No safety benefit in reducing CBD speed limit to 40km/h

Or so says RACV's Ken Ogden.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...166455609.html

"Under $5 million set aside by the council, other proposals included setting the CBD speed limit at
40 km/h; investigating priority bus lanes for Lonsdale and Queen streets; and lobbying for tram
stops at every CBD intersection.
....
RACV policy officer Ken Ogden said there was little in the strategy to please car users and there
was no safety benefit in reducing the city speed limit from 50 to 40 km/h."


I think 40km/h in the CBD sounds good. It would certainly help cyclists. In my experience, traffic
doesn't move much faster than 40km/h in the CBD anyway. Those car that do are hoons, shortly to be
stopped at the next traffic light.

On 2006-07-19, Russell Lang (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Or so says RACV's Ken Ogden.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...166455609.html

Pity the clueless fsckwit has so much influence.

--
TimC
Some of us here are sysadmins, and network admins, and even Windows
admins. Clubbing baby harp seals would a socially acceptable step
*up*. -- butting on ARK

On 2006-07-19, TimC wrote:
On 2006-07-19, Russell Lang (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Or so says RACV's Ken Ogden.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/
council-proposes-underground-train-line/2006/07/19/1153166455609.html

Pity the clueless fsckwit has so much influence.

That's one more good reason for me to skew the data towards getting rid
of the damn car.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

TimC wrote:
On 2006-07-19, Russell Lang (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Or so says RACV's Ken Ogden.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...166455609.html

Pity the clueless fsckwit has so much influence.

Maybe, but before we jump on him its worth considering whether there
may be any truth to his claims.

Personally I think once you get down to these kinds of speeds, the
greatest risks are from SMIDSYs from inattentive and aggressive
drivers.

Slowing drivers down 10km/h isn't going to make them more attentive and
less aggressive, and may actually be counterproductive in some ways.

.... or maybe it would have the desired effect.

The point being that I don't think lowering speed limits always and
everywhere is the answer to road safety. The gains picked up in
lowering the speed limit from 50 to 40 may be offset by losses caused
by the greater frustration of having to roll along at annoyingly low
speeds.

Travis

Pity it's not so easy to legislate for all motorists to "Pay attention"
while driving. Seems that the speed limits are dropping to the extent
to where general driver reactions when distracted can keep up with
what's happening out on the roads....


--
Marx SS

Marx SS Wrote:
Pity it's not so easy to legislate for all motorists to "Pay attention"
while driving. Seems that the speed limits are dropping to the extent
to where general driver reactions when distracted can keep up with
what's happening out on the roads....

You'd hope so, but adjusted risk compensation comes into it. Take a
look at the behaviour of drivers (as well as pedestrians and cyclists)
in current 40kph zones. Once you get down to that sort of speed, you
start seeing a lot more unusual actions from road users that seem to
indicate that they don't really consider it a "traffic" area. That
behaviour tends to be more erratic and unpredictable than on roads
where traffic flows faster. Some people might applaud the breakdown in
boundaries between footpath and road, but when it involves some road
users blithely wandering in front of other road users (in all
combinations!) I find it hard to believe that it provides more safety
for anyone.


--
Resound

Resound Wrote:
You'd hope so, but adjusted risk compensation comes into it. Take a look
at the behaviour of drivers (as well as pedestrians and cyclists) in
current 40kph zones. Once you get down to that sort of speed, you start
seeing a lot more unusual actions from road users that seem to indicate
that they don't really consider it a "traffic" area. That behaviour
tends to be more erratic and unpredictable than on roads where traffic
flows faster. Some people might applaud the breakdown in boundaries
between footpath and road, but when it involves some road users
blithely wandering in front of other road users (in all combinations!)
I find it hard to believe that it provides more safety for anyone.

Whups...I missed a crucial point. This is only referring to the CBD.
40kph would be fair and reasonable along most roads in the CBD grid.


--
Resound

Resound Wrote:
Whups...I missed a crucial point. This is only referring to the CBD.
40kph would be fair and reasonable along most roads in the CBD grid.


Agreed. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic is already "erratic and
unpredictable" in the Melbourne CBD.

Current 40km/h zones (generally around schools) also have erratic
drivers and pedestrians. I don't think that changed much on the road I
used when the speed dropped from 50km/h. Pulling out without looking,
stopping in a no standing zone, stopping such that it blocks the view
of the lollypop man. This is the school crossing where one car hit the
lollypop man and broke his leg. I think the mentally is "I need to keep
my child safe, and it doesn't matter about anyone else". The school
kids walking near the school were far more predictable than the car
drivers.


--
ghostgum

ghostgum wrote:
Resound Wrote:
Whups...I missed a crucial point. This is only referring to the CBD.
40kph would be fair and reasonable along most roads in the CBD grid.


Agreed. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic is already "erratic and
unpredictable" in the Melbourne CBD.

Current 40km/h zones (generally around schools) also have erratic
drivers and pedestrians. I don't think that changed much on the road I
used when the speed dropped from 50km/h. Pulling out without looking,
stopping in a no standing zone, stopping such that it blocks the view
of the lollypop man. This is the school crossing where one car hit the
lollypop man and broke his leg. I think the mentally is "I need to keep
my child safe, and it doesn't matter about anyone else". The school
kids walking near the school were far more predictable than the car
drivers.




Sorry to offer such an unsophisticated explanation, but consider city
traffic for a moment. How often does it travel at 40km/hr? Not much. I
expect the average speed for a car through the CBD would be less than
20km/hr.

Lowering the speed limit here has no actual effect on the driver
behaviour. Let's see if mandatory public flogging of motorists who hit
pedestrians on crossings, and cyclists has any effect. I've been
working out at the gym, and I'm reckon I can flog for about 20 minutes
at full belt. Bring them on.





--
ghostgum

On 20 Jul 2006 03:26:51 -0700, "AndrewJ" wrote:

Lowering the speed limit here has no actual effect on the driver
behaviour.

I've noticed that I don't have to slow down for corners (driving) at
40 whereas I do at 50. Not a good change in driver behaviour.
I chose to slow down anyway, but its an added temptation.

I don't react well to traffic calming chicanes either.
I don't like how they distract from monitoring the verge.
And I hate how they destroy roads with plenty of riding room.