ROAD SAFETY

            INTRODUCTION

The following is an analytical approach to the question of road safety. We will examine several important themes and propose solutions to age-old problems concerning road safety.

The causes of road accidents are obviously multiple; if not this problem would not exist to the extent it does and adequate solutions would already have been provided. Only a global analysis, precise in its examination of the accident mechanism, can bring effective solutions. The suggestion that there is one cause and one solution must be automatically dismissed, as this is incompatible with both the complexity of the human being and the development of techniques linked to transport. Miraculous solutions exist neither in reality nor in the rational mind.

The parameters influencing road safety can be broken down into seven major factors:

1. The driver

2. Different cultures

3. The vehicle

4. The weather

5. The road network

6. Regulations

7. The role of the police

Here we will deal only with a few in examining accident mechanisms in our search for the principal causes. It will therefore be possible to examine each one in a certain amount of detail, if still on a small scale. It is in combining these details that we will arrive at a positive result and helpful conclusions on the issue of road safety.

- Action in the initial stages 

We believe it necessary to undertake a revision of all the elements leading to an accident; to identify a problem, as it manifests itself in its initial stages, should be our aim, rather than acting on elements which we consider to be the last link in the chain, for example, alcohol and speed controls on the road. Basically, we need to concentrate on the prevention of the last minute, in its entirety, because at this stage of control it is already almost too late and it would be impossible to have a member of the police monitor every driver. It is therefore necessary to determine, precisely and early on, the phenomena contributing to the genesis of an accident.

To this end, we have revised 24 causes that we see as direct threats to road safety and for each one have proposed a solution:

                                                THE DRIVER

1. TRAINING

We believe that it is wrong to allow all drivers control of their vehicles in a large number of situations they risk having to face. The latter is our opinion because training in the following does not exist:

- driving on ice or snow

- driving at high speed on circuits

- simulated aquaplaning

- support evidence from aerodynamics and phenomena of lift coefficient variation  according to speed.

To this we must add:

- a general understanding of factors influencing road holding

- a general knowledge of the car's mechanics, its workings and maintenance (no practical exercise 

  for this).

The official training program offers too few driving hours for the driver to be attentive but relaxed at the wheel at the same time. Moreover, a few months after he gets his license, the driver begins to feel confident and overestimates his abilities. This phenomenon, well known in aeronautics, recurs in a cyclical fashion in a pilot's career and occurs after a certain number of hours of flying. These cycles are almost identical for all pilots and coincide often with incidents or accidents. In our case, we must determine what the cycles are for car drivers, in order to make them, just beforehand, do some sort of revision of 'alertness'.

To draw a parallel with aviation; in this domain the least weakness or failing cannot be allowed for fear of instant catastrophe and thus elements adapted for security were developed. In fact, in aeronautics, the object of the training is, of course, to master all the stages of the flight, but also the mechanics of the flight, the regulations, meteorology and navigation amongst other factors. All this to enable the pilot to understand the machine he is flying and to make safe maneuvers. There is never a question of skipping over a point of theory or a flight stage ( practicing take-off, flying in turbulence or at high altitudes, etc....) For an automobile driver it should be the same. It seems logical and of common sense to provide training which is adapted to the object used. This principle is applied in most sectors of activity, but a lot less so in car driving!

A more complete and up-to-date training which is adapted to today's cars needs to be researched and eventually replace the existing program, and this, topped with an obligation to attend a driving school a few months after getting the license for a type of revision of 'alertness'. This latter would allow new drivers to exchange experiences, analyze them and prevent them from feeling helpless when it comes to dealing with problems they may not yet have had to face up to. This would accompany training that should not stop when the driver gets his license.

2. PSYCHOLOGY

A poor knowledge of oneself and of others, on both a behavioral and physiological level, does not help in anticipating the reactions of other drivers and does not prepare the driver for crisis situations. A small amount of advice from a psychologist is necessary.

3. SELF-EVALUATION

Another dangerous phenomenon, and all too common, is error in self-evaluation and control, either through lack of experience or self-anesthesia. Fatigue, alcohol, drugs, etc... cause, apart from impaired vision, a deterioration in reflexes and in the brain's capacity to reflect and analyze, and it is this same brain that will evaluate its own state. It is as if all the alertness is anaesthetized, judgement is altered and therefore the driver will overestimate his own capability. This overestimation combined with, for example, bad weather conditions and an inexperienced driver will create conditions propitious to an accident. The forewarnings of this state of self-anesthesia can however be recognized by the driver, and it is through practice and experience that he can use them advisedly for everyone's safety. But sometimes these signs are not easily identifiable because everything depends on the situation and the individual. It is therefore necessary to have access to some form of simple and objective equipment in the vehicle to test the driver's reflexes and levels of fatigue. The result of the test (which is simply read from the equipment) will not solicit the driver's interpretation and would be thus more reliable.

4. HEALTH AND NERVOUS SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES

Taking large quantities of drugs, such as alcohol, causes a deterioration of the nervous system in the long term. Even without being under the influence of these drugs, after a certain threshold of use the understanding of phenomena around driving is no longer the same. The user's ability to react, which is slowed down and sometimes absent, is not adequate to allow for coordination of reflexes and fast decision-making. When not under the effect of the drug, the driver may seem fine, but in an unforeseen situation would behave irrationally. The other fear is that the driver would give into his urge, take the drug and drive under its influence. In order to respect the rules of the road the driver needs understanding and a will, however a characteristic of drugs is that they create mental and physical inertia and destroy will. No law would have any influence on the individual in such a state. Blood tests seem an appropriate way of identifying the most dangerous and irresponsible cases. It could reveal, for example, if alcohol had been taken in large quantities regularly, by quantitative research and an observation of an increase in Gamma GT, triglycerides and the volume of red blood corpuscles. A positive point for prevention would be to integrate a full training module on drugs and their effect on driving into the driving lessons program. It should make reference to medical facts about human physiology and on the consequences of fatigue on driving.

5. CONFRONTING DANGER

To prepare drivers to face the worst possible situations and to have a global understanding of the safety problem, training should include the following:

- visits to crash test centers for a less intellectual and more visual and concrete understanding

- visits to hospitals and dialogue with the disabled victims of road accidents.

This heightened awareness of these points could not but be an effective deterrent.

6. DISPARITY IN DRIVERS

We have set out to tackle the issue of road safety in a global and relativist manner. In fact, all drivers do not have the same ability as regards competence, knowledge or physical conditions. Moreover, driving techniques differ from one individual to the next and represent the personality of the driver to a certain extent. In this context it is clear that the regulations are a safeguard to give a driving framework to individuals, but that this framework cannot cater for all types of drivers. If it tried to do this it would be inapplicable, as too many combinations would have to be contemplated. For some, 130km/h on a motorway is a limit way beyond their possibilities and if they tried it would be outside the bounds of safety. For others, 130km/h is very much within their capability. Some drivers, aware of their limits adapt their driving in accordance with multiple factors: fatigue, vision, weather, health etc..... No one can decide for them, even with full knowledge of the facts, if they are fit to drive at any one moment, for how long and at what speed, to arrive without incident at the destination. Even if certain texts or exams facilitated this, it would be absolutely inapplicable in reality as there would be too many factors to take into account. Moreover, for each individual, the driving cycles compatible with maximum safety are different. For some a rest every two hours is not enough whereas for others it is too much and if the cycles for optimum safety are modified, the chances of incidents or accidents occurring are higher:

- driving at a speed above that of the driver's capability exhausts the body very quickly and increases fatigue,

but

- driving at a speed below that of his capability increases the time taken to complete the journey and causes monotony and disinterest and therefore the incident or accident is due to lack of concentration. Exactly like highly-gifted children in a standard educational set-up, ill-adapted to their high ability, they find themselves at the bottom of the class. According to specialists, if the work is too easy the child will show boredom and disinterest, exactly the opposite to that which is expected from them.

To interfere with the ability of each driver, in one way or another, generates internal conflict.

7. CHAIN OF EVENTS

In driving, as in flying, accidents are the result of a succession of errors or omissions of which the human being is at the origin (even mechanical breakdown is originated by a person either through an initial fault in the design or in the manufacture or in insufficient maintenance). An accident is always preceded by a succession of events which set up the situation propitious to the accident. This 'chain of events' begins very early on in the genesis of an accident. The mechanics of the car are generally tested through the simulation of several extreme phenomena, for example, a night flight in bad weather conditions, little fuel and one in two alternators broken down. All the ingredients for a catastrophe are here and all that is needed is a simple trigger, a small electrical failure or short-circuit, to provoke it. The pilot has, in this situation, no margin for maneuver or safety. To land in the countryside at night without lighting guarantees numerous victims. To prolong the flight in these conditions will inevitably increase the risk exponentially, until the moment when the chain of events will kick in and the crash will be inevitable, even programmed (unconsciously perhaps, but programmed). In this situation the 'decision' must be immediate to reroute and land in the first possible place. There remains a very slight margin for maneuver, but it does exist and only expertise and experience will use this to save the situation. We chose this example because the similarities with road accidents are considerable and the chain of events is also present. We must teach the driver to identify this chain and break it by making a decision.

                                                DIFFERENT CULTURES

Safety objectives can be reached through different means which must, as far as possible, be accumulated to reach an optimum result. However, cultures and mentalities play a large part in the driver's behavior and in accidents.

- The English are reputed for being fair and respecting the individual. Their driving style, like their automobile design, brings out this particular aspect of the national character.

- The Germans, probably the most advanced in car manufacturing, safety and performance, are sufficiently disciplined to allow a certain amount of freedom, on motorways in particular. The concept-cars they have designed are extremely innovative, both in ergonomics and general design, and general safety would be increased enormously if their solutions were applied today. In this domain, their domination is already taken for granted and will go even further with the merging of Daimler and Chrysler.

A respect for the individual and for discipline is a quality, the absence of which puts a check on safety. To change mentalities is probably the most difficult task to achieve. We deduce from this that the more advanced a population is, the more liberal it is.

                                    THE VEHICLE

9. Propulsion system and aggressiveness.

Electric vehicles, from experience, are less stress-inducing and in a way almost calming compared to vehicles with internal combustion systems (diesel or petrol). The latter produce fire, gas, noise, vibrations and aggressive odors. It is therefore relative normal for the driver to soak up this atmosphere and to adapt to the environment. There is very definitely a direct link between the man and the machine and an information exchange which acts on the aggressiveness via the subconscious. One is generally less aggressive when holding a flower than when holding a gun. The object influences behavior, therein lies the interest in making intelligent and non-stress-inducing cars, which we aim to do in our innovative approach to automobile design. We could say that our objective is to put the gun in its case and put the case behind glass, to neutralize the aggressive effect of the weapon. Some German research departments, Mercedes for one, have certainly already realized this aspect, and this is why they pay close attention to the driver's close environment: comfort, space, good ergonomics, sound isolation and optimum vibratory.

If one brings the analogy further, we could make a comparison between the conceptual approach of Scandinavian car manufacturers like SAAB and the behavior they induce from the user, very different from those of southern countries like Italy. The difference in behavior and automobile manufacturing illustrates this.

This opens a whole new field for exploration: make more silent cars, with the passenger cell further removed from the engine compartment, more comfortable and especially more ergonomic, to reduce tension and favor concentration on driving. This leads us on to automobile design and it is here that we find certain faults which have a directly negative influence on road safety.

10. Structural resistance

The construction of strong safe zones in the passenger cell is not always taken into account in the design of many automobiles. To take an example, the SAAB900 have a series of uprights in the windscreen and, around the passenger cell, a tubular roll-over bar, a little like that of its competitors, but adapted for normal use. In the event of an accident, there will not be the same impact on a SAAB 900 with roll-overs as on a vehicle with no tubular bar. One could come out of an accident unscathed in one case and dead or injured in the other. Is it right that the state should pay, in medical care and assistance, for the deficiencies in automobile manufacturing design? There is a cost for such a roll-over bar but if some manufacturers have managed to do it why haven't the others?

11. Glass resistance

The film of plastic, which has replaced Muscovy glass, and which is sandwiched between the windscreen to prevent its shattering, is not sufficiently solid to prevent the glass breaking in cases of violent crashes. Materials like polycarbonate and other high-performance anti-crash films would enable glass and windscreens to resist far more serious crashes than they presently can. In fact, polycarbonate, which is used in eyeglasses and for which an advertisement underlines the mechanical qualities important for shock-resistance, can resist volleys of buckshot....

12. Road holding

Road holding is a determining factor in the prevention of a vehicle's loss of control. Why limit the swerving factor to a ridiculous value, when in an emergency-breaking situation, this limitation will increase the stopping distances or even cause skidding or a spin-around? We are working on mechanisms for managing swerving forces in order to increase aerodynamic support.

13. Brakes

It also happens that certain vehicles are fitted with very mediocre braking systems, in comparison with other models or other manufacturers. We have noticed that certain models are particularly dangerous in emergency-braking situations, with a high reaction time, along with a difficult to control wheel locking. This denotes insufficient stringency in the vehicle's design.

14. Making up for shortcomings in design

Certain manufacturers use electronic methods to hide or to compensate for shortcomings in design of road holding features, amongst others. All these mechanisms complicate the vehicle's system and through the existence of a multiplicity of systems have an influence on road holding and therefore on safety. Keeping things simple is also synonymous with safety.

15. Air bags

Airbags, veritable life buoys, presented (in particular in an advertisement with supermodel Claudia Schiffer) as protecting users from the consequences of an accident, could for certain drivers be an unwise choice,  as were surprised to find. Feeling reassured because of the existence of the airbags, these drivers take a lot more risks to the detriment of other drivers. This is not an exceptional case and thus quite worrying.

16. Dazzle

At night, the dazzling effect of the headlights of passing cars increases fatigue and also the risk of an accident to a considerable degree. This problem is present particularly on roads where there is no dividing line. The solution we advocate is to use polarizing filters almost vertically onto the lights and to put another sheet of polarizing film horizontally positioned in the thickness of the windscreen. The crossing (horizontal and vertical) of this type of film prevents all light from getting through. A slight gap, compared to a 90  crossing, allows a slight harmonious flux.

17. Motivity

Road holding and driving of front wheel drive and rear wheel drive vehicles is not the same at all. In both cases training is needed (which is not presently available- the driver has to learn by himself) and a period to adapt during which there is a high risk of accident. Training should be obligatory also because whether driving on wet roads or on dry roads the road qualities are inverted according to the propulsion method: rear-wheel drives hold the road much better if it's dry, however such a vehicle doesn't hold the road as well as a front wheel drive in wet conditions. At this level the difficulties are numerous: thus the necessity for an adapted training to the needs of these car-owners.

18. Cars deceive

Cars can be deceptive, in being too reassuring in their motorization- becoming higher performance in their acceleration, in their suppleness, in their lightness and in the accumulation of systems of security consistently boasted about. They are in fact less solid than their older models because they were designed with thinner sheet metal, to save on materials, and some have smaller dimensions. All this limits the resistance in a crash situation and beyond a certain threshold the death of passengers and drivers is programmed. This is a general tendency unfortunately, even in SAAB, which is nevertheless the reference used in safety measures. The size of the car should in fact be calculated according to its mass and its speed. The faster one drives, the longer the back boot and front bonnet must be in order to absorb as much energy as possible and limit the number of 'g' accordingly. At 130km/h, a small city car with a full tank, passengers and luggage in a motorway pile up will be at an obvious disadvantage.

19 Instability

Some vehicles are unstable when moving above a certain speed, in general due to a diversion of the wheel axle-units. In this case, it is the shape of the vehicle which generates a supporting force. The vehicle seems to drift and could become dangerous at a speed lower than 130km/h. Other vehicles present, on the contrary, a very good stability at speeds well beyond those authorized. This observation brings us to reflect on the :

20. Disparity of vehicles

There is a great diversity of vehicles on the road in France. Some models can operate in difficult climatic conditions safely, others are more adapted for high speed. But this is not the case with all models and for some, which are unfortunately not the minority, the dangers are very real when the vehicles are used in certain situations. These could be: wet roads, lateral winds, too high a speed..... In at least one of these situations, these vehicles are extremely dangerous because of their instability, their inability to hold the road, their weak capacity to avoid obstacles or their bad brakes and all this in normal use. These cheap vehicles could be recent or old, there are no rules. Models over 20 years old could have superior dynamic qualities to some of today's vehicles. Approval of the French government vehicle testing service (M.O.T.) shouldn't exempt the manufacturers from publishing a type of user's guide with indications of limits and performance-levels of the vehicle in varying weather conditions and other conditions of use. To inform the driver of the real qualities of the vehicle is to prevent a situation where he has to learn this for himself to his own expense in a critical situation. It is obvious that driving in heavy rain at 110km/h in certain cars with propulsion is dangerous if the driver has to brake in an emergency. The ABS systems and other electronic systems help greatly in these situations but slightly increase the braking distance and a good driver in the same vehicle would not use them. Other vehicles, such as some four-wheel drives are extremely safe well beyond normal conditions of use and authorized speed. Just as there are so many different types of cars so too there is a wide range of competence and ability amongst drivers.

21.Lorries

Lorries are a prime factor in road accidents and because of the gravity and consequences of these accidents they often make the headlines. Whether due to bad upkeep, being overloaded or the number of driving hours in a certain time period not being respected, they are always unsafe and the anxiety when overtaking or passing a lorry has penetrated the collective conscience! Moreover, the under-motorization of some lorries allows the driver to attain a stable and constant speed, which leads to slow, dangerous overtaking- even if this is against the law. Rules of the road don't always resolve the problems despite what we expect and the enforcement of these laws is only slightly improving.

We believe that:

1. A minimum power per unit of mass of a lorry carrying a full load should be established by the manufacturers and regulated. For example, a lorry with 20 tons of PTC and a power of 45cv would give 20,000kg/450 cv= 44,44kg/cv. An obligatory minimum threshold in kg/cv should be established to allow a lorry to adapt to the speed and flow of road traffic.

2. The competition in this sector and the weak competitiveness of French companies lead company directors to break the basic safety rules. To give this sector the means to be competitive would be a big step towards improved safety. This could probably not happen without tax relief in the form of removing taxes from diesel oil, or the granting of other subsidies.

3. Transporting lorries on trains is also probably a wise solution (already used in Switzerland) as the existing structures are used first and foremost. A competitive and realistic price is needed in order for this option to work.

Technology can certainly bring us concrete solutions such as automatic driving under the driver's surveillance. In the meantime, it seems obvious that what we need are lorries designed to be more secure and more aerodynamic. In fact, in the event of head-on collision, the driver has no real protection because of the truncated front of lorries. The power of the collision will be absorbed by the driver's cabin and to his detriment. Solutions that are better researched and more effective than simple anti-crash bars- all lorries should be equipped with reinforced circular skirts. In fact, the car is sandwiched between the ground and the lorry's chassis which weighs several tons and is consequently completely flattened. When one knows the force of a collision at 90km/h of a lorry carrying 20 tons, one prays everytime such a lorry approaches. It is the same as the effect of a crash of a car travelling at more than 400km/h (not counting the kinetic energy accumulated by the wheels of the lorry). To be as dangerous as a lorry, car drivers still have a 270km/h margin! With a 35 ton lorry, which is more often encountered on the motorway, the energy produced by a crash at 90km/h is the same as that of a car travelling at 530km/h. Here the margin is 400km/h more than the maximum speed limit in France.

                                                REGULATIONS

22. Retroactivity is impossible

By this we mean the practice of intervention after an event has happened with little chance of changing the nature of the event. This logic is implacable and necessary to take into account in the real safety regulations. In fact, these regulations which aim to increase road safety, are more concentrated on intervention after events have happened- apart from some preventive measures- punishing the driver a posteriori, for drink-driving, speeding or drug-taking, etc.... This practice which seems correct does not bring the expected results; it seems wise therefore to explore other avenues. Moreover, for certain offences committed in good faith, the dissuasive effect of the punishment is non-existent because the offenders were not conscious of the fact they were committing an offence.

23. Rational regulations

In order for the rules to be respected, users must understand their importance, the increased safety they ensure. Following this principle, if rules are set up arbitrarily, or even simply with some contradictions, then the users will distance themselves from them, and will consider them ineffective. The driver will then feel superior to them. Such a reaction is perfectly normal in the mind of a stable individual. If you see that someone is lying to you, you will find it hard to trust him in the future and when he tells the truth, you'll hesitate and you'll then find an accident is possible. An amusing example from a school, in the words of a news presenter when talking about road safety rules: ãone would respect the rules more if they made senseä. This ãphenomenon of extremesä could be compared to that of a pendulum or a set of scales which, when one takes away the balancing element, oscillates alternatively between extreme points.

 The more restrictions in a system in which man is present, the more anti-restraint reactions will manifest themselves as we saw, to give but a few striking examples, in the French Revolution, or the Resistance to occupation during the Second World War. We can say that they often are fuelled by anti-restraint reactions! The United States made the mistake of applying rules that were so strict that disproportionate reactions in the form of daily violence, with an escalation of delinquency and subsequent crack-downs which go as far as actually creating delinquents.

24. Regulations and leveling out

The present rules aim to regulate speed and alcohol levels when driving. Even if these rules are respected, and taking the worst possible view, this leaves a part of the driving population free to surpass the driving competence of dangerous vehicles. And on the other hand, if we take the most favorable outcome, we have a lot of very safe vehicles driven by drivers who are over-competent as regards the authorized maximum limit.

This example shows that in the first case, it is not completely safe and that there could be a tendency towards the leveling out of regulations so that they don't exceed drivers' competence. For this system to be effective the rules must be respected, which is not actually the case for reasons mentioned in 23 above and more. Also, this lowering of limits tends towards blocking traffic flow and goes against the purpose of the car, which is to allow traffic flow! Other problems will immediately appear, such as the underdevelopment of town and country planning. In fact, a simple speed limit causes a decrease in passenger flow, an increase in traffic jams,  itself causing an increase in journey time, therefore an increase in fatigue... and a higher risk of critical situations, even accident. The analogy with the mechanics of fluids and the laminar and turbulent flows is fairly unsettling and is maybe not harmless.

These over-limitations cause the driver to forget some driving techniques and become bored, as is the case in the US. The limits are such that the driver can't really feel his reactions any more, he thus has no more daily awareness, through practice, of phenomena linked with driving (road holding etc) and therefore of safety. He simply respects the rules which in an abnormal or unforeseen situation doesn't enable him to use his competence as a driver to avoid an accident as this type of driving undermines the skills of the driver.

A crucial point to remember is that regulations exist to handle normal situations whilst the event which precedes an accident is never a normal situation. These regulations were not written to deal with the incident but to prevent, as far as possible, an accident from occurring. When circumstances combine and one approaches a crisis situation where danger is very near these regulations are inapplicable: to prevent vehicle B which is in distress crashing violently into the back of vehicle A, vehicle A could turn on a red light (which he should) to light up the way for vehicle B. Skidding on a turn is not dangerous in itself: it is the reaction of the driver which is and which will provoke an accident or not. Turning the steering wheel in the opposite direction, breaking, accelerating etc...... the choices and combinations are multiple and cannot be improvised. It is therefore necessary to set up rules for handling an incident: this is the aim of training. Learning how to handle an incident so that it doesn't turn into an accident. A regulation that is too heavy, too complex or too restricting could bring the driver to concentrate more on the rule itself than on the driving. One respects rules but also safety!

On the other hand, in the second case, raising limits such as the speed or alcohol limits could lead drivers to think they can drive faster and in a drunken state, which would be a grave error. The application of one rule for everyone cannot be done in normal conditions because the variety of people and objects to which the rule would apply is too large. This seems to be the case in the domain of the automobile.

The crackdown in the US generates other behavioral problems (long and short term) which are too complex to expand on here.

We believe that in our balanced and advanced society, the greatest finesse of a government in the exercise of power is to bring people to respect the rules of life in a society without giving the population the impression that their freedom is at stake.

The objective is therefore to teach the driver to know his limits and not to go beyond them.

                                    THE COST OF SAFETY

Safety = Creation of business

As you will have noticed the training aspect is of prime importance in our analysis, even if other important measures cannot be overlooked. For the training necessary to ensure safety, we  would suggest structures independent from the state, therefore private but state authorized, just as the technical control centers are. This training, for which there would be a fee, would be obligatory for all and given first to those with least training. These would be selected according to the amount of car insurance surcharge paid; the principle of the no claims bonus seems an efficient way to evaluate a driver's ability. The most dangerous (those with maximum surcharges) would go first, the least dangerous (those with maximum no claims bonus) would go last. This would allow, on the one hand, the flow of courses to prevent clogging up courses and on the other, to optimize the effect of this set-up by attacking the most dangerous first. These courses could have several levels and themes. They would not be tested by exam but by continuous assessment during the course. A certificate at the end of the course stating the abilities and the deficiencies would suffice in directing new learners to a new course or towards a consciousness of the necessity for safe driving. Without going into detail about such a framework which would take too long here to explain, we are convinced that its application would be extremely beneficial.

In fact, apart from its positive effect on safety it would also mean the creation of businesses to accommodate the operation of the system and a new market would open. Job creation and spin-off effects can only be positive. Just as in aeronautical concept, we have here developed a multifunctional concept: a system which caters for many needs- safety and jobs in particular.

State financial investment in such an enterprise would be almost non-existent as the training companies should be self-sufficient and profitable. Just a few additions to the multiple-choice questions in the driving test would be necessary. However, these and other extra constraints could be misinterpreted and not accepted by drivers if they are not accompanied by a number of measures which would compensate for these. These compensations must give greater liberty and put trust in the driver, which is logical, as we require them to be more competent. These measures would produce a fair balance between limitations and freedom.

                                    ARGUMENT

In the following example, we asked ourselves several questions:

Will controlling the speed of M.X at an instant T prevent the accident from happening at this same instant T? Definitely not because:

- at instant T, which we can say is equal to the duration of speed control (a few seconds), the probability of an accident occurring is almost zero considering the very short duration of control (if this was not the case, this could mean that it was the presence of the radar that provoked the accident!)

- since the radar precedes interpellation by several kms, the likelihood of seeing an accident happen between the position of the radar and the interpellation is also practically non-existent considering the short distances involved.

The effect of speed control is therefore non-existent at this level. But does speed control have a dissuasive effect (on driving above the speed limit) in the long term? Definitely, but during a period P, of which the duration remains to be determined which is rather hazardous as it is up to each individual to make this decision. What are the real effects of dissuading these drivers from driving above the speed limit during the period P? They are multiple. To decrease speed is to reduce the gravity of accidents and to prevent some from happening. But it also increases the driving time and the time spent in risk zones, and thus increases the likelihood of an accident. It is partly for these reasons that the effect of speed limits on safety is often mitigated If we consider that the drivers are solely responsible for their vehicle, will a speed limit prevent them from having an accident?

At this level of reasoning, one starts to diverge from the initial objective which is to decrease the number of accidents and not the speed limit. In fact, speed is thought to be the cause of numerous accidents, which seems a priori true. The link between speed and accidents seems at first so obvious to all that it was probably set up too subjectively. On reflection this link seems too simple and unique, which is contrary to the 'chain of events'. This chain cannot be questioned because it is  founded on analysis and experience and has already proved its veracity. To convince ourselves of the validity of this reasoning, it suffices to take the most flagrant e.g. an accident in fog, generally connected to driving at excessive speed. But we cannot attribute all the responsibility for the accident to the lack of visibility, of which the origin could be: absence or faulty front fog lights, bad night vision due to degeneration of eye rods, presence of frosty fog (whatever the speed, a pile up is guaranteed) dazzling effect of passing vehicles creating retinal persistence, over-fatigue for driving in this type of environment, bad road-markings, lack of precise weather forecast and information on the states of the roads, badly set mirrors, lights badly set, faulty sidelights, faulty back fog lights, lorries with bad signaling (the regulations concerning signs on lorries in fog is insufficient, the intensity and the number of back fog lights should be increased), but also driving too fast of course.

However it is again on the last link of the chain of events that we act but it is already too late: the accident is already programmed. In the US, however, speed is very limited and controlled. We would think that because of the great lengths to which they have gone, that limits are respected, which is fairly true in practice (except for those who practice daily delinquency other than that linked to road safety regulations). In Germany, some roads have no speed limits and on those that have, the limits are respected. These two countries, with opposing ideas about speed regulation and average speed, (the most important) must face questions of road safety. Speed doesn't enter as a principle parameter in the accident equation. More fundamental causes must be researched and it would be wrong to stop once again on this last link of the chain of events. Speed shouldn't be considered as the trigger, contrary to appearances (even if this is sometimes the case), but as an aggravating factor, because of the accumulated kinetic energy which increases with the speed squared: a crash at 127 km/h is twice as serious as a crash at 90km/h. That which we take for granted should often be analyzed in detail taking experience and practice into account.

                        ALREADY POSITIVE

It seems that a certain number of excellent mechanisms, already in place have been responsible for very notable improvements, even if they are not always visible. These mechanisms have probably prevented road accidents from being more serious.

Included are:

- accompanied driving- the insurance companies have lowered premiums for these drivers,

- obligatory technical testing,

- dialogue with victims of road accidents,

- introducing road safety and driving to young children.

It would seem a pity to stop while the going is good.

                        CONCLUSION

When all possible measures to improve road safety have been taken, the number of accidents will inevitably move towards an asymptote, as there will always be some risk. Even if technology and reflection bring us solutions for the future, we can do no more than accept this fact, knowing that some accidents will unfortunately still be fatal. It would be possible to extend this study to define a number of mechanisms and how they would be applied in practice. However, I do not wish to do so without having a guarantee that they will be taken into account, as the work involved would be considerable.