The ACT Government should not delay the two-year trial of 50km/h speed limits recommended unanimously by an ACT Legislative Assembly committee. The Government says it does not agree with reducing the limit. However, Urban Services Minister Brendan Smyth said at the time the report came out earlier this month, that he would implement the committee’s decision. Later he said that some confusion had been created by the committee’s report. That should not be a reason for delay.
The committee defines five types of road: residential, feeder, sub-arterial, arterial and parkway. Only residential and feeder roads would have the new limit. Others would remain as they are. The difficult question, according to Mr Smyth, is to define what is sub-arterial, deserving a 60km/h or higher limit, and what is feeder deserving a 50km/h limit.
That should present no real concern. When implementing the committee’s recommendation Mr Smyth can take the approach of Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass. He said, “”When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” Mr Smyth can designate whatever road he wants as feeder or sub-arterial and put up the 50km/h signs accordingly. That may pose a little political difficulty as he gets blamed on one hand by residents of some roads for not lowering the limit and on the other hand by those who motor on some roads for lowering the limits on them, but that is of little moment. If should not be beyond the wit of his advisers to work out which roads get changed.
In any event this is a trial. The critical thing is to reduce the limit in the smaller residential streets. If any street is in doubt it would be better to leave the existing limit for the duration of the trial. It can be reduced later when the trial in inevitably successful.
All the evidence points to it being a success. At first, public opinion is often against reducing speed limits. But at trial usually brings them in favour as they see the increased value in quieter streets and greater protection of elderly and young. They also see that the increase in travel time is trivial because the greatest part of a journey (particularly in Canberra) is done on arterial roads and parkways.
The committee has got it right. Speed limits are coming down in the rest of Australia. In fact, they were set too high at metric conversion in the 1970s when the old 35 miles per hour (56.3km/h) was set at 60km/h. The lower limits are safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Crash statistics reveal a significant increase in stopping time and amount of damage done at the higher limits. It is a question of balancing convenience. The small inconvenience of extra travel time for a very small part of a journey is insignificant against the costs of injury to people. Obviously, there comes a time when the balance goes the other way. One would not reduce the limit to 30km/h, for example. However, in the US, the limit on most residential streets is 25 miles per hour which is 40.2km/h.
Mr Smyth has cited speed cameras as a reason for holding off. Speed cameras are doing well on larger roads, but there is little evidence of enforcement on residential streets. With a lower limit, police might get more active there.
When the trial goes ahead it is crucial that the trial be ACT-wide. To restrict it to one place is likely to compromise the educational value of the trial and to skew its findings. A whole new system of speed control is on trial, not an isolated method of traffic control for one area.