Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Working together, enriching lives

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
Jim Jones Jim Jones 2:14 pm 11 Jun 13

PantsMan said :

Just more of Shane Rattenbury’s anti-capitalist, anti-car, extremism.

Yep, lowering the speed limits in built up areas is an act of anarchistic terrorism!!!

Primal Primal 2:32 pm 11 Jun 13

A_Cog said :

No they won’t. ACT drivers will follow the unwritten ACT rule of driving 10kms under the speed limit, like they do in 60/80/100 zones. This will make it worse.

Where is this magical place where such things happen? Everywhere I drive around here, the rule seems to be 10kmh over.

Thumper Thumper 2:53 pm 11 Jun 13

Jim Jones said :

PantsMan said :

Just more of Shane Rattenbury’s anti-capitalist, anti-car, extremism.

Yep, lowering the speed limits in built up areas is an act of anarchistic terrorism!!!

No, however, apparently being vegetarian means that you will become a terrorist.

Apparently…

Jim Jones Jim Jones 3:36 pm 11 Jun 13

Thumper said :

Jim Jones said :

PantsMan said :

Just more of Shane Rattenbury’s anti-capitalist, anti-car, extremism.

Yep, lowering the speed limits in built up areas is an act of anarchistic terrorism!!!

No, however, apparently being vegetarian means that you will become a terrorist.

Apparently…

I’m still confused … is this ‘nanny state’ thing the same as being an ‘extremist’? Because on the surface they look completely antithetical.

Maybe you need to be a complete frother to understand how all this works.

A_Cog A_Cog 3:36 pm 11 Jun 13

Watson said :


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.

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?

Zero ACT pedestrians killed in 2011-12 and three killed in 2012-13. That’s 1.5 deaths per year. Were they even killed in Civic? Further measures designed to slow down traffic in an already congested area with bunches of traffic-lights is ridiculous. You can’t control for chance, but you can control for stupidity. That’s what pedestrian crossings at traffic lights are for.

c_c™ 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.

Erg0 Erg0 4:20 pm 11 Jun 13
JC JC 8:59 pm 11 Jun 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

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.

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

gungsuperstar 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.

gungsuperstar gungsuperstar 9:29 pm 11 Jun 13

A_Cog said :

Watson said :


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.

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?

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.

gooterz gooterz 9:54 pm 11 Jun 13

Erg0 said :

La_Tour_Maubourg La_Tour_Maubourg 10:34 pm 11 Jun 13

c_c™ said :

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.

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

Antagonist Antagonist 8:21 am 12 Jun 13

A_Cog said :

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

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?

Jim Jones Jim Jones 9:01 am 12 Jun 13

gooterz said :

Erg0 said :

Captain RAAF Captain RAAF 1:56 pm 12 Jun 13

Watson said :

A_Cog said :

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?

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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watson Watson 2:17 pm 12 Jun 13

Captain RAAF said :

Watson said :

A_Cog said :

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?

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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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!”

Postalgeek Postalgeek 2:20 pm 12 Jun 13

Captain RAAF said :

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

poetix poetix 3:22 pm 12 Jun 13

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

Evil_Kitten Evil_Kitten 5:25 pm 12 Jun 13

Antagonist said :

A_Cog said :

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

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?

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.

Antagonist Antagonist 6:51 pm 12 Jun 13

Evil_Kitten said :

Antagonist said :

A_Cog said :

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

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?

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.

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

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