Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Shane wants your thoughts on urban 40 zones

johnboy 16 December 2013 46

Mayor Rattenbury is looking for your feedback on town centre speed limits:

Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Shane Rattenbury, today invited Canberrans to provide feedback in relation to the 40 kilometre per hour (40 km/h) speed limit precincts in the Civic, Belconnen and Tuggeranong town centres.

“Following the successful introduction of reduced speed limit precincts in Gungahlin and Woden last year, 40 km/h precincts were expanded to the Civic, Belconnen and Tuggeranong town centres in June 2013,” Mr Rattenbury said.

“The slower speed environments were introduced to improve safety for all road users and, in particular, help make travel in town centres safer and more comfortable for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users.”

The precincts in each of the three town centres were identified as suitable locations due to high pedestrian movements and a minimum of 400 metres of retail and commercial development.

Mr Rattenbury said the ACT Government has commenced an evaluation of the 40 km/h speed precinctsin Belconnen, Civic and Tuggeranong which have now been in place for around six months on a fulltimebasis (24 hours a day, seven days a week).

“In addition to conducting speed and traffic volume surveys at each town centre, the Government is seeking community feedback on the effectiveness of these reduced speed limits in improving safety for vulnerable road users.

“I encourage local residents and traders, to take the time to have their say on the introduction of these precincts,” Mr Rattenbury concluded.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
46 Responses to
Shane wants your thoughts on urban 40 zones
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
rhino 3:06 pm 19 Dec 13

Alderney said :

rhino said :

Madam Cholet said :

maxblues said :

The drivers of today must be so much more hopeless because I can remember a time when drivers could handle their vehicles at 60 km/h.

I think it’s really more about the damage caused to a pedestrian at various speeds. I believe the were ads some years ago that used this idea. You might handle your car at 60, but the individual you hit may not.

Can’t everyone just accept the 40 zones. Are we in that much of a hurry? Leave the house earlier and there’s no need to speed.

The logic there is a little weak. Using that logic, why not make it 40 zones everywhere? It’d be safer and we surely aren’t in that much of a hurry, we can just leave the house 30 mins earlier for work.

The reality is that there is a cost to having lower speeds and there is a balance between risk and the cost of having to go slower. The right balance is being discussed here. The appropriate way to find the right balance is using evidence. It’s about cost vs benefit. Many seem to think “if there is some benefit, it’s worth doing” but if the benefit is zero or very miniscule and the cost is higher, then pragmatic people believe it isn’t worth doing.

…but the evidence is already there, it costs a lot less to fix a person hit but a car doing 40 than it does for one hit by a car doing 60.

That was not the evidence I was referring to. If you re-read my post you will see that I’m talking about the cost of reducing the limit compared to the risk of accident and that associated cost at a higher speed limit. If there are zero accidents at that location, lowering the limit is adding a new cost without adding a new benefit.

Innovation 11:27 am 19 Dec 13

Alderney said :

rhino said :

Madam Cholet said :

maxblues said :

The drivers of today must be so much more hopeless because I can remember a time when drivers could handle their vehicles at 60 km/h.

I think it’s really more about the damage caused to a pedestrian at various speeds. I believe the were ads some years ago that used this idea. You might handle your car at 60, but the individual you hit may not.

Can’t everyone just accept the 40 zones. Are we in that much of a hurry? Leave the house earlier and there’s no need to speed.

The logic there is a little weak. Using that logic, why not make it 40 zones everywhere? It’d be safer and we surely aren’t in that much of a hurry, we can just leave the house 30 mins earlier for work.

The reality is that there is a cost to having lower speeds and there is a balance between risk and the cost of having to go slower. The right balance is being discussed here. The appropriate way to find the right balance is using evidence. It’s about cost vs benefit. Many seem to think “if there is some benefit, it’s worth doing” but if the benefit is zero or very miniscule and the cost is higher, then pragmatic people believe it isn’t worth doing.

…but the evidence is already there, it costs a lot less to fix a person hit but a car doing 40 than it does for one hit by a car doing 60.

All drivers should be able to handle a car at 60 clicks. The point is that many areas are now more heavily populated than “xx” years ago, society is now better educated about the degree of damage and injuries caused by increasing speeds and is more aware of the economic cost of accidents and injury. Changing a lot more 60 zones to 40 would cost most drivers less time per day than they waste watching even one commercial break on TV when they get home in the evening.

Antagonist 11:26 am 19 Dec 13

Alderney said :

…but the evidence is already there, it costs a lot less to fix a person hit but a car doing 40 than it does for one hit by a car doing 60.

And if we follow this reasoning through to its logical conclusion, we will make these areas pedestrian only. Then nobody will get hurt. Not even my beloved Falcon ute.

Now lets look at the Tuggeranong example. How many pedestrians have been hit in these areas prior to the speed humps and new speed zones being applied? None? So it seems we are spending money on fixing a problem that does not exist. And that, my friend, is a waste of everyones time and money.

** I am all for the 40 zones, but (IMHO) the speed humps are not needed and do not slow the type of vehicles most likely to cause a pedestrian harm.

Watson 11:24 am 19 Dec 13

Alderney said :

The logic there is a little weak. Using that logic, why not make it 40 zones everywhere? It’d be safer and we surely aren’t in that much of a hurry, we can just leave the house 30 mins earlier for work.

The reality is that there is a cost to having lower speeds and there is a balance between risk and the cost of having to go slower. The right balance is being discussed here. The appropriate way to find the right balance is using evidence. It’s about cost vs benefit. Many seem to think “if there is some benefit, it’s worth doing” but if the benefit is zero or very miniscule and the cost is higher, then pragmatic people believe it isn’t worth doing.

…but the evidence is already there, it costs a lot less to fix a person hit but a car doing 40 than it does for one hit by a car doing 60.

+1 But also the shorter braking speed. I had a situation last week in a school zone where a child was about to run right in front of my car. I braked hard and felt very relieved that I managed to stop before I reached where he would’ve been if his mother hadn’t pulled him back. This scenario is far more likely to happen in high pedestrian zones like town centres too.

Alderney 10:56 am 19 Dec 13

rhino said :

Madam Cholet said :

maxblues said :

The drivers of today must be so much more hopeless because I can remember a time when drivers could handle their vehicles at 60 km/h.

I think it’s really more about the damage caused to a pedestrian at various speeds. I believe the were ads some years ago that used this idea. You might handle your car at 60, but the individual you hit may not.

Can’t everyone just accept the 40 zones. Are we in that much of a hurry? Leave the house earlier and there’s no need to speed.

The logic there is a little weak. Using that logic, why not make it 40 zones everywhere? It’d be safer and we surely aren’t in that much of a hurry, we can just leave the house 30 mins earlier for work.

The reality is that there is a cost to having lower speeds and there is a balance between risk and the cost of having to go slower. The right balance is being discussed here. The appropriate way to find the right balance is using evidence. It’s about cost vs benefit. Many seem to think “if there is some benefit, it’s worth doing” but if the benefit is zero or very miniscule and the cost is higher, then pragmatic people believe it isn’t worth doing.

…but the evidence is already there, it costs a lot less to fix a person hit but a car doing 40 than it does for one hit by a car doing 60.

rhino 10:20 am 19 Dec 13

Madam Cholet said :

maxblues said :

The drivers of today must be so much more hopeless because I can remember a time when drivers could handle their vehicles at 60 km/h.

I think it’s really more about the damage caused to a pedestrian at various speeds. I believe the were ads some years ago that used this idea. You might handle your car at 60, but the individual you hit may not.

Can’t everyone just accept the 40 zones. Are we in that much of a hurry? Leave the house earlier and there’s no need to speed.

The logic there is a little weak. Using that logic, why not make it 40 zones everywhere? It’d be safer and we surely aren’t in that much of a hurry, we can just leave the house 30 mins earlier for work.

The reality is that there is a cost to having lower speeds and there is a balance between risk and the cost of having to go slower. The right balance is being discussed here. The appropriate way to find the right balance is using evidence. It’s about cost vs benefit. Many seem to think “if there is some benefit, it’s worth doing” but if the benefit is zero or very miniscule and the cost is higher, then pragmatic people believe it isn’t worth doing.

Madam Cholet 12:37 pm 18 Dec 13

maxblues said :

The drivers of today must be so much more hopeless because I can remember a time when drivers could handle their vehicles at 60 km/h.

I think it’s really more about the damage caused to a pedestrian at various speeds. I believe the were ads some years ago that used this idea. You might handle your car at 60, but the individual you hit may not.

Can’t everyone just accept the 40 zones. Are we in that much of a hurry? Leave the house earlier and there’s no need to speed.

buzz819 11:05 am 18 Dec 13

Canberroid said :

Felix the Cat said :

Canberroid said :

c_c™ said :

BimboGeek said :

Maybe the CBD would have more sensible traffic if they got around to installing a proper North-South bypass. It needn’t be perfect and could be cobbled together from a combination of existing roads and new ones, but it needs to be figured out soon. Northbourne Ave is a mess that belongs in a city a quarter the size, it takes an hour to get along it during peak.

They’re building one, it’s called Majura Parkway. And that adds to the GDE on the other side. Plenty of North-south routes without ploughing through the CBD.

Not really if you’re going from Woden area to Dickson area. It wouldn’t be so bad if some of the intersections through Civic were removed, though traffic backs up at major intersections all the way to Dickson anyway.

If I was travelling from Woden to Dickson I would drive via Tuggeranong Parkway>Gungahglin Drive>Ginninderra Drive.

That route takes about the same time as sitting in moderately heavy peak-hour through Civic (according to google maps with its traffic conditions data last time I checked around 5:30pm), so I stick with the Civic option to save fuel and kms.

It’s just a shame that there’s a thoroughfare from north to south like Northbourne that gets clogged up going through the CBD instead of past it, but it’s a bit late to move either of them now. Good to see they repeated the mistake (but even worse) with Flemington rd going through the G-spot.

Umm I’m fairly certain that travelling at a constant speed of about 80/90 km/h along the parkway and Gungahlin Drive is a lot more fuel efficient then constantly stopping and taking off again from the lights and a lot less wear and tear on your car. Even if the speed does get lower than that at peak times, sitting idling wastes a lot of fuel with no return.

So you should probably alter that statement a lil, to I’m to lazy and a Canberran, this is the way I always go home, I am not going to change that….

Canberroid 9:05 am 18 Dec 13

Felix the Cat said :

Canberroid said :

c_c™ said :

BimboGeek said :

Maybe the CBD would have more sensible traffic if they got around to installing a proper North-South bypass. It needn’t be perfect and could be cobbled together from a combination of existing roads and new ones, but it needs to be figured out soon. Northbourne Ave is a mess that belongs in a city a quarter the size, it takes an hour to get along it during peak.

They’re building one, it’s called Majura Parkway. And that adds to the GDE on the other side. Plenty of North-south routes without ploughing through the CBD.

Not really if you’re going from Woden area to Dickson area. It wouldn’t be so bad if some of the intersections through Civic were removed, though traffic backs up at major intersections all the way to Dickson anyway.

If I was travelling from Woden to Dickson I would drive via Tuggeranong Parkway>Gungahglin Drive>Ginninderra Drive.

That route takes about the same time as sitting in moderately heavy peak-hour through Civic (according to google maps with its traffic conditions data last time I checked around 5:30pm), so I stick with the Civic option to save fuel and kms.

It’s just a shame that there’s a thoroughfare from north to south like Northbourne that gets clogged up going through the CBD instead of past it, but it’s a bit late to move either of them now. Good to see they repeated the mistake (but even worse) with Flemington rd going through the G-spot.

tuco 5:10 am 18 Dec 13

gazket said :

Why is there a 50 kph sign 20m out from the Joynton Smith Dr underground car park entrance at Belco Mall ?

To get to the other side? (I like your riddles, even if I don’t really understand them.)

magiccar9 10:01 pm 17 Dec 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

Why don’t we just limit all cars to 40 and be done with it? Why risk anybody’s life just because we have to be at certain places at certain times? Simple. No more road deaths.

Because then some numpty would still bitch and moan that 40 is too fast and endangers our dear cyclists and pedestrians.

gazket 8:25 pm 17 Dec 13

Hey dumb arse. Why is there a 50 kph sign 20m out from the Joynton Smith Dr underground car park entrance at Belco Mall ?

maxblues 6:49 pm 17 Dec 13

The drivers of today must be so much more hopeless because I can remember a time when drivers could handle their vehicles at 60 km/h.

Felix the Cat 4:23 pm 17 Dec 13

Canberroid said :

c_c™ said :

BimboGeek said :

Maybe the CBD would have more sensible traffic if they got around to installing a proper North-South bypass. It needn’t be perfect and could be cobbled together from a combination of existing roads and new ones, but it needs to be figured out soon. Northbourne Ave is a mess that belongs in a city a quarter the size, it takes an hour to get along it during peak.

They’re building one, it’s called Majura Parkway. And that adds to the GDE on the other side. Plenty of North-south routes without ploughing through the CBD.

Not really if you’re going from Woden area to Dickson area. It wouldn’t be so bad if some of the intersections through Civic were removed, though traffic backs up at major intersections all the way to Dickson anyway.

If I was travelling from Woden to Dickson I would drive via Tuggeranong Parkway>Gungahglin Drive>Ginninderra Drive.

rhino 1:05 pm 17 Dec 13

dtc said :

BimboGeek said :

Speed bumps slow down emergency vehicles. They kill many more people than they save. This is such a well estsblished scientific fact that it’s a wonder they are still allowed at all.

Really? People die from that extra 7 seconds it takes to go over 2 or 3 speed bumps?

Available solutions to slow people down are (a) speed limts – often ignored so ineffective; (b) cicanes – requires roads to be realigned, the space to do it etc plus people often drive straight over the top because they arent paying attention or (c) speed bumps – the cheapest and most effective.

What option do you advocate?

There are certainly scenarios where the difference is greater than 7 seconds. And 7 seconds can potentially make a difference in saving someone’s life in some cases. Or if there is extra damage or not.

I think the question is really taking a step back from there and asking if you NEED to force everyone to slow down at a particular location and if so, WHY? Without a justification for that, I see no reason to even start thinking about how.

wildturkeycanoe 12:43 pm 17 Dec 13

Why don’t we just limit all cars to 40 and be done with it? Why risk anybody’s life just because we have to be at certain places at certain times? Simple. No more road deaths.

Antagonist 11:19 am 17 Dec 13

dtc said :

Available solutions to slow people down are (a) speed limts – often ignored so ineffective; (b) cicanes – requires roads to be realigned, the space to do it etc plus people often drive straight over the top because they arent paying attention or (c) speed bumps – the cheapest and most effective.

What option do you advocate?

Think about the BS you have been spinning here.

1. You claim that people drive straight over the top of chicanes because they are not paying attention – total BS. If people are not paying attention to the road to the point that they are going right over the top of a chicane, then they should hand in their drivers license. Or put their phone down so they can watch the road! These people are going to have an accident no matter what traffic calming measures are used.

2. Speed humps are only slowing SOME road users. As I have pointed out earlier, many P-platers/SUV/4WD owners see it as a challenge to find out how fast they can actually get over them, often overtaking other cars in the process. Speed humps are indeed a cheap alternative. But hardly the most effective. They do not slow down those vehicles that I, as a husband/parent/pedestrian, would like to see slowed down the most!

Watson 10:20 am 17 Dec 13

I wish they would just make some of these areas into pedestrian zones instead. Like the busy part of Hibberson Street in Gungahlin. Why would anyone have to drive through there? There is no access to carparks, except for those rare kerb-side parks and there are parallel streets on both sides, which do offer access to multiple carparks. I never drive through there because you have to go way slower than 40 when it’s busy because of the umpteen pedestrian crossings.

Canberroid 10:18 am 17 Dec 13

c_c™ said :

BimboGeek said :

Maybe the CBD would have more sensible traffic if they got around to installing a proper North-South bypass. It needn’t be perfect and could be cobbled together from a combination of existing roads and new ones, but it needs to be figured out soon. Northbourne Ave is a mess that belongs in a city a quarter the size, it takes an hour to get along it during peak.

They’re building one, it’s called Majura Parkway. And that adds to the GDE on the other side. Plenty of North-south routes without ploughing through the CBD.

Not really if you’re going from Woden area to Dickson area. It wouldn’t be so bad if some of the intersections through Civic were removed, though traffic backs up at major intersections all the way to Dickson anyway.

PantsMan 10:15 am 17 Dec 13

Will this apply to bikes, Shane?

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