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

        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 10/08/2018 - 04:49

          Don't give them ideas!

        • JTTheMan on 10/08/2018 - 15:50
          +2

          Yes, the only way to stop people driving and killing people is to fine them as soon as they put the key into the ignition. I say make them push the car instead, much safer and it will protect the environment at the same time. Win, win!

    • bobbified on 08/08/2018 - 18:00
      +8

      They said the same thing about 50km/h when it reduced from 60km/h. Then 50km/h to 40km/h. And now to 30km/h.

      See the trend?

      Their target is 0 deaths - what speed limit would that happen that?

      • Mike88 on 08/08/2018 - 18:12
        +27

        0 deaths is impossible, people will find a way to die to stationary vehicles.

        • bobbified on 08/08/2018 - 18:14
          +1

          people will find a way to die

          A car falling down on someone who's working on it in a public street.

          Then they'll ban cars altogether.

        • garetz on 09/08/2018 - 02:09

          That star trek actor killed himself with his own parked car.

        • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 10:04
          +1

          @garetz: It technically rolled into him though. Probably going around 2-3mph? Obviously we need 1mph speed limits.

    • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 08/08/2018 - 18:27
      +4

      Nonsense, have a good look at this pie chart.

      https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/324399979385843014

    • mskeggs on 08/08/2018 - 19:40
      +2

      I think the chart is the speed the vehicle was moving when the impact occurred, otherwise all accidents in 60kmph areas would be fatal.
      So the chart pretty much shows that the existing speed limits were close to optimum - there would be very few crashes where the vehicle did not slow at all.

      I don't think anyone can conclude this change will be the end based on that chart.

      • cameldownunder on 09/08/2018 - 12:23

        Someone please read the first line "The road system must allow for human error [including pedestrian error]"
        With a 30km/h limit, a good habit of going slow is instilled, and next time anyone wakes up tired, gets into the car, he / she will use the instilled speed limit and go slow.
        My distance to major road is about 1.2 km, and most car hit / exceed the 60km/h on that piece of road.
        To travel that distance at 60hm/h it takes 72 seconds, at 30 km/h double that 140 seconds.
        Then they can queue for another 2000 seconds to get into the city.

        • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 15:16
          +1

          With a 30km/h limit, a good habit of going slow is instilled

          Why not 20km/h then? Or 10km/h? On the other hand, why is a 40km/h limit not also instilling a habit of "going slow"? 40km/h is plenty slow.

    • ATangk on 08/08/2018 - 22:27
      +1

      At 40kph, any pending accident is likely to have the driver slowing down just before impact. 40 would have a likely impact speedboat of 30 at max, so really why does it matter.

    • Peace Horse on 08/08/2018 - 23:53
      +3

      We were told that 40 is where it stops when the speed limit was reduced to 40.

    • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 10:03

      As always, lies, damned lies, and statistics.

      Here's where they get their data from:

      http://c-marc.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/CMARC%20Fact%20Sheet%…

      Notice something?

      It's from bloody 2008 in WESTERN AUSTRALIA.

      These people will use anything to lie to you, and idiots keep lapping it up.

      • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 10:05
        +1

        So what? Research done in WA is no good?

        • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 10:42
          +2

          Research in a completely different state with different road conditions and road surfaces AND FROM 10 YEARS AGO???

          No f*** ing s*** it's no bloody good, it's transparently obvious it's being used as a pretext to push through an agenda.

        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 10:49
          +3

          @HighAndDry: That's simply not true. Research done in one place, in this case on impact speed vs survival, can be translated to other places, otherwise all science would be void.

          Plus, if you had actually followed it all through, this was from peer reviewed research done in Adelaide.

        • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 10:51

          @brazen00:

          this was from peer reviewed research done in Adelaide.

          Oh good, so still not from Victoria and certainly not done on residential roads in Victoria then, and still years and years out of date? (Also no, the Monash study makes no mention of Adelaide that I can see).

          Well I'm sure that'll help so much. Maybe I can pull some research out of my ass from traffic studies done in Congo from the 1940s. Let me send a telegram to my buddy there.

          Seriously, the group you linked to? Their agenda is PRECISELY:

          Victoria Walks is a member of the SafeSpeed Interest Group. In 2008 the Group commissioned an evidence review on promoting safe walking and cycling by reducing traffic speed.

          Literally their entire schtick is to reduce road speeds.

        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 10:54
          +1

          @HighAndDry: So you want recent research done on these particular roads, in order to be convinced?

          What you're really saying is that you can't be convinced. That's fine.

        • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 10:55
          -1

          @brazen00: And what you're saying is that you have a preconceived conclusion and are working backwards to find anything that'll support that conclusion, no matter how remote, unrelated, or outdated.

        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 11:04
          +1

          @HighAndDry: Just because it was done some time ago doesn't make it "outdated". Impact speed vs survival probability. I can't think of anything that would impact that positively over time. If anything it will have gotten worse due to more people driving bigger cars.

        • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 11:05

          @brazen00: Car safety features. Better brakes. Autonomous braking. Better road design in terms of visibility and other speed-limiting devices like speed bumps.

        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 11:05
          +1

          @HighAndDry: Car safety features are for occupants not pedestrians.

        • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 11:06

          @brazen00: Autonomous braking. Seriously - can you at least seem like you're thinking a little before replying? (Edit: Ok, sorry about the snark, but seriously.)

          Edit2: And even BY THAT GRAPH you linked to, the speed limit should be 35km/h. Why didn't they campaign for that instead if they were only worried about safety? Agendas I tell ya.

          Edit3: AND that's impact speed, so assuming people drive cars without brakes and are happily running pedestrians over.

          Edit4: Ok so I'm really sorry but the more I look at the page you linked, the more I think you'd need to have zero critical thinking ability to take it at face value.

        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 11:20

          @HighAndDry: Thanks for the ad hominems. Here's one for you: I'll try to explain it as slowly as possible so you can keep up.

          The graph is about the relationship between impact speed and fatality rates. While better/autonomous braking will reduce the speed of some collisions, it does not change the relationship that we're talking about, a relationship which is unlikely to change over time. In addition, AEB is by no means standard or even common, having only been around a year or so.

          edit: whoops, didn't see your edits

          edit 2: yep, 35 would be way better than 40. but seriously, what agenda?

          edit 3: but really, see my other comment. a reduction to 30 it has negligible negative impact to some, and some positive impact to others. what's the problem?

          edit 4: changed "ad hominem" to "ad hominems"

        • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 11:25

          @brazen00: There was no ad hom. An ad hom is using an insult to counter an argument. I addressed your argument first. Don't throw around logical fallacies if you don't actually understand them. (Edit: Because it distracts from the actual arguments and defeats the purpose of looking smart when it's pointed out.)

          As to:

          The graph is about the relationship between impact speed and fatality rates.

          So not about speed limits and fatality rates?

          And applying it to speed limits necessarily assumes that people don't slow down immediately before a collision (which is a baseless assumption).

          So I'll wait while you go and try to substantiate that assumption (seriously, I'll make it simpler, all you need to do is go and find anything that says: "Speed limit of X km/h = impact speeds at collisions of X km/h.")

        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 11:29
          +1

          @HighAndDry: ad hom "You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument." It's not either/or.

          Lower speed limit = lower driving speed = more time to react to the unexpected = lower impact speeds = less fatalities.

          Also, lower speed limit on residential streets = negligible travel time impact. So again, what's the problem?

          Edit: also, again, what agenda?

        • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 11:42

          @brazen00:

          "You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument."

          Sure - but I addressed the argument first in a way that I thought was pretty much 100%. You said:

          Car safety features are for occupants not pedestrians.

          I said:

          Autonomous braking.

          I didn't think I needed anything else to 'undermine' your argument.

          (This is also what I mean by distracting from the actual argument.)

          Lower speed limit = lower driving speed = more time to react to the unexpected = lower impact speeds = less fatalities.

          But you're talking about specific speeds, and saying that 30km/h collision speeds require/mean a 30km/h speed limit. Again - you're assuming people literally run over pedestrians without braking even slightly.

          Using your logic, we'd all be using Flintstones cars. Lower speeds = lower fatalities right?

        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 12:54
          +1

          @HighAndDry: Ok, just for you I'll stop arguing fallacies.

          you're assuming people literally run over pedestrians without braking even slightly.

          I'm not making any such assumption. A 30km/h speed means that even if the driver has no time to react (kid steps out from behind a parked car, for example), the chances of it being a fatality are reduced. In those cases, a 30km/h speed limit means a 30km/h impact speed.

          Yes, lower speeds = lower fatalities, but there are practical considerations. The time to travel 500m (say) to get to an arterial road goes from 45s to 60s to 90s to 180s as speed goes from 40 to 30 to 20 to 10. At the same time, pedestrian survival chance increases from 75% to 90% to ~95% to ~98% (graph becomes hard to read here). Where do you think the best tradeoff lies? For me it's losing an extra 15 seconds of time to get to a 9 in 10 chance of survival.

        • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 12:58

          @brazen00:

          A 30km/h speed means that even if the driver has no time to react (kid steps out from behind a parked car, for example)

          Sounds like an assumption to me. Also - do we have an epidemic of kids running onto roads in that area? I'd have thought the website you linked would mention that. No one gives up a chance to yell "But WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!' if they can.

          Where do you think the best tradeoff lies? For me it's losing an extra 15 seconds of time to get to a 9 in 10 chance of survival.

          You're asking me? 50km/h. If you're running onto the road and causing accidents, giving you a >50% chance of survival is more than generous. Responsibility and self-accountability. Don't know when those things apparently went out of fashion.

        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 13:04
          +1

          @HighAndDry: It was an example ffs. Literally 8 words. Hardly screaming anything. The example holds if I replace "kid" with "person". Not sorry for using children in my example - it's a perfectly plausible situation. Kids run onto roads everywhere.

          Yes I was asking you. 50 is your answer? I understand now. You're in the massive metal box and you think that responsibility on the roads is shared between you and the 70kg meat bag? You're so car-centric in your thinking that you can't see past your own nose (bar).

          I'm out.

        • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 13:20
          +2

          @brazen00:

          You're in the massive metal box and you think that responsibility on the roads is shared between you and the 70kg meat bag?

          On a road? Yes - it shouldn't even be shared, pedestrians should be 99% responsible for not walking into oncoming traffic. We're not talking about cars veering onto sidewalks here.

          And it's not like I'm welded to my car - I'm also a pedestrian and I seem to manage not walking into traffic just fine.

          You seem to like dodging arguments and changing the subject a lot, so I ask again:

          Is there an epidemic of people running into traffic in that area? Or are you assuming that it happens?

        • wirelesscord on 10/08/2018 - 01:08
          +2

          @HighAndDry: Figure 3 is from a medical journal, it's the understanding of the tolerance of the human body to certain impacts at different speeds. Location has nothing to do with it.

      • cameldownunder on 09/08/2018 - 12:24

        yes, and the REST OF THE WORK is wrong too.

        • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 15:18

          Now that's a fallacy. (Ad populum fallacy, otherwise known as "but all my friends are doing it" fallacy).

  • rambutann on 08/08/2018 - 17:24
    +20

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

    • Gronk on 08/08/2018 - 17:32
      +10

      PUUUURGE! :)

    • mskeggs on 08/08/2018 - 19:41
      +1

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

      • Donaldhump on 08/08/2018 - 20:24
        +3

        Increases employment too

      • 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."

  • qwerty on 08/08/2018 - 17:33
    +1

    Its easy to beat 30kph on a bike especially on some of the hills in that area its not even going to be that much of an effort.

    Wonder how the law is going to be enforced on bikes without speedos or gpses .

  • Mike88 on 08/08/2018 - 17:40

    I wonder how many of the traffic light intervals will be adjusted. It's not that much slower driving at 30kph but if you get stuck at every red light because the sequencing was set for 40kph then it increases the driving time significantly.

    • mctubster on 08/08/2018 - 21:21
      +2

      You have traffic lights on residential minor roads?

      • Mike88 on 08/08/2018 - 22:06

        Not sure whether there are traffic lights in the area this will be applied. But considering they will likely deem this successful and roll it out to other areas this could be an issue.

  • brazen00 on 08/08/2018 - 17:50
    -8

    Folks seem to be annoyed at this but why do you need to do 40 in a suburban street anyway?

    • Mike88 on 08/08/2018 - 17:55
      +11

      Because part of the reason vehicles are driven is because of the reduced time it takes to get from A to B.

      • brazen00 on 08/08/2018 - 19:25
        +1

        But aren't these residential side streets? The main streets, which is generally how you get between places except for the first bit and the last bit, are still a "reasonable speed".

        • cameldownunder on 09/08/2018 - 12:25

          Not since the introduction of Google map, and Google traffic.

        • brazen00 on 09/08/2018 - 12:39

          @cameldownunder: Yeah, and I guess that's kind of the point.

      • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 19:00

        Don't run, you might trip and fall and bruise a knee. I demand a 6km/h walking speed limit on all our sidewalks, the tragedy of bruised knees and grazed hands must be eliminated!

    • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 08/08/2018 - 18:07
      +1

      To go to a destination at a reasonable safe speed?

    • bobbified on 08/08/2018 - 18:08
      +7

      What would the point of driving be if it's not any faster than walking?

      • brazen00 on 08/08/2018 - 19:27
        +1

        Yeah look this is kind of an exaggeration though, isn't it? Walking speed is 5km/h and we're talking about 6x that speed.

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

      Apply that to:

      "but why do you need to do 30 in a suburban street anyway?"

      Then:

      "but why do you need to do 20 in a suburban street anyway?"

      Then:

      "but why do you need to do 10 in a suburban street anyway?"

      • Euphemistic on 09/08/2018 - 15:28

        Why do we need lower limits? Because on the whole we can’t be trusted to be in charge of a motor vehicle in a built up area and not crash into people/stuff at the current limits.

        • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 19:01

          It seems the problem is actually people can't be trusted to not walk into traffic, since I'm not seeing any cars veering onto the sidewalk.

  • Godric on 08/08/2018 - 18:08
    +2

    teleportation can't come soon enough

    • kahn on 08/08/2018 - 19:50
      +1

      That's crazy. Haven't you seen that documentary by Jeff Goldblum?

      • Godric on 09/08/2018 - 08:35

        Do you mean that one he did with Eddie Murphy? I seen that

  • donga100 on 08/08/2018 - 18:08
    +7

    If you want to protest this the only way is to cause lots of low speed accidents on those roads during the trial.

    • bobbified on 08/08/2018 - 18:13
      +6

      This is what annoys me - they start this under these so-called "trials" when there probably weren't many incidents in the first place.

      Say there's been an accident that happened over a period of five years or so because of a drunk driver etc when the speed limit was 40km/h. They reduce it to 30km/h for twelve months and no accidents during that time. They claim that the trial was successful and reduced the death rate by 100%. Definitely looks good when talking percentages! Then everyone else adopts the lower limit.

      • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 08/08/2018 - 18:15
        +1

        The government and numbers are like oil and water.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2018 - 12:11
          +1

          Au contraire.

          The government and numbers go well together. They have an arsenal of numbers and studies to further their agenda whatever they are and whichever way they bend.

          Want to talk about bad infrastructure, they'll pull the low population density card. Oops, thought you meant internet and not traffic, high population density then.

  • [Deactivated] on 08/08/2018 - 18:18
    +8

    Don't you care about safeteeeee? Don't you caaaaare about the childrennnnn?

    The satisteeeeeeeks say fewer people die at low speeds. You deserve it if you speeeeeeed! Thank goodness you didn't hit anyone! Thank goodness for fines!

    It's all for our own good.

  • vinni9284 on 08/08/2018 - 18:29
    +15
    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
  • mysterytal on 08/08/2018 - 18:32
    -5

    I would like traffic to pass my house at 30km/h. It would significantly reduce noise meaning I could keep my windows open overnight. However, I think the only ones I really hear are going significantly faster then 40km/h.

    • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 08/08/2018 - 18:35
      +5

      No worries, in fact lets just ban cars so you can keep the doors open as well.

    • StonedWizard on 08/08/2018 - 21:13
      +6

      You chose to live there, why are you now concerned about your window being able to be left open ?

    • smartazz104 on 08/08/2018 - 23:38
      +10

      The slower they go, the longer they spend outside your front door.

      • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 09/08/2018 - 07:54
        +1

        and the windows regardless if they are open or shut.

    • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 15:23
      +2

      I'd actually prefer if people stopped and pushed their cars past my place thanks. Also no heavy grunting or breathing.

    • IamEzza on 10/08/2018 - 03:16
      +1

      Good point, cars going faster make more noise.
      So the faster a car is travelling the better a pedestrian can hear the car coming therefore avoiding more accidents!

  • Caped Baldy on 08/08/2018 - 18:46
    +1

    IMO kids and adults are more likely to be run over by big FWD vehicles with poor visibility than by speeding cars alone, not that there is much difference with 40km/h and 30km/h.

    And just because a car is noisy doesn't necessarily mean it is speeding. The coppers really need noise detectors to track the (profanity) with illegal mufflers and poor taste in music.

    • Diji1 on 08/08/2018 - 21:35
      +1

      not that there is much difference with 40km/h and 30km/h.

      There is a large difference in the stopping distances of those two speeds.

    • [Deactivated] on 08/08/2018 - 23:49
      +1

      Which 'big' Front Wheel Drive vehicles are you talking about?

      • IamEzza on 10/08/2018 - 03:12

        Those Honda Civics are a menace I tells ya!

  • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 08/08/2018 - 18:48
    +5

    "The coppers really need noise detectors"

    What, like ears?

    • Caped Baldy on 08/08/2018 - 21:29
      -2

      Actual decibel meters, couldn't think of the terminology. I live near a major road, the number of loud motorbikes and hoons is grinding my gears.

      • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 08/08/2018 - 21:45

        Yes, and ears can detect the noise.

      • jno on 09/08/2018 - 11:15

        Do you expect them to sit on your street 24 hours a day? Just be thankful its noise of cars and not the noise of someone raiding your house mate

  • Donaldhump on 08/08/2018 - 20:23
    +3

    Usain bolt would get a speeding fine in this street

    • HighAndDry on 09/08/2018 - 10:06
      +1

      Melbourne is racist against Jamaicans - FACT.

  • tanksinatra on 08/08/2018 - 20:47

    It is possible to sprint faster than 30kmh. What next… are they going to fine runners?

    • Diji1 on 08/08/2018 - 21:36
      -1

      You must be friends with Superman or something.

      • hashtagbargain on 09/08/2018 - 00:01
        +2

        Not superman, just Usain bolt.

      • tanksinatra on 09/08/2018 - 16:56
        +1

        30kmh is a 12sec 100m sprint. You wouldn't qualify for anything with that speed.

  • hasselbladsnapper on 08/08/2018 - 20:50
    +2

    Looks like the red flag & man will be re-introduced from the dawn of motoring. If this,and similar speed limits are indeed the new normal for the motoring public, a colour coded centerline must be implemented to give us an instant guide of the prevailing speed limit. GREEN = 50km , YELLOW = 40, RED = 30km. At least then we will have some chance of avoiding fines from cameras and hidden speed limits caused by trees etc!!.

    • Diji1 on 08/08/2018 - 21:37
      +1

      Er no they're just reducing the speed limits, nothing about men with red flags yet.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join