Take a comparison of the USA with Germany (where there are even roads that don't have a posted speed limit, which foreigners misunderstand for unlimited speed allowed). The USA's per capita automobile death rate is over twice as high as Germany's, in spite of speed limits in general being lower in Germany and there being far more and more generous roads in the USA. That's even with Germany being far more populated than the USA.
So you might say, well, Americans drive more. Statistically speaking though, you would think that more driving on wider, bigger roads and in less densely populated areas would lead to less accidents and not more. And then when you look at the statistics of automobile deaths per miles driven you get a 55% higher death rate in the USA than in Germany. There seems to be rather tenuous correlation between traffic danger and speed, at best.
The problem is horrible drivers, not speed. We should have a far more rigorous system of driving qualification and recertification. But who are we kidding, speed limits and enforcement have nothing whatsoever to do with safety.
Divest the conflict of interest between governmental coffers and speeding tickets and then you can maybe start having a case that the motivations are somehow related to safety. But that's a whole different issue called unfettered government corruption and graft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re...
The relationship between forgiving roads and safety does not necessarily run in the direction you assume. People generally drive at a speed that feels safe, so a road that feels safe will have faster speeds. Faster speeds don't necessarily lead to more crashes, but they definitely lead to a higher rate of serious injuries and fatalities.
Given a difference in fatality rate between two developed countries, I'd definitely look at factors like traffic engineering before jumping to the conclusion that, say, Americans are just worse drivers than Germans.
In my experience, driving on US freeways requires less lane changes than on German autobahns. This is mostly due to the facts that in the US everybody is driving about the same speed; in Germany, as mentioned above, if you want to drive faster than the trucks but not fast enough to stay always left, you are constantly switching lanes to overtake people in the second lane. If you want to drive a speed that is lower than the 'general' second lane speed, you even need to go in and out from the truck-lane.
Furthermore, since it is OK to overtake on the right in the US you don't need to change lanes if your lane now goes a little faster than the lane on the left. Even though you shouldn't stay left for a prolonged time if you are [much] slower than the rest (even in the US), it is OK to be overtaken on the right.
Though, I am faster on German freeways (driving around 160-170km/h), I enjoy driving in the US more as it is generally more relaxed.
I somewhat doubt that the German autobahn rules are better with dealing with medium-high-traffic situations than US rules. Would be interesting to see actual data on this claim.
The US is very spread out and requires a lot of driving. For example, just driving from SF to LA requires more driving than Cologne to Berlin.
Per mile driven is much better, and it narrows the US gap with other countries substantially. (The US is slightly lower than Japan, slightly higher than France.)
(Aside, I agree 100% about more rigorous licensing. I spend 3 hrs on the highway each day; easily 80% of the drivers I see are utterly incompetent: texting, driving slow in the left lane, passing on the right, lights off at night, falling asleep, etc. Heck, I saw one driver eating out of a bowl with both hands.)
Is this two problems or one?
Country and traffic fatalities per 1b veh/kms.
United Arab Emirates 310
Brazil 55.9
Slovakia 24.5
South Korea 22.8
Bulgaria 19.1
Estonia 17.5
Cyprus 16.7
Czech Republic 15.7
Malaysia 13.8
Spain 8.5
New Zealand 8.3
Japan 8.3
Belgium 7.7
United States of America 7.6
Slovenia 7.6
Austria 6.9
France 6.3
Canada 6.1
Switzerland 5.6
Israel 5.2
Australia 5.2
Germany 4.9
Netherlands 4.9
Malta 4.9
Finland 4.7
United Kingdom 4.3
Iceland 3.8
Sweden 3.7
Ireland 3.4
Denmark 3.4
Norway 3.3
source: I have been driving in both countries for more than 8 years; moved to the US little more than 8 years ago.
This is because:
1) Very few divided highways 2) Blanket speed limit of 100kph on open roads 3) Fun road obstacles - hairpin turns, single lane bridges, blind corners and no shoulder drops down cliffs.
I live in Brasil, which, unsurprisingly ranks pretty high as well. Bad roads and unsafe vehicles explain part of the problem; but what I think accounts for the gist of it is something I haven't seen commented here: people speed because they want to be faster than other people. The speed limit merely makes this easier by limiting risk averse or society minded people.
I stoped driving long distances a year ago because it was stressing me out and because a car here is too expensive (compared to bus for long distances and taxi for short ones).
What I noticed in myself and in drivers around me was that traffic was regarded as a competition. Being faster was better. If someone was faster than you you'd be passive-aggressive towards him/her (mostly him). Brasil ranks 2nd (to last) on this list because of the way we view cars: they are really expensive, even in an expensive country such as ours. They are regarded as a life milestone, one of the main goal in our lives. They become a way of posing yourself as superior to the masses. This results in a more competitive traffic. Closing people off, tailgating and speeding (50% more than the limit - above this you risk losing your license and get fined for about $500) are the bread and butter of a good sum of our drivers. Our national speed limit is 120kmph (75mph).
Why do most people speed slightly? Is it because of the time they will save? I bet most don't even look at their watches while doing so. For a fixed distance, the speed x time is a hyperbole, which means diminishing returns for greater speeds for distances greater than the value of your speed. I posit that the gain is not time, but a better position at an acceptable risk in a competitive game we call transit.
- exclusive traffic phase for pedestrians and cyclists (all automobiles receive a red light) at intersections
- protected bicycle lanes
- no right turn on red
- allow the Idaho stop
Of course, all of this is predicated on having places where people actually want to walk/bicycle.
As opposed to the typical suburban wasteland of concrete, tarmac, strip malls and exhaust fumes.
Cars kill. Sometimes even directly.
The one thing the article doesn't mention though is a phenomena of traffic queuing at speed, which happens with average speed cameras. It supposedly increases the chances of collisions, because everyone is going at the same speed, not paying enough attention (because little is changing) and not maintaining enough stopping distance. I don't have citation for this unfortunately. Maybe someone else has a link to the study.