Since Gungahlin grew, my single-carriageway, residential street in North Canberra has been turned into an arterial dragway.
I do not especially object to the volume of traffic, but I do object to the traffic volume (in noise) and the safety hazard. The infuriating thing is that it is so unnecessary. With very little initial cost and a great deal of long-term saving it could be fixed.
Huge amounts of money have been spent on consultants to diligently listen and take no notice of what residents want. And now absurdly expensive roadworks are being undertaken in the very places where there is no need for them.
Now, I don’t want to abuse my position as columnist to bid for special treatment for my street, but rather to make some points in favour of all residents against the almighty car, especially as Transport Ministers are to meet on Friday and the question of speed limits will come up.
The case for reducing the speed limit to 50km/h on all single-carriageway streets where there are dwellings is overwhelming. So overwhelming that an individual state or territory would be well-justified in going it alone. Moreover, given the evidence is out there, any minister who did not do his or her utmost to see the limit dropped should feel very guilty indeed about the unnecessary death, injury and cost that the higher limit causes in the meantime.
The 60km/h limit is an accident of historical circumstance that has nothing to do with road safety. It was raised arbitrarily in 1964 from 30mph to 35mph because of car and road improvements, though no account was made for the immutable and finite capacity of the humans in the car to absorb the information at the faster speed and respond to it. Then in 1974 with metrification the 35mph (56km/h) limit was rounded up to 60km/h with no reference to safety.
In other countries, especially Europe, where the limit has been reduced to 50km/h very large reductions in death and injury have followed for a very tiny increase in travel times.
Of course, it would be easy to say why 50km/h, why not 40, or 30? If the speed limit were zero; there would be no accidents. But the difference between 60km/h and 50km/h seems critical. It has a huge effect on death and injury compared to a tiny inconvenience, which is unmatched at the lower levels, such as a reduction from 50 to 40 or 40 to 30. Those drops require much greater inconvenience for much less death and injury benefit.
There are probably several reasons for this all of which ultimately come down to laws of physics and the human factor which seem to coalesce around the 50km/h mark.
As speed increases other critical factors increase exponentially. One of those factors is the amount of information that has to be processed by the brain. In the context of a suburban street, with kids, dogs, signs, side streets and other traffic, there is too much information at around the 60km/h mark and a slight reduction in speed makes the amount of information manageable so that reactions are more effective.
Another factor is braking distance, which increases with the square of the initial speed. That is true over all speeds, but it seems the 60-50 difference is critical. At the distance in which the 50km/h car has come to a stop the 60km/h car is still doing about 40km/h. And the distance in which the 50km/h car comes to a stop is often around the critical distance in suburban crash situations _ the kid that jumps out; the car that fails to give way and so on.
Further, the 50-60 difference is critical with impact. With little or no braking from these speeds, the 60km/h car has about a 50 per cent chance of killing the pedestrian it hits, and the percentage drops off dramatically with lower impact speeds. Once again the force of impact is proportional to the square of the speed.
A 1994 study by the NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit, the University of Adelaide and the Federal Office of Road Safety used crash reconstruction techniques and a detailed investigation of 176 pedestrian fatalities in the Adelaide metropolitan area, almost all in 60 km/h speed zones. The study found that 32 per cent of pedestrians killed in 60 km/h zones would probably have survived if the vehicle had been travelling just 5 km/h slower before the emergency.
Small reductions in speed especially around the 60km/h mark have dramatic effects on injury and death.
When Denmark cut its limit from 60 to 50, pedestrian deaths fell 24 per cent. There has been similar experiences elsewhere.
Countries with an urban speed limit of 50 km/h or less have an average death rate 30 per cent lower than countries with an urban limit of 60km/h. Death rates among hit pedestrians in countries with a 60km/h limit are more than 40 per cent higher than in 50 km/h limit countries.
Alas, in the words of Swiss road-safety researched Felix Walz, “”it seems it is necessary to prove that the laws of physics apply in each and every country.”
That proof has to be demonstrated mainly to politicians rather than the broad mass of people who approve speed-limit cuts. Politicians fear the vote-changing backlash of the 16 per cent who vigorously oppose speed reductions and ignore the more sensible silent majority opinion (running around 70 per cent according to NRMA and RACV surveys) which will not change votes because of this issue alone.
There are honourable exceptions. In the ACT the Greens’ Kerrie Tucker has made a strong call for speed reduction in the suburbs. She has made an interesting case in addition to the straight death and injury question. Citing figures from the Staysafe study in NSW she makes a case that the 60km/h limit is particularly nasty for the vulnerable in society _ the very young and the aged.
These people who are less mobile and less able to cope with traffic are the very people who stay close to home in the suburban streets. Suburban streets become the place for their casualties (injury or death): 73 per cent of young cyclist casualties are on suburban streets; 65 per cent of young (0-16yrs) pedestrian casualties and 50 per cent of elderly pedestrian casualties.
Over 60s make up 40 per cent of pedestrian casualties but only 15 per cent of the population.
Our new Minister for Urban Services, Trevor Kaine, who has made the aged a special interest in the past, should take note.
Of course, the new limit has to be enforced. But even without any greater enforcement measures, speeds will fall. The law-abiding will come down 10km/h from 60 to 50; the risk takers will come down from 70 to 60 and the deviant louts will come down from 80 to 70.
But to make the lower limit more effective, other measures are needed _ not silly chicanes, speed humps and roundabouts. A cheaper and more effective solution would be more intelligent use of stop signs. At present, stops signs are often placed a every intersection along a subruban thoroughfare. All this does is create the illusion of immunity and safe passage, so drivers go faster. It would be better to alternate stops signs all over the suburb, so the people on the thoroughfares have to stop at every second intersection.
It would make commuters think twice about going through suburbia instead of arterials where they belong, yet it would not deny convenient use of the streets for people who need to go to places in the suburb.
Anyway, I am not waiting for the new limit. I went 50km/h along suburban streets today and didn’t notice any difference in travel time.