Thread: Lowest road toll in 90 years - why?

Originally Posted by vnx205

Some of the reasons given would certainly explain a long term improvement, but not necessarily why last year was better than the one immediately before.

Statistical noise. When there are random variables, you will always get small variations in an overall trend. There is no exact reason.

Like when we have the coldest day in xxx years, people start bleating on about the end of global warming, ignoring the overall trend.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

I think the two major factors are

1) road conditions - not just the freeways, although the improvement these make is overwhelming, they only represent a tiny proportion of roads, but all the little ongoing improvements - some local ones are, for example, sealing of more stretches of main road, meaning fewer collisions in dust, along with this goes better curves and fewer run-offs on corners, turning lanes in places notorious for fatal accidents, even edge marking and increasingly rumble strips to wake drivers up.

2) As suggested, the mileage travelled.

Some things I don't think are very significant are car safety features - these tend to go along with other features that insulate the driver from road conditions and encourage driving too fast for the conditions. I am not sure the average fleet age is lower than it was before 2008, probably higher as people get a lot more cautious about debt.

It is, as I have pointed out elsewhere, notable that matching statistics for random breath tests with blood tests for drivers in fatal accidents suggests that alcohol is THE major cause of road deaths. The other notable factor that is not reflected in road deaths is the use of mobile phones - despite the vast increase in possession of these and almost certainly use while driving in the last ten or fifteen years, deaths continue to decrease.

John

John

I can only agree with you on the better roads and freeways.

While individuals may be doing less KM, there are many more cars and people on the road today than there were in 1978 so the chances for two or more vehicles to crash should be proportionally greater.

As for the safety of cars not being a cause of reducing fatalaties, I can not disagree with you more. Progressive crumple zones taking the G forces away from the human occupants is a significant improvement as are air-bags. The other safety devices such as seat belts and head hests were in place in 1978, but the proportion of cars older than 10 years without the safety devices in 1978 and today where even cars older than 10 years are likely to have many safety device must play a significant part on the fatality rates.

Diana

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

John

I can only agree with you on the better roads and freeways.

While individuals may be doing less KM, there are many more cars and people on the road today than there were in 1978 so the chances for two or more vehicles to crash should be proportionally greater.

As for the safety of cars not being a cause of reducing fatalaties, I can not disagree with you more. Progressive crumple zones taking the G forces away from the human occupants is a significant improvement as are air-bags. The other safety devices such as seat belts and head hests were in place in 1978, but the proportion of cars older than 10 years without the safety devices in 1978 and today where even cars older than 10 years are likely to have many safety device must play a significant part on the fatality rates.

Diana

Diana, my recollection of the statistics is that the highest road tolls were in the early 1960's. and started to decrease dramatically from then with the beginnings of seat belt installation, radial ply tyres, better brakes, all steel bodies. There were still many cars from the 20's through 50's still in daily use, sloppy steering, very poor mechanical brakes, repeatedly retreaded cross ply tyres, wood frame bodies, and to cap it off, inexperienced drivers. During the "baby boom" was a period of prosperity when families who prewar could never have afforded a house and a car acquired them. Ratty old cars, new drivers, poor roads, and a drinking culture. Ruthless enforcement of the drink driving laws in Qld. commenced in the late 50's with magistrates Pearce and Kearney suspending driver's licences even though it was not clear if they had the legal power to do so. The breathalyser came along about 1968 and was the key to totally changing community attitudes. Stiff fines and long suspensions and later cancellations made people think.

I reckon the timing of holidays during the week has an impact too. This year there were significant traffic issues the weekend after Christmas. It seems that people stayed home for Christmas and then departed for their holidays potentially in a more rested state. Similarly having NYE in the middle of the week reduced the number of people prepared to do road trips for that event too.
Regards,
Tote

Originally Posted by vnx205

Some of the reasons given would certainly explain a long term improvement, but not necessarily why last year was better than the one immediately before.

For that I tend to blame the year's weather. A return to drier conditions reduces the number of days where loonies charge through the tempest blindly. Makes all the difference. Road toll tied to the annual rainfall?
Weather related death.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

John

I can only agree with you on the better roads and freeways.

While individuals may be doing less KM, there are many more cars and people on the road today than there were in 1978 so the chances for two or more vehicles to crash should be proportionally greater.

As for the safety of cars not being a cause of reducing fatalaties, I can not disagree with you more. Progressive crumple zones taking the G forces away from the human occupants is a significant improvement as are air-bags. The other safety devices such as seat belts and head hests were in place in 1978, but the proportion of cars older than 10 years without the safety devices in 1978 and today where even cars older than 10 years are likely to have many safety device must play a significant part on the fatality rates.

Diana

The major improvements in safety of cars was seat belts and simple structural improvements such as antiburst locks and collapsible steering columns. Progressive crumple zones are, in my view, less significant - they date to the 1950s in some cars (e.g. Citroen, Mercedes). More significant is the improvements in brakes, steering and tyres, although, again, some were very good back to the sixties and even fifties. Another factor since then is that increased general prosperity has meant that on average vehicles are much better maintained, especially tyres - I remember from my childhood that tyres showing canvas down the centre of the tread were quite normal.

But my contention is not that these improvements are ineffective, but they came alongside improvements that insulate the driver from road conditions to an extent that counteracts the effects of the improvements, helped by the vastly increased power/weight ratios that apply to all classes of vehicles in the last forty years, so that many more vehicles are driven close to the edge of their safeety envelopethan used to be the case.

Airbags add relatively little to the protection of a correctly fitted seat belt in most cases - without the reluctance of Americans to wear seat belts they would never have been invented!

perhaps worth noting that MUARC research into insurance company data struggles to find any correlation between vehicle equipment/ safety ratings and accident, injury or fatality rates.
John

Some interesting comments here that's for sure and IMO most of the comments as to why the road toll is lower are most likely plausible. When it's all said and done a lower road toll is always a good thing, zero deaths would be awesome don't you think?


One thing that I would like to see are the comparison rates year compared to last for the total number of accidents, possibly impacts over say 30Km/H or Technical right off of vehicle, the point I am getting to is that yes there are a multitude of reasons as to why the toll is lower BUT if accidents of a certain nature that in previous years would have resulted in deaths have not decreased then we haven't fixed the problem of irresponsible driving, we have just added better features to protect the body inside.


Don't get me wrong, a lower toll is a good thing but safer driving would achieve a better result.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

The major improvements in safety of cars was seat belts and simple structural improvements such as antiburst locks and collapsible steering columns. Progressive crumple zones are, in my view, less significant - they date to the 1950s in some cars (e.g. Citroen, Mercedes). ....

Airbags add relatively little to the protection of a correctly fitted seat belt in most cases - without the reluctance of Americans to wear seat belts they would never have been invented!

perhaps worth noting that MUARC research into insurance company data struggles to find any correlation between vehicle equipment/ safety ratings and accident, injury or fatality rates.
John

John

We are going to have to agree to disagree. Some of your points <removed> are very valid but many, IMHO, are not. Seatbelts while invented in the 1950s were not standard fittings till the mid 1960s. A huge proportion of cars on the road in the 1970s were Australian built vehicles with very low occupant protection, even with belts, particularly lap only belts, a lot of the energy dissipation was still within the human occupants.

In 1978 a significant proportion if not majority were older vehicles with poor energy dissipation. In 2013 most of the old bangers still have crumple zones etc.

What I would like to see is comparative statistics on the incidence of crashes in both periods and the prevalence, incidence and types of injuries within those crashes, then we can determine more accurately our various discussion perspectives. (no I'm not going to research that information tonight.)