Get documents about "Speed, Radar Detectors And Safety
Description
Speed, Radar Detectors And Safety
Document Sample
Spring 2001 Issue
®
Speed, Radar Detectors And Safety
New Australian Survey Validates Concept Behind SWS
Before there was a Safety Warning firm of Yankelovich Clancy Shulman to detector owners by telephone, fax and
System® (SWS®), there was drone learn about drivers’ experiences with e-mail. The first 200 responses were
radar—unmanned radar transmitters radar detectors and their safety records then analyzed.
placed in construction zones as a both with and without the devices. The One of the most surprising findings
reminder for drivers to check their bottom line: Detector users, as a group, was that while just over half of the
speed and pay attention. And before appeared to be safer-than-average respondents said the average speed they
there was drone radar, police officers drivers. RADAR went on to lay the drive did not change after fitting a radar
found they could accomplish the same groundwork for the Safety Warning detector, 41 percent responded that they
thing by leaving their radar units System, based on the idea that a drove slower. Most who reported that
switched on while parked at an accident technology closely related to the radar they did drive faster than the posted
scene or work area. And before that was detector could be used to improve speed indicated they did so in rural areas
the belief—sometimes unpopular—that traffic safety. and that they stayed with the flow of
radar detectors did not cause motorists In Australia they are still fighting traffic. (Research has shown that those
to drive dangerously. the battle to keep radar detectors legal. who drive significantly faster or slower
From the late 1970s to the early A group similar to RADAR, known as than the average speed of traffic are
‘90s, proposals to ban radar detectors the Australian Drivers Rights more likely to be involved in an
were put forward in at least 30 states Association, recently conducted a survey accident.)
and the federal government. A now- of its own. The findings bolster the Almost 70 percent of respondents
inactive national organization of 1987 Yankelovich study and make it said they were more aware of
detector manufacturers, vendors, even more apparent that banning enforcement while using a radar
owners and motorists’ rights detectors would do nothing to help detector. (Research has found that the
advocates—the Radio Association make Australia’s roads safer. If more visible traffic enforcement is, the
Defending Airwave Rights, Inc. or anything, a ban—which would include more effective it is.) More importantly,
RADAR—successfully defeated the vast SWS-enhanced models—could prove a 86 percent said they were more aware of
majority of these initiatives by arguing setback to improving safety as the their speed, 71 percent were more aware
that, first, police radar frequently makes Safety Warning System gains a foothold. of speed limits and 82 percent paid
mistakes or is misused and drivers closer attention to driving conditions. A
deserve to be able to protect The ADRA Study detector helped two-thirds combat
themselves, and, second, there is no Facing a potential ban of radar fatigue, and close to three-fourths said
evidence that radar detectors pose a detectors in West Australia and realizing they believed they were safer drivers
threat to safety or enforcement. there was little hard evidence on either with their detector than without.
Relative to the second argument, side of the debate for or against the Only 4 percent said they had been
RADAR in 1987 commissioned a devices, the ADRA in February 2000 involved in an accident while using a
survey by the highly respected polling contacted 300 randomly selected detector. Of those who had an accident,
(Continued on page 2)
SAFETY WARNING SYSTEM, L.C.
Phone: (941) 473-1555 . E-Mail: info@safetyradar.com . Website: www.safetyradar.com . Fax: (941) 475-4826
Page
.SWS .Monitor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 . . . . . . . . . . .Spring 2001 Issue.
. . . . . . . . .
“Speed, Radar Detectors And Safety” were calculated it was found that Why? For starters, both studies
(Continued from Page 1) detector users drove an average of show that radar detector users are as
it was almost evenly divided whether 233,900 miles between accidents, while safe as, if not safer than, other drivers.
excessive speed was a factor, and 71 the other drivers traveled 174,600 miles. Also, the Australian survey in particular
percent said they were not judged at In other words, detector users had 23 demonstrates that radar detector users
fault in the incident. percent fewer accidents on a per-mile- have a healthy respect for enforcement
Ninety-two percent of the driven basis—a more accurate measure and the knowledge that a detector won’t
Australian drivers said their detectors of exposure and a very significant protect them from a well-deserved
did not allow them to speed without difference. ticket.
regard for the law. In fact, 45 percent As another indicator of safety, the The Australian Drivers Rights
reported they had received speeding radar detector users were more likely to Association study highlights what we
tickets while using a detector. use their seatbelts—69 percent for said at the beginning of this article:
More than 60 percent reported their detector users versus 57 percent for Radar detectors encourage drivers to
annual mileage at 20,000-40,000 nonusers on trips of 10 miles or less, pay closer attention to what is going on
kilometers (about 12,500-25,000 miles). and 81 percent versus 69 percent on around them. That’s what the Safety
Ninety-three percent of the respondents longer trips. (Remember, this came at a Warning System is all about too, except
were male, and 37 percent fell into the time when seatbelt use was much lower that SWS gives drivers specific
age range of 26-35 years. than today, and legislators were just information about what they should be
beginning to pass mandatory-use laws.) watching out for—a stopped school
The Yankelovich Study American radar detector users also bus, an emergency vehicle, an active
The 1987 study by Yankelovich tended to be male (89 percent) and railroad crossing. And don’t forget that
Clancy Shulman differed in several similar in age to the Australians (29 many millions of drivers still use
ways. First, it used a larger sample— percent ages 25-34 and 25 percent ages conventional radar detectors, which give
1,000 respondents—who were chosen 35-44). Interestingly, the Yankelovich a rudimentary (but still useful) warning
nationwide at random from among both study found that detector users were when encountering an SWS transmitter.
those who did and did not use radar better educated, had higher family The beauty of the Safety Warning
detectors. Additionally, a variety of incomes and were employed in System is the fact that many motorists
other questions were asked so that it professional, business and white collar already have invested in their half of the
was not apparent that the poll was jobs when compared against nonusers. SWS equation—the receiver. Stand-
“about” radar detectors. However, alone SWS receivers may be in the
where the questions were similar, the What’s It All Mean? pipeline soon, but in the meantime it is
findings of the American and Australian The Australian survey asked other SWS-enhanced radar detectors that are
studies support one another. questions that we won’t address here, carrying the load, and millions of drivers
For instance, detector users relating to enforcement and drivers’ are signaling their support of the Safety
reported driving an average of 24,200 rights. Since speed limits were increased Warning System concept by purchasing
miles per year, while nonusers drove to more appropriate levels in recent these devices. Banning radar detectors
12,200 miles. Nine percent of the years, radar detector bans have anywhere in the world will hurt the
detector users reported having been decreased as an issue in the United distribution and effectiveness of this
involved in an accident the previous States. Still, the results of both polls important, highly affordable Intelligent
year, compared to 7 percent for sound a cautionary note against Transportation System. !
nonusers. However, when accident rates prohibiting these devices.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SWS Becomes Part Of Florida’s New Motorist Awareness
System (MAS)
The Florida Department of Work zone fatalities are a persistent significantly more road work on tap
Transportation has placed the Safety problem across the nation. In 1999, over the next two years, the problem is
Warning System on the agency’s list of there were 868 such deaths, up from not likely to improve on its own.
approved traffic control products, 772 in 1998. Florida recorded 30 work Research shows that drivers do not
paving the way for inclusion of the SWS zone fatalities in 1999. (Texas and slow down sufficiently in response to
as an integral part of a new project California led the nation with 132 and static speed control measures alone
aimed at improving safety in work 112 deaths, respectively.) With (Continued on page 3)
zones.
Page
.SWS .Monitor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 . . . . . . . . . . .Spring 2001 Issue.
. . . . . . . . .
…Motorist Awareness System (MAS) to expect ahead. Radar speed display Even though the Safety Warning
(Continued from page 2) trailers show the speeds of approaching System messages and warnings can be
(signs and flashing lights). Law vehicles while showing what the speed received only by drivers using SWS-
enforcement is effective at reducing limit is for the work area. enhanced or conventional radar
speeds, but it can become a drain on Approaching drivers can be detectors, other drivers should notice
police manpower for long-term projects informed of lane closures, reasons for the detector-equipped vehicles slowing
and isn’t always practical on multi-lane delays, advance warning of day or night and pay closer attention to the signs and
highways. Florida’s Motorist Awareness work zones, that fines will be doubled in radio messages.
System (MAS) mixes high-tech active work areas, special messages for The Florida DOT’s March 31
messaging devices with traditional signs large trucks, standard safety warnings approval of the Safety Warning System
and law enforcement to more effectively and special weather alerts generated by means it can be used not only in
slow traffic in areas where road the National Weather Service. Messages conjunction with MAS installations, but
construction and maintenance is taking can be changed and the system can be also in any location where SWS
place. switched on or off remotely by messages would be appropriate to help
The MAS uses variable message telephone. The MAS is intended to be improve safety. The Safety Warning
signs tied into Safety Warning System shut down when no work is taking place System can deliver more than 60
transmitters to alert drivers as they in the zone. messages in five categories—highway
approach active work zones. The Drivers going through a MAS zone construction or maintenance, highway
message delivered by the signs and SWS also will see the usual complement of hazard zone advisory, weather related
transmitters can be changed as warning signs. Police officers will patrol hazards, travel information/
necessary. Low-power AM radio the zones intermittently to reinforce the convenience and fast/slow-moving
transmitters, one of the most important concept that speed limits are to be vehicles. The messages cover everything
parts of the system, tell motorists what obeyed. from detours to poor road surfaces and
tollbooth warnings to advisories about
fog or ice. !
We’re on the Web!
www.safetyradar.com
Safety Warning System® Participants
SWS Receiver Licensees:
• BG Tech America, Inc., Fort Lee, NJ – Phone: (201) 363-0550
• BEL-Tronics, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada – Phone: (905) 828-1002
• Escort, Inc. (Owner/Licensee), West Chester, OH – Phone: (513) 870-8500
• SK Global America, Inc., New York, NY – Phone: (212) 906-8254
• Uniden America Corporation (Owner/Licensee), Fort Worth, TX – Phone: (817) 858-3300
• The Whistler Group (Owner/Licensee), Chelmsford, MA – Phone: (978) 244-1400
SWS Transmitter Licensees:
• Innovative Technology of America, Champaign, IL – Phone: (217) 351-8805
• MPH Industries, Inc., Owensboro, KY – Phone: (270) 685-6545
