Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Excellence in Public Sector consulting

Shane wants your thoughts on urban 40 zones

By 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 Newst
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.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site