is completely unsafe.

Wow those roads in Moscow are very wide, maybe they should be expressways with barriers between which they do not seem to have. I also agree they do not seem to like red lights too much.

It is not that fascinating. My friend was once hit by a car while cycling in a similar way to the guy shown in this video. He thought he was feeling fine and even had an argument with the guy who hit him, but on his way to the hospital he realised that he had pissed all over himself and then some time later he lost his consciousness. Its called shock, I'd like to see a video of this guy 30 minutes later.

I know what losing consciousness is like. :D

Also nioticed from both videos that many drivers in Moscow streets, the drive uncarefully with maximum speeds, that's why they are so many accidents

Also nioticed from both videos that many drivers in Moscow streets, the drive uncarefully with maximum speeds, that's why they are so many accidents

Are you a Greek? What is the guy on the my first video saying to the car driver?

Netherlands Highway patrol

Policemotor hits by a car! A bit shocking to see it :ohno:

He was escorting an Ambulance

MsmYMQug_cs

Netherlands Highway patrol

Policemotor hits by a car! A bit shocking to see it :ohno:

He was escorting an Ambulance

MsmYMQug_cs

Very sad indeed, I hope he survived.

AFAIK he did :)

Are you a Greek? What is the guy on the my first video saying to the car driver?

He is saying "For fuck sake, you have red, you have red" then he walks away after that i cant hear what they say although the woman says something about green light

^^ Exactly that... he accuses her about passing with red light...

Netherlands Highway patrol
Policemotor hits by a car! A bit shocking to see it :ohno:
He was escorting an Ambulance
MsmYMQug_cs
:ohno: I hope he is O.K. too...

Death... nobody knows where and when, but it will come.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7-Yg8HUd4g

PS: Lol at p*****.net

^^ The music couldn't be more dramatic. These are the vids to become quiet of...

:ohno: I hope he is O.K. too...

"Agent raakt zwaargewond" means: Officer becomes heavily injured.

Death... nobody knows where and when, but it will come.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7-Yg8HUd4g

PS: Lol at p*****.net

The video is sad, but at least 'pizdec' is funny. :D

Sad video. I remember a video that someone posted on the Wegenforum with pictures of fatal accidents. The fact that I remember it well says enough :ohno:

^^ Indeed :ohno:

a truck passes illegally forcing oncoming cars into the shoulder; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtJd6E-uoTw&feature=channel_page

:omg: That guy is lucky that the oncoming traffic can move to the shoulder!

I found this video about this tunnel in Moscow city; maximum speed and careless on the icy road cause the problems below...
nCCrpZafTYw

Tunnels leaking water is a problem all across the world. But in Moscow it's bigger because of the lower temperatures I guess..

^^ Probably low temperatures yes...

Death... nobody knows where and when, but it will come.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7-Yg8HUd4g

PS: Lol at p*****.net

According to some of the comments, the person who was hit actually survived.

Death... nobody knows where and when, but it will come.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7-Yg8HUd4g

PS: Lol at p*****.net

The pedestrian survived, and that's one awful edition of that video.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/pedestrian.asp

Russia...rotten politicians...rotten drivers...rotten road planning...wow...seems like a nice country to live.

I can see lots of criminal behaviours here. Of course always with innocent people killed or injured.

AFAIK he did :)Last week I heard he still is in a coma...

By the way, it was a foolish action by the police-officer. There was no need to wipe the right lane free from traffic at all, and if that had to be done, a red cross could be shown on the signalling system.

However you never wish someone a faith like this... :ohno:

New video:
fx4ysLvbnPE
Do you know what that man says in Russian?

^^
Well, I'm completely bored during my lunch break at university, so I will try :) This is more like a summary, not a word-by-word translation. I also did not include the names of the places, since I am not familiar with them.

"The yellow light appears, but whoever rushes, won't cross the intersection in time. The police video camera shows that the law was broken by both drivers: the first driver started driving on yellow, and the second tried to run the intersection on red. The meeting happened exactly in the middle."

"On this square, the same picture. The truck stops on yellow, but the other car decides to pass it, and 'meeting' the other car is inevitable. Both cars say goodbye to their bumpers. The driver who had the green was so surprised that he forgot to even use the brake, rolling beyond the camera's field of view."

"On this square, drivers like to drive perpendicularly to the road, and on red lights. It seems that the Russian car was being chased by an import, whose trajectory was corrected by an unsuspecting driver making a legal left turn."

"The same bridge over the river, but now an acrobatic episode. The driver decided to make a left turn without reducing speed, ending up on the roof."

"It turns out that it is dangerous to cross the ring road even on a green light during the day. It is possible to end up on the right side."

"On the same ring road, it is also possible to get a frontal hit by the rear end of another car. The imported car having lost control caused havoc on all lanes of the drivable surface."

"Motorway, night, the speed is 100 km/h and higher. But for someone even that is not enough, so passing is done even on the dividing line. The maneuver didn't work out - the driver chipped the car in the opposing left-most lane, causing a chain reaction. Almost no one could brake in time."

"And this is another road; two cars are stationary with their emergency lights on. The driver of one of them is trying to find the cause of the unexpected stop under the hood. But suddenly, a 'checkers-style' driver who makes a sharp lane change is not able to control the vehicle. The stopped car turns over and covers its owner. Only because of a miracle he is able to survive and even independently crawl from under the car, at which moment help arrived."

^^ Thanks for the translate @TheCat
The most accidents made because they (drivers) pass with a red light :ohno:

I am a new driver and have not really driven on my own that much yet due to insurance preniums but I could safely say that these guys have no care in the world... All these accidents are avoidable with some care and attention, maybe check the mirrors more and check give way more.

All these accidents are avoidable with some care and attention, maybe check the mirrors more and check give way more.
That's true, but unfortunately they dont pay attention

A problem is that very wide roads intersect at a normal junction. Since it's becomes so big, drivers have less overview and therefore cannot judge the situation as good as they usually do.

Weird that such an important thread has been left for almost two years now, but anyway...

I'd very much like to know, how did driving behaviour change in European post communist countries.

In general statistics show significant improvement, except for Romania, where number of accidents increased.

What interests me most is whether people respect the 50 km/h limit, but not in big cities, but smaller villages where the road is often wide and it's easy to exceed the speed limit.

It doesn't really surprise me all that much about Romania. The number of vehicles per capita was historically already pretty high in most of post-communist Europe, except for Romania and Bulgaria. Lithuania's number of vehicles per capita is much higher than the Netherlands for instance, while Romania lagged behind significantly, which is changing rapidly now.

Lithuania:
http://i.imgur.com/8iQYl.png

Very impressive!

Interesting video showing traffic in one NY junction:

24572222

They need some police stationed there to hand out tickets to pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. Traffic rules are there for a reason, to prevent accidents and ensure the proper flow of traffic of all sorts.

^^omg, don't come to europe if you can't handle a bit of bikers and pedestrains not following the 'rules', pedestrains and cyclists can do what they want overhere...There is no place for bikers on that crossing so I would do the same...
I don't get what's so wrong about it..

lol they are way more dumb than Parisiens.

Theres no such offence as "jaywalking" in the UK

P.S

You should see Oxford Street in Central London, most of the time the buses and taxis and the private cars in the bits where they're allowed can't get through because of the continuous flow of pedestrians :lol:

Theres no such offence as "jaywalking" in the UK

Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's enforced anywhere in the country...

I understand that. But its not even a law in the UK. Not all laws are enforced. In Portugal you don't have to pay your taxes for example