From: donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed)
Subject: Re: For those who like the German example of highways ...
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 14:39:27 GMT

mart@csri.toronto.edu (Mart Molle) writes:

>I haven't seen the pictures, but what's your point?  We have plenty
>of big pileups on this side of the Atlantic too.  Over the last 10
>years or so, I can remember massive pileups on the 401 near Kingston,
>and on the 400 near Barrie.  Probably much smaller than the recent
>German tragedy, but not bad for a 3rd rate country with an identity
>crisis... :-)

In my memory the largest pileup of this kind in North America
occurred in the LA area and involved under 100 cars, but I can't get
any more specific than that.  We have thousands of vehicles on
our roads every day around Toronto traveling at 100 km/h, give or take
50 km/h.  So we don't avoid this situation because of a lack of vehicles,
or because there is so much space to drive in that we have nothing to hit in
the fog.

>Before I can accept your thesis that the accident would not have taken
>place if they had enforced a "civilized" speed limit, let me ask you:

> 1. What were the weather conditions involved?  I've heard of several
> large pileups in Europe over the years, and so far they all seem to
> involve a sudden arrival of a fast-moving "pea-soup" fog.  Would a
> lower speed limit have been enough to make a difference?  Do similar
> weather conditions occur in Canada?

Yes, fog has occurred in Canada.  We don't necessarily have the yellow
kind, but we have the kind where you can't see more than twenty feet away.
At 100km/h twenty feet goes by very quickly.  Of course, most people won't
drive the speed limit in the fog.  But they often exceed a speed they
can see and brake for.  That is all it takes.

> 2. Is a lower speed limit really the *best* countermeasure for this
> type of situation?  Why not ban fog instead?  Or install a network
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of roadside early warning signs that can be activated in bad weather
> to warn of bad weather ahead?  (They may not be needed everywhere,
> since the really bad fogs generally happen in certain areas.)  Indeed,
> isn't it mandatory in Germany for car radios to include a remotely
> activated warning system that causes them to broadcast road hazard
> warnings no matter what the radio is supposed to be doing at the time?
> I suppose the money-is-no-object technology lovers might even advocate
> some sort of collision avoidance radar system...

Excuse me?
 
> 3. Including the effects massive pileups like this, are the German
> autobauns really more dangerous than our own highway system in terms
> of fatalities per mile?  If not, and the only difference is that we
> have frequent small accidents (that don't make one's hair stand on
> end) instead of rare massive big ones (that do have that effect),
> then why is our system better than theirs?  Wouldn't I be safer to
> live under their system, and simply avoid driving in bad weather??

Ya.  Just stay home.  Great idea.  "I'm going to be in late today,
I'm waiting for the fog patches to lift."  You came up with the
great story about the Dick Tracy fog radios, so I guess you would
probably have the statistics right beside your copy of "The Third Wave".
 
>While I hate to be branded "insensitive", I wonder if Mr. Teed is not
>being too emotional (or maybe manipulative) about this.  In particular,
>I bet more people get killed or injured in an airplane crash, when
>one occurs (which, thankfully, isn't often).  Should we then limit
>commercial aviation to hang glider speeds for "safety" reasons?  Or,
>if my memory is correct, ban airplanes from landing, since most
>crashes happen in takeoff or landing, and the worst-ever crash was
>between two jumbo jets taxiing on the ground in the Canary Islands?

Yes, with aircraft you can have an accident traveling at 0 km/h.
Speed has little to do with it, but rather the fact that you are up in
the air.  Most motorists avoid becoming airborne since steering has no effect
under these conditions.  But if it did, they would!

>While I feel very badly about the German autobaun tragedy, I don't think
>it is "proof" that driving in Germany is less safe than it is in Canada.

Didn't offer it as proof.  I thought it was an interesting
counter-example of the statements we saw in these newsgroups about
how safe the roads are in Europe/Germany.

I think the case illustrates a problem area with high speeds.  The basic
reality is that when you travel faster you take much longer to stop.
When you take much longer to stop you need more time to be aware of
any reason to slow down or brake in general.  I don't see where you are going
to find this time in bumper to bumper traffic we see along the 401
everyday.  As it is now we have vehicles giving each other much less than
the two second following standard, when there are no accidents and
everyone is traveling at about 100 km/h.  If you need some more
concrete evidence, just turn on your radio and listen to the accident
reports.  What percentage occur in the left lane where the speed
is the greatest?  What happens when it rains?  What happens when there is
snow?  Anybody can see that when the ability to stop is impaired,
accidents increase.  Speed is proportional to stopping distance.

Finally, I can tell you from observation of three hours daily on
the 401, that the difference between any two vehicles speed
is greatest in the left lane of a two lane choice.  Very often
one car (on clear days!) will be passing something at about 100-120 km/h
and another will come along doing 20 or 30 km/h more than this.
The vehicle coming to a blocked ability to pass very often applies
their brakes at the last moment, and when a set of vehicles following
each other with four feet between them does this, often one of them
touches the other, or has to veer of the road, or sometimes worse.
If they are doing these same things at higher speeds, the collisions
are going to be worse, and the difference in speed between one vehicle
and the would-be over taker is going to be much greater than now.  For
instance, one vehicle passing a truck climbing a hill, at 100 km/h might
be approached by a vehicle doing 180 km/h.  How much distance is
required to lose that 80 km/h velocity?  Will drivers be able
to estimate this is they can't figure it out all the time now?

Perhaps a different kind of highway would help, but that isn't going to
happen for a long long time.  There is no money for it.  Maybe this
is where the bad conception is occurring - applying only the idea of
a change in law without considering the engineering required to
make it feasible.

Newsgroups: can.general,ott.general,can.politics