Here we go - 30km/h speed zone Collingwood and Fitzroy (VIC)

30km/h speed zone to be enforced in Melbourne's inner north

Speeds will drop to 30km/h on residential streets in Collingwood and Fitzroy from September in a move believed to be an Australian first.

It is understood that this will serve as a test case and the new speed limit could be proposed for other areas in Melbourne if the trial is successful.

Within weeks, Victoria Police will fine motorists who break the new speed limit, which will apply to eight kilometres of local roads bound by Alexandra Parade and Hoddle, Johnston and Nicholson streets.

The new speed zone (which will not apply to Smith and Brunswick streets) will be a 12-month trial led by Yarra Council, backed by a $250,000 grant from the Transport Accident Commission. The area is currently a 40km/h zone.

I suspect speed camera revenue targets are not being met in some areas. This "trial" will spread in no time and it'll roll out exactly the way the current 40km/h did years ago. Once the rollout of 30km/h areas are complete in a few years, they'll have a trial of 20km/h and so on. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Does anyone actually still believe the "if you don't speed or break the law, you've got nothing to worry about" crap that some people spew? What about when they restrict speeds to 20km/h? And then to 10km/h? At what point would those people (if any) think it's ridiculous?


  • can a bicycle goes faster than 30km/h ?

  • +4 votes

    It is stated this will apply to residential streets, which seems to be aligned with the UK (as a comparison):

    The 20 mph UK speed limit (32 km/h) is used in residential areas and on streets where there’s a high density of pedestrians and cyclists.

    If the streets are correctly classified as residential, I don't see it as a big problem. There should be limited 'through' traffic, and most traffic should be residents, who probably will not object.

    Maybe one day we will see kids playing in the streets again.

    • That's great, except in the UK, they don't ping you $200 for being 3kmh over. 20mph in the UK just means go slowly. The speed limit on UK motorways in 70mph. No one does this. They wont ping you on a UK motorway unless you exceed 100mph (160kmh). In the UK speed cameras are all market in bright yellow reflective paint, and all speed cameras must be sign posted. They don't put sneaky speed cameras, operated by private companies, in the bumper bar of parked cars. The UK system works. It doesn't work here.

      • Wouldn't the fact that there is less leeway here encourage more people to obey the limit/s? And therefore make it/them more effective?

        • It's not more effective, for multiple reasons:

          Our speed limits are so strictly enforced, that you spend more time looking at the speedo than the road, which is dangerous.

          In the UK if you look at it on a purely statistical basis, their system is much more effective. Despite considerably higher speed limits (and very little enforcement), a lower driving age, a higher blood alcohol limit, more congested roads, 100kmh limits on A roads (country lanes), and invariably worse conditions every year, including snow and ice, their road toll is 30% less than ours per capita. Irrefutable evidence, that their system works, and our doesn't.

        • @Burnertoasty: we are talking about inner city roads in Melbourne.

          Yeah, let’s go for the UK model. The average speed in London is 8.34 mph within 5km of the city centre. They also have a congestion tax for people who want to go into the city centre. I don’t think it matters what speed limits they are enforcing when it is unlikely you will get there.

        • @try2bhelpful: I'm not talking about central London. Obviously in central London, you'd catch the tube or use a bus. Outside of London, where the majority of the population live, is where I am talking about.

        • @Burnertoasty: the London survey was within 5 km of the city centre. The area we are talking about with 30kph speed limit is in Fitzroy which well within this same zone level. I’m comparing like for like here on the issue. If you look at the attached link you will see a similar speed pattern for the majority of the major cities in the UK.

        • @try2bhelpful: 2016 Census, there were 10,445 people in Fitzroy

        • @Burnertoasty: spend more time looking at a speedo than the road?? If that's happening to you it's time to critic your driving style rather than the rules.

        • +4 votes


          [UK] road toll is 30% less than ours per capita.

          The fact that the whole UK is roughly the same size as Victoria is probably a significant factor… Not too many people doing 3-day road trips and falling asleep in the UK!

        • +2 votes

          @abb: Perhaps the fact that they use point-to-point speed cameras (that are very well signposted) influences this to some degree.

        • @try2bhelpful: Population density is in no way comparable. 5km of the city centre in London also means nothing, because it’s in the congestion zone and almost all people use the tube and busses instead.

        • @zhenjie: Or perhaps they should be more lenient on detection? Does it matter that I’m doing 44 in a 40 zone? No. Will I get a $200 fine for it? Yep. Is it incredibly easy to do? Yep. What’s the only way to stick to 40kmh? Watch the speedo. It’s illogical.

        • @Burnertoasty:

          Our speed limits are so strictly enforced, that you spend more time looking at the speedo than the road, which is dangerous.

          That's silly and a complete exaggeration. It really isn't that hard nor does it take that long to look down at your speedo, nor is it hard to stick to the limit.

          Or perhaps they should be more lenient on detection? Does it matter that I’m doing 44 in a 40 zone? No. Will I get a $200 fine for it? Yep. Is it incredibly easy to do? Yep. What’s the only way to stick to 40kmh? Watch the speedo. It’s illogical.

          They already are lenient, they give you a leeway of 3km/hr.

          It's not even that easy to travel at 4km/hr over the limit. Then again I'm not the type to speed and have only received 1 speeding ticket in my 10+ years of driving.

          I just don't understand how some people find it so hard to stick to the limit.

        • @Ghost47: You need to step away from the nanny state. See the real world.

        • @Burnertoasty: Right, so because I don't find it hard to drive at the limit that means I'm some sort of unwoke sheep.

          I never said that I actually agree with this drop in speed by the way. In another comment I said that the precedent this change could set is that other areas eg. Burwood Highway would have speeds cut to 30km/hr too.

          Me questioning your driving habits != defending the government's action in this particular scenario.

        • @Ghost47: unwoke? No you're much worse.

        • @Ghost47:
          These ones who think you have to constantly watch your speedo or you'll accidentally speed must be either the ones who fluctuate between 90 an 110 in the 100k zones, or the ones swerving all over the road.

          I think people would be surprised what they can do without staring at their speedo. When I was on my Ps, my car had a dodgy speedo that wouldn't move until I'd been driving for about 5-10mins and I was easily within 3k of the limit when it did finally come on, unless the situation didn't allow. I'm not the greatest at judging distances and things, so I don't believe it's a special talent I have.

        • @Burnertoasty: I find it funny when I come across people like you who, when someone disagrees with their opinion, they have to resort to silly insults lol.

          Didn't even acknowledge my entire post because you have to be "right" lol. Funny.

        • @Ghost47: The funny thing is, when I come across people who use words like ‘woke’ in a completely incorrect context, or uses the ‘does not equal’ symbol in a written response, I know their opinion counts for vey little.

        • @Burnertoasty:

          I know their opinion counts for very little.

          Honestly? What is actually wrong with you?

          Can't agree with someone because they can drive at the limit so attacks them instead. Won't read their entire reply, just cherry picks parts where you can get a quick insult in. Dismissive of others based on superficial observations.

          The world needs less people like you.

        • @Ghost47: That’s a very ironic post.

        • @Burnertoasty:

          For one thing I didn't attack you at all, but you've:

          • Said I had to "step away from the nanny state" because I said driving at the limit isn't that hard in reply to your claim that our speed limits are so strict that you end up "spending more time looking at your speedo than the road" — which is an objectively stupid exaggeration based on your silly feelings — otherwise we would have many more accidents caused by people who were too busy looking at their speedo.
          • Implied something by cowardly saying I'm "much worse" than being "unwoke".
          • Implied that because I used certain language and in the "incorrect context" that my "opinion counts for very little", despite you yourself using the exact same language in the wrong context.

          Secondly, I have read your replies, they are all basic one liners so any quotes I make are not really cherry picking whatsoever.

          Thirdly, I haven't dismissed you whatsoever based on your posts, just replied to each and every one of your silly claims and assertions.

        • @Ghost47: I don’t think you’re capable of understanding the faults in your logic. I think you’re a person who thinks they are a lot more intelligent than they are. You still don’t understand why I picked up on your use of woke. You seem to think that using perjorative language absolves you from insulting someone and you seem very ignorant in the ways of the world. It’s scary that the internet gives a voice to people like that.

        • @Burnertoasty: That's rich coming from a guy who claims that people end up spending more time looking at their speedo than the road.

        • @Ghost47: It’s a product of a flawed system.

      • This is not true. Going over 100 Mph in the UK results in an instant loss of licence.

        Going over the speed limit is just as bad. They only have a 10% grace.

        MANY areas of the UK have a speed limit of 30 Mph.

        IMO the cameras in the UK are actually worse. There are so many of them, and not all of them work all the time (they operate during certain hours).

        Source: I live in London

        • If you go any faster you risk injuring yourself from the potholes.

        • I lived in the UK for 7 years until recently, for a total of 12 years in my life. As I said, going over 100mph is an issue, but under it, they don't bother. 10% grace is bullshit, they are much more generous than that. Residential areas in the UK have low speed limits, but they aren't enforced. Cameras are much better in the UK, because they are never, ever hidden. It is legislated that they are clearly marked, even mobile ones.

          The fact that you live in London most likely means you don't own a car or drive regularly. I drove every single day in the UK. I know what I'm talking about. I got pulled over once in 7 years. I was given a 'breath test' by the officer, who asked me to breath into his cupped hand, then smelt my breath for booze. I never got a speeding fine. I regularly drove between 140-160kmh on the motorways.

        • @Burnertoasty: So the argument your sticking with isn't that the speedlimit is necessarily greater in London, its that its poorly enforced..

          Also my point wasnt that they arent clearly marked. I said that there are many of them and its not always obvious which ones are working and which ones aren't. They appear to randomly paint markings on the road that give you the idea that they are operating. This — in my opinion — is worse than in australia as it doesnt happen there.

          Plus I do own a car, London is not exclusively zone 1 and 2.

        • @GreyRabbit: That’s 100% not true. I have no doubt that you have little to no driving experience in the UK and don’t own a car there. I’m sure you do own a car, back at your mum and dads, in Australia. All speed cameras in the UK are marked by:

          1. Large signs with a picture of a speed camera, and often written signs. As noticeable as a stop sign

          2. Painted yellow markings on the road

          3. The speed cameras themselves or the van, wrapped in reflective fluorescent yellow paint.

          This applies to mobile vans too, which have to sit in pre designated and prepared zones. If you can’t see that, you shouldn’t be on the road in the first place. The system works, because it means people actually do slow down in dangerous areas.

          My argument is clear. The way they enforce speeding in the UK is vastly superior and that is supported by statistics.

        • Going over 100 Mph in the UK results in an instant loss of licence.

          This is not true. Over 100 mph means you get a court summons but not necessarily a ban or suspension. Especially if first offence it's around less than 200 pounds fine and 3-6 points.

          Going over the speed limit is just as bad. They only have a 10% grace.

          This is true, speed cameras have 10% grace when they work. Most don't including M25 variable speed and A40 average speed check because it costs money to maintain and calibrate correctly. Go figure.

        • Even so, 10% is a decent margin. We don't even get that. We get a set 3KM/h (and IIRC they reduced that to 2KM/h recently (in VIC at least)).

      • Exactly how it is in Japan as well but even more relaxed.

    • In Switzerland you have the 30km/h residential areas speed limit too, and it makes sense. To top it up, the put the parkings so that 50% of the road, only 1 car can get through.

  • "What about when they restrict speeds to 20km/h? And then to 10km/h? At what point would those people (if any) think it's ridiculous?"

    90% of people need a slap in the face before they wake up…

    • +15 votes

      A slap goes faster than 20kmph. Now 90% of people can stay alseep.

    • Other countries has been 30km/h since years, stop painting horror scenarios that never happen.

    • Another point to consider is that speedo's aren't necessarily accurate below 40km/h… nor are they required to be.

      Australian Design Rule 18 sets out the accuracy standards for vehicle speedos.

      Until July 2006 …"this rule specified an accuracy of +/- 10 % of the vehicle’s true speed when the vehicle was travelling above 40km/h. "

      From July 1 2006 "…vehicle’s true speed +/- 10 % plus 4 km/h. Odometer accuracy is no longer defined."

  • I think the average speed on these roads dont exceed 20km/h on most days lol

    • Seems your sentiment is shared by an RACV employee, from the article: "But the RACV's mobility advocacy manager Dave Jones said the move was a waste of money, as average speeds on many of the streets were already close to 30km/h."

      That being said, if the speeds are already that low, is it the speed causing the accidents or is it stupid people not looking when they go to cross the road?

  • What's the bet that any accidents were from people doing over 40… So a speed limit drop will do nothing

    • Exactly, which begs the question, why change it?

      • +10 votes

        There are two main reasons why speed limits get dropped.

        The main one is that people follow the rules and there are no infringements given out. The best way to boost numbers is to change the limit. This change has a two fold affect. It catches people out who are regular users of these roads. The other is to frustrate drivers who just want to get where they are going. These types end up speeding because the limit is just so frustratingly slow.

        The other is to pad accident numbers. The slower cars are going, the less likely people are to get seriously hurt. So, instead of making license requirements harder, it’s easier to give every idiot their license, so these idiots buy cars, pay more taxes and rego/license fees. These idiots don’t know how to drive well enough to be safe. So, the only way to protect them, is to make them slower when they crash.

        I am 100% sure, that in my life time, I will see the limits on freeways dropped from 110km/h down to 90 or even as low as 80km/h, all in the name of “road safety”…

        • Maybe, but I am quite convinced, that if the car that hit my friend was going 30 instead of 50, he would have survived.

        • @cameldownunder:

          While I totally agree, it's not as easy as that. A car traveling at 30km/h could still kill a pedestrian or cyclist. It's 1.5 tonnes of steel traveling at 30km/h.

          The problem lays within the limits and how they are enforced. Lowering a limit does not magically saves lives. The issue is that it's just a sign and a possible fine. That alone will not stop people from driving faster in these areas.

          While I hold the deepest sympathy for your friend, the speed limit was only a contributor not the cause of the accident. There are so many other factors that are an absolute unknown in this situation.

          As I said above, the issue is the willingness of the government to hand licenses out to any idiot that pays for one. The total lack of driver training and abhorrent lack of empathy and total contempt that road users have for each other is a much bigger issue.

          So, no. I am not convinced that a slower speed limit placed on that road would categorically have been the savior of your friend that day. Would it have helped, possibly. Is it the answer? No.

        • @pegaxs: But if the speed limit had been 30 and not 50 then the car would more likely have been travelling at 30km/h. Of course, there are plenty of lead foots out there, and the driver may have been one of them and been going 50 anyway.

          Lower speed limits in specific areas will help less than lower speed limits in lots of areas. We have been used to driving too fast for urban areas for a long time (decades), and we all need to slow down in those areas.

        • @cameldownunder: While I'm sorry for you and your friend's family, I can't but help but think there were dozens of other factors which went into the accident.

        • @Euphemistic:

          We have been used to driving too fast for urban areas for a long time (decades), and we all need to slow down in those areas.

          "Too fast" is subjective. Imho, we've been driving at the right speed in urban areas and 30km/h is too slow.

        • @HighAndDry: but speed affects lethality. I get you don’t like low speed limits, but don’t pretend that cars travelling slower won’t save lives and cause less injury.

          Personally, it doesn’t bother me that people must drive at 30km/h on residential roads. Why does it bother you? I mean, they are not a significant part of your daily drive right?

        • @pegaxs: your point was poorly argued. For a start, in all likelihood, but not categorically, being hit at 30km/h is far more survivable than being hit at 50. Secondly, the accident is less likely to happen in the first place. Thirdly, people not obeying the limits doesn’t mean that the limits don’t make sense.

          Would a 30 km/h speed limit have helped? Almost certainly. Is it the answer? You provided no evidence to the contrary.

          In the end, this is an issue of opinions and crucially voter support. Which it appears it has…

        • @AddNinja:

          but speed affects lethality. I get you don’t like low speed limits, but don’t pretend that cars travelling slower won’t save lives and cause less injury.

          Sure, but there's a balance to be struck between "minimising injuries" and "practicality" (and to me, also "personal responsibility"). Otherwise we'd ban cars, horses, bicycles, jogging, etc.

          Again - we're not talking about cars veering onto the footpath, this only affects people running into oncoming traffic. 30km/h is impractically slow, does not improve safety by any relevant degree (even from the data proffered by the groups campaigning for it) and imo acts as a disincentive for personal responsibility.

        • @HighAndDry: fair nuff - got a link for the evidence (only out of interest, it’s not like I found any myself)

        • @AddNinja: I'm just going off the link from brazen00 (actually right below this comment) here:

          That's the group which directly and actively lobbied for this change. Amongst other things, it says:

          It is estimated that less than 10% of pedestrians would die when struck by a vehicle travelling at 30 km/

          A comprehensive study of 20 mph (32km/h) zones in London… found a 32% reduction in pedestrian casualties (fatalities and injuries).

          And yet for the life of me, I can't find any actual numbers on how many accidents currently happen, and how many accidents or fatalities are expected to be prevented by the change, only percentages (and who knows if 32% is 1 less accident or 1,000?)

          I'm assuming - yes, making an ass out of you and me - that if there were any information supporting reducing the speed limit, it'd be on that page. So - and apart from the impossibility of proving a negative - I'm fairly confident that if it's not there, the evidence doesn't exist that this would actually improve outcomes by a measurable degree in actual numbers terms.

          Edit: Oh, and the graph on that page shows the likelihood of a fatality flattening out at 35km/h, not 30km/h. So again - tell me why they campaigned for 30km/h.

        • @HighAndDry: thanks for taking the time to reply. Well I looked through the linked source article and it has numbers:

          “In 2005-6 there were 31 202 road casualties in London, 691 within 20 mph zones. Using the more conservative risk reduction estimates based on 2000-6, we estimate that 20 mph zones prevent 203 casualties each year, of whom 27 would be killed and seriously injured and 51 would be pedestrians.

          To estimate the potential for further reduction from extension of 20 mph zones, we applied the same risk reduction estimates to all other minor and residential road segments in super output areas not currently inside a 20 mph zone where there had been ≥0.7 casualty per km per year over 2004-6 (the casualty threshold where the societal benefits of 20 mph zones outweigh the costs over a 10 year time horizon).13 These calculations suggest the potential for a further reduction of 692 casualties, including 100 killed or seriously injured and 114 pedestrians each year (assuming current casualty rates).”

        • @AddNinja: Yeah but that's London, not Melbourne which is what we're talking about. At a minimum - far lower population densities, and we still don't have numbers for the Fitzroy area that this applies to.

          Honestly, the information is out there somewhere, and if you can find it (and/or work it out), so can the people behind the speed limit reduction campaign. And they've chosen not to - again, why not? Only reason is that the numbers don't support their argument. They certainly don't shy away from throwing every other possibly supportive number onto the page.

        • @HighAndDry: well, given the potential upside and the low costs, a 12 month trial looks pretty reasonable to me. We’ll have the data for Melbourne soon.

        • @AddNinja: I'll eat my hat if it's an actual trial, and not just something to get people used to going at a snail's pace. Feel free to remind me if I'm wrong though.

        • I am 100% sure, that in my life time, I will see the limits on freeways dropped from 110km/h down to 90 or even as low as 80km/h, all in the name of “road safety”

          Already plenty of freeways in Melbourne dropping from 100km/h to 80km/h like Ring Road and Western. Might not make a difference for people stuck on a busy commute but weekends or whatever it's a pointless slow down that (as other people mentioned already) will do nothing for the people who speed and drive dangerously regardless.

        • @pegaxs: How old are you? When was the last time you took a license test in Victoria? Almost every one of my friends failed at least once and those that did pass all scraped through.

          I agree Vicroads makes bank off of their licensing because people have to resit the $63 test 2 or 3 times each - but this also incentivises them to ensure it's as hard as possible to make people have to resit it more; thus more income.

          Add in 120 hours of L practise hours and 4 years of extremely strict P plate restrictions and I'm not sure it's the licensing system which is the issue.

          In the end Melbourne's roads are just extremely complex to drive on and extremely congested.

          In the inner suburbs left lanes appear and disappear, right lanes merge with tram tracks and back again and cyclists and pedestrians are everywhere. Lowering the speed limit doesn't really make sense purely because 90% of the time congestion already has traffic at a stop.

          Frankly the answer is to create public transport good enough to get cars off the road. There is no other option for Melbourne at the rate its growing. If we keep Australia's car centric values we end up like LA.

        • @stanstho: There is no way the govt is 'making money' to make drivers resit a test that only costs $63. At best it would be cost value, but by the time it is processed etc would likely cost more than that. $63 would be lucky to pay for 1 person for an hour when you work out all the overheads.

          I they were serious about it you'd need to resit the test every 5 years or so.

      • Isn't that a bit like asking "if all the murders are happening by people breaking the law, why bother having the law at all?"

  • This is why people campaign for a drop to 30km/h and why your slippery slope is not going to happen. 30 is where it stops:

    Please have a read, and particularly look at the graph.

    • Why does it stop at 30? Because the chance of death from a collision is below 10%?
      How long until someone decides that the 10% figure is too high?
      I would like to know the statistics of how many people are actually hit at 40kph. Most people would apply the brakes before a collision unless the hazard not been seen.

    • Its diminishing returns from 50 to 40 compared to 40 to 30 - so why not lower it to 20 which is an even safer speed or 10 to be even extra safe.