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

  • Euphemistic on 09/08/2018 - 09:38
    +5

    I think speed limits in residential and high density urban areas are too high. For too long we've been prioritising the motor car getting through our neighbourhoods when we should be focussing on the people that stop and stay there. A few extra minutes on the end of the journey (in most cases) in the residential zone would not hurt anyone.

    But… the compromise could be lifting the limits on interurban arterial roads - the places where we don't see pedestrians and there is little other than motor vehicle traffic passing through.

    • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 09:39

      Good point.

      • Euphemistic on 09/08/2018 - 09:42
        +1

        Was going to edit this in, but go replied to:

        I'd be happy to see a blanket 40km/h on residential streets and 30 in high pedestrian areas such as shopping or entertainment areas. It won't take long to adjust to adding a little extra time to our journeys, and in reality average speed in built up areas are already at these low limits. Additionally lose all of the short useless 70/80km/h sections in urban areas that just encourage people to bring up thier speed for a short while then get frustrated when they need to slow down at the other end of them. I can think of 4 right now that only serve to speed up traffic for the sake of a few seconds of travel time because they are so short.

  • abb on 09/08/2018 - 09:42
    +6

    I reckon the reduced limit should apply to SUVs only. They have poor vision, poor pedestrian crash safety, and are usually driven by self-centred people who will rage hilariously against the rule change.

  • elgrande on 09/08/2018 - 10:29
    +7

    Will you be fined if you go 33km? What is the buffer?

    Who would be at fault if a car merged and hit my car but there were no line markings?

    What happens if they claim I reversed into them at a car park and I have no footage to prove them otherwise?

    Someone is parking out the front of my house and I need to do a u turn down the road to enter my driveway.

    I moved my car 3m to another car spot but still got fined and council refuse to admit that they were wrong.

    I cant turn off the damm offramp cause cyclists are not giving way.

    I exited a petrol station on the inside left of another driver driving my friends uninsured car and was hit by another driver and somehow convinced the insurance it was not my fault.

    Almost forgot. I reversed into a TREE and the TREE was uninsured. Will bunnings be liable?

    Good times.

    • GG57 on 09/08/2018 - 10:53

      That sums up the last week of forums.

    • Euphemistic on 09/08/2018 - 11:08
      +4

      was ready to down vote, then I realised…

      Thing to do today:
      Get angry at something on the internet in another part of the world that barely affects me: Completed.

    • lachhelix on 10/08/2018 - 09:45

      THERE WAS A BUNNINGS TREE POST?! oh I can't wait to read that

  • GG57 on 09/08/2018 - 11:06

    The info in The Age and the info on the Yarra Council site differ slightly.

    The Age states: "Within weeks, Victoria Police will fine motorists who break the new speed limit".

    Yarra Council states: "Victoria Police will enforce as they see necessary".

    A lot of us have jumped to the assumption that speed cameras will therefore be used (for revenue raising). I actually think that would be seen as a bad strategy by the proponents of the trial, as they would rather gather some observational data on the impacts to validate if the trial is worthy to expand or not. To do so in an environment where the impacts are influenced by the presence of speed cameras would taint the data.
    To gather support for the trial, the proponents need to demonstrate the benefits to the local residents (which is apparently split in an earlier survey), rather than purely enforce it.

    • bobbified on 09/08/2018 - 13:22
      +1

      "Victoria Police will enforce as they see necessary".

      Government needs money - of course it's going to be necessary!

  • Dave Id on 09/08/2018 - 11:21
    +4

    Brought to you by The Fitzroy/Collingwood Bogan Preservation Society.

    Truth is during peak hours ……

  • locknuts on 09/08/2018 - 13:47

    I thought motor vehicle regulations only guarantee speedo accuracy from 40kp/h and up. This could be a legal nightmare for the Victorian government.

  • Skramit on 09/08/2018 - 14:17
    +3

    Nanny state. This wont do anything for accidents, it will only annoy drivers and raise revenue for the state with extra fines.

    Might as well just ban cars from roads altogether.

  • myusername on 09/08/2018 - 14:18
    +2

    revenue attack

  • HeWhoKnows on 09/08/2018 - 14:38
    +2

    May as well WALK or ride a bicycle

    • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 14:39

      Shock, horror!

    • Charity on 09/08/2018 - 14:51

      Yes, walk… jogging over 30 can get you a fine.

    • Euphemistic on 09/08/2018 - 15:01
      +1

      I think that is the plan for these high density areas. Get private cars off the streets altogether.

      I agree with it.

  • 4tran on 09/08/2018 - 14:56
    +1

    I still believe the unpopular view of 'Don't speed and you won't be fined'. Laws are there for a reason, if you feel it is unfair then lobby for change. Otherwise it is just your opinion and the law will still be upheld. Australia is not perfect but if you don't like it, migrate.

  • Kenvin on 09/08/2018 - 15:21
    +1

    Insane reasoning, just make all speed limits 20kmh, then we would barely have any accidents. Case closed.

  • Allan Thomas on 09/08/2018 - 15:33
    +3

    Surely 5kph would be safer? At least it will give the cops something to do, seeing that they're incapable of busting savage crimes by "youths of African appearance".

  • keejoonc on 09/08/2018 - 15:39
    +2

    Australia is going mad. 30kph? May as well ban all cars.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2018 - 17:41

      Well, they're going to ban sales to combustion engine cars by 2030.

      It's a start.

  • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2018 - 16:02
    -3

    I think 30km/h limit is reasonable, as long as it's well enforced.

    • Schezwon on 09/08/2018 - 18:47
      +2

      Really? Reasonable? You might as well have 20km

      • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 19:14
        +2

        Did you know that you can reduce accidents further if you reduced speed limits to 10km/h?

  • Kamsi on 09/08/2018 - 16:31
    +2

    Nanny state… going to get worse.

  • tkdbboy on 09/08/2018 - 16:31

    Wouldn't be surprised if Yarra Council will be getting a kickback from speeding fines produced in this area

  • YellowDieselGolf on 09/08/2018 - 18:22
    +7

    It’s true. Speed is the single and only factor in motor vehicle accidents. I call on Daniel Andrews and the Victorian government to reduce speeds even lower. Not 20km/h. Not 10km/h. But MINUS 30km/h. Surely if a 10km/h reduction in speed will save lives, then travelling in reverse will save entire generations.
    If they don’t enact my idea, then they are complacent in motor vehicle deaths and must be prosecuted as criminals!!1!!

    PS sarcasm.

    PPS (profanity) you Victoria and you myopic policies.

    • Schezwon on 09/08/2018 - 18:46

      Amen… When will this insanity gonna stop…

    • Ghost47 on 09/08/2018 - 18:50

      Not enough critical thinking occurs government, both at a state and federal level. It's quite frankly a joke.

    • prinsenhof on 09/08/2018 - 19:32
      +1

      holy crap, never thought of that before. Speed limits are +40km/hr, but if you drive in reverse then its actually unlimited.

      You sir are a champion.

      I just need to find a way to reverse the gearbox so i have 6 speeds reverse and 1 forward. Or perhaps i can just put air in the fuel tank and fuel in the air intake, that will probably make it spin backwards.

  • Schezwon on 09/08/2018 - 18:45
    +1

    Omg this is obsurd, what's the point of having all these safety features in modern cars… Ohhh wait… We having idiots on the road driving like hoons or just can't give a F about the road rules.

    I have a dash cam and the daily amount of footages I have accumulated over the past few months are astonishingly shocking,the crap drivers are the ones ruining it, for all the good drivers.

    All you idiots thinking it's good to have 30km zone are the ones who can't drive and they learn from other bad/crap drivers. Don't give me this nonsense about what if a kid jumps in front… Well where's the God damn parents…. More money for our scummy government.

  • freakatronic on 10/08/2018 - 08:04
    +1

    Move through where the government doesnt want you to move through, and you will be fined. In Brunswick and Fitzroy, unless you're on a single speed bike and riding one handed so you can hold your latte/transgender lover's hand, you will be fined.

  • hunterhalo on 10/08/2018 - 09:26
    +1

    Welcome to Socialist Democratic people's Republic of Victoria, you are free w to do what the state allow you to do. Whenever a new law comes out, you simply obey, no need to vote, the state knows what T best for you

    • Roman Sandstorm on 10/08/2018 - 10:41
      +1

      Geez, with comments like this we are only a tiny step away from a Godwin's Law scenario….

      • brazen00 on 10/08/2018 - 10:45
        +1

        Well it was the Nazis who first proposed reducing speeds from 40 to 30 back in Berlin in 1938.

        </s>

      • hunterhalo on 10/08/2018 - 12:47
        +1

        But am i wrong or not? The gov. Know what best for you, not yourself. Isnt that what a state runs government does?

  • DogGunn on 10/08/2018 - 10:05
    +2

    I actually don't have a problem with this, provided it remains only residential streets. The speed limits are similar in places like Germany or France for residential streets.

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

      Yep, as I posted earlier, this is identical to those existing in:
      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)

  • kabammi on 10/08/2018 - 11:05
    +4

    The new speed zone … will be a 12-month trial led by Yarra Council, backed by a $250,000 grant from the Transport Accident Commission.

    The biggest question here should be.. how on earth can it cost a quarter of a million dollars to change some road signs!!!? 25 signs at $10k each? 250 signs at $1k each?

    Sounds like good old white collar crime to me; embezzlement.

    • GG57 on 10/08/2018 - 11:08

      I've often thought that one of the best businesses to have would be that which makes the road signs. Thousands of them, and always new ones to make.

    • DogGunn on 10/08/2018 - 13:44

      The grant will be used to monitor traffic speeds, amounts, patterns, where traffic is going etc.

      The TAC grant isn't just for the replacement of speed signs.

      • HighAndDry on 10/08/2018 - 16:47
        +1

        How long a stretch of road is this? This is still a quarter of a million dollars. I wonder how much is going to "consultants".

        • DogGunn on 10/08/2018 - 16:56

          It is a whole network of roads if you clicked the link in the OP. Unlikely to go to consultants, but obviously the conditions of the grant are not public.

        • HighAndDry on 10/08/2018 - 17:47

          @DogGunn: Got sidetracked by a gang brawl news article. Anyway - I'm willing to bet that at least 30% of the funds are going to various 'consultants'. It's just how these things are done, not even just porkbarrelling, but for CYA purposes too.

  • tanksinatra on 10/08/2018 - 11:21
    +1

    Why don't they just ban all motorised vehicles from the street and make them pedestrian only, like parts of the CBD?

  • Roman Sandstorm on 10/08/2018 - 11:30
    +6

    Sigh…. Does this really need to be said???

    OK.

    Generally, people are idiots. And generally, people who drive cars are even bigger idiots. Without road rules, and without enforcement of road rules you end up with situations like in many African or Asian countries, with death and injury rates tens or hundreds of times greater (both in per km and in proportionality) than in nice, safe western countries (like Australia).

    Now, I know this does not apply to all of the absolutely perfect drivers who inhabit OzB, all of whom are world class, highly trained expert drivers, who have never been involved in any kind of driving incident; either as instigator, or even as victim (because their amazing predictive skills allow them to avoid what all the other plebs cause).

    Sadly, governing authorities cannot realistically create a matrix of 18 million x 18 million Australian drivers (plus those 100's of OzB experts), and determine safe speeds and safe driving guidelines for every individual outcome, and every possible driving encounter, every minute of every day. I know some of you wonderful drivers here are quite capable of driving safely and expertly at 117 km/h in tight residential streets. Really. I know you can. You certainly know you can. But what about all the other idiots?

    Hence… authorities take a 'one size fits all' approach to setting rules and regulations. And this has to fit the idiots as well as all the Mr and Ms Perfects. So, it's lowest common denominator; and we have 40 km/h zones in residential areas, and 60 on local roads, and 100 on freeways, highways, etc.

    The base reason for these limits is to lower crashes, to lower damage, injury and death. Many decades of statistics from all over the world has shown pretty reasonable correlation between lower speeds and fewer crashes. Now I know: human lizard brains are really bad at understanding statistics (some people think the chances of winning the lottery are 50/50; you either win it or you don't… sigh…), but amazingly, governments all over the world actually employ some smart people who do understand statistics, and can create and implement policies.

    In hand with this, in countries which respect rule of law, there needs to be a concomitant enforcement capability. Because even nice decent people in comfortable well off countries will still believe in their own superiority rather than in real statistics, and thus drive in a less safe manner than they should if they are not threatened by penalty.

    As for the revenue-raising argument: naturally, enforcement brings a small level of income. But this is a tiny amount when compared to the actual cost of road carnage. The overall benefit to society brought by reducing road crashes is vastly greater than the added burden to those perfect OzB drivers who need to arrive 30 seconds earlier to their destination.

    Yes, there are going to be anomalies, yes there are going to be inconsistencies with rules and limits, yes, there will be 'unfairness' (especially when a perfect OzB driver is caught doing 34 km/h in a new 30 km/h zone, and their speedo is incorrectly calibrated, but it's not their fault, and besides, another person was clearly doing 50 km/h and they weren't caught…).

    But ask yourself, what do you want? And more to the point, if you had the power, how would you make things? Increase residential road speeds to 50? 60? No limit? Freeways to… no limit? Good. And then you could break the news to families of all the extra dead and maimed people, and work out ways of paying the extra bills for medical care, and loss of work and productivity, etc.

    Oh… not you perfect OzB drivers. Of course. Just those other idiots.

    • Euphemistic on 10/08/2018 - 11:37
      +3

      What a load of rubbish… oh wait. You are right, it is to cater for the idiots. Those idiots of which on the roads there are way too many. There is something about the disconnect of being inside a metal box that turns otherwise rational people into raving loonies as well. There is a range of idiots too, the selfish ones (can't tell me what to do/I'm more important), the dumb ones (no awareness of other members of society), the incapable ones (just can't operate a machine properly)

      Additionally, promoting slower speeds in those area to prevent idiots causing carnage makes the streets feel safer so that you are more likely to find active transport modes efficient. Walking and cycling increase in participation which has a number of benefits: Reducing pollution, reducing fuel usage to save it for where it is really needed, increasing local interactions and therefore local businesses, increasing the health of the population, not needing to provide parking spaces for two tonnes of metal to cart around one person for 10% of the time and it goes on.

    • brazen00 on 10/08/2018 - 15:21

      This is the best thing I've read all day. Thank you!

    • cameldownunder on 10/08/2018 - 16:19

      Thank you. Well written.

    • HighAndDry on 10/08/2018 - 16:47
      -1

      Increase residential road speeds to 50?

      Yes. I manage to drive on 50km/h roads all the time with all the other idiots on the road. I think I'll be fine.

      Your comment sounds good, but it's filled with strawmen - who's asking for 117km/h speed limits on residential roads?

      And then you could break the news to families of all the extra dead and maimed people

      Oh piss off. The speed limit is already at 40km/h. I'd be happy if they left it at that, so there isn't going to be any more "dead and maimed people". I mean - how many are there to begin with? Or is your whole rant pulled outta your… uh, thin air?

      • ely on 12/08/2018 - 00:03

        The speed limit is already at 40km/h. I'd be happy if they left it at that

        Given all of the whining elsewhere about how it has been decreased from 60 to 50 to 40 you could have fooled me.

        • HighAndDry on 13/08/2018 - 09:50

          You can't read and yet you double down on this? Impressive I guess…

          I'd be happy if they left it at 40km/h - that's a compromise I can accept. I'd be happier if it was higher. Also - the whining about 70 to 60 to lower is showing that it is a slippery slope, and others saying "Oh, but it'll stop at 30 this time. Honest!" are just throwing bs.

        • ely on 13/08/2018 - 12:31

          @HighAndDry: You'll need to elaborate on my perceived inability to read; I'm more concerned about your inability to reason.

          As far as I can see at 40 you would have been saying you were OK with the 50 compromise but 40 was too far and that it was a slippery slope. Ditto at 50, 60, and any other speed.

          30 is going to inconvenience me; I bike through there and, as it's sloped gently downwards heading north, I imagine I frequently exceed 30km/h in that diretion. I'll probably avoid the area as, lacking a speedometer on my bike, I can't really tell for sure.

        • HighAndDry on 13/08/2018 - 13:39

          @ely: Happy with 40. Would be happier with 50. And the fact it went from 60 to 50 to 40 shows that there is a slippery slope and is not certain to stop at 30 as others have said. Hope that's clear enough.

      • Roman Sandstorm on 13/08/2018 - 12:13

        who's asking for 117km/h speed limits on residential roads?

        Given the overall tone of my post, you missed the ironic exaggeration?

        I manage to drive on 50km/h roads all the time with all the other idiots on the road. I think I'll be fine.

        … and this encapsulates my point precisely: "I think I'll be fine".

        So many people believe their own skills are superior to everyone else's, and thus they are not subject to the inevitable laws of statistics, and the effects of random events.

        Imposing speed limits in countries which have widespread respect for the rule of law decreases death, injury and damage. There's too much evidence to dispute this. You may not feel it decreases your individual chances, but with population-sized samples there is no dispute. As I said, many humans are not real good with statistics.

        And yes, logically, to extend the argument ad absurdum, reducing limits to 10 km/h or 5 km/h would further reduce harm. But there must be a reasonable compromise between safety and utility.

        Oh piss off. The speed limit is already at 40km/h. I'd be happy if they left it at that, so there isn't going to be any more "dead and maimed people". I mean - how many are there to begin with?

        My point was only peripherally about the 40 to 30 reduction. Even so, I did suggest it may be difficult to quantify any benefit without a 'control'. (Which I again ironically suggested could be achieved by increasing speeds in a similar zone to have more people killed or injured.)

  • watwatwat on 10/08/2018 - 13:58
    +2

    "they'll have a trial of 20km/h and so on" - yep. I'm sure 10km/h is much safer and will save many lives. Maybe they should make it 0km/hr and that will reduce accidents significantly.

  • Dack Smith on 10/08/2018 - 15:41
    +2

    30km is too fast

    Make it 10km speed zone - that will save more lives!

    I wonder if that will stop the incompetent drivers, P platers, tailgating butt sniffers and distracted phone whore drivers from killing more people for fun

    • [Deactivated] on 10/08/2018 - 15:45

      Yeah 10km/h is safer!

    • HighAndDry on 10/08/2018 - 16:52

      I mean, if you put it like that - would you rather be killed slowly and agonizingly at 10km/h or get it over and done with at 60km/h?

      • Euphemistic on 10/08/2018 - 17:01
        +3

        Yeah, we get it man, you are being infringed upon because you might need to slow down a little bit. Get over yourself. 30km/h is a reasonable compromise in selected high density areas for safety and being able to move about.

        Locally they changed a road from 70 back to 60 and we got all the same arguments. When it was done it barely made any difference to anyone. The average speed in traffic was well below 60 and when it's clear you usually have to stop at traffic lights anyway so spent very little time at 70 anyway. After a couple of months it hasn't changed to drive on, just the numbe ris different. Might cost 30 seconds if you got a good run over the length of the road, but it's now safer to get in and out of the many driveways along there.

        After too many years of driving fast, I've finally worked out that it makes diddly squat difference to travel times unless you are spending hours on the highway. Take it easy, save some of that expensive fuel.

        • HighAndDry on 10/08/2018 - 17:26
          +1

          30km/h is a reasonable compromise in selected high density areas for safety and being able to move about.

          40km/h was already a compromise. And 50km/h before then. So nah, FOH with that bs.

          Locally they changed a road from 70 back to 60 and we got all the same arguments.

          Seems like valid arguments - because it obviously doesn't stop at 60 does it.

          And you're gonna tell me that changing it from 70 to 30 doesn't make a difference? Maybe you are taking it easy, and I want some of what you're smoking.

        • Euphemistic on 10/08/2018 - 17:56

          @HighAndDry: cool. I hope they really do roll out 30km/h zones everywhere for the likes of you. Congested cities need lower limits.

        • HighAndDry on 10/08/2018 - 18:09

          @Euphemistic:

          cool. I hope they really do roll out 30km/h zones everywhere for the likes of you.

          Now you're advocating policy-making out of spite? Congested cities would be fine if pedestrians stopped walking out in front of traffic.

          Oh, and no response to the fact that 70 to 60 doesn't end there?

        • Euphemistic on 10/08/2018 - 18:32

          @HighAndDry: perhaps surprisingly, slower speeds work much better in congested cities. I have experienced it in India. While there is general chaos in the traffic it works reasonably well because the speeds are so slow that someone walking out in front of you is no big issue. European cities work much more effectively with low speed limits. Note, I’m not talking about Aussie suburbs, but inner city congested areas.

          Congested cities would be much better off without the motor car. You can fit way more people in the same space if you don’t use personal cars as transport and park them all over the public streets.
          This shows the difference in space taken up with the same number of people in each image:
          http://urbanist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83454714d69e2017d3c37d8a…

          At the end of the day it will make very little difference to me anyway. I’d rather use public transport or cycle in the areas with at would be likely to be 30km/h.

        • ely on 12/08/2018 - 00:04

          @HighAndDry:

          Oh hang on, just up above you're all

          The speed limit is already at 40km/h. I'd be happy if they left it at that

          Pick a lane and stick to it.

        • HighAndDry on 13/08/2018 - 09:47

          @ely: I can be happy with something even if it's not my preferred outcome - 40km/h I can be happy with. But if left to me I'd have it higher.

  • RiseAndRuin on 10/08/2018 - 18:39

    I haven't read every single comment, but they've been/still are doing roadworks for months around southbank/south melbourne and the new downgraded areas went from 60km/h to 40. some of them are also much narrower than before, I guess because they were too large (?!?!?!?!) so they must have figured it'd be a great idea to have buses now use those paths as well.

  • DiscoJango on 10/08/2018 - 20:04
    +2

    30kph in my car is like 2 ticky things above 0. not sure how i could actually drive at that speed and not just constantly be staring at my speedo

    • Euphemistic on 11/08/2018 - 22:36

      How do you maintain your speed in different speed zones currently? Constantly staring at the speedo? Can you only hold a consistent speed at 60 and have to stare at the speedo in a 50 zone? Didn’t think so. You’ll find, after a while, you’ll be able to cope with a different speed.

      • HighAndDry on 13/08/2018 - 09:48
        +1

        No, some speedos have abridged spacing below 30km/h, because no sane car designer expected that to be a speed limit.

        • Euphemistic on 13/08/2018 - 18:45

          My point was that after a while you get used to your speed and don’t have to ‘stare at the speedo’ to maintain a speed.

          I don’t think I’ve ever seen a speedo that starts higher than 20. Sure, some aren’t accurate below that, but I’d bet that most speedos are designed in a way that suits a global market. There are plenty of euro and other countries that have 30 limits already, so they’ll be just fine for us too.

  • Thaal Sinestro on 10/08/2018 - 23:33
    +3

    Welcome to the Nanny State. The lefties want to turn everyone into bicycle riding hipsters.

    • Euphemistic on 11/08/2018 - 06:54
      +2

      And that willl improve congestion, health and fitness, pollution etc.

  • CalmLemons on 11/08/2018 - 08:05
    +3

    Great way to f@#k local business.

    • Euphemistic on 11/08/2018 - 12:27

      It’s actually been shown to increase local business, it just becomes more local business, as in not people driving in, they walk/ride/bus there instead.

  • lousy on 11/08/2018 - 09:13
    +2

    Welcome to Melbourne

    • Euphemistic on 11/08/2018 - 12:29

      … take it easy, unlike that rat race..Sydney where everyone is in a rush all the time.

      Great marketing opportunity.

  • Lucky13 on 11/08/2018 - 14:45
    +4

    Warning: Joggers may pass you

  • [Deactivated] on 15/08/2018 - 14:36

    It's weird when people create and justify Australian laws by saying things along the lines of "But look what it did in _____ country."

    Last time I checked, our neighbourhoods don't resemble America or the UK let alone the rest of the world.

    "BUT UK DOES 32km/h AND LOOK HOW PEACEFUL THEY ARE!!"

    Yeah, in the UK I can also walk down the street and get to the local shopping centre and the neighbour's house is about 3m away.

    • Euphemistic on 15/08/2018 - 20:28

      I think the area they are talking about, inner city would be quite comparable to European cities. Even our outer suburbs would be similar to other countries, most likely USA, but other areas too.

      • [Deactivated] on 15/08/2018 - 20:32
        +1

        Nope, not really.

  • JayM on 15/08/2018 - 15:43
    +1

    If you ride a Polar Bear, you have no chance of being pulled over and fined!

    http://www.speedofanimals.com/animals/polar_bear

    • franco cozzo on 19/08/2018 - 12:43
      +1

      dammit…might have to trade in my mongolian wild ass for one of those instead. cant even ride my it to the shops without getting busted for a couple kms over!

  • Chugger on 20/08/2018 - 12:48

    In 2015, 22 people lost their lives in the Melbourne metropolitan area. Of those;
    60% lost their lives on roads signposted at 60km/h or lower (33% of these were aged 70+)
    33% of pedestrians who lost their lives were aged 70+
    (http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/statistics/summaries/p…)

    Taking the cost of a fatality at $7.8m, and serious injury at $310,000 (refer to; The cost of road crashes in Australia 2016, ANU May 2017)- and that these costs are borne by society as a whole, then $250,000 for a trial doesn't seem to me to be unreasonable.
    The alternative would be to accept that we are happy to kill older pedestrians.

    • Euphemistic on 20/08/2018 - 12:57

      oh stop being reasonable! This is the end of the world. Having to slow down to make people safer in high density areas will mean we will have 30km/h speed limits on the freeway next!

      • Chugger on 20/08/2018 - 16:04
        +1

        i'm in Sydney, bordering Pennant Hills road. 30Kmh is a dream.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join