|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter
2 Submissions and Evidence |
2.1 Introduction
2.4 Royal Automobile Club of Victoria 2.5 Transport Accident Commission 2.6 Monash University Accident Research Centre 2.7 Australian Road Research Board |
The Committee invited and received submissions from:
* VicRoads;
* Victoria Police;
* Royal Automobile Club of Victoria;
* Transport Accident Commission of Victoria;
* Monash University Accident Research Centre;
* Australian Road Research Board; and
* Municipal Association of Victoria.
Some other organisations became aware of the Inquiry and also forwarded submissions. The submissions and evidence are briefly summarised below.
The VicRoads submission commenced by describing the Speed Management Policy Committee (SMPC). The Committee was convened by VicRoads in 1992 to implement the Government's decisions on the Social Development Committee report. It has representatives from the following organisations:
* VicRoads - Road Safety Department and Metropolitan and Rural Regions
* Victoria Police - Traffic Support Group
* Victoria Police - Traffic Camera Office
* Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV)
* Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV)
* Institution of Municipal Engineers of Australia (IMEA)
The terms of reference of the Speed Management Policy Committee are:
(a) To provide a credible system of speed zoning which meets driver expectations while achieving a balance between traffic safety and mobility;
(b) To review Victoria's Speed Management Strategy in light of the Social Development Committee's recommendations and advise the relevant authorities on the strategies covering aspects of speed limits, speed zoning, enforcement and education.
(c) To provide guidance on the interpretation and implementation of the strategy to road authorities in setting speed zones and act as an independent arbitrator in disputes over speed zoning; and
(d) To initiate, steer and monitor research into aspects of speed management. [1]
At the public hearing Mr C. Jordan, Chief Executive Officer of VicRoads, said:
Essentially the Speed Management Policy Committee is a consultative group which is to assist each of the participating organisations in discharging their own responsibilities. I believe that it would be wrong to presume that it establishes policy. Rather, it advises those groups, ensures that inputs are received from all relevant agencies and importantly provides important feedback on matters such as business rules and processes which assist in the smooth implementation of speed management policy in the state. [2]
The VicRoads submission included information on the second specific term of reference for the Inquiry, namely:
The order of magnitude of the lengths and speed limit categories where speed limits have been revised.
The estimated lengths of speed limit change are shown in Table 1. 3
Table 1: Order of Magnitude of Lengths of Roads Where Speed Limits Have Been Revised
Previous Limit Revised Limit Lengths of Roads Lengths of Roads
(km/h) (km/h) - Increase (Km) - Decrease (Km)
100 110 435
100 80 150
100 70 10
90 80 25
90 70 5
75 80 1 460
75 70 350
60 80 50
60 70 415
60 50 10
TOTALS 2 360 550
GRAND TOTAL 2 910 Km
At the public hearing Mr C. Jordan also advised that:
As a result of the recent reviews, about 50 per cent, by length, of urban arterial road speed zones have changed in the state and about 3 per cent of rural arterial roads. [4]
In response to a request from the Committee VicRoads provided a supplementary submission giving further information on the extent of the speed limit changes. The total length of arterial roads affected by the speed zone review is approximately 2 900 km out of a total of 26 700 km, ie. approximately 11%. [5] (Residential or local street speed limits have generally remained unchanged with 50 km/h speed limits only being approved on six streets in inner Melbourne suburbs and country towns.)
A more revealing indicator of the extent of the speed limit review was an estimate that approximately 23% of vehicle-kilometres of travel in Victoria was affected. The basis for this estimate is shown in Table 2. The Committee notes that this estimate is possibly on the low side because roads on which the speed limit changes were made are in the higher traffic volume ranges and therefore account for more travel than the average. 6
Table 2: Estimated Extent of Travel Affected By Speed Limit Changes
Road Type Travel % Length With Travel Affected
(Billion Vehicle Speed Limit Change (Billion Vehicle
Kilometres) Kilometres)
Urban arterial 18.8 50 9.4
Urban local 5.0 0 0
Rural arterial 13.4 3 0.4
Rural local 6.3 0 0
TOTAL 43.5 53 9.8
The first VicRoads submission also briefly addressed the individual terms of reference and an appendix provided a very condensed summary of the results of speed measurements undertaken by the RACV and (to a much smaller extent) by VicRoads. The submission concluded with brief paragraphs on:
* school speed zones;
* speed zones in strip shopping centres; and
* speed zoning philosophy.
The Victoria Police submission also mentions the terms of reference of the Speed Management Policy Committee. The submission briefly addresses the specific terms of reference of the Inquiry but provided no quantitative evidence on the effects of the revision.
In response to a question at the public hearing, Superintendent J. Bodinnar said that speed limit changes had affected approximately 60 speed camera sites out of 2 300 across the State, with the 60 being predominantly in the metropolitan area. [7] No information was offered on the effect on vehicle speeds and speeding offences at these particular sites.
The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) provided a comprehensive 30 page submission which addressed both the general and specific terms of reference. [8] It quoted in full and commented on each of the 26 relevant Social Development Committee recommendations. The philosophy of the new Speed Zoning Guidelines were quoted and compared with the results of an a RACV members survey.
The submission also covered the enforcement of speed limits, including its effectiveness, the use of revenue gained from speeding fines and the promptness of infringement notice processing. An appendix provided extensive details of RACV speed monitoring surveys on Melbourne roads. The RACV also made six recommendations for consideration by the Road Safety Committee.
The Transport Accident Commission (TAC) submission mentioned their financial commitment to road safety and the issue of speed on Victorian roads. The Commission also briefly commented on the terms of reference for the inquiry, though mainly focussing on the need which still exits for fundamental research into speed and crash involvement.
The Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) submission covered the importance of speed in crashes, the maximum speed limit, the need for the investigation of speed and crash causation and the need for evaluation and monitoring of the effect of the speed limit changes. Some relevant conclusions of the recent speed review work undertaken for the Federal Office of Road Safety and the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority were mentioned. (A brief description of the MUARC speed review is given in Appendix D.) The following recommendations of that review were noted as being of particular relevance to the Inquiry and are:
* The introduction of top speed limiters on a suitable sample of passenger cars to demonstrate their likely effectiveness;
* The credibility of speed zone limits among motorists;
* The consequences of enforcement tolerances above the speed limit on travel speed behaviour;
* Greater attention to repeater signing of speed limits; and
* Publicity among motorists of current speed zone policies and practices.
At the public hearing Dr B. Fildes, Senior Research Fellow at MUARC provided an overview of the relationships between travel speed and accident occurrence (much of which revolved about the validity or otherwise of some research conducted in the 1960s on accidents and speed variability) and speed and crash consequences/severity. A summary of this material is given in Appendix E.
The Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) submission confined its scope to recent work undertaken by the Board, namely:
* The development of VLIMITS, the computer-based speed advisory system;
* De-restriction signs;
* The Austroads urban speed management study;
* A 130 km/h speed limit proposal for remote parts of Western Australia;
* Local areas speed zones; and
* Alternative methods of signing buffer zones. At the
public hearing Dr J. Jarvis, Research Director of ARRB elaborated on the topics
mentioned above. This information is covered in Chapter 5.
The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) submission focused solely on the 50 km/h general urban speed limit proposal. It presented the results of a survey of councils the Association conducted in February 1994 which showed support for a 50 km/h limit from:
* Fifty Melbourne metropolitan councils (with 4 against and 3 no responses);
* Ten provincial city councils (8 against; 19 no response); and
* Nine rural councils (11 against, 91 no response).
On the basis of the survey the Association asked the Minister for Roads and Ports to adopt a staged approach to introducing a 50 km/h limit, starting in Melbourne and extending to the provincial cities and rural towns 'in line with local support'. The Association stated that a formal response had yet to be received from the Minister but informal advice indicated no change in the Government's position of not implementing a lower general urban speed limit.
At the public hearing Mr F. White of the MAV spoke mainly on the topic of speeds in local streets, with some references to the adequacy of the monitoring of the speed limit review process.
The Town and Country Planning Association, the Bicycle Institute of Victoria, the Bicycle Institute of Australia and the Bicycle Industries and Traders' Association Inc also sent submissions, primarily related to the lack of implementation of lower speed limits in local streets and how this particularly affected the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. The Town and Country Planning Association submission also includes a copy of a report on the safety of walking and cycling in different countries.
Mention was also made of the ecological sustainability of urban development and how increased use of non-motorised modes of transport would be environmentally beneficial.
The Town and Country Planning Association's principal recommendation was that:
The speedy implementation of a blanket 40 kph limit would go a long way to enhancing the role of the bicycle, which is after all, the only non polluting wheeled mode. [9]
The Bicycle Institute of Victoria submission provides information on the safety benefits of reduced speed limits in The Netherlands, Sweden and in some German cities. The submission stated a totally new approach to road accident reduction based on speed alone stating:
This is a significant ethical issue for the Road Safety Committee, because deliberately not reducing speeds by whatever means possible or arguing for the raising of speed limits is based on giving greater priority to motorists. The fact is that the safety needs of cyclists and pedestrians are given low priority by the Roads Corporation of Victoria. [10]
That viewpoint was reinforced by a letter to a Melbourne newspaper subsequent to the hearing by the Australian Democrats spokesman on town and country planning, Mr A. Parker. [11]
The City of Croydon made a submission supporting a 50 km/h urban local street speed limit. [12]
Footnotes to Chapter 2
Return to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|