Why the Obsession with High Speeds? I see a lot of posts indicating insane top speeds of 150 kmph and more, and our auto journalists get some sort of adrenaline rush in pushing the gas. That is not safe even on the US highways and German autobahns, leave alone the Indian roads. The max speed in various countries with well-designed roads for high speed motorways is: US (55-65 mph), UK (70 mph), Sweden (110 kmph), Switzerland (120 kmph). Yet 40-50% and upto 80% of the drivers drive above the posted speed limits endangering not only their lives, but more importantly endangering the lives of others. However, a distinction must be made between those who drive a few kmph above the speed limits (most drivers) and those who drive excessively above the speed limits, which generally involves a small proportion. These are lunatics and must not be allowed at all. In the US, a survey on speeding by NHTSA indicates that while at least three-quarters of drivers admit to driving over the speed limit, most seem to set a boundary as to how much over the limit they will travel on different types of roads. Around 51% reported driving 10 mph over the speed limit on interstate highways. However, around 34% reported driving 20 mph over the speed limit on interstate highways.
Almost all road safety experts agree that excessive and inappropriate speed is the number one road safety problem in many countries, often contributing to as much as 30-35% of fatal accidents and an aggravating factor in most accidents. Although `speed thrills, but excessive speed is more likely to kill’
In general, the number and severity of road traffic accidents rise as speed increases. You already know that high speed reduce the time available to process information, to decide whether or not to react and, finally, to execute an action. This means the distance covered during normal reaction time periods increases with an increase in speed.
The visual field of the driver is reduced when the speed increases. At 40 kmph, the driver has a field of vision covering 100°, which allows obstacles on the roadside, or other potential hazards, to be seen. At 130 kmph, the field of vision covers around 30°, which reduces considerably the capability of the driver to assess potential danger.
As braking distance is proportional to the square of the speed, the distance between starting to brake and coming to a complete standstill also increases greatly with increasing speed. The time needed is composed of two elements: the reaction time of the driver (approximately 1 second in standard conditions) and the braking time.
The possibility of avoiding collisions reduces as speed increases. As an example, with a speed of 80 kmph on a dry road, it takes around 22 metres (the distance travelled during a reaction time of approximately 1 second) to react to an event, and a total of 57 metres to come to a standstill. If someone runs onto the road 36 metres ahead (seen all the time on Indian roads), the driver would most likely kill the person if driving at 70 kmph or more, hurt seriously if driving at 60 kmph and avoid hitting if driving at 50 kmph. However, if the same person runs out on to the road 15 metres ahead of the driver, the probability is that the person would be fatally injured at 50 kmph and all higher speeds.
The stopping distance also depends on the type of pavement and the condition of the road, with higher stopping distances on wet roads. At 60 kmph a driver needs around 46 metres to come to a standstill on a wet road, an additional 10 metres over the distance required when stopping from the same speed on a dry road.
Traffic accident research on urban roads indicates that the higher the proportion of drivers who exceed the speed limit, the more accidents occur. Individuals driving at more than 10-15% above the average speed of the traffic around them are much more likely to be involved in an accident. Accident frequency rises by 10-15% if the average speed of these motorists increases by 1 kmph.
Even when speeding has not been determined as the decisive cause of an accident, the severity of injury is highly correlated with the vehicle speed at the moment of impact. The effects follow the rules of physics regarding the change in kinetic energy that is released in an accident. The energy released and absorbed in an accident is linked to the impact speed in an accident, and most of the kinetic energy is absorbed by the lighter crash `opponent’, who is often the flesh, blood, and spongy road user. The likelihood of being seriously injured in a collision rises significantly even with minor changes in impact speed. Heard of the Nilsson Power Model which illustrates the relationship between serious injury accidents, fatal accidents and speed. According to this model, serious injury accidents are related to the third power of the speed; and for fatal accidents, the fourth power of the speed. Based on the Power Model, a 5% increase in mean speed leads to approximately a 10% increase in all injury accidents and a 20% increase in fatal accidents. Similarly, for a 5 % decrease in mean speed there are typically 10% fewer injury accidents and 20% fewer fatal accidents The effect on the number of fatalities is higher than the effect on the number of fatal accidents and corresponds, on average, to the power of 4.5.
The consequences of accidents also depend on the type of accidents and the type of road users Involved. Pedestrians, cyclists and moped riders for example have a high risk of severe injury when motor vehicles collide with them, as they are completely unprotected: no steel framework, no seatbelts, and no airbags to absorb part of the energy. The probability of a pedestrian being killed in a car accident increases with the impact speed. Results from on-the-scene investigations of collisions involving pedestrians and cars show that 90% of pedestrians survive being hit by a car at speeds of 30 kmph; whereas only 20% survive at speeds of 50 Kmph. In addition, elderly pedestrians are more likely to sustain non-minor and fatal injuries than younger people in the same impact conditions due to their greater physical frailty.
Even a well protected car occupant wearing a seatbelt has limited protection in high speeds. According to WHO, wearing seatbelts in well–designed cars can provide protection to a maximum of 70 kmph in frontal impacts and 50 kmph in side impacts (excluding impacts with obstacles such as trees or poles for which the protection is only effective for lower speeds).
In addition to the increased risk to vulnerable road users, there is increased risk of serious injury to occupants of light vehicles in collisions with a heavier vehicle. This is because the energy that is released in the collision is absorbed mainly by the lighter vehicle and even small differences in mass can make a significant difference. Current trends in vehicle design are leading to many larger and heavier cars, while light vehicles are continuing to be produced, thus increasing the difference in mass of the new vehicles being manufactured. A mass difference of a factor of 3 is not an exception for vehicles on the road, especially between older and newer cars. The difference in mass between a car and a heavy goods vehicle is even larger and can easily be 20 times greater. |