10 June 2013

March of the 40 zones

| johnboy
Join the conversation
44

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.

Join the conversation

44
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

but isn’t 40 much too high? what’s wrong with 20? 10? a man carrying a red flag walking in front of each car?
what i would really like to hear is WHY this was imposed on us, including relevant statistics like how many thousand pedestrians died each year by being run over in these areas under the previous 60kph regime.

bundah said :

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.

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

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.

Antagonist said :

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.

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.

bundah said :

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.

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

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

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.

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

poetix said :

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

That really would make you discombobulated..

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.

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.

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

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

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!”

Captain RAAF1:56 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gooterz said :

Erg0 said :

Reply

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?

La_Tour_Maubourg10:34 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

Erg0 said :

Reply
gungsuperstar9:29 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.

gungsuperstar9:26 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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!!!

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

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?

I generally agree. The fact we had a whole year fatality free shows the road toll is about as low as it’s going to get. I also remember the first couple of fatalities in 2012 – they were plain accidents. They weren’t drunk, or speeding, or driving unlicenced – they were just unlucky.

A_Cog said :

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!!!
?

If that is what you want, I’m all for banning cars and motorcycles in high risk areas. Pleased you agree with me

The 40 zones were implemented in Woden (and Gungahlin, I think) quite a while ago. They’re well adhered to and cause no problems that I’ve seen (other than a somewhat silly speed bump placement in Woden, stop me if you’ve heard this one before). Given that the streets in question are mostly at the start or end of people’s journeys, this comes as no real surprise to me.

Acting as if this is the first step down the road to communism given that it’s already been done. It also seems to indicate that some people don’t get out of their enclaves very much.

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.

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?

Ceej1973 said :

Don’t see why people have a problem with it. Looks like a City coming in line with the rest of the world. Many countries actually have 30hm/h limits in high pedestrian areas, and 50 on all residential streets. Why should Tuggeranong, Canberra, Australia be any different to the rest of the world?

In lots of other countries they would actually ban cars from these areas altogether.

The problem with 40k zones is that, most law abiding citizens will stick to the speed limits ….

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.

As for saving lives, yep that’s good. Under the new 40 zones, people who previously crossed roads without watching out for traffic will safely make it across, on their way home where they commit other ridiculously stupid acts like smoking [whilst they fall asleep] in bed. Here’s hoping you don’t live in a block with these road-crossing-too-stupid-to-watch-out, happy-to-smoke-in-bed, damned-if-i-am-going-to-pay-attention-and-exercise-any-independent-thought-whatsoever, the-state-exists-to-protect-me-even-when-it-protects-me-from-myself people, because running from an apartment-block fire at 11pm ain’t fun. Sleep with your shoes on.

Sure, it’s a semi-tenuous link, but at least I didn’t call them [traffic] nazis.

Felix the Cat12:53 pm 11 Jun 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

Perhaps we should also ban motorised vehicles from these areas and go back to riding bicycles.

Fixed for you

Don’t see why people have a problem with it. Looks like a City coming in line with the rest of the world. Many countries actually have 30hm/h limits in high pedestrian areas, and 50 on all residential streets. Why should Tuggeranong, Canberra, Australia be any different to the rest of the world?

thebrownstreak6912:18 pm 11 Jun 13

At some point pedestrians need to take some responsibility too. Shared zones are not the answer, expect in limited busy areas.

richiedt said :

Great initiative. Has the potential to save lives. Can’t see the problem with it.

Despite the speed humps, there’s plenty of drivers that love to hoon down the cafe district of Scollay Street which is a heavily pedestrianised area.

Hopefully they’ll hoon a little slower now.

Potential to save lives? Yes, the countless 1000s killed in our city centres each year….

As I’ve said before – in Civic it’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. There are that many sets of lights and pedestrian crossings around the main loop you’d be lucky to ever hit 60.

Captain RAAF11:14 am 11 Jun 13

The one in front of the Hyperdome, Tuggeranong already has speed bumps and a pedestrian crossing that rivals the sand dunes they encountered on the Redex reliability trials and people are already crawling through there. 40 KMH will just allow people to speed up!
The Latte drinking establishments have their outdoor eating areas extend all the way to the road and right beside the Xing, so you can’t see if anyone is approaching the Xing in order to give way to them!

Eventually, someone’s going to get skittled and the blame will be on centre management, because first thing I’d be doing is claiming I was doing 40 kmh, and could not see the anyone approaching the crossing.

Instead of forcing us all to near walking pace, how about improving visibility by keeping the areas around pedestrian crossings clear and well lit?

Why can’t we forget the 40 zones and traffic cushions, and just introduce some big shared zones? Paint the ground red or green (or blue? I think the others are already used) if we have to, and make it clear that hitting a pedestrian is always your fault.

banco said :

…and the nanny state marches on.

Imagine placing the protection of pedestrians over the rights of a car driver. What’s next – special laws about what you can do with children?

Guess what, its a nanny state because too many people are too stupid and too irresponsible to deal with dangers themselves and need someone else to make them do things right.

Great initiative. Has the potential to save lives. Can’t see the problem with it.

Despite the speed humps, there’s plenty of drivers that love to hoon down the cafe district of Scollay Street which is a heavily pedestrianised area.

Hopefully they’ll hoon a little slower now.

wildturkeycanoe5:49 am 11 Jun 13

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.

The media release would actually have been informative or useful if the location of any one of the new 40 zones were included. A map perhaps? Or just some street names?

…and the nanny state marches on.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.