Will add extracts from
Towards Zero Together – South Australia's Road Safety Strategy 2020
legal experts whose incomes would reduce. The collision rate in The Netherlands is half that of SA. SA's collision rate is higher than in NSW and Vic.
Outside of peak hour I would much rather drive in NSW and VIC, so much faster to get around, they have freeways that go both ways and actually go somewhere! (like the other states) I think a lot of the accident rates here are a lot to do with the roads, traffic lights every 50m. I have never seen so many people run red lights! Also what is with allowing parking in lanes of busy roads? Let alone those that park in the bike lanes...
When the 50Km/hr limit was brought into effect certain roads were and certain roads were not - which made zero sense to any thinking person (other than revenue raising) - take for example the city end of Sir Donald Bradman Drive - one side 50, the other 60. Nonetheless, my residential side street where I live was reduced to 50Km/hr - great! Frankly, 40 even 30 would be good as it is not uncommon for young children to be active around and on the street where I live. It is not a "major" back-street and a car driving along at 50Km/hr seems pretty fast for the type of street that it is.
I would have liked all of the CBD to be the same speed limit. I believe that some main roads like Montefiore Road and King William Road might be 60km/h. I definitely do not exceed 50km/h because I cycle to the city. I let ACC know that I support a 40km/h speed limit once one reaches the outer edges of the parklands. Easier to determine where speed limit changes, and where numbers of cyclists and pedestrians increase. However, ACC will introduce 40km/h only in the CBD.
rossmg, agree that residential streets should be 40km/h or preferably 30km/h. The Netherlands has 30km/h and a road casualty rate that is half that of SA. Some of this would be achieved by reduced speeds. The following might interest you.
International road safety expert Prof Wegman at a public meeting in Adelaide stated that he believes that SA speed limits should be reduced:
Economics of slower transport vs value of life. There is information on economic benefits of slower speeds. Individual perception more travelling time but arrive home safe. In The Netherlands residential speed limits tend to be 30 km/h and 80 km/h for open roads.
There has been much study on reduced speeds reducing the number of crashes and severity of any injuries. Some examples follow:
Further evaluation of the South Australian 50km/h speed limit, Kloeden CN, Woolley JE, McLean AJ, 2006, Centre for Automotive Safety Research (CASR),
Vehicle speeds in South Australia 2008, Kloeden CN, Woolley JE, 2010, CASR,
Casualty crash reductions from reducing various levels of speeding, Doecke SD, Kloeden CN, McLean AJ, 2011, CASR, http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/publications/list/?id=1206
Travelling Speed and the Risk of Crash Involvement, Kloeden CN, McLean AJ, Moore VM, Ponte G, 1997, NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit,
I agree. The focus on speed limits alone is not the answer. The problem is that speed limits and the associated speeding fines are easy. Its a quantitative measure and there is little argument that can be mounted against it.
It is far more often that I see people driving dangerously (a qualitative measure) without speeding than I see people driving too fast. And it is this dangerous driving that needs to be targeted. As cyclists and car drivers I believe we are at greater risk from the dangerous drivers who are not speeding than alert, attentive and otherwise law abiding 'creepers'.
Personally I think there should be more use of video footage to prosecute dangerous driving. I would be happy to have more CCTV cameras at intersections and along major roads. People could report dangerous driving (time and place) and the police could review the footage and fine people accordingly.
CCTV in your shower is an invasion of your privacy. Speed and red light cameras have come into being because people commit anti-social, dangerous and criminal acts in public places - and we can't afford a police force of 1 million officers to watch us all individually.
One can talk about rights and civil liberties, but what about my wish / right to arrive home safely? What about the rights of the family who are grieving over the death of a member from road trauma? At one stage Australians thought it was OK to drive at excessively high speeds, drink-drive and puff cigarette smoke in other's faces.
>The pace of life is getting faster and time seems to be more precious every day
I would say that stopping and smelling the roses is a better way to spend your precious time than rushing around at breakneck speed in an automobile. And if you slow down, you may find you end up with more precious time, not less.
>I grew up with 60kmh everywhere in built up areas and would vote for the same today if I had a choice
The speed/survivability of pedestrian impact statistics don't seem to support your viewpoint - unless you are saying that the right to drive fast in back streets trumps the right of pedestrians to safely cross them, which of course you are well within your rights to say, and many would likely agree with you:-
Scott, pedestrians have footpaths so a little removed from vehicles, until they crash onto the footpath. Although need to check that drivers are obeying the road rules, like giving way to pedestrians who have the green walk signal.
I am more concerned about cyclists who ride on the road, and in bike lanes squeezed between parked vehicles and travel lanes.
Previous research (Newstead et al, 2004b) on unprotected road users found the average risk of death or serious injury for unprotected road users involved in reportable crashes is around 35%. This compares with an average serious injury risk of only 2.3% for light vehicle drivers in crashes with other light vehicles, only one fifteenth of the risk of an unprotected road user. Interpreting this in a total serious road trauma context shows the relative importance of reducing collisions involving unprotected road users compared with crashes of light vehicle drivers.
The Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) conducted a study with cyclists wearing helmet-mounted cameras: Naturalistic cycling study: identifying risk factors for on-road commuter cyclists.
In total, 127 hours and 38 minutes were analysed for 13 participants and 54 events were identified: 2 collisions, 6 near-collisions and 46 incidents. Prior to events, 88.9% of cyclists travelled in a safe/legal manner. Sideswipe was the most frequent event type (40.7%). Most events occurred at an intersection/intersection-related location (70.3%). The vehicle driver was judged at fault in the majority of events (87.0%) and no post-event driver reaction was observed (83.3%).
CCTV is lazy. And to say it saves lives is (most probably) utter bulls$%&t. The crash/incident happens regardless of the presence of a camera. There is some merit in red light cameras, they enforce the law - but only if they are very clearly signed. And that's the point. Forget the camera, just put up the signs. Just as effective most probably.
CCTV potentially is a one-way street into privacy invasion.
When I was in Perth they had numerous redlight camera boxes set up at intersections but only a few cameras. They just rotated them around and you had no idea where they were.
Cheap but effective!