Skip to content Skip to main navigation

March of the 40 zones

johnboy 10 June 2013 45

Shane Rattenbury has put forth word that come 11 June there will be a whole heap of 40 around town:

New 40km/h speed limits in Belconnen, Civic and Tuggeranong town centres will come into effect on Tuesday 11 June 2013, announced Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Shane Rattenbury.

“The 40 km/h speed limits will apply 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and aim to improve safety for all road users,” said Mr Rattenbury.

“These are town centre areas with high pedestrian movement and a substantial level of retail and commercial development.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
45 Responses to March of the 40 zones
Filter
Order
c_c™ 1:16 am 13 Jun 13

[quote comment="482701"][quote comment="482646"][quote comment="482440"][quote comment="482243"]A system to protect pedestrians already exists; they're called pedestrian crossings at traffic lights. Green means "GO", Red means "STOP".[/quote]

Green actually means 'proceeed with caution if the way is clear'. Green does not (and never has) meant 'go'. Perhaps we just need to educate people about traffic lights instead?[/quote]

Wow, pedantic much? A green light means GO to 99% of us. But thanks for the education. I don't think I'll be slowing down at every green light I come across to check out all directions of traffic and 'proceeding with caution if the way is clear' though.[/quote]

Of course green means GO,like the clappers,providing there isn't a fcuktard running a red light.[/quote]

Green used to mean go, now it means 'keep your head down texting while you block traffic' like one ditz was doing today on Northbourne.

Evil_Kitten 12:59 am 13 Jun 13

[quote comment="482681"][quote comment="482646"][quote comment="482440"][quote comment="482243"]A system to protect pedestrians already exists; they're called pedestrian crossings at traffic lights. Green means "GO", Red means "STOP".[/quote]

Green actually means 'proceeed with caution if the way is clear'. Green does not (and never has) meant 'go'. Perhaps we just need to educate people about traffic lights instead?[/quote]

Wow, pedantic much? A green light means GO to 99% of us. But thanks for the education. I don't think I'll be slowing down at every green light I come across to check out all directions of traffic and 'proceeding with caution if the way is clear' though.[/quote]

It was on the test I did back in the early 1990's to get a Learner Drivers License at Dickson Motor Registry.[/quote]

Yeah I don't doubt that, but it's kind of Captain Obvious isn't it? Keeping a general lookout for "special" drivers is how you should drive on ANY part of the road at ANY time.

Suggesting we need educating on traffic lights if we think green means GO is just nitpicking.

Antagonist 9:29 pm 12 Jun 13

[quote comment="482701"][quote comment="482646"][quote comment="482440"][quote comment="482243"]A system to protect pedestrians already exists; they're called pedestrian crossings at traffic lights. Green means "GO", Red means "STOP".[/quote]

Green actually means 'proceeed with caution if the way is clear'. Green does not (and never has) meant 'go'. Perhaps we just need to educate people about traffic lights instead?[/quote]

Wow, pedantic much? A green light means GO to 99% of us. But thanks for the education. I don't think I'll be slowing down at every green light I come across to check out all directions of traffic and 'proceeding with caution if the way is clear' though.[/quote]

Of course green means GO,like the clappers,providing there isn't a fcuktard running a red light.[/quote]

The Mully Incident rears its ugly head as yet another case in point :)

bundah 8:13 pm 12 Jun 13

[quote comment="482646"][quote comment="482440"][quote comment="482243"]A system to protect pedestrians already exists; they're called pedestrian crossings at traffic lights. Green means "GO", Red means "STOP".[/quote]

Green actually means 'proceeed with caution if the way is clear'. Green does not (and never has) meant 'go'. Perhaps we just need to educate people about traffic lights instead?[/quote]

Wow, pedantic much? A green light means GO to 99% of us. But thanks for the education. I don't think I'll be slowing down at every green light I come across to check out all directions of traffic and 'proceeding with caution if the way is clear' though.[/quote]

Of course green means GO,like the clappers,providing there isn't a fcuktard running a red light.

bundah 7:54 pm 12 Jun 13

[quote comment="482603"]Ain't nobody takin' my bobble-head Jesus.[/quote]

That really would make you discombobulated..

Antagonist 6:51 pm 12 Jun 13

[quote comment="482646"][quote comment="482440"][quote comment="482243"]A system to protect pedestrians already exists; they're called pedestrian crossings at traffic lights. Green means "GO", Red means "STOP".[/quote]

Green actually means 'proceeed with caution if the way is clear'. Green does not (and never has) meant 'go'. Perhaps we just need to educate people about traffic lights instead?[/quote]

Wow, pedantic much? A green light means GO to 99% of us. But thanks for the education. I don't think I'll be slowing down at every green light I come across to check out all directions of traffic and 'proceeding with caution if the way is clear' though.[/quote]

It was on the test I did back in the early 1990's to get a Learner Drivers License at Dickson Motor Registry.

Evil_Kitten 5:25 pm 12 Jun 13

[quote comment="482440"][quote comment="482243"]A system to protect pedestrians already exists; they're called pedestrian crossings at traffic lights. Green means "GO", Red means "STOP".[/quote]

Green actually means 'proceeed with caution if the way is clear'. Green does not (and never has) meant 'go'. Perhaps we just need to educate people about traffic lights instead?[/quote]

Wow, pedantic much? A green light means GO to 99% of us. But thanks for the education. I don't think I'll be slowing down at every green light I come across to check out all directions of traffic and 'proceeding with caution if the way is clear' though.

poetix 3:22 pm 12 Jun 13

Ain't nobody takin' my bobble-head Jesus.

Postalgeek 2:20 pm 12 Jun 13

[quote comment="482571"]

We need to ban the following in cars, because they are all distractions that take our eyes off the road and if their banning saves just one life, it will be worth it;

Radios,

Consoles,

Heater and Aircon controls,

Side and rearview mirrors,

GPS units,

CD players,

Bluetooth units,

Ipods,

Cup holders,

Street directories,

Maps,

Dash mounted fans, notepad holders,

bobble heads,

fluffy dice and so on.

Won't people please think of the children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]

Children will be banned from cars too so no need:

http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor-news/children-drive-their-parents-to-distraction-20130531-2nh9d.html

Watson 2:17 pm 12 Jun 13

[quote comment="482571"][quote comment="482247"][quote comment="482243"]And while I'm here, let me double down on my previous comment...

April 2011 - March 2012: no fatalities in ACT.

April 2012 - March 2013: 15 fatalities in ACT (8 car drivers, 5 motorcyclists, 3 pedestrians).

The ACT already has the safest roads in Australia, and if death statistics are of such concern, why not ban motorbikes or driving? Based on those numbers I just gave, driving/riding is more than four times as dangerous as crossing a road! OMG!!!

A system to protect pedestrians already exists; they're called pedestrian crossings at traffic lights. Green means "GO", Red means "STOP".

What's next? Reducing 100km/h zones to 70km/h?[/quote]

Only 15 fatalities? The families of those that died on the road should stop their whingeing and take one for the team.

How many hours are spent behind the wheel compared to walking along the road? How many crashes involving only cars resulted in fatalities compared to those that involved pedestrians?

If you're going to use stats to prove a stupid point, at least learn the basics of statistical probability.

Pedestrians are vulnerable. There is no need to drive more than 40kph through a town centre, if at all. And if making a 100kph zone 70kph is likely to save lives, bring it on.[/quote]

Oh god, its the beginning of the end with this kind of thinking!

We need to ban the following in cars, because they are all distractions that take our eyes off the road and if their banning saves just one life, it will be worth it;

Radios,

Consoles,

Heater and Aircon controls,

Side and rearview mirrors,

GPS units,

CD players,

Bluetooth units,

Ipods,

Cup holders,

Street directories,

Maps,

Dash mounted fans, notepad holders,

bobble heads,

fluffy dice and so on.

Won't people please think of the children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]

So what if they did? Shall I call the whaaaaaambulance? I just don't get why you think it is your godgiven right to drive fast through an area with lots of pedestrians. Or any other speed on any other road. I don't see why people get their knickers in a twist about speed limits so much.

"Won't somebody please think of the driiiiiivers!"

Captain RAAF 1:56 pm 12 Jun 13

[quote comment="482247"][quote comment="482243"]And while I'm here, let me double down on my previous comment...

April 2011 - March 2012: no fatalities in ACT.

April 2012 - March 2013: 15 fatalities in ACT (8 car drivers, 5 motorcyclists, 3 pedestrians).

The ACT already has the safest roads in Australia, and if death statistics are of such concern, why not ban motorbikes or driving? Based on those numbers I just gave, driving/riding is more than four times as dangerous as crossing a road! OMG!!!

A system to protect pedestrians already exists; they're called pedestrian crossings at traffic lights. Green means "GO", Red means "STOP".

What's next? Reducing 100km/h zones to 70km/h?[/quote]

Only 15 fatalities? The families of those that died on the road should stop their whingeing and take one for the team.

How many hours are spent behind the wheel compared to walking along the road? How many crashes involving only cars resulted in fatalities compared to those that involved pedestrians?

If you're going to use stats to prove a stupid point, at least learn the basics of statistical probability.

Pedestrians are vulnerable. There is no need to drive more than 40kph through a town centre, if at all. And if making a 100kph zone 70kph is likely to save lives, bring it on.[/quote]

Oh god, its the beginning of the end with this kind of thinking!

We need to ban the following in cars, because they are all distractions that take our eyes off the road and if their banning saves just one life, it will be worth it;

Radios,

Consoles,

Heater and Aircon controls,

Side and rearview mirrors,

GPS units,

CD players,

Bluetooth units,

Ipods,

Cup holders,

Street directories,

Maps,

Dash mounted fans, notepad holders,

bobble heads,

fluffy dice and so on.

Won't people please think of the children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jim Jones 9:01 am 12 Jun 13

[quote comment="482391"][quote comment="482309"][quote comment="482292]Zero ACT pedestrians killed in 2011-12 and three killed in 2012-13. That's 1.5 deaths per year.[/quote]

Y'know, getting hit by a car kinda hurts, even when it doesn't kill you.[/quote]

The Speed bumps are the real death traps. Gradually wearing away at the cars suspension and other components until it finally gives way causing death and destruction, or screwing up the wheel alignment leading to accidents.

I've seen many more people attempt to rat run the cars at 40 than 60.

Still no actual stats of why we need this?

As a totally broke government we could have saved a few $$$ not doing this

I'm sure its great for attracting people to Canberra, Canberra the Speed bump capital.

We have more traffic inspectors than we have cops on the street.

The government is so contempt with making us all use buses but wont actually make a decent network.

In the last 3 years I've noticed that many streets now have many blind corners, this government has no concept of safety unless it means slower. They've done the same thing to the local economy![/quote]

I know it's unintentional, but this was absolutely hilarious. The 'speed bumps kill people because they ruin the car and then you DIE' bit was absolutely tops.

Antagonist 8:21 am 12 Jun 13

[quote comment="482243"]A system to protect pedestrians already exists; they're called pedestrian crossings at traffic lights. Green means "GO", Red means "STOP".[/quote]

Green actually means 'proceeed with caution if the way is clear'. Green does not (and never has) meant 'go'. Perhaps we just need to educate people about traffic lights instead?

La_Tour_Maubourg 10:34 pm 11 Jun 13

[quote comment="482297"]I note that not all the signs were uncovered around Rudd, Marcus Clarke and Childers this morning when I went through, about 8:15am. So perhaps someone in TAMS should drive down the road and spend 10mins uncovering the damn things if they're going to announce it starts today. They're just damn lucky no speed traps were set up of they'd be in bother.[/quote]

Did not see 1 sign uncovered at around 10am.

London Cct, Akuna St, Petrie St etc all still covered up.

Surely going 40km/h around Civic at midnight to remove the sign covers would've been completed by 10

gooterz 9:54 pm 11 Jun 13

[quote comment="482309"][quote comment="482292]Zero ACT pedestrians killed in 2011-12 and three killed in 2012-13. That's 1.5 deaths per year.[/quote]

Y'know, getting hit by a car kinda hurts, even when it doesn't kill you.[/quote]

The Speed bumps are the real death traps. Gradually wearing away at the cars suspension and other components until it finally gives way causing death and destruction, or screwing up the wheel alignment leading to accidents.

I've seen many more people attempt to rat run the cars at 40 than 60.

Still no actual stats of why we need this?

As a totally broke government we could have saved a few $$$ not doing this

I'm sure its great for attracting people to Canberra, Canberra the Speed bump capital.

We have more traffic inspectors than we have cops on the street.

The government is so contempt with making us all use buses but wont actually make a decent network.

In the last 3 years I've noticed that many streets now have many blind corners, this government has no concept of safety unless it means slower. They've done the same thing to the local economy!

gungsuperstar 9:29 pm 11 Jun 13

[quote comment="482292"][quote comment="482247"]

...

Pedestrians are vulnerable. There is no need to drive more than 40kph through a town centre, if at all. And if making a 100kph zone 70kph is likely to save lives, bring it on.[/quote]

Well, if pedestrians are vulnerable, why not reduce the speed limit from 50kmh to 30kmh? It reduces the risk fatalities even further (I've read by 95% instead of the 50% that 50kmh down to 40kmh achieves). Where does it end? 50kmh limits on freeways/highways? No L or P platers driving after 9pm? Annual licence and vision tests? No junk food of any type? No lounging at home watching TV because each 60 minutes sitting on your ass shortens your life by 22 minutes? No diving? No walking on the grass? No skateboards? No running? No life or fun of any sort?

[/quote]

No one is proposing any of those things you drama queen.

We've had road speeds slowed by 10km/hr that will have a negligible impact on traveling time, but will have a huge impact on the pedestrian who might not be hit.

By the way, we should have curfews on young drivers of around 10pm. I'm sick of teenagers killing themselves and their friends having to experience death so young.

gungsuperstar 9:26 pm 11 Jun 13

Rioters really will whinge about anything.

These 40 zones are adding maybe a minute or 2 to your drive? Who cares. If Canberra wasn't full of such shit drivers, we wouldn't need this - but we do, so we wear whatever it takes to make roads a little safer for everyone.

The fact that we already have a pretty low road toll doesn't mean you rest on your laurels, because one life lost on a road through something that isn't their fault is beyond tragedy. You continue to implement whatever improvements you identify regardless of the numbers.

Cry more you whingers.

JC 8:59 pm 11 Jun 13

[quote comment="482168"]Because 60 isn't safe anymore. Perhaps we should also ban motorised vehicles from these areas and go back to horse and carriage. Let us also reduce the limits on highways to 60, so that future head on collisions will have a higher survivor rating. Maybe I shouldn't suggest that, they'll probably consider it.[/quote]

Actually most of the areas in question were already 50km/h anyway, not that many did that.

Erg0 4:20 pm 11 Jun 13

[quote comment="482292]Zero ACT pedestrians killed in 2011-12 and three killed in 2012-13. That's 1.5 deaths per year.[/quote]

Y'know, getting hit by a car kinda hurts, even when it doesn't kill you.

c_c™ 3:50 pm 11 Jun 13

I note that not all the signs were uncovered around Rudd, Marcus Clarke and Childers this morning when I went through, about 8:15am. So perhaps someone in TAMS should drive down the road and spend 10mins uncovering the damn things if they're going to announce it starts today. They're just damn lucky no speed traps were set up of they'd be in bother.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site