Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Will more 40kph Zones make us safer

By RiotPost 25 November 2009 60

The Chief Minister has put out this media release on how he is going to create 40kph zones around all shopping and community facilities (namely town centres) in order to achieve his goal of Vision Zero (no road fatalities).

I’m not sure if 40kph zones would have prevented the road fatalities we’ve had but maybe the idea of the reduced speed limits is to make us better drivers overall. By going at a slower speed we become more aware of what is around us when driving. Then again I could be totally wrong and it will make Northbourne Ave even more fun at peak hour when it is a 40kph zone from Dickson to Civic.

He’s giving the public until 18 December to put in their thoughts of the proposal.

The questionaire from the TAMS site is here.
The report on safety is here.

40kph Zones Everywhere?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
60 Responses to
Will more 40kph Zones make us safer
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
BethiePrice 4:07 pm 17 Jan 12

Put some pot holes in. No one wants to ruin their suspension.
Or speed bumps…or something that you literally HAVE to slow down for..people speed through 40kmph hour zones but try speeding over a speedbump
Or those things that are in the street that make you go from one side to the other (in Kambah) – Chicanes – An “S” like track configuration generally designed on a fast portion of a track to slow cars

James-T-Kirk 3:37 pm 07 Dec 09

I love 40 Zones, It sometimes takes *serious* effort to keep the car at 40 through the various traffic calming measures, and the 90 degree corners…..

Morgo 3:01 pm 29 Nov 09

You have got to be kidding. The only things putting up ANOTHER road sign are going to do is:

a) Create more clutter to try and register when driving, making it harder to concentrate on what’s actually in front of you
b) Increases tax revenue by bagging people who continue to drive at, say a very reasonable 45km’s an hour (note-having to constantly look at your speedo to keep under 40km an hour is another freaking distraction from keeping an eye on what’s in front of you).
c) Continues to say that when you get in a car it’s alright for everyone else to be an idiot except you (next time you go out, watch how many people cross a road and look to their left first!!!!????)
d) Quite frankly the only reason pedestrians die on the road is because either they’re an idiot for not looking or judging speed before they step out, kids parents are stupid for letting them run around near roads, or some dickhead hoon driver shows off. Most people who have the sense to think of other people aswell as themselves in cars and on foot do not tend to come together in a messy collision.
e) Oh, and in terms of numbers, we’re talking about what, 12 road deaths in the ACT last year and how many involved pedestrians – 2? So 350,000 people have to change their habits to save 2 lives. That’s value.

georgesgenitals 1:41 pm 29 Nov 09

Sgt.Bungers said :

georgesgenitals said :

Does anyone have the figures around the yearly road toll in Australia minus pedestrian deaths? I’m curious as to how much of the road toll is people on foot getting hit.

I find the way you phrase that sentence interesting. “…how much of the road toll is people on foot getting hit.” It shows just how ingrained “the car is king” is in our society, and almost shows an automatic blaming of the people who choose to get around on foot for simply being in the way of those who are lucky enough to own motor cars.

Why not phrase it “…how much of the road toll is people in cars hitting pedestrians?” It moves at least some of the blame back onto the person choosing to operate a 1+ tonne machine in a public place at high speed in order to go and buy some eggs, or avoid the late fee at the video store.

Not having a go at you. It’s just intersting.

Anyway I’ve digressed. Statistics delivered:

Monthly Report: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2009/pdf/RDA_0909.pdf

Annual Report: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2009/pdf/rsr_04.pdf

Thanks. I think.

Clown Killer 12:22 pm 29 Nov 09

Looking at the reports Sgt. Bungers posted the links for, I find it interesting that the ACT does not provide date on the posted speed limits at fatal crash sites – all the other jurisdictions appear to collect this information.

Sgt.Bungers 9:25 am 29 Nov 09

georgesgenitals said :

Does anyone have the figures around the yearly road toll in Australia minus pedestrian deaths? I’m curious as to how much of the road toll is people on foot getting hit.

I find the way you phrase that sentence interesting. “…how much of the road toll is people on foot getting hit.” It shows just how ingrained “the car is king” is in our society, and almost shows an automatic blaming of the people who choose to get around on foot for simply being in the way of those who are lucky enough to own motor cars.

Why not phrase it “…how much of the road toll is people in cars hitting pedestrians?” It moves at least some of the blame back onto the person choosing to operate a 1+ tonne machine in a public place at high speed in order to go and buy some eggs, or avoid the late fee at the video store.

Not having a go at you. It’s just intersting.

Anyway I’ve digressed. Statistics delivered:

Monthly Report: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2009/pdf/RDA_0909.pdf

Annual Report: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2009/pdf/rsr_04.pdf

georgesgenitals 8:33 pm 28 Nov 09

cranky said :

And if there is the info out there, where does one find out the Coroner’s opinion of the cause of the fatalities.

As distinct from the ‘as a result of speed – so youse had all better slow down’ comment from our political masters/Police at the time of the accident.

It would definitely be interesting to actually have information as to what really happened when fatalities occur. A bit more detail in terms of who lost control, what they tried to do, speed when control lost, etc. I realise, of course, that the data probably isn’t reliably available, though.

cranky 5:15 pm 28 Nov 09

And if there is the info out there, where does one find out the Coroner’s opinion of the cause of the fatalities.

As distinct from the ‘as a result of speed – so youse had all better slow down’ comment from our political masters/Police at the time of the accident.

georgesgenitals 4:00 pm 28 Nov 09

Does anyone have the figures around the yearly road toll in Australia minus pedestrian deaths? I’m curious as to how much of the road toll is people on foot getting hit.

Devil_n_Disquiz 6:26 am 28 Nov 09

Perhaps pedestrians could also assist the govts vision zero aspirations by looking for cars before they cross the road.

BigDave 6:28 pm 27 Nov 09

Disgustingly, most people ignore 40km zones around schools anyway. Especially when kids are around. Perhaps Stupid Stanhope should invest in teaching Canberrans to drive properly as it’s obvious to me that they don’t have a clue. Only the other day, I saw an L-plater in an Arrow Driving School car turning right with no indications whatsoever. What hope is there if they aren’t even being taught correctly??

hax 6:50 pm 26 Nov 09

40km/h is boring!! (except around schools etc)

It would be harder to concentrate on the road. I’d almost fall asleep on most of the roads in Canberra.
People would be lulled into wanting to do something else, like play with their phone or whatever in areas where it’s perfectly safe to do 60.

It’s just a crap idea

p1 5:07 pm 26 Nov 09

Sgt.Bungers said :

Though I risk completely dominating this thread, I feel this report is relevant. Titled; Designing Roads That Guide Drivers to Choose Safer Speeds. It was released this month by the Connecticut Department of Transportation….

Well thought out arguments with references just isn’t the way we do things on the interwebz. 🙂

Sgt.Bungers 3:01 pm 26 Nov 09

Though I risk completely dominating this thread, I feel this report is relevant. Titled; Designing Roads That Guide Drivers to Choose Safer Speeds. It was released this month by the Connecticut Department of Transportation.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/LIB/dot/documents/dresearch/JHR_09-321_JH_04-6.pdf

The first paragraph of the concluding the 115 page report:

The findings from this project clearly demonstrate that through careful,
intentional selection of roadway and roadside design elements, it is possible to influence
the running speed of traffic on a road. It appears that drivers indeed take cues from
elements of the roadway and roadside environment to decide how fast to drive and these
cues are independent of the posted speed limit
and other considerations that might be
important to the community for reducing speeds. So the good news is that it is possible to
influence drivers’ choice of speed through design of roadway and roadside elements; but
the bad news is that many existing roads cue drivers to travel much faster than the posted
speed limit and the community would like.

As I’ve mentioned roughly 15 times so far, our streets were designed for 60km/h. 40km/h speed limit signs on 60km/h streets are not likely to make a big difference in vehicle speeds, as this study demonstrates.

Sgt.Bungers 1:09 pm 26 Nov 09

Jim Jones said :

p1 said :

It would probably fade the curtains though…

True, but that’s a small price to pay for peace in the Middle-East.

At the expense of Australian jobs jobs jobs?

Jim Jones 12:02 pm 26 Nov 09

p1 said :

It would probably fade the curtains though…

True, but that’s a small price to pay for peace in the Middle-East.

watto23 11:58 am 26 Nov 09

If someone drives at 60 kmh or 40 kmh and is not paying attention i reckon you’ll still hit someone or cause an accident.
Sure braking distances at 40kmh are less, but thats not the reason accidents occur. Most people can stop a car safely at 60kmh if paying attention.

How many accidents occur by those using mobile phones while speeding…. and speeding is labelled as the blame. Speeding rarely IMO is the sole reason for causing an accident.

Lowering speed limits, may reduce some damage for some accidents, but won’t lower the number of accidents as more people get frustrated and drive poorly when speed limits are low.

p1 11:50 am 26 Nov 09

Jim Jones said :

p1 said :

Also, if we raise every speed limit in the country to 200km/h, there would be absolutely no change to the amount of deaths on the roads, because we all know that “Speed is NOT a cause of accidents”.

While I think that the number of accidents would stay pretty static, I suspect there would be a few more deaths. Hitting a ‘roo at 200+km/h hurts a lot more then 80…

If anything, raising the speed limit to 200km/h would reduce the amount of accidents on the road. It would also reduce property theft, lower tax rates, increase agricultural yields and make children more respectful of their elders.

It would probably fade the curtains though…

Jim Jones 11:38 am 26 Nov 09

p1 said :

Also, if we raise every speed limit in the country to 200km/h, there would be absolutely no change to the amount of deaths on the roads, because we all know that “Speed is NOT a cause of accidents”.

While I think that the number of accidents would stay pretty static, I suspect there would be a few more deaths. Hitting a ‘roo at 200+km/h hurts a lot more then 80…

If anything, raising the speed limit to 200km/h would reduce the amount of accidents on the road. It would also reduce property theft, lower tax rates, increase agricultural yields and make children more respectful of their elders.

Holden Caulfield 11:35 am 26 Nov 09

sloppery said :

Horrid said :

Fact: It takes further to stop the faster you are going (laws of physics)
+
Fact: The higher the impact speed, the less survivable the crash is (laws of physics and biology)
=
Fact: Lower speed limits save lives (law of common sense)

That’s one view. How about improving driver skills through additional training, and considering attention and fatigue.

Does anyone remember that ad from a few years ago, where the two falcons are driving along, one at 50km/h and one at 60km/h? They both brake to avoid a truck, and the one doing 60 gets a solid thump while the one doing 50 gets a light scratch? Well, if you cut reaction time by only half a second, both cars miss the truck entirely!

Your ‘facts’ are nice, but only represent a small part of the whole story.

It’s a shame the third Falcon, travelling at 70km/h, was already past the truck and out of frame, haha.

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