No excuses for drivers flouting city slowdown

Ian Bushnell 5 August 2021 106
Speed camera warning signs on Northbourne Avenue

No excuses. The signposted camera pole on Northbourne Avenue before London Circuit. Photo: Dominic Giannini.

No one likes getting a speeding ticket. It’s a lapse that can happen anytime, anywhere, so I get why people caught in the new city speed trap are sounding off.

I feel their pain, but they can’t say they weren’t warned.

The new 40 km/h zone on Northbourne Avenue and Barry Drive – to make it safer for vulnerable road users such as cyclists, pedestrians and now scooter riders – were announced way back in March, and while the adjusted speed cameras were switched on on 21 June, fines were only issued from 5 July.

During the first 48 hours of operation during the grace period, the government reported that 5,000 drivers had flouted the speed limit and warned Canberrans to slow down going through the city.

This was despite the speed being clearly signposted before the cameras at the intersections of Northbourne Avenue with Barry Drive and London Circuit, and Barry Drive and Marcus Clarke Street.


READ MORE: New Civic speed cameras 44-times more lucrative, Parton claims


By the time the grace period came to an end, about 20,000 had sped through, although they had not been sent a warning notice, something the NRMA criticised.

When the cameras went ‘live’, many drivers were still sailing through the intersections, seemingly unaware that the world had changed.

Almost 1,260 drivers were caught on the first day, and the three Civic cameras have been raking in $1.6 million a week in fines.

About 6,100 fines, which start at $260 and range up to $1830, are being issued by the cameras weekly, and those caught speeding by between 15 and 30 km/h face a $438 fine and incur three demerit points.

Proof, according to Canberra Liberals transport spokesperson Mark Parton, that the government’s failure to communicate had created a perverse outcome.

But how many announcements and media stories does it take?

Canberra drivers need to take responsibility. Lower speed limits in Canberra have been around since 2013. They have been gradually expanded to busy built-up areas that also have a lot of pedestrians.

Northbourne Avenue may be Canberra’s central boulevarde, but that doesn’t mean it should be excluded from the calmer traffic conditions, especially with light rail heading into City West where inevitably there will be more development and increased pedestrian, cycling and scooter traffic.

The evidence that lower speed limits reduce the impacts and deaths from collisions is irrefutable, and something magistrates have been telling speeding drivers since cars have been on the roads.

The government says research shows a 10 km/h decrease in speed can reduce the risk of death from approximately 80 per cent (50 km/h) to 30 per cent (40 km/h).

The point-to-point cameras on Hindmarsh Drive over Mt Mugga Mugga from Garran to Red Hill have successfully pacified a notorious and, at some times deadly raceway to the safe but perfectly reasonable 80 km/h speed limit.


READ ALSO: Olympic-hopeful boxer who bashed strangers has ‘manifestly inadequate’ sentence dismissed


Speed limits change across Canberra, and drivers are expected to follow the signposted advice. Saying I didn’t see it or I forgot, does not wash.

The apparent mass ignorance in the city may reflect an increasingly distracted or disengaged populace, or in a city where the car is king, an expectation that you should be able to drive down a main road at a minimum of at least 60 km/h.

Cultural entitlement can be hard to shift, but the hip-pocket nerve is a good place to start.

Canberra, as it grows and becomes denser, needs to be people-friendly. A calmer traffic scene in the city will not only be safer but more appealing to the increasing number of people who will live there, and those working and recreating there.

A slightly slower run through the city will not add that much to a journey time, but it could mean the difference between life and death.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
106 Responses to No excuses for drivers flouting city slowdown
Dan Adams Dan Adams 5:06 pm 18 Sep 21

Sign and share the petition to return the limits back to 60km. https://chng.it/chvTLkD8bc

Maelinar Maelinar 4:36 pm 10 Aug 21

This is a rather confusing policy. Apart from when in a designated pedestrian crossing, pedestrians should not be on the road, however in order to ‘protect’ them, vehicles are being requested to slow down ?

I don’t think anybody is questioning that vehicles don’t stop for traffic lights. If you don’t want pedestrians on a road, the accepted practice elsewhere is to build a fence to keep them off it.

Given there’s an example of fencing that directs pedestrians off the road on the corner just before the traffic camera, one can only presume that the motive for the camera is money raking.

    GrumpyMark GrumpyMark 4:51 pm 10 Aug 21

    I doubt the motive is money making, Maelinar, but even if it were, we shoot their motive down by not speeding. As I saw one poster quip “voluntary taxes”. Yes, you could build more fences like the one you mention, but there will still be idiot pedestrians who will climb it. Unfortunately drivers are being penalised in high pedestrian activity areas because of the stupidity of a number of pedestrians and in a battle between person and car, the car always wins.

Paula Simcocks Paula Simcocks 1:00 am 09 Aug 21

Rubbish- what about those of us who don’t regularly drive Northbourne?

    Mark Oz Mark Oz 8:52 am 09 Aug 21

    Paula Simcocks OK, Paula - I'll take the bait. What about those who don't regularly drive Northbourne?

    Paula Simcocks Paula Simcocks 9:10 am 09 Aug 21

    Mark Oz so we didn’t see signs, we listen to national news, don’t subscribe to Canberra Times, ( not earning money), seldom read Riot AcT, no friends on Facebook commented on it, watching carefully the traffic on Northbourne, the one time I go there. so no knowledge of this till hit with a fine going 46 in civic. Since people have been fined, Ive heard of it and gather it goes beyond Northbourne Ave, where exactly? A map please. Bit callous ACT govt fining people without sufficient notice at this time when people are struggling to make ends meet. More public awareness campaign like trams or buses advertising changes, it is a major step to bring 40 k zone to civic and still no clarity exactly where.

    Mark Oz Mark Oz 11:38 am 09 Aug 21

    Sorry, Paula, have zero sympathy for you. There’s a big red sign with a circle and “40” in the middle. If you don’t understand that this denotes the speed limit from that point forward, you really shouldn’t be driving.

Neenie Baines Neenie Baines 5:12 pm 08 Aug 21

It needs to be marked on the road.

nbee nbee 12:06 pm 08 Aug 21

I suspect this is less to do with cultural entitlement and more to do, at least southbound, with congestion across multiple sets traffic lights and then traffic lights going green together, allowing traffic to suddenly flow. You’re so eager to get through after stop / starting that you accelerate to get the lights and it’s very easy to be in a flow of traffic going 50km/h rather than 40km/h. If the traffic lights between Barry Drive and Alinga St were better aligned for traffic at rush hour then I wonder if the speed cameras here would be less lucrative?

Deref Deref 11:37 am 08 Aug 21

I’d like to see their evidence. Is it a high accident zone?

    limestonecowboy limestonecowboy 1:43 pm 08 Aug 21

    It would be very interesting to see the comparative numbers, motor vehicles VS “vulnerable road users” My gut feel would be tens of thousands of motorists, if not hundreds of thousands, restricted for the benefit of a few hundred “vru’s”. Distracted pedestrians gawking at their phones should be subject to similar control. They are a hazard to themselves as well as other pedestrians and road users. This restriction will further clog the city area making it virtually impossible to navigate. It will discourage potential customers in these areas, I pity the retailers in the area, business will suffer. The place will be avoided like the plague.

Guy Metcalfe Guy Metcalfe 9:27 am 08 Aug 21

They should at least be the same as school zones and only operate during work hours. When people are around.

And what is the reasoning behind it???

    Mark Oz Mark Oz 4:24 pm 08 Aug 21

    Guy Metcalfe Sensible idea on the surface, Guy, but implementation could be problematic ... people seem to have a hard time differentiating between school time and not school time - as evidenced by the number of people who get stung by the speed van on Jerrabombera Ave near Narrabundah College. Pssst - folks, it's too late to brake once you come around the bend and see the van - just saying. The other option would be to have electronic variable speed signs in the town centres (like they have on some Sydney toll roads - which would be excellent, excvept there's a cost.

paulmuster paulmuster 6:31 pm 07 Aug 21

Hi Ian,
I tend to agree with your views, but do think that the ACT Government have failed to consult sufficiently on what truly is a significant change for many people.

I am in favour of slower roads and think that it will reduce noise polution while making the streets safer for everyone. However, such a significant reduction in speed limit really should have been pre-empted with a complete overkill of a communications strategy to make any arguement with “you were warned” impossible.

There are several practical options available to achieve this level of awareness – Notifications in the newsletters, letterbox drops, text messages to vehicle owners, excessive temporary signage to name a few.

The staggering number of infringements resulting from the speed limit reduction show this camera to be an anomaly. I don’t think that is reflective of abnormal speeding in this location, it is due to peoples unawareness that they are breaking a law.

    GrumpyMark GrumpyMark 12:09 pm 08 Aug 21

    Hi, paulmuster. I have to confess I just can’t see your reasoning “I don’t think that is reflective of abnormal speeding in this location, it is due to peoples unawareness that they are breaking a law.” If someone drives past a speed limit sign and doesn’t see it, they are not concentrating. We are not talking about a sign that is obscured by the tree – it is clearly visible. The speed limit signs and cameras were there for a full two weeks before fines were actually issued, so anyone who “didn’t know” is either blind (query why they are still driving) or, as mentioned, not concentrating and both afflictions are dangerous. As for consultation? Do you also want a consultation period for every roadworks speed limit change – so people can get used to it. It’s about time people started taking responsibility for their own actions when they are in breach of the law and stopped looking for someone else to blame.

Jo Miles Jo Miles 9:13 am 07 Aug 21

ACT doesn't seem to routinely print speed limits onto the road itself like other jurisdictions. I think that would help.

    Mark Oz Mark Oz 1:07 pm 08 Aug 21

    Hi Jo Miles - while it's a sound idea, it would come at a cost ... maybe they could use the 'revenue' raised from the speed cameras and vans to fund it

Geoffrey Bell Geoffrey Bell 3:53 am 07 Aug 21

Are they going after the general public, as the Land Tax that they slug property investor is starting to dry up and they need to tax funds from other revenue to compensate ?

    Mark Oz Mark Oz 4:19 pm 08 Aug 21

    Geoffrey Bell The only difference is that Land Tax was compulsory whereas, unless I missed it in the media, I don't believe it's compulsory to incur a fine by speeding

cranky cranky 7:19 pm 06 Aug 21

Interested in the justifcation for the point to point cameras over Hindmarsh Drive. I dont have a problem with enforcing speed limits, but why on this road?
To the best of my knowlege, there has been one fatal accident on the section of road between the cameras in the last many, many years. Students from a college coming sadly to grief.
Some solid reasoning for this installation would be appreciated.

Peter McDonald Peter McDonald 6:59 pm 06 Aug 21

Doesn’t comply with international standards, that Australia is a signatory too. Large signs should be at all changes to speed limit, start and finish. Plus the speed limit should be painted in each lane. This has been the standard since we changed to metrics.

Lexie Donald Lexie Donald 6:53 pm 06 Aug 21

if you want drivers to obey pedestrians cyclists and scooterists have to obey - same offence, same fine

and all the lights have to be set up entirely for the motorists, not trams, not lollygaggers and not lycra clad morons

Corey Karl Corey Karl 6:01 pm 06 Aug 21

Cause Ian lives in Red Hill and it doesn’t effect him 🤣🤣

Dicko Thomas Dicko Thomas 4:28 pm 06 Aug 21

When traffic controls are counter intuitive for any road user, you always get problems. 40kph 24-7 on a 3 lane arterial is certainly a counter intuitive installation.

    Mark Oz Mark Oz 6:12 pm 06 Aug 21

    Dicko Thomas Nothing is counter intuitive on the road if you pay attention!

Dicko Thomas Dicko Thomas 4:17 pm 06 Aug 21

$303 for 46kph fined by the camera. (Not me personally).

GrumpyMark GrumpyMark 3:33 pm 06 Aug 21

The excuses/arguments being offered in response to this article would be hilarious if it were not for the fact that the posters are actually serious.
The picture at the head of the article (showing the sign across the road from Sydney Bldg) seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me. I’m not sure why anyone would need to be told in writing that they had exceeded the speed limit before an infingement is issued – especially when there has been so much publicity about reducing the speed limit in town centres to 40 kph.
Some have argued that the change is unnecessary. No matter what people might think there is an absolute here – it takes longer to stop a vehicle at 60 kph than 40 kph and, even though it is logical, there are any number of studies which prove this to be a fact. This Qld govt article – https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/driving-safely/stopping-distances, reports that an average person (with reaction time of 1.5 secs) will travel 26 m on a dry road at 40 kph, after deciding to brake – whereas at 60 kph, that same person would travel 45 m. That extra 19 m travelled (and the consequential reduction in force of impact), is probably the difference between life and death for a pedestrian. And the cost of having that extra 19 m? The extra time it takes to travel the approx. 400m between Northbourne/Barry Drv and Northbourne/London Cct at 40kph instead of 60kph – which is 12 seconds. I for one am happy to sacrifice those 12 seconds, if it means I would not have to live with the consequences of accidentally killing or maiming a pedestrian (albeit because they were doing the wrong thing). Sometimes being in the right is no consolation.

    chewy14 chewy14 5:54 pm 06 Aug 21

    Grumpymark,
    This is a purely reductive argument. By your own logic, why not make the entire area 30km/hr or 20?

    It’s only another 12 seconds more at 30km/hr after all to travel that 400m but the stopping time is reduced significantly.

    Surely you wouldn’t want to put anyone else at risk by not supporting this move to go even lower?

    GrumpyMark GrumpyMark 11:13 pm 06 Aug 21

    As I said in my other post, 40 kph seems to be the universally accepted safe speed for pedestrian control, because it is used at school zones. School children are arguably the most vulnerable in traffic, so I’m satisfied that what’s seen to be good for them can work in the town centre areas.

    chewy14 chewy14 1:39 pm 07 Aug 21

    Grumpymark,
    So you’re clearly willing to endanger pedestrians and other road users by not accepting my proposal for 30km/hr speed limits. Why are you so reckless about road safety?

    50kmhr speed limits were also previously unheard of. Are they now “universal” as well?

    Honestly, you can’t possibly be trying to claim that there is something inherently or objectively “safer” about 40km/hr, it’s purely an arbitrary number that should be backed up by evidence, where applied. Comparing it to school zones as if young children are equal to adult pedestrians is just silly.

    Its fine to say that you support the change because you believe it strikes the right balance. But don’t try and claim its somehow objectively or scientifically the correct number in these areas when no such evidence has been presented or even exists.

    JC JC 3:58 pm 07 Aug 21

    He didn’t say 40km/h was safe he stated it was safer than 60 and gave the reasons why.

    End of the day it’s all about risk analysis. Someone had presumably done that and decided 40km/h is an acceptable risk and the consequences of accepting that risk are also acceptable.

    chewy14 chewy14 6:28 pm 07 Aug 21

    JC,
    Yes and I said 30km/hr was even safer and gave the reasons why.

    “End of the day it’s all about risk analysis”

    Exactly what I’ve been saying.

    “Someone had presumably done that and decided 40km/h is an acceptable risk and the consequences of accepting that risk are also acceptable.”

    Presumably hey? That sounds really convincing.

    As I’ve repeatedly said, if a thorough analysis had been completed, then why haven’t the government released it? I haven’t found any supporting evidence for the change and no one has yet been able to link any.

    Your blind faith in the government is admirable but some of us have a healthy scepticism of most government decisions. Which is why my entire commentary about this issue has been around providing the evidentiary basis for change. You might be OK believing whatever the government tells you. I’m not.

    GrumpyMark GrumpyMark 6:29 pm 07 Aug 21

    Actually Chewie, I’m going to make my position even easier for you to understand because I am not an expert in this area. I prefer to take the word of the people who have the expertise and are charged with providing advice to the government on these matters than the word of an unqualified poster on a blog, as such 40kph works for me. So by all means puff your chest out and pontificate about 30, 20 or even 10 kph speed limits but unless you can prove your expertise in this area I’m certainly not going to support any suggestion you make.
    Actually, I have a couple of questions for you, Chewie. Why are you so opposed to the lowering of the speed limit to 40 kph, which has been a stated ACT policy in all high pedestrian areas in the various town centres? You have obviously sought an explanation from the appropriate authority, haven’t you? So what was their response?

    chewy14 chewy14 11:47 pm 07 Aug 21

    Grumpymark,
    Thanks for admitting you actually have little knowledge in the area, that is good. Although it makes your original comments lambasting others and the talk of simple “physics” seem a bit strange.

    Also, I don’t you, you don’t know me. Calling others “unqualified” on an anonymous blog is fraught with danger, particularly in Canberra considering the nature of the town.

    The arguments here should stand for themselves, regardless.

    “Why are you so opposed to the lowering of the speed limit to 40 kph,”

    Can you point out one post where I’ve actually opposed it? No. I’ve simply asked for the supporting evidence that justifies it.

    “You have obviously sought an explanation from the appropriate authority, haven’t you?”

    Yes. Meaningless platitudes around “safety” with no actual evidence provided being the response.

    What was their response to you that has garnered such support?

    GrumpyMark GrumpyMark 12:31 pm 08 Aug 21

    OK Chewie, if you have some expertise in this area – qualifications, reearch, published papers by all means put it up. Otherwise my comment re an unqualified poster stands. My use of physics was to explain why I (emphasis I) choose to accept the 40kph limit that has been set. You are the one who tried to then turn it into a debate about at what level the speed limit should be set. I have ‘lambasted’ ( your word – I’d say disagreed, but an irrelevant digression) others who have talked about the unfairness of being fined for breaking the law. Anyone is entitled to disagree with the government’s decision as long as they comply with it – or pay the appropriate fine. Oh and re “their response to you”, why would I seek clarification from the relevant authority on something with which I am happy to comply?

    chewy14 chewy14 4:03 pm 08 Aug 21

    Grumpymark,
    You said you’d take the word of people who have the expertise so I assumed you must have talked to them to see their qualifications, research and papers before agreeing with them right?

    Silly me, you only apply that level of rigour for online posters apparently.

    As above, you’re welcome to your blind faith in government decisions, I’ll maintain a healthy scepticism. Particularly when zero supporting evidence is provided.

    GrumpyMark GrumpyMark 7:54 pm 08 Aug 21

    While you don’t like it, Chewie, these people (and no I haven’t checked their qualifications) are charged with the responsibility, and given the authority, to determine the speed limits in the ACT. (I know you will jump on this, but I assume those who selected these people for their roles, checked their qualifications. Oh by the way, you will catch me out agai, as I haven’t asked to see my doctor’s qualifications). So, be a skeptic – just obey the law and stick to the speed limit or please, oh please, follow your skepticism and do what speed you think is correct – all donations gratefully accepted by the ACT government. Meanwhile the lemmings amongst us will obey the speed limits and remain fine free.

    JC JC 7:11 am 08 Aug 21

    I can answer your question grumpymark. He doesn’t like Labor. They could give him $1,00,000 and he would still complain about something.

    chewy14 chewy14 4:05 pm 08 Aug 21

    JC,
    Not even remotely correct, although I can understand why someone who worships the ALP might take my objective criticism the wrong way.

    GrumpyMark GrumpyMark 10:23 am 09 Aug 21

    Chewy,
    You will be pleased to know that your mockery of my acceptance of the 40 kph limit in the zone, which I now like to refer to as “Chewy’s Strip”, gave me pause to consider why it is that speed. To jog your memory, you posted “Honestly, you can’t possibly be trying to claim that there is something inherently or objectively “safer” about 40km/hr, it’s purely an arbitrary number that should be backed up by evidence, where applied.”
    So, I googled “research into 40 kph speed for high pedestrian traffic areas”.
    This report (https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/downloads/evaluation-40kmh-speed-limits.pdf) entitled “Evaluation of 40 km/h Speed Limits” was prepared in 2017, for the NSW government’s Centre for Road Safety Transport, by Martin Small Consulting (http://martinsmallconsulting.com) – a South Australian company specialising in road safety and regulatory management consultancy, whose portfolio of clients and projects (http://martinsmallconsulting.com/portfolio) will, I trust, satisfy even your healthy skepticism.
    One thing that I found to be very informative is a graphic (Figure 1) on page 14, which depicts the pedestrian fatality risk at different impact speeds. I noted that at 60 kph, there is an 85% chance of death. At 40 kph the chance of death reduces to 25%. (Quite a substantial reduction – which may account for the ‘platitudes around safety’ you received from the ACT authorities). I also, saw that at 30 kph (the speed limit, the report states, most leading European jurisdictions have adopted for high pedestrian traffic areas) the chance of death was reduced to 10%. So, although you were being sarcastic when you suggested the speed limit should be 30 kph, now that I’ve seen this evidence, I think you should go back to the ACT authorities and argue for a further reduction of the limit on Chewy’s Strip to 30 kph.

    chewy14 chewy14 11:53 am 09 Aug 21

    Grumpymark,
    I wasn’t being sarcastic in the slightest with the commentary around 30km/hr or even lower.

    Of course making the speed limit lower will be safer, the point being that this needs to be balanced against the road functionality and other potential risk reduction measures that could be put in place.

    And if you think a speed limit should be changed, it should be done so on the actual evidence and data for that area.

    Although now that you’ve seen how we could make the area even safer, you’ll clearly be on board for my new push to have a person walking in front of cars with a flag to reduce the risk of pedestrians unwittingly throwing themselves under a vehicle in the area. You know it makes sense, we need to drive those deaths and injuries down to zero.

    DJA DJA 3:57 pm 09 Aug 21

    The first recorded road incident with cars is when a car hit the person with a red flag!

    GrumpyMark GrumpyMark 5:50 pm 09 Aug 21

    I see the moderator didn’t like my reponse to your flag suggestion, Chewy … probably a fair call.
    You’ve never managed a project have you? In project management there is a risk register and an issues register, the former being a list of identified potential occurrences which can cause harm to the project and the latter being a list of actual occurrences. Simplistically, one of the Project Manager’s jobs is to identify risks, classify them based on likelihood (of the risk occurring) and the consequence (should the risk occur). Then they identify how to mitigate those risks – i.e. avoid it, accept it, transfer it or limit it, So, I think the persion responsible for the ACT’s Vision Zero (no deaths or serious injuries on the road transport network) has engaged a person or a team to undertake risk analysis for high pedestrian traffic areas in the jurisdiction. After receiving the risk analysis (and possibly recommendation), that authorised person has chosen to mitigate the risk of death/major trauma (remember, it’s a risk, so it hasn’t happened yet) by limiting said risk. They did so, by reducing the speed limit from 60 kph (85% chance of death) to 40 kph (25% chance of death). Now, I’m sorry that the deaths and/or major traumas you require to convince you don’t exist as issues. It doesn’t matter, because it’s irrelevant whether or not you agree with the decision to change the speed limit, because it’s happened. Now what I said I think happened, could be pure fantasy – I’m sure that’ll be your stance. So why don’t you put in an FOI request to get every document related to the decision to change the speed limit in the high pedestrian traffic areas and then you can report back on your findings.

    GrumpyMark GrumpyMark 5:58 pm 09 Aug 21

    PS No, Chewy, I won’t contribute to a ‘Go fund me’ campaign to raise the money to finance the FOI request, however, I’m sure there are plenty of RiotACT-ers who will finance your cause.

Colin Vivian Colin Vivian 3:33 pm 06 Aug 21

Rather smug take, that provides no logic as to why a major thoroughfare should be 40km/h. It’s just a softening up by Government PR geniuses before they make all of Northbourne & Commonwealth Ave 40km/h for Tram construction.

Kerry Jackson Kerry Jackson 2:50 pm 06 Aug 21

But how stupid is it that you can still do 50 and 60 through the suburbs where we live

Ian John Norris Ian John Norris 1:30 pm 06 Aug 21

While I agree that the Civic area needed reduced speed limits, why is it that it’s always the drivers being made to suffer? Isn’t it about time that pedestrians and cyclist were held accountable for their actions? Far too much emphasis to drive carefully is directed at the drivers while the so called “vulnerable” can wander / cycle around with their heads in the clouds, or worse, in their mobile phones. What ever happened to owning your responsibilities? What happened to pedestrians being charged for “J” walking? Why are we expected to tolerate pedestrians who walk straight across a road WITHOUT looking, while they’re engrossed in their mobile phone?
You only need to sit back and watch all the near misses in the Civic Bus Interchange, as pedestrians walk out in front of a 12 to 15 tonne bus, without looking! No 40 kph zone is going to stop pedestrian STUPIDITY!

    JC JC 2:11 pm 06 Aug 21

    Think you answered your own question in the last sentence. No 40km/h zone will stop stupidity, but what it will do is reduce the damage.

    For the most part I am of the school of thought if people are that stupid then they get what the deserve, but since having kids it is obvious that what as an adult I think is common sense is not something young kids would consider to be common sense. So yes we do need to cater for the lowest common denominator.

    DucatiMonsterAu DucatiMonsterAu 8:06 am 07 Aug 21

    Rubbish JC. I walked to school every day of my school life,crossing many roads,and was taught in school and at home from an early age on how to cross the road safely. If your kids are crossing the road without an adult they show know how by then.

    GrumpyMark GrumpyMark 6:16 pm 06 Aug 21

    From And the near misses in the interchange are not fatalities, Ian John Norris, because a) the buses are doing under 40 kph and b) the bus drivers are aware of the conditions (i.e. stupid pedestrians) and ready to react to the unexpected – it’s called proactive driving

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site