Lower urban speed limits proposed

[Thoglette]

From the blimmin’ obvious files

Lower default speed limits would save lives, road safety researchers say

Nothing much that we’ve not heard before.
Wales achieved a “32% reduction in casualties” in the three months after lowering “its urban default to 20 miles per hour (32kph) from 30mph (48kph).”

Yes, it also upset Jeremy Clarkson

Other WA centric discussion including the near absence of speed and phone cameras.

[CmdrBiggles]

From the blimmin’ obvious files

Lower default speed limits would save lives, road safety researchers say

Nothing much that we’ve not heard before.
Wales achieved a “32% reduction in casualties” in the three months after lowering “its urban default to 20 miles per hour (32kph) from 30mph (48kph).”

Yes, it also upset Jeremy Clarkson

Other WA centric discussion including the near absence of speed and phone cameras.

Drrrft!
Lower speed limits are not the answer to the problem — anywhere. Never were and never will be, but they are favoured by State Governments and local councils to curry favour with road users other than cars. The late Victorian cyclist advocate Alan A Parker, an urban and roads engineer and analyst wrote extensive volumes on this subject in the 1970s and 1980s; governments and councils were slow to respond for another couple of decades before his research was vindicated statistically.

Controlling the volume of traffic is complimentary. If that is not addressed, even lowering speed limits to 20km/h or even 5km/h will have little to no effect — pedestrians and other vulnerable road users will still be at risk. The reduction of speed limits in Fitzroy and Collingwood haven't had the desired effect because volumes of traffic have not been reduced. Obviously, this is too hard for the hedge-heads in councils to grasp effectively. Closure of streets/conversion to one-way is one option, but this will rankle residents who insist on having their free passage to go where they want, how they want (mostly by car, not necessarily on foot).

Clarkson and May...
Give these guys a miss.

[zebee]

When I saw that link I went looking for crashes.

As I can't get an image to show go to https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/roadsa ... rs-crashes

What I see from that is the most common urban crashes are intersection crashes. (adjacent and other direction crashes)

Meaning not that someone was going fast but that someone was not stopped when they should have been!

I think the idea of lower limits is that if someone hits someone else, even someone not in a steel cage, there's less damage done at 30 than at 50. They are not willing to do the work (and spend the money and lose the votes) needed to get aggressive and careless drivers off the road so lower speed is what they are left with.

It also gives people a bit more reaction time to realise someone, maybe even them, has done something stupid.

IN a country that has been car-centric for 4 generations now, winding back absolute numbers is probably Too Hard unless there is some other major game changer. People seldom live close to work for example.

[bychosis]

Hurry up and do it! 60 is too fast on all but main roads. 50 is too fast in residential streets. I cant believe one local street has shops either side and its still 60. I has speed bumps for crying out loud. Its basically a rat run as well.

Oh, and make school zones from starr to finish, not just pick up and drop off times. Kids are out and about around schools between the 8-9 amd 2-4 tines.

[find_bruce]

When I saw that link I went looking for crashes.

As I can't get an image to show go to https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/roadsa ... rs-crashes

What I see from that is the most common urban crashes are intersection crashes. (adjacent and other direction crashes)

Meaning not that someone was going fast but that someone was not stopped when they should have been!

I think the idea of lower limits is that if someone hits someone else, even someone not in a steel cage, there's less damage done at 30 than at 50. They are not willing to do the work (and spend the money and lose the votes) needed to get aggressive and careless drivers off the road so lower speed is what they are left with.

It also gives people a bit more reaction time to realise someone, maybe even them, has done something stupid.

IN a country that has been car-centric for 4 generations now, winding back absolute numbers is probably Too Hard unless there is some other major game changer. People seldom live close to work for example.

Your link is broken.

Looking at Crashes by type and region far and away the most common are rear end.

[Thoglette]

Lower speed limits are not the answer to the problem — anywhere.

So half the traffic volume at 160kph is the answer?

(No, I didn't think so).

There's a pile of research showing that:
a) drivers have a hell of a better chance of not having an accident at sub 30kph speeds even in congested environments.
b) when they do have an accident you and I have a much, much better chance of surviving at 25kph (90% survivable) than 80kph (90% lethal).

If you're one to "do your own research" spend some time in Mumbai's traffic.

But, one needs to actually police said speed limits. So that instead of "unfair money raising" it's seen as "a stupidity tax". Preferably with a "day fine" system so that fines are equitably painful.

I do agree that unless we address the distances travelled we're going to be pushing it up hill to control the road toll. Again, this requires viable alternatives to driving yourself.

[bychosis]

Reducing urban speed limits also has two other benefits other than reduced crashes/crash severity. Reduced noise and reduced fuel consumption.

[g-boaf]

Reducing urban speed limits also has two other Reduced noise and reduced fuel consumption.

Drivers in my area go very slowly and still make huge amounts of noise.

Their cars would seem to gave only working first and second gears, that’s all they use. Aside from that, revving the heck out of them at lights to make flames and explosions from the exhausts.