Comments on: ACT government looks to reduce local speed limit to 40km/h

By: Jono

Jono — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:49:20 +0000

Why doesn’t the ACT government really set a trend, and trial a system that has been implemented successfully in many European cities? The idea of shared zones without signs and traffic lights etc has demonstrated that motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians can co-exist successfully. Without the confusion and distraction of speed limits, lights, signs, road markings, cameras etc, all road users are free to ‘communicate’, and drive defensively.

Obviously this system doesn’t work in all situations, but it has been proven to increase traffic-flow and cut injuries/fatalities overseas. Maybe this is just another area in road and traffic management where Australia is destined to lag behind Europe?

By: MJ

MJ — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:39:11 +0000

lol HA HA HA HA HA!

By: Yonny

Yonny — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:23:25 +0000

Exactly. I left Canberra last year and now live in NSW – where the politicans are just incompetent and stupid, and not (like in Canberra) incompetent, stupid and seemingly intent on making us all drive at 5 kilometers an hour.

As I said in a previous post, the current ACT government seems hell-bent on making it as difficult as possible for motorists, what with those green zones mentioned above, inappropriate speed limits and what seems to be a deliberately obtuse and obstructive approach to reducuing road trauma. The government is seemingly blind to the real causes of road trauma – but why wouldn’t they be, when focussing on speed is so lucrative.

By: TuffGuy

TuffGuy — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:45:35 +0000

This article was about expanding 40kmh zones to other areas yet the majority of comments seem to focus on Canberra-bashing. Take it from someone who lives here that we are (unfortunately) saddled with a local government whose only motivation on any issue is to be seen as trendsetters, they want to be the first to do anything, regardless of whether we want it or even if it is a good idea. Take their vendetta against smokers, push for legalisation of gay marriages and attempt to establish the first legal injecting room for druggies (people don’t call the Telstra tower the big syringe for nothing). As for STANHOPEless well he is just a total moron and is already taking away road space and narrowing lanes to put stupid, hardly used bike lanes all over the place. So wanting to give more to pedestrians is hardly surprising. It does not matter that pedestrians have become totally arrogant and think it is their god given right to walk anywhere on any road whenever they like, then bleat like stuck pigs when they get run down.
It just happens motorists are the latest on their hit list. Imagine driving along an arterial road in your cityat say 80kmh and you go to take an off ramp when you see some moron on a bike in a ‘green zone’ who has right of way so you have to stop in the middle of the road and wait for them. Result – bike rider is alive and safe but you have just created (unintentionally) a multi vehicle rear ender with tens of thousands in damages and possible personal injuries, countless hours in lost work time, community cost for emergency services to attend, cost to the health system, etc, etc. And now they want to create the same carnage by letting pedestrians wander all over our roads too.

By: bob

bob — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:43:50 +0000

just read the review here http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/172384/20091120_Roads_ACT_40_km_HPAZ_Report_Part_A.pdf

Its a bit daft because the scope was so narrow that there could only be one answer.

It asked – Will reducing speed limits reduce the chance of injury in the “inevitable” event of an impact between a car and a pedestrian? Duh. Of course it will.

But no mention in the scope of proposing alternative options to perhaps make the impact not so “inevitable”. e.g. Expensive systems to separate pedestrians and traffic.

Then, it states that only 0.19% of accidents in the ACT resulted in a fatality (including drivers, passengers and pedestrians). So i’m guessing that pedestrians alone would have been very close to zero %. Yet it says that this type of accident is still a major concern. ?!? What? on the basis of those horrific figures?

I call sham on the ACT Government’s part.

By: bob

bob — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:02:52 +0000

Damn paternalistic nanny state. Regulation is the answer to all the worlds ills (they think).

Perhaps Stanhope just wants to reduce the noise of cars going past his favorite cafe on a saturday morning to a mere 40km/h hush.

The argument for 40km/h zones around school zones was because there are unsupervised children there who do not have the same spatial awareness and road sense as adults.

Adults at shopping centres SHOULD be self aware enough to be able to watch out for traffic on their without Mr Regulation holding their bloody hand.

By: Mashed Mellow

Mashed Mellow — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:31:51 +0000

I know,how about putting large graffic warning signs on the footpath to tell pedestrains how bad a speeding car can be.Like “Being hit by a car at 60 can damage your health” or “Being hit by a car at 60 while pregenant can harm your baby” and “Being hit by a car at 60 can flattern your arteries”.Then follow up with a quit line to help a the pedestrians who continue to be hit by cars at 60,retrain them to only get hit by cars doing 40.

By: Yonny

Yonny — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:45:28 +0000

Let’s please limit the killing to parasitic lying politicians, thanks. Most public servants I know are hard working, it’s not their fault if you don’t like what they’re actually working on.

Anyway, Stanhope is truly a Canberramoron – he and his government are determined to bully drivers in any way possible. As is typical of his breed, he realises it is much cheaper (and a source of revenue) to impose unrealistic speed limits than it is to actually separate cars and pedestrians.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:10:08 +0000

i have read the ” independent report” which was done by the privatised government body, and it reads like they were asked to write a report to say that 40 kph zones are good. I did not see a single word in there about the extra pollution and inconvenience of decelerating and the accelerating. and if the zone is less than 400 meters long they can’t enforce it any way.

By: Contro

Contro — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:38:47 +0000

I agree with Lion,out of a car and a pedestrian who has the ablity to stop faster in an emergency?,who has clearer vision around them and who has the better hearing ablity to detect the unseen other one? Answer = Pedestrians,Pedestrians and Pedestrians,The onis is on them to use there naturaly better sences to detect the Car.That dosen’t mean drivers havn’t got a bit part to play.Its just down to a responsible attitude,pedestrian and driver,lowering the speed limit to 40(except schools) may also lower pedestian attitudes.