Will more 40kph Zones make us safer

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??

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

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. 🙂

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.

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?

p1 said :

It would probably fade the curtains though…

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

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.

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…

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.

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.

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…

p1 said :

If we raise every speed limit in the country to 200km/h I promise that speeding will drop by 99.9%.

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”.

If we raise every speed limit in the country to 200km/h I promise that speeding will drop by 99.9%.

I make this statement to emphasise that any statement with numbers invariably has little to do with actual road safety.

I support lowering speed limits because it drives so many people into an apoplectic rage of self-righteous spittle-flecked indignation.

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.

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)

Correct and correct.

Horrid said :

=
Fact: Lower speed limits save lives (law of common sense)

Wrong. Appropriate speeds save lives. Excessive speed kills. Put a 20km/h limit on all Australian motorways and I can guarantee you nobody will stick to it, even though if they did fatalities would be extremely rare. “Speed limits” have nothing to do with it. Look at the NT. First two years their Gov implemented speed limits on their rural roads (2007 & 2008), the road toll climbed by over 30%.

Design an urban road that looks safe to do 80km/h when the road is clear (Namatjira Dr South of Hindmarsh) and even with a 60km/h limit and the threat of mobile speed cameras, many drivers will inadvertently allow their speed to climb towards 80km/h at some point without realising. If a road is properly built for it’s application, with a safe maximum travel speed engineered into the aesthetics of the road and road furniture, then the road would not require a speed limit, as the majority of sensible drivers would feel unsafe traveling at higher speeds than the road was designed for.

Low speed limits on roads designed for higher speeds is lazy sloppy pricatice, and no substitute for proper road engineering. Adding speed cameras to these situations is revenue raising, nothing more.

bd84 said :

Some roads around major shopping centres could be made 40kph with little impact

Yeah, they could make the entire length of Hibberson street 40km/h, and add another zebra crossing in front of Coles and Aldi

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)

Some roads around major shopping centres could be made 40kph with little impact, as in most instances you’re unlikely to get much above 40 anyway travelling between 2 intersections or preparing to make a turn. For this reason I don’t think it will make many people much safer and I very much doubt the change will save any lives or cause less injuries, simply because the number of fatalities in Canberra in such areas would be around about none.

I suppose we can’t just legislate ‘common sense’? The amount of random morons I see who casually walk across major roads without paying attention to traffic at all (Dickson/Northborne avenue come to mind) warrants it…

What’s bizarre is the current rule of 50 unless the road has a school or a shopping center (so lots of pedestrians), then its 60.

youami said :

We have antibodies, let’s use them!

Hahaha, awesome.

Coach said :

I have a different perspective on this debate, that does not really relate to specific speed limits but to life in general.

This debate and the new proposed speed limits remind of the very well intentioned, but misguided push by some over the past 50 years, to make us all live in a totally clean, sterile, germ free environment in our homes.

What has been shown is that people who subject their children to such an upbringing have messed with nature and life itself, by making them more sick, and less able to battle germs and disease through their own immune system.

So it is with the well intentioned attempt to protect us from every possible harm or accident that could possibly befall us (Kids playgrounds are another case in point). It messes with the adventure called “LIFE”, with our learning, our instincts and our ability to deal with unforseen circumstances in our life.

We can make our lives so “STERILE” and so “SAFE”, that life is not worth living anymore, because it is so dull.

I am not a thrill seeker, nor am I against an orderly society, but I am against a level of control over the masses by a few, that changes the whole purpose of life itself.

I totally respect those who disagree, but throw these thoughts in the mix to stimulate thought, if the reader’s mind is open to that process.

Oh so true too! I used to eat dirt when I was a kid, I bite my nails, play in sand, etc. I never get sick! Seriously, have not been sick for about 5 years.

Do we need antiseptic hand gel that we use whenever we use the ATM? FFS, what do these clean freaks think is in innoculation shots for Tetanus, Chicken Pox, etc? We have antibodies, let’s use them!

GottaLoveCanberra said :

Speed is NOT a cause of accidents, it is a multiplier of the damage that will occur when an accident happens.

Dumbarse drivers who fail to concentrate on what it is they’re doing and what they should be doing in a motor vehicle (aka a 1.5 ton steel missile) at all times and in all conditions.

Awesome! Someone has the same opinion as me! Couldn’t have put it better myself.

Circumstance and driving contrary to road conditions will cause accidents. There are roads with varying roadside distractions and environments, roads with obstructions that drivers need to respond to. Most importantly, there are roads of varying speeds, sometimes drivers need to respond at 40km/hour, sometimes at 110km/hour. So how can speed be a factor when so many roads are ‘safe’ with a posted limit above 40km/hour? You can have accidents at 40km/hour and accidents at 110km/hour but in both instances you could be travelling at the posted speed limit.

Speed limits in ACT are messed up like a dog’s breakfast anyway. All over the place, no consistency on arterial roads.

If speed *was* the cause of accidents then all roads in the world should be set to walking pace.

I don’t think we should wait until someone is killed by a car in a shopping district before this should be considered. I agree with the idea, but I’m not exactly sure what roads it would apply to. On face value, the areas to which this would be used are already places where most people drive slow, but we always see the odd spanker tearing through such areas. A few posts have correctly fingered areas such as Manuka and Dickson shops as ideal locations for such a rule.

I have a different perspective on this debate, that does not really relate to specific speed limits but to life in general.

This debate and the new proposed speed limits remind of the very well intentioned, but misguided push by some over the past 50 years, to make us all live in a totally clean, sterile, germ free environment in our homes.

What has been shown is that people who subject their children to such an upbringing have messed with nature and life itself, by making them more sick, and less able to battle germs and disease through their own immune system.

So it is with the well intentioned attempt to protect us from every possible harm or accident that could possibly befall us (Kids playgrounds are another case in point). It messes with the adventure called “LIFE”, with our learning, our instincts and our ability to deal with unforseen circumstances in our life.

We can make our lives so “STERILE” and so “SAFE”, that life is not worth living anymore, because it is so dull.

I am not a thrill seeker, nor am I against an orderly society, but I am against a level of control over the masses by a few, that changes the whole purpose of life itself.

I totally respect those who disagree, but throw these thoughts in the mix to stimulate thought, if the reader’s mind is open to that process.

Bring it on, I’m not at all bothered by being held up for a few more seconds in areas that aren’t designed to be arterial roads.

basketcase said :

Like gun laws don’t stop the shootings, road speed laws wont stop the speeding. Therefore it is merely a revenue raising exercise.

Who said anything about gun laws?

I’d have thought lowering speed limits causes more speeding, technically, but that’s not the point either.

I should also add that an advantage of a 40km/hr limit is that it gives drivers a “moral authority” to travel at a slow speed. If someone roars up behind them and tailgates them they could feel less pressure to speed up.

Sgt.Bungers said :

aidan said :

Sgt.Bungers said :

Education will also be necessary. In Aus, we’ve become too used to “the car is king”. The general concensous is, the minute a person gets behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, somehow their status is elevated. They have right of way over all, they paid for this road and therefore are not going to be hindered in any circumstnace, not no way no how. This accepted attitude is wrong, as well as incredibly dangerous and needs to be changed.

I agree 100%. I don’t think I got he gist of what you were trying to say in your first comment. What can I say, but I agree. HOWEVER .. there would have to be some fairly punitive punishments and rigorous enforcement of speed limits in the beginning as Aus drivers are clearly not used to slowing down and driving to the conditions. In areas where we have shared pedestrian-vehicle spaces it has been my experience that a solid minority of drivers drive at speeds that would not allow them to stop if a pedestrian suddenly veered into their path.

If people can’t drive attentively at 60 or 80kph, I highly doubt that speed is the issue. They would be far less likely to drive attentively at 40kph because it would frustrate them more so.

How about making more pedestrain crossings and removing visual obstructions from the sides of roads.
Once I was driving at 40kph in a school zone and a child ran out from behind a parked car. I was lucky that I have ABS so i could brake and steer away. If not i’d have hit the child and possibly injured/killed them.

So things like making ABS compulsory is a good idea. So many great ways to reduce fatalities, but its far easier to reduce speed limits.
Have studies been done whether lowering speed limits cause more drivers to speed because the limit is slow? You will never stop people from speeding. We’d be better off, making roads and crossing safer as well as vehicles safer. Also refresher driving courses and advanced driving training would be more beneficial IMO.

Like gun laws don’t stop the shootings, road speed laws wont stop the speeding. Therefore it is merely a revenue raising exercise.

Design is the key, I live on a road that if I do 60Km/hr, feels like I am doing 80 Km/hr, so it is fairly natural to drive at 40/50 Km/h

aidan said :

Sgt.Bungers said :

Most roads in urban areas of the ACT were designed for a safe vehicle speed of 60km/h+. Simply lowering a speed limit on a road designed for a higher speed is lazy, sloppy, and can be argued as being a revenue raising practice.

Rip up the road, re-design it and re-build it to look and feel safe for 20-30km/h, as should be the case in areas of high pedestrian activity, and the majority drivers will travel at 20-30km/h without needing to look at their speedo.

I’m sorry but that simply isn’t true. I wish it were so, but real world observation says otherwise. There are alot of sports grounds adjacent to my local 50km/hr “minor collector road” which is lined with parked cars during the soccer season. This dramatically reduces the width of the road and should lead most people to reduce their speed. Do they? Bollocks! The majority do the same speed they always have and just swing out from the parked cars so they are partially in the oncoming lane. I know this as I have to move over so the buggers don’t hit my car.

Same story on my (bike) ride to work. Cresting a blind hill with sharp corner and no visibility the vast majority of cars just swing out into the oncoming lane to avoid me, instead of slowing down and passing with caution or even waiting until their visibility of oncoming traffic improves. I was shocked when someone actually did the second of those options. Must have been only the second or third time in 10 years of riding that route daily.

Education will also be necessary. In Aus, we’ve become too used to “the car is king”. The general concensous is, the minute a person gets behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, somehow their status is elevated. They have right of way over all, they paid for this road and therefore are not going to be hindered in any circumstnace, not no way no how. This accepted attitude is wrong, as well as incredibly dangerous and needs to be changed.

Some smaller European towns that have converted *EVERY* street to shared zones with absolutely no traffic restrictions have achieved decreases in fatality rates as high as 95%. The primary reason being, the street environment is now uncertain for drivers. In Aus, we can drive down a road safe in the knowledge that 99.999% of the time, nothing or nobody is going to move in front of us without some sort of warning. Our laws are geared this way. If you’re not on/in a wheeled transport device of some sort, generally you’re not allowed to be on the road. Thus people in motor cars can travel faster through our commercial and residential streets. Hence, that 0.001% of the time something unexpected does happen, drivers are not prepared for it and the results can be deadly.

In these European towns with entirely re-engineered streets and road safety laws, a person cannot drive down the road safe in the knowledge that a 15-20cm high ledge at the side of the road acts as a magic barrier between them and pedestrians, because legally it doesn’t. A pedestrain can walk out at any time, anywhere, for any reason, and if a collision results it is 100% the motor vehicle drivers fault in every circumstance. Hence, drivers expect people to appear in front of them at a nanosecond’s notice, meaning every nook, cranny and bit of furniture on the side of the street represents a potiential hazard, being a possible hiding place for a pedestrian who’s about to walk onto the street. Meaning people in cars are now hesitant to travel at speeds much above walking pace.

I’m not saying this would be a suitable system on all roads in Aus. In fact I’ll be one of the first to put my hands up calling for more strict motorway/rural dual carriageway standards in Aus to allower higher rural speeds between major cities. However in an urban environment, why does the car continue to be king? What about every other person who wants to use the road? Why are all of us legally viewed as second class citizens when we get out of our cars?

Growling Ferret said :

Northborne is already a 40kmh zone or slower each morning peak.

The ACT has the lowest level of fatalities by population at around 2/3s the national average.
http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/37/Files/RDA_Oct09.pdf

More Nanny state crap, and would never have saved Clea Rose from the drug affected serial criminal that hit her…

It would not have saved the unseatbelted passenger in this car that was being driven by a friend under the influence of drugs
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/04/2645973.htm?site=canberra

The poor bloke who hit a roo on his motorbike would not have been saved – http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/02/2702895.htm

People will die from trauma received from motor vehicle accidents. Setting stupid goals of Vision Zero, No Wasts 2010, No Australain Child Will Live in Poverty etc is just stupid posturing by those that should know better.

And it would not have saved my Dad who died of a heart attack while behind the wheel a few years ago, yet was registered as a road fatality. Then a few weeks later Hargreaves comes out with a pearl of wisdom that ALL road fatalities in the ACT were due to excessive speed or inattention by road users. God knows how he could make such a blanket statement. Lost all credibility from that moment on.

Speed is NOT a cause of accidents, it is a multiplier of the damage that will occur when an accident happens.

Dumbarse drivers who fail to concentrate on what it is they’re doing and what they should be doing in a motor vehicle (aka a 1.5 ton steel missile) at all times and in all conditions.

I tried to vote … but wouldn’t let me. Perhaps I’m not hitting the desired response that fits the pre-determined outcome?

By the way, I think slowing drivers down around shopping precints is a good idea – Dickson shops is a perfect example, accident waiting to happen with so many cars and pedestrians all going in different directions at once.

Sgt.Bungers said :

Most roads in urban areas of the ACT were designed for a safe vehicle speed of 60km/h+. Simply lowering a speed limit on a road designed for a higher speed is lazy, sloppy, and can be argued as being a revenue raising practice.

Rip up the road, re-design it and re-build it to look and feel safe for 20-30km/h, as should be the case in areas of high pedestrian activity, and the majority drivers will travel at 20-30km/h without needing to look at their speedo.

I’m sorry but that simply isn’t true. I wish it were so, but real world observation says otherwise. There are alot of sports grounds adjacent to my local 50km/hr “minor collector road” which is lined with parked cars during the soccer season. This dramatically reduces the width of the road and should lead most people to reduce their speed. Do they? Bollocks! The majority do the same speed they always have and just swing out from the parked cars so they are partially in the oncoming lane. I know this as I have to move over so the buggers don’t hit my car.

Same story on my (bike) ride to work. Cresting a blind hill with sharp corner and no visibility the vast majority of cars just swing out into the oncoming lane to avoid me, instead of slowing down and passing with caution or even waiting until their visibility of oncoming traffic improves. I was shocked when someone actually did the second of those options. Must have been only the second or third time in 10 years of riding that route daily.

Relevant to the topic:

http://www.cabe.org.uk/news/kensington-high-street-sees-decrease-in-accidents

Notice how the alterations to high street in Kensington, London, did not include a drop in the speed limit, yet they experienced a decrease in incidents of 47%. Road engineering is key, up there with driver education.

Magic numbers printed on signs, hoisted on poles, do very little to enhance road safety, but as I said before, they are cheap and incite discussion amoungst the community, both negative and positive, which makes GovCo look like they’re doing something.

Is speed really a factor here? Most of the time I find it’s stupid drivers that go straight in their lane when its turn right only or turn left only or running a red light or cutting you off, lane changing without doing a head check. Most drivers need a re-examination for the license rather than fix the road rules.

Spitfire3 said :

as it is one of the three major thoroughfares for cars travelling from the north side to the south side

Ok, maybe three isn’t the right number but my point remains.

I took the survey and wrote the following in the comments free text field:

“The most important thing I think is to be very careful about what areas/roads get included inside the border and what are excluded, ie think of the motorists too. For example, in Civic, Northbourne Avenue should most certainly NOT be reduced to 40km/h as it is one of the three major thoroughfares for cars travelling from the north side to the south side. What a bottleneck that would be.

However Bunda St and the small streets that come off it would be good candidates for the 40km/h limit because through traffic takes different roads nearby such as Cooyong St.

I support this reduction to 40km/h wholeheartedly as long as the distinction between which roads to apply it to and which to avoid is done sensibly and clearly. This distinction does not seem to have been addressed very much and I think you’ll come up against a lot of community opposition (whinging perhaps) if people think any of their main driving thoroughfares are going to be made 40k zones.”

Have these 14 deaths last year occured around shopping and community facilities and were the vehicles invoved travelling between 40 and 50 kph?

Cos if not… Then this entire plan is flawed.

HAving said that… Around the inner streets of manuka and through the main shopping street in gungahlin and through Civic – you probably wouldn’t get up to 50kph anyway. I guess it depens on what they define to be those areas.

A traffic study back in the eighties, which was still quoted only a few years ago, showed that the main reason for the ACT’s low accident rate is the hierarchical design of the road network, which keeps through traffic off the residential streets.

There was even a difference, albeit small, between the accident rate in the grid-pattern innner areas with less in the way of an arterial network,and Belconnen with all those arterial roads.

The inner north rat runs weren’t as much of a problem when the study was done, so I imagine the differences in accident rates should be even greater.

In that light, 40km/hour speed limit might make little difference in most suburbs, but it might lead to reduced accidents in the older areas with a lot of through traffic along residential streets.

harvyk1 said :

It’s really just a band-aid solution to the fact that there are so many people on our roads who should never have been given a license in the first place, or who really need a better level of driver training.

bingo!

As Very Busy said on another recent thread about speed cameras:

“Many will probably shoot me down here, but I would say that it is infinately safer to travel at 90kmh on that stretch of road than it is to travel in any 80kmh zone while talking on a mobile, failing to use indicators, failing to give way etc. Yet, what are the stats – How many infringement notices have been handed out for each offence over the last year? I’ll bet that the speeding infringement is 100’s of times more often. After all it doesn’t take much effort to pull in those $ does it? That is why it’s called revenue raising.”

This 40kmh proposal does nothing substantive whatsoever about road safety. We must start enforcing current laws, not create more problems. Is this proposal a carry over from that dick, Hargreaves? Sounds like it.

harvyk1 said :

It’s really just a band-aid solution to the fact that there are so many people on our roads who should never have been given a license in the first place, or who really need a better level of driver training.

Exactly.

We definitely need more nannying in this state. Last year there were fewer deaths due to drugs, but more deaths due to being old. We should make the entire stretch from Belconnen Mall through to Woden Plaza 40 + pedestrian shared zone, that’ll sort ’em out.

That, and compulsory retesting for your licence every 5 years from age 20, design regulations on street-legal vehicles to restrict maximum speeds, and more cameras everywhere to catch people speeding, running red lights, jaywalking and picking noses in public.

But seriously, 14 deaths in one year is nothing. The only way we’re going to reduce the road toll to zero is by stopping everyone from driving altogether, but that will just mean more people dying from trips and falls because they’re not familiar with this whole “walking” thing.

It’s really just a band-aid solution to the fact that there are so many people on our roads who should never have been given a license in the first place, or who really need a better level of driver training.

Is this going to be another “No Waste by 2010”????

BTW, Im not opposed to 40 zones in these areas, just the unrealistic goal of “no fatalities”.

And this will ultimately fail unless the road is re-engineered to suit. Most roads in urban areas of the ACT were designed for a safe vehicle speed of 60km/h+. Simply lowering a speed limit on a road designed for a higher speed is lazy, sloppy, and can be argued as being a revenue raising practice.

Rip up the road, re-design it and re-build it to look and feel safe for 20-30km/h, as should be the case in areas of high pedestrian activity, and the majority drivers will travel at 20-30km/h without needing to look at their speedo.

However, that wont happen in Aus anytime soon. Putting up new speed limit signs is far cheaper than proper road engineering and proper road safety practices.

Northborne is already a 40kmh zone or slower each morning peak.

The ACT has the lowest level of fatalities by population at around 2/3s the national average.
http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/37/Files/RDA_Oct09.pdf

More Nanny state crap, and would never have saved Clea Rose from the drug affected serial criminal that hit her…

It would not have saved the unseatbelted passenger in this car that was being driven by a friend under the influence of drugs
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/04/2645973.htm?site=canberra

The poor bloke who hit a roo on his motorbike would not have been saved – http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/02/2702895.htm

People will die from trauma received from motor vehicle accidents. Setting stupid goals of Vision Zero, No Wasts 2010, No Australain Child Will Live in Poverty etc is just stupid posturing by those that should know better.