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

bobbified on 08/08/2018 - 16:34
Last edited 08/08/2018 - 16:52 by 1 other user

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

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/30km-h-speed-zon…

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?

Automotive Car Driving Melbourne Ridiculous Speed Limit Victoria

Comments

Best
Search through all the comments in this post.
  • rambutann on 08/08/2018 - 17:24

    I think there should be no speed limits for a couple of days every year - survival of the fittest - wipe out the strugglers.

    • 20
    • Gronk on 08/08/2018 - 17:32

      PUUUURGE! :)

      • 10
    • mskeggs on 08/08/2018 - 19:41

      And you can drink drive between 3am and 4am. It would make an exciting end to many a big night.

      • 1
      • Donaldhump on 08/08/2018 - 20:24

        Increases employment too

        • 3
      • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 15:19

        My thought process just went like this…

        "No one else is on the road anyway at that time… but what about shift workers or truckers who are? We should have some roads which no one else will drive on…. oh wait I'm describing a race track."

        • 0
  • spackbace on 08/08/2018 - 17:10

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

    • 17
    • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 08/08/2018 - 17:53

      Exactly, which begs the question, why change it?

      • 3
      • pegaxs on 08/08/2018 - 18:33

        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”…

        • 10
        • cameldownunder on 09/08/2018 - 12:16

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

          • 6
        • pegaxs on 09/08/2018 - 12:58

          @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.

          • 3
        • Euphemistic on 09/08/2018 - 14:17

          @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.

          • 3
        • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 15:13

          @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.

          • 2
        • AddNinja on 09/08/2018 - 17:21

          @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?

          • 2
        • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 17:26

          @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.

          • 2
        • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 17:50

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

          http://www.victoriawalks.org.au/safe_speed/

          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.

          • 1
        • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 15:14

          @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.

          • 0
        • AddNinja on 09/08/2018 - 17:42

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

          • 0
        • AddNinja on 09/08/2018 - 18:20

          @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).”

          • 0
        • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 18:50

          @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.

          • 0
        • AddNinja on 09/08/2018 - 18:55

          @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.

          • 0
        • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 18:55

          @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.

          • 0
        • dufflover on 09/08/2018 - 19:12

          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.

          • 0
        • stanstho on 10/08/2018 - 16:37

          @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.

          • 0
        • Euphemistic on 10/08/2018 - 16:55

          @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.

          • 0
        • AddNinja on 09/08/2018 - 17:26

          @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…

          • -2
      • camtraband on 12/08/2018 - 15:20

        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?"

        • 0
  • vinni9284 on 08/08/2018 - 18:29
    1. Variable speed limits on roads over 3 blocks…… 30KMH …….. 40KMH……70KMH …… 30KMH……50KMH +
    2. [———————————————————- approx. 2KMS length ——————————————————————]
    3. = Confusion.
    4. = infringement.
    5. = Easy Money
    • 15
  • dcep on 08/08/2018 - 16:37

    can a bicycle goes faster than 30km/h ?

    • 14
    • oscargamer on 08/08/2018 - 16:44

      no, they are required to obey speed limits as well

      • 19
      • naigrabzoo on 09/08/2018 - 08:31

        without speedometer?

        • 7
        • Euphemistic on 09/08/2018 - 09:04

          Yes, and cyclists have been booked for speeding in the past.

          • 10
        • subywagon on 10/08/2018 - 18:35

          @Euphemistic: What about pedestrians? Are they going to be fined for breaking the speed limit soon?

          • 3
        • Euphemistic on 10/08/2018 - 18:49

          @subywagon: I hope so, especially the overweight ones, they do so much more damage when they run into your car.

          • 2
        • h4zey on 21/08/2018 - 16:55

          @Euphemistic: first time hearing this!!

          • 0
        • h4zey on 21/08/2018 - 16:56

          @subywagon: referring to Usain Bolt?

          • 0
        • subywagon on 21/08/2018 - 18:52

          @h4zey: Well he is in Australia now… and he sprints faster than 30km/h. A healthy male can hit 30km/h in a sprint.

          • 0
    • dust on 09/08/2018 - 09:42

      Bolt's top speed is ~44km/hr. Would love to see someone run past and trigger a speed camera on foot!

      • 17
    • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 08/08/2018 - 18:03

      Apparently Usain Bolt is coming to play in the A-league. He better watch it.

      • 9
    • coffeeinmyveins on 08/08/2018 - 22:05

      Is this a trick question? Yes. I've been up to 80 km/hr on my bicycle down a hill. Can get up to 40km/hr on a straight, more on a slight decline.

      • 9
      • cameldownunder on 09/08/2018 - 12:11

        Done it too, downhill, speed limit 50km/h, gone 85km/h. Then stopped the push bike not using the brakes, shoes only.

        • 2
    • GG57 on 08/08/2018 - 16:44

      In theory, there isn't a maximum, except the rider needs to comply with speed limits.
      Not sure about billy carts.

      • 0
    • airzone on 08/08/2018 - 16:45

      This is why cyclists need licensing and registration… Otherwise how else will they get speeding tickets in the mail from mobile speed cameras?

      • -6
  • Oz8argain on 08/08/2018 - 16:57

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

    • 14
    • Ghost47 on 09/08/2018 - 18:40

      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?

      • 5
      • Oz8argain on 10/08/2018 - 09:07

        I haven't read many info around this speedzone change. I'm interested to know based on what actual statistics in these areas that promped them to do this. A blanket statement of 'lowering speed by 10km/h can avoid many accidents' is just not sufficient.

        • 1
        • Tacooo on 13/08/2018 - 10:07

          @GG57: Oh you mean research like this one, completed in 1994 when cars didn't have ABS, traction control and litany of other safety features that the modern car does?

          Of course it has nothing to do with further revenue raising

          Within weeks, Victoria Police will fine motorists who break the new speed limit

          • 1
        • GG57 on 10/08/2018 - 09:24

          May I suggest you follow the link in OP to the article in The Age, and within that is a link to the Yarra City website, which provides the stats and other background.

          Always best to be informed.

          • 0
        • GG57 on 13/08/2018 - 10:19

          @potplanty: I was responding to Oz8argain who stated they had not "…read many info around this speedzone change…" and I suggested they follow the links to the information.
          I have not commented on the validity of the research, but suggest that is the best place to become informed.

          Your quote (re fines) is from the article in The Age; it is not the same as the info on the Yarra City website.

          • 0
  • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 08/08/2018 - 16:56

    "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…

    • 13
    • [Deactivated] on 08/08/2018 - 18:15

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

      • 15
      • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 08/08/2018 - 18:23

        Maybe they should fine us for zombie slapping in residential areas.

        • -1
    • Charity on 09/08/2018 - 15:10

      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."

      • 4
    • cameldownunder on 09/08/2018 - 12:14

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

      • 0
      • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 10/08/2018 - 04:43

        What other countries? Please provide evidence. This ain't CNN with Dom lemonhead.

        • 1
        • GG57 on 10/08/2018 - 09:22

          Allow me:
          UK, US, Austria (since 1992), Netherlands, Switzerland (since 1991), Germany (Munich has 80% of the 2,300 kms of urban road at 30km/hr), Mexico, NZ (since 2017)

          • 0
        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 11/08/2018 - 00:34

          @GG57: Any links to these 8 countries having this speed limit and the positive affect on society?

          • 0
  • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 08:15

    I don't see why this is such an issue for so many people. These are residential streets, not arterial roads. The main roads will still keep their higher speed limits.

    • If you live in the area and have to drive somewhere, you make your way as directly as possible to an arterial road. Dropping the speed limit from 40 to 30 will have negligible impact on your trip. You, personally, have not been affected.
    • If you do not live in the area and have to visit the area, you make your way as close as possible on an arterial road, and the last bit of your journey is on the residential streets, for as little distance as possible. Dropping the speed limit from 40 to 30 will have negligible impact on your trip. You, personally, have not been affected.
    • If you do not live in the area and are driving through, you stick to the arterial roads which have not changed. You, personally, have not been affected.
    • If you walk through the area, and have the misfortune of being hit by a car, you have a 50% greater chance of survival. You, personally, have been affected positively.
    • If you drive through the area, and have the misfortune of hitting a pedestrian, you have a 50% greater chance of not killing them. You, personally, have been affected positively.
    • 10
    • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 15:28

      Again, next it'll be:

      Dropping the speed limit from 30 to 20 will have negligible impact on your trip. You, personally, have not been affected.

      And then:

      Dropping the speed limit from 20 to 10 will have negligible impact on your trip. You, personally, have not been affected.

      Then:

      You're already going at 10km/h, why not just get out and push?

      You're forgetting these used to be 50km/h streets, and yes, going from 50km/h to 30km/h DOES have an impact.

      • 7
    • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 09/08/2018 - 08:18

      "Dropping the speed limit from 40 to 30 will have negligible impact on your trip. You, personally, will not be affected."

      Only if time is an illusion.

      • 4
      • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 08:22

        Let's maths this shit up.

        Say you spend 500m of the beginning and 500m at the end of your journey on residential streets.

        You go at 40 instead of 30.

        Congratulations, you just got there 30 seconds earlier.

        Dropping the speed limit from 40 to 30 will have negligible impact on your trip. You, personally, will not be affected.

        • 0
        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 09/08/2018 - 08:28

          With reasoning like this you should take a job in the public sector.

          • 6
        • burningrage on 09/08/2018 - 13:17

          You should count from where it used to be. Of course 60 to 50 to 40 to 30 would sound negligible.

          But from then 60 to 30, thats double the time and lets not forget at times you need to go faster in order to catch the green light and now with half the speed you will more likely to miss that light and given average red light is 90seconds, add that too to your math.

          Then times that to say 260 working days of the year and suddenly it may not seem as small as you think.

          • 3
        • Roman Sandstorm on 09/08/2018 - 09:47

          In fact, it's even less impactful than this.

          I don't think there are many 500m stretches in the designated residential streets before you reach one of the arterials.

          Plus, you have to factor accelerating from 0 km/h to 30 km/h (or 0 km/h to 40 km/h for the comparison). The actual time spent driving at 30 km/h as opposed to 40 km/h will likely result in a 5 or 10 second 'delay' at most.

          Furthermore, if you know the area you know that many of these streets are extremely skinny (room for only one car at a time at many places), and difficult to traverse with any parked cars, so even now the time spent at 40 km/h in many areas would be negligible.

          What, at first glance may appear to be a frustrating and annoying curtailment, upon consideration really becomes a very minor matter.

          Whether it succeeds in reducing pedestrian and bicycle incidents may take considerably longer than one year to determine, given that the numbers of such incidents are probably quite low (in that area), and thus statistical variance may apply before sufficient numbers are gathered.

          [Perhaps increasing the existing speed limit from 40 km/h to 50 km/h in a similar inner-urban demographic area to run as a 'control', and seeing if incident numbers correspondingly increased would be a more conclusive methodology. However, I am guessing there may be some minor ethical concerns about potentially deliberately getting more cyclists and pedestrians harmed.]

          • 2
        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 09:55

          @Roman Sandstorm: This needs to be highlighted:

          What, at first glance may appear to be a frustrating and annoying curtailment, upon consideration really becomes a very minor matter.

          • 2
        • Euphemistic on 09/08/2018 - 20:31

          @HighAndDry: maybe strangely, but there is sone science around the speed limits. Impacts to pedestrians, stopping distance, reaction times and link all that with traffic volumes and road design and you can determine a safe speed. 40 has been recognised for school zones, but given people tend to drive a bit over the limit (because we think we can get away with it and it won’t hurt anyone) the limit probably needs to be 30 to allow for that.

          (I’m not a roads engineer nor a crash specialist so can’t give you actual numbers)

          • 2
        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 09/08/2018 - 08:36

          @brazen00: What, like numbers?

          • 1
        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 08:42

          @Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: Plus, you're less likely to hit them because they and you have more chance of taking evasive action. So the my other comment is worst case.

          • 1
        • mezje on 09/08/2018 - 09:30

          This isn't what bothers people, it's the pending enforcement of these speed limits which is the issue.

          Travelling at 30 is really not that easy to maintain, especially when bouncing between 40 and 50 zones in the area.

          When I tell friends in Japan about our speed limits and how they are enforced they just laugh and wonder how on earth any motorist is able to control their speed that well travelling around town. To them low speed limits just mean go slow and be sensible, not stare at your speedo or face (relative) extreme financial consequences.

          • 1
        • bobbified on 09/08/2018 - 11:53

          @Roman Sandstorm:

          The actual time spent driving at 30 km/h as opposed to 40 km/h will likely result in a 5 or 10 second 'delay' at most.

          …so even now the time spent at 40 km/h in many areas would be negligible.

          If that's the case, why are they changing it at all?

          The speed limit is actually the limit. It is not a speed that everyone must drive at.

          if you know the area you know that many of these streets are extremely skinny

          Given that the streets might be narrow, most people would probably be travelling at less than 40km/h anyway. The only effect of reducing the speed to 30km/h is the possibility of enforcement. I'd suggest that it's counterproductive compared to before, in that there's now the threat of a speeding ticket.

          Also, right now, the 30/km speed zones are "trialled" in one area - they will no doubt expand into other areas.

          • 1
        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 13:19

          @bobbified: That's what you call "your own fault".

          • 1
        • kale chips suck on 09/08/2018 - 13:34

          @bobbified:

          "Also, right now, the 30/km speed zones are "trialled" in one area - they will no doubt expand into other areas"

          This is why they're trialling it where they are trialling it. Given it's already so congested and slow anyway, there's not likely to be much reaction. So they run their trial unapposed, decree it a success, then roll it out anywhere they want.

          Because VicRorts.

          Also, just a FYI, the Monash traffic research center research is funded by the TAC. A bit like when Phillip Morris funded tobacco research. Same same.

          • 1
        • Euphemistic on 09/08/2018 - 14:59

          @bobbified: If speed limits are left as is, then we will still have the same number of incidents, which apparently is too many.

          When they dropped the limit to 40 did we not take an extra period of time to adapt to the speed giving extra attention to the speedo.

          Make the limit 40 and people will think 50 is OK and run the risk of a ticket at 50 (and find that it doesn't happen that much). Make it 30.

          • 1
        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 09/08/2018 - 08:33

          @bobbified: Works 60% of the time, everytime.

          • 0
        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 08:36

          @Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: That's them!

          • 0
        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 09/08/2018 - 08:40

          @brazen00: "you just got there 30 seconds earlier"

          "That's an extra 30 seconds on the road that you could hit someone. Oh wait - but at 30km/h, they're 50% less likely to die!"

          So what do think about the above?

          • 0
        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 09/08/2018 - 08:43

          @brazen00: Not for the people that died…

          • 0
        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 08:43

          @Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: Which will be fewer people than if you were going at 40.

          • 0
        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 09/08/2018 - 08:45

          @brazen00: But they are still dead. How do we solve people dying in general?

          • 0
        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 08:49

          @Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: Congratulations on your strawman

          We weren't talking about stopping people dying in general, we were talking about impacts to people of dropping the limit from 40 to 30.

          • 0
        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 09/08/2018 - 08:49

          @brazen00: Why not reduce it to 10 then?

          • 0
        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 08:50

          @Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: You can make that argument if you like. Sounds like a bit of a slippery slope though

          • 0
        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 09/08/2018 - 08:55

          @brazen00: "Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur"

          It's already dropped from 60 to 30 which I class as extreme. I honestly think they will drop it to 10 eventually.

          • 0
        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 08:57

          @Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: Then we disagree on that also. I don't think it will drop beyond 30. Perhaps councils will decide to cut off more streets as dead-ends for cars (but through for pedestrians/bikes) and other measures, but personally I don't think they will drop the speed any more. I could be wrong.

          • 0
        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 09/08/2018 - 08:59

          @brazen00: "I don't think it will drop beyond 30."
          "I could be wrong"

          • 0
        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 09:00

          @Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: Yes, I could. So could you. I don't have a crystal ball. I'm not sure why this is worthy of being pointed out, but there you have it.

          • 0
        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 09:03

          @Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: But we've gone way off the original point now, which was that people won't be negatively impacted and may be positively impacted.

          • 0
        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 09/08/2018 - 09:10

          @brazen00: You only managed to miss out a few dozen variables from the equation. Apart from that, nice one!

          • 0
        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 09:10

          @Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: Care to share?

          • 0
        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 09:35

          @mezje: Really? I don't agree that it's not easy to maintain. You don't need to stare at your speedo, that's a furphy. Your speedo should be in your peripheral vision anyway. Glance every now and then. You only need to do it a couple of times to get a feel for the speed.

          • 0
        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 12:41

          @bobbified:

          If that's the case, why are they changing it at all?

          It's a point of perspective. The time spent for each individual is negligible, but when you add it up across the community, it is material. Which is why changing it doesn't have a negative impact on the individual (driving) but does have a positive impact on the community.

          • 0
        • bobbified on 09/08/2018 - 12:44

          @brazen00:

          if you know the area you know that many of these streets are extremely skinny

          When you get a speeding ticket at 33km/h, then is that an individual impact or a community impact?

          • 0
        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 13:23

          @burningrage: On those times (and it's only sometimes), you're still talking about 2 minutes a day.

          • 0
        • mezje on 09/08/2018 - 13:52

          Next time you are driving try maintain @ 30kmh +/- 3kmh. It is not that easy and simply unneeded, wouldn't be an issue if more leniency was given but it's not. Police can and will be enforcing this.

          If you are driving a manual car where gears are short this is made even more difficult. The focus should be on good driving, being alert and aware of your surroundings and your vehicle. Maintaining brakes, tyres and other safety items etc not just pushing speed limits lower and lower.

          • 0
Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join