|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter
5 Other Issues 5.1 Introduction
5.2 Research into speed and crash involvement
5.4 Education of road users on speed zoning
5.5 Roads where 110 km/h should apply
5.6 Speed limits in residential streets
5.6.1 The 1992 Government response5.7 School speed zones5.6.2 Speed Management Policy Committee speed zoning guidelines
5.6.4 Reaction to the Government decision of late 1993
5.6.5 The current 50 km/h local precincts investigation
5.6.6 Some recent Australian research on lower local street speed limits
5.8 Speed limits in shopping streets
The aim of this inquiry is to advise the Parliament on the implementation of the recommendations in the 1991 report of the Social Development Committee accepted by the Government of the day. This chapter looks at issues not covered in previous chapters and the sequence followed is generally that of the order of recommendations in that report.
The first recommendation of the Social Development Committee was:
The Minister for Transport commission the Monash University Accident Research Centre to carry out a comprehensive study of the relationship between speed and crash involvement in Victoria. [1]
The response of the Government in May 1992 supported the recommendation.
The Committee was advised that this study had not been undertaken, but that some research on speed had been undertaken by MUARC, namely:
VicRoads were asked why the comprehensive study had not been conducted. Their reply was:
A design concept for this study was undertaken by Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC). It was to consist of fitting speed recorders to a fleet of vehicles and to record accident occurrence for the fleet. Because accidents are relatively rare events a very large fleet of vehicles would be necessary for the study. The cost of the study was estimated to be in excess of $300,000. The MUARC Board of Management in November 1992 accepted a recommendation from the Centre that there was no cost-effective methodology available to determine a reliable relationship between speed and crash involvement and therefore the project did not proceed. [2]
The Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) submission noted:
To date, such a study has not been undertaken because of lack of funding. A South Australian study is currently attempting to demonstrate the role of speed in a number of crashes using a case-control methodology and retrospective crash examination.
The need leading to the previous recommendations therefore still applies. A comprehensive and accurate account of the role of speeding in crash involvement would be of significant benefit in helping guide enforcement policy and procedures as well as helping specify alternative and/or supplementary measures required. In the longer term, this knowledge will assist in bringing about a change in the community attitude to excessive speeding as unacceptable behaviour in much the same way that greater knowledge about the relationship between elevated blood alcohol content (BAC) and crashes helped shaped drink-driving attitudes and initiatives. [3]
At the public hearing Dr B. Fildes of MUARC said:
As a result of the last parliamentary inquiry we set out to design a study to do that and we submitted that study design to VicRoads. We have also undertaken some preliminary work.
The biggest weakness with most of the crash involvement work in the past, we believe, is the lack of objective speed data. A lot of that work was based on police estimates of speed, on insurance company estimates of speed, what speed people claim they were travelling at and so on.
... the problem is getting objective hard data on what travel speeds are in crashes. That is where we believe any work in this area ought to be heading.
As a demonstration project, we were looking at trying to get a number of vehicles fitted with a black box, a device for measuring speed in the event of an accident. There are at least two or three devices around that are reasonably expensive, but we believe it can be done much more cheaply. At that time the Victorian government vehicle fleet was having audit devices fitted to its vehicles which as a side benefit provide this sort of data, so we were trying to mount a study onto that. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons the vehicle fleet never had those devices fitted and so the study could not proceed.
The biggest problem with the study is that it is very expensive to fit enough vehicles with black boxes to provide sufficient data, given that probably only 1 or 2 per cent of the vehicles will crash in any one year. It just makes it a very expensive project and for that reason agencies have tended to shy away from funding the study. The evaluation part of it would be expensive enough, but getting sufficient vehicles fitted with devices is really where the money would be required.
However, without that sort of data I do not think we will ever really get a clear understanding on the relationship between speed and crash involvement. [4]
The Transport Accident Commission submission advised that the Commission:
... strongly supports 'the evaluation of the relationship between speed and crash involvement in Victoria' as a priority under the baseline funding of MUARC provided by participating agencies, RACV, VicRoads, Victoria Police and the TAC. [5]
The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria submission stated that although this information would be valuable the RACV now believes that if this level of finance was available it may be better used to research other road safety matters. [6]
More recently the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Road Accident Research Unit at the University of Adelaide undertook a study which estimated the effect on pedestrian fatalities of a reduction in travel speeds. The results were based on detailed investigations of 176 fatal pedestrian collisions in the Adelaide area between 1983 and 1991. Estimates were developed for a range of speed reduction scenarios. The study found that a reduction of 5 km/h in vehicle travelling speeds in the Adelaide area could be expected to result in a reduction of 30% in the incidence of fatal pedestrian collisions. Under this scenario 10% of collisions would have been avoided altogether. [7]
Commenting on the study the Director of the Research Unit, Dr J. McLean, said the findings presented a persuasive case for a return to the lower speed limits of the 1960s. [8] (The report noted that the general urban speed limit was increased from 30 mph (48 km/h) to 35 mph (56 km/h) about 30 years ago and then further increased to 60 km/h, rather than 55 km/h, at the time of metrication.)
The Committee notes that the Government has still not fully implemented the Social Development Committee's recommendation.
The Committee finds that given:
there is still a need, despite the acknowledged difficulties, for fundamental research by MUARC (or other research bodies) into the effect of speed and crash causation.
Because of the national significance of the problem and the limited funds available for fundamental road safety research in state budgets this issue is one where Federal funding (or a combination of State and Federal funding) would seem appropriate.
The second, fourth and fifth recommendations related to the computer expert speed advisory program VLIMITS developed by the Australian Road Research Board in conjunction with VicRoads.
The recommendations were:
2. In order to achieve credible speed limits, a greater emphasis should be given to the 85th percentile speed when setting speed zones with VLIMITS.
4. VicRoads include the condition of a road surface in the VLIMITS program.
5. VicRoads establish guidelines for interpretation of VLIMITS' advice. [9]
The Government responded in May 1992 by saying that a review of VLIMITS would take account of these recommendations.
Information from the Australian Road Research Board is that many improvements had now been included in the system. [10] Furthermore other organisations were now interested in applying the VLIMITS technique to their situations. The Board has developed versions for New South Wales (NLIMITS) and Queensland (QLIMITS) and is negotiating with New Zealand. The Transport Research Laboratory in the United Kingdom had recently received a detailed briefing on the system having identified it as being the best of its type is in the world. [11] Furthermore a recent international meeting of 'expert system' researchers and developers in Montreal, Canada accepted it as being one of the most advanced expert systems in terms of its application in the real world.12
THE COMMITTEE IS PLEASED THAT THE ADVANCED TECHNIQUES FOR SPEED ZONING DETERMINATION (VLIMITS) PIONEERED IN VICTORIA ARE NOW BEING RECOGNISED AS LEADING THE WORLD.
The third recommendation was:
VicRoads investigate methods of educating road users about the reasons for speed zoning. [13]
The Government response was that VicRoads would investigate the most cost-effective means and, nearing completion of the speed revision program, specific attention would be given to highlighting the completion of the program and to explaining the rationale behind the speed zoning system.
At the public hearing Mr D. Anderson of VicRoads said:
A public campaign was planned to support the general review of speed limits. The first two phases of that campaign, which applied to rural road changes, and arterial road changes in the metropolitan area in particular, were undertaken. The majority of the campaign was deferred until the Government decided the method by which 50 km/h zones would be implemented, and that work has not been done. Our intention is that if regulations are introduced to allow 50 km/h precincts to be determined, then such a campaign would go ahead. [14]
VicRoads were subsequently asked by the Committee what are the components of the public awareness/information campaigns planned to coincide with the introduction of 50 km/h?
VicRoads' reply was that:
As no decision has yet been taken to introduce 50 km/h precincts there has been no specific planning undertaken for implementation campaigns. [15]
VicRoads released a two page Information Bulletin in August 1993 (see Appendix H) but it would have had a limited audience amongst Victoria's 3 million drivers.
The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) submission stated:
To the RACV's knowledge, the investigations were not undertaken and hence education has not been part of the speed management program.
Some advertising of the speed zoning changes was undertaken during 1993, however, it did not explain the rationale behind the speed zoning. The RACV believes that a major educational campaign is required to inform road users about the reasons for speed zoning. This would support the updated speed limits and help motorists to understand that speed limits are not recommended speeds. This is one aspect of the speed management strategy which was not lost when the Government decided not to reduce residential speed limits by legislation. [16]
The Transport Accident Commission submission noted that, as part of its commitment to public education on speed and related road safety issues, they provided $31 500 to VicRoads to publicise the new speed limit zones when they were introduced in February 1993. [17]
The Committee finds that the Government only partly implemented the recommendation it had accepted in May 1992 and there is still a need to adequately educate road users on the reasons for speed zoning.
On 1 June 1987 a 110 km/h speed limit was introduced on approximately 300 kilometres of rural and outer urban freeways in Victoria. In late September 1989 the speed limit on these roads was reset to 100 km/h. VicRoads later commenced a detailed study of the effect on road crashes of the increase and subsequent decrease in speed limits.
The sixth and seventh SDC recommendations were:
6. VicRoads complete its study comparing crash rates on freeways and expressways which had speed limits of 110 km/h. This is to be completed by 30 June 1992.
7. Following this study the Road Safety Co-ordinating Council examine the suitability of those sections of freeways and expressways where the 110 km/h speed limit may safely be applied. [18]
5.5.1 The 1992 Government response
The Government response in 1992 was that a study was underway and would be completed by the due date. The Government also stated that one of its initiatives (following an alarming increase in the road toll in 1989) was to reduce the maximum speed limit (on selected sections of freeway) from 110 km/h to 100 km/h. The Government also said that:
... at this time it is firmly of the view that restoring the maximum speed limit on any roads to 110 km/h would send the wrong message to Victorian motorists and detract from the effectiveness of the current anti-speeding media campaign. [19]
5.5.2 VicRoads study of the 1987/89 experience with the 110 km/h speed limit
In August 1992 VicRoads published the report on the evaluation of the road safety effects of the 110 km/h speed limit. [20] In brief this showed an increase in the injury accident rate per kilometre travelled of about 25% when the speed limit increased and corresponding decline of 20% when the speed limit returned to 100 km/h. These results were in comparison to a control group of roads and were statistically significant. Outer urban freeways had a worse result than rural freeways in that the accident rate did not return to its previous level when the speed limit increase was reversed (see Figure 1).
[Explanation: This figure show the relative casualty accident rates for three periods each of about two and a half years. The rates (in terms of number of casualty accidents per distance travelled) for both rural and outer urban freeways are shown in the form of an index, with the period before the 110 km/h speed limit having a value of 100. The source of the data is a VicRoads report cited in footnote 20.
It should be noted that, in terms of accidents per vehicle kilometres of travel, the 'Before 110 kph' rural accident rate was about 60% higher than the urban rate.]
5.5.3 Change of Government policy
In February 1993 a 110 km/h speed limit was reintroduced, but only on a more limited set of high standard rural freeways. [21] The RACV believed that this was appropriate and it appears that the change has widespread community support. [22]
As mentioned earlier in the Report the safety effects of this more recent change have yet to be assessed.
5.5.4 Current investigation to extend the 110 km/h speed limit to other roads
In the VicRoads submission mention was made that the Minister for Roads and Ports had directed VicRoads to investigate the extension of 110 km/h speed limits to some other roads.
At the public hearing Mr D. Anderson of VicRoads elaborated on the topic by saying:
The Minister's request on 110 km/h zones followed some submissions from local government in the north-west of Victoria. We have studied the crash rates on those particular roads and obtained a great deal of information from New South Wales on the performance of roads that appear to be similar, on which there is a 110 km/h limit, and for which before and after information is available.
The results will be finalised and recommendations made to the Minister within the next few weeks. I should say that at this stage it appears as though the net community cost of such a change would be minimal in that the travel time savings would very closely offset the increased trauma costs. To complete the work before making a recommendation we need to determine whether we could develop some guidelines for setting 110 km/h speed limits applicable to roads with low crash rates without including other lengths of highway in Victoria where the crash situation is worse. [23]
Some witnesses at the public hearing were asked their view on extending the 110 km/h limit to other roads. Mr. J Sanderson of the RACV opposed such a move stating:
There is no value in comparing 110 km/h in South Australia with 100 km/h in Victoria because we have a different enforcement regime and different design standards on some of those roads. [24]
Commander R. Johnson of the Victoria Police said:
They would have to be dual-carriage highways of a high standard before we would agree that would be a good thing. [25]
Superintendent D. Newton of the Victoria Police added:
Further to the other issue about inconsistency, perhaps the Sturt Highway is a good example of a road going from one state, across another and into Adelaide. It is risk taking. It could be done, but if it is done we are actually saying you could do 119 km/h before you get booked, considering the 10 km/h speed buffer for speed cameras. We see upgrading roads of that nature to 110 km/h as being very risky and detrimental to road safety. [26]
The Committee notes the completion of the VicRoads report on the road safety effects of the 110 km/h speed limit on certain freeways from 1987 to 1989. It also notes the more selective introduction of a 110 km/h speed limit on high standard rural freeways in February 1993 and the fact that the safety effects had yet to be evaluated.
The Committee considers that, given the previously poor safety experience with the 110 km/h speed limit, it would be wise to first determine the safety experience of the current 110 km/h roads before extending this speed limit to any other roads.
The 11th and 12th recommendations were:
11. The Minister for Transport amend the Road Safety (Traffic) Regulations to set the speed limit for residential streets at 40 km/h.
12. The Minister for Transport amend the Road Safety (Traffic) Regulations to enable local government in conjunction with VicRoads to nominate residential streets in which other speed limits will apply. [27]
The Government response in 1992 was to strongly support the intent of these recommendations to reduce traffic speeds to appropriate levels in residential streets. A hierarchy of speed zones was to be developed involving:
The Speed Management Policy Committee were to develop guidelines and the then Government expected to receive final proposals from VicRoads by the end of July 1992 and to commence substantial implementation of lower speed limits on residential streets by the end of 1992.
It should be noted that whilst about 85% of the properties adjacent to arterial roads in built-up areas are residential the term 'residential' refers to local (ie non-arterial) streets. The following discussion on residential/local street speed limits in general would also apply to the small number of local streets in areas where properties are predominantly commercial, industrial or special use.
Between May 1992 and early 1993 the Speed Management Policy Committee developed slightly different guidelines which had:
At the public hearing Mr F. White of the Municipal Association of Victoria said:
On 4 March 1993 a letter was sent to all municipalities by the then Chief Executive of VicRoads which included the phrase 'prior to the introduction of the 50 km/h general urban limit late in 1993'. So, in March 1993, just after the 110 km/h limit was introduced on freeways, councils were advised by the Chief Executive of VicRoads that the 50 km/h limit would most probably be introduced later in 1993. Councils were then working with VicRoads on looking at speed limits on all roads, firstly, to achieve the right limits on arterials and main roads and, secondly, to get the introduction of a blanket limit later in 1993. Signs were being ordered for that purpose.
We were then given some informal advice in about September that the government was considering the lower limit again. On 26 November 1993, the MAV and all councils were formally advised by the Minister for Roads and Ports, Mr Baxter, and I will quote from his letter:
'The government acknowledges the community support for lower speeds in appropriate local streets and believes that local communities through their municipal council should have the opportunity to play the lead role in deciding which local streets or precincts should be subject to lower speed limits.
The government has therefore decided to retain the 60 km/h general urban limit and where a community wishes to have a lower speed limit, councils may apply to regional managers for 50 km/h speed limits, to be designated by signposting of the streets or precincts.'
Councils were formally advised on 26 November that the 50 km/h limit was not going ahead. [28]
The decision of the Government not to proceed in the manner envisaged by the Speed Management Policy Committee drew criticism from a number of sources. The RACV submission maintained that the 50 km/h general urban speed limit was an integral part of the overall speed management strategy and stated:
The credibility of a rational speed zoning hierarchy will not be complete until local residential streets have a lower speed limit. [29]
At the public hearing Mr J. Sanderson of the RACV said:
Our major philosophical problem with the current stage of speed limit implementation concerns the 50 km/h limit in residential streets. We believe the state government should have introduced legislation to implement that limit. We do not believe the system that has been put in the place of local government bodies being able to apply for 50 km/h limits will be effective because it will not be applied consistently across the state and will create problems for our members and motorists in general. [30]
The Municipal Association submission focussed solely on this topic and presented results of their survey of municipal councils which strongly supported a blanket 50 km/h limit with overwhelming support from metropolitan councils. (Further details are given in Paragraph 2.8)
At the public hearing the Victoria Police said that they supported the 50 km/h limit. [31]
Dr J. Jarvis of the Australian Road Research Board gave a personal view, that:
... speed management programs work when you can create in the minds of drivers a hierarchy of use for purpose of the roads. For that reason I believe roads that do not serve a general traffic movement purpose would be better off at a lower speed than the overall urban 60 km/h. Therefore for that reason I would support a 50 km/h speed limit. [32]
... I believe there should always be a hierarchy of speed associated with the fitness and purpose of that speed in particular locations. [33]
Submissions from the Town and Country Planning Association, the Bicycle Institute of Victoria and other cyclist groups supported the originally recommended 40 km/h speed limit for residential streets. [34] (Further details on these submissions are given in Paragraph 2.9)
VicRoads in its submission advised that it had been directed by the Minister for Roads and Ports to investigate the establishment of '50 km/h local precincts'. [35]
At the public hearing Mr D. Anderson of VicRoads said:
We have been directed by the Minister to develop a regulatory impact statement to allow local governments to implement 50 km/h precincts. These are areas where you can define all the roads as having a similar function and you can sign the perimeter of that area at 50 km/h. The regulations already allow such a precinct to be determined and a 40 km/h speed to be nominated. We have a consultant working on contract to us to develop the regulatory impact statement. I believe it will be completed by the end of next week under that contract. [36]
The Chief Executive Officer of VicRoads, Mr C. Jordan added:
A number of options were canvassed following the recommendation of the previous committee. The government's decision was to retain the 60 km/h speed limit and to provide for municipalities to identify locations in the local road system where they would like lower speed limits to be implemented, basically a limit of 50 km/h. A process has been agreed upon whereby councils can implement that by applying to VicRoads. [37]
VicRoads were asked by the Committee when the proposed regulatory impact statement is likely to be released for public comment and will the Statement provide estimates of the likely safety benefits of the proposal.
VicRoads reply was:
The Regulatory Impact Statement is currently at a draft stage. It will be submitted to the Minister for Roads and Ports in the New Year who will then decide whether to proceed with the process.
The Regulatory Impact Statement will, where possible, quantify in monetary terms all benefits and costs which, in this case, includes safety benefits. [38]
The Committee also asked VicRoads what has been the extent of the response so far from local councils wanting to sign individual roads and precincts to 50 km/h.
VicRoads replied:
To date about 33 councils have formally applied to VicRoads for approval to establish 50 km/h speed limits on individual roads or precincts. [39]
The most recent published investigation of the effect of the implementation of lower speed limits on local streets is that in Unley, an inner suburban area in Adelaide, South Australia. The detailed results are published in the final report of the Local Area Speed Limit Trial Working Party in July 1993. [40]
At the national Road Safety Research and Enforcement Conference held in late November 1994 a paper by Mr C. Harwood of the South Australian Department of Transport presented the results of vehicle speed and speed limit compliance surveys for other arterial, collector and local streets in Adelaide. He argued that whilst a 50 km/h general urban speed limit might provide relatively high immediate levels of compliance, it would provide limited scope for further improvements in compliance levels through reduced speeds. He also said that a 40 km/h limit would provide greater scope for a gradual increase in compliance through education, encouragement and enforcement. [41]
The purpose of the current Austroads Urban Speed Management Study is:
To review the relevance of the present general speed limit of 60 km/h in urban areas, in the context of developing an urban speed management strategy and of the level of public credibility generally. [42]
The objectives are to:
Assess the appropriateness of the present general urban speed limit in the context of current actions by State authorities to rationalise the urban speed limit hierarchy.
To determine whether a lower limit, alone or in conjunction with a regime of limits for different road types, would be effective and feasible. [43]
Some further details of the Austroads study are given in Appendix I.
At the public hearing both the RACV and Victoria Police gave the impression that there is a likelihood that the Austroads working party may propose a general urban speed limit of 50 km/h.
Mr J. Sanderson of the RACV advised:
Again the issue is being debated by the national committee and we believe it will come down with a 50 km/h speed limit on residential streets. We believe it will leave the method of implementation to the individual states. That is a disappointment because it could lead to inconsistencies not only within the state but across states. [44]
VicRoads were asked to comment including when any public announcement was envisaged. VicRoads' reply included the statement that:
The project team has prepared two draft documents, a 'Position Paper', describing various speed zoning practices throughout Australia, and a 'Technical Concepts Paper'. These will be combined into a single report for submission to Austroads around the end of 1994. A final decision from Austroads could be expected around mid 1995. [45]
In relation to this national context it might be noted that in June 1994, the Federal Parliamentary Secretary for Transport, Mr Neil O'Keefe MHR, announced that one of the ten short term actions for immediate implementation in the National Road Safety Action Plan was:
Accelerate, for early government consideration, the finalisation of a national report on urban speed management which is examining ways to improve the safety of vulnerable road users such as the elderly, pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcyclists. [46]
The Committee notes the change in Government policy since it was last reported to Parliament in May 1992, prior to the change of Government.
Unlike other aspects of the speed management policy the Government's current approach to addressing the issue of speed limits for residential streets does not have the same widespread support of road safety-related agencies and organisations.
The Committee also notes moves at a national level, through the Austroads organisation, to study urban speed management and a forthcoming regulatory impact statement for 50 km/h precincts in Victoria.
The Committee's view is that, as a matter of speed management principle, the speed limit on local streets should be lower than on the traffic-carrying arterial roads. What speed this should be in Victoria and the methods of advising road users of this speed (or speeds) should take into account results of the current study by Austroads and implementation of the National Road Safety Strategy.
The Committee suggests it would be prudent for Victoria to wait on the outcome of the national study before initiating any action which might result in a piecemeal and inconsistent approach to implementation, a possible proliferation of speed limit signs in local areas and a threat to the credibility and enforcement of the speed limits recently established for Victorian arterial roads.
The 13th recommendation was that:
13. The Minister for Transport -
- set school speed zones at 40 km/h in the vicinity of schools; except where a school is on a highway or arterial road and the current speed zone is higher than 60 km/h, the school speed zone should be less than the speed limit.
- designate the area of the school speed zone as appropriate in consultation with local authorities.
- in consultation with the school, the regional road safety council and the municipality, set the times and locations at which the school speed zones will operate. [47]
In reply the Government said that the intent of the recommendations was strongly supported. However the Government was concerned that the application of school speed zones be done in a consistent fashion and complement the other programs, such as Safe Routes to School, which have also been introduced to improve safety in and around schools.
Subsequently VicRoads investigated and trialed a number of approaches to part-time school speed zones and subsequently incorporated a section in their Speed Zoning Guidelines. [48] This work has also been published in VicRoads reports and conference papers. [49] A key feature of the current installations is the use of electrically operated flashing lights to draw drivers' attention to the fact that a time-based lower speed limit is operating.
In response to a question at the hearing Mr D. Anderson of VicRoads said:
The guidelines for speed limit selection include a section on school speed zones. There have been a number of applications made for these, and some have been installed.
The major issue is the actual cost of installing the devices that alert motorists to the fact that the speed zone is operating. We would like to develop a cheaper way for doing that so that obviously more speed zones of that nature can be implemented. The costs are shared between VicRoads and local government, (depending on the status of the road) and the school. Obviously, if we can make those installations cheaper, it makes it a bit easier to provide funding. [50]
VicRoads' Chief Executive Officer, Mr C. Jordan added:
...part-time zones have become very popular during the past 12 months or so and seem a good solution to the problem of speed on arterial roads, but they are limited to the periods when children arrive at and leave school. The installations cost between $20 000 and $50 000 each and the cost is shared fifty-fifty between municipalities and VicRoads.
The reason for the relatively high cost is that to make them practical they usually need to be remotely operated by a switch from the school principal's office or by some other responsible person, which adds to the cost. On the other hand, if that facility is not available the system tends not to operate all that well, and that defeats the purpose of having it installed. [51]
The RACV also commented on the current high cost of installing school speed zones. They believe that the use of alternative low cost conspicuity devices should be investigated and trialed on roads where traffic volumes may not warrant the flashing yellow light. The devices could include conspicuous flags or oversized speed limit signs. [52]
Although not specifically mentioned in the Social Development Committee recommendations the subject of lower speed limits in 'strip' shopping centres has been addressed by the Speed Management Policy Committee. A recently published paper describes surveys of vehicle speeds in 10 typical metropolitan and country shopping centres. [53]
The paper concludes that:
... there is not a significant speeding problem through strip shopping centres during shopping hours, with respect to the current legal limit of 60 km/h. In an environment where significant numbers of vehicles are already constrained to travelling at or below 40 km/h the use of part-time speed limits is considered to be unnecessary and is likely to raise a number of administrative and practical problems. [54]
The 14th recommendation was that:
The Minister for Transport does not introduce variable speed limits based on adverse weather conditions until the technology is further developed, and the existing offence of Dangerous Driving be used by police where circumstances warrant it. [55]
In 1992 the Government supported the recommendation. Variable speed limits for adverse weather conditions were in operation on the Westgate Bridge but the technology was not considered appropriate for widespread application. VicRoads would continue to work on developments in this field.
At the public hearing VicRoads were asked what was happening and Mr D. Anderson advised:
We have examined what has been done. In Australia the major work has been trials carried out by the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales in Wollongong and the Bulli Pass area. So far as I can recall, trials were implemented in about 1974 but were unsuccessful because the crash rates in that area are still extremely high and do not appear to have changed.
With regard to other variable speed messaging, we have implemented some changes on the Westgate Bridge, of which Committee members would be aware, and also trialed some devices on the Calder Highway between Gisborne and Woodend. These detect the presence of ice on the road surface and then operate warning signs, in the form of flashing lights, when ice forms on the road. We are trialing what is available but, generally speaking, great success is not evident. [56]
A recent paper from the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales provides information on a new fog-activated variable speed sign installation in the Bulli Pass area near Wollongong. This system responds automatically to the presence of fog on the road and adjusts the speed limit signs in the area. [57]
Whilst the focus of variable speed limit signs has traditionally been to warn of poor weather conditions a 'state of the art' trial in the United Kingdom has combined speed measurement, number plate recognition and variable message sign technology to advise drivers and prosecute persistent speeding motorists at a roadworks section on a motorway. [58]
Another recent report describes a proposal to trial variable speed limits on a section of the Sydney-Newcastle expressway. [59]
The Committee finds that VicRoads should continue to monitor variable speed limit developments especially with regard to poor weather and traffic conditions.
In the late 1980s Victoria, as well as New South Wales and Queensland, abandoned the use of the speed de-restriction sign. This sign had indicated entry to a section of road on which the general rural speed limit (currently 100 km/h) applied. The recommended replacement for the de-restriction sign was the 100 km/h sign.
The Australian Road Research Board submission noted that it appears that the use of the 100 km/h sign for two different purposes (as a 100 km/h speed zone and in place of the de-restriction sign) is leading to some confusion, particularly on roads where it is impossible to travel at 100 km/h even under ideal conditions (eg. because of unsealed surfaces, mountainous roads and roads with many low speed curves). [60] [61]
The Board recently carried out a study looking at other alternatives to the de-restriction sign and the results are soon to be published. [62]
The Australian Road Research Board has also carried out research into the various characteristics of buffer zone configuration and signing between high and low speed zones (eg. a short section of 80 km/h between a rural speed limit of 100 km/h and a town speed limit of 60 km/h). Results indicated that the use of advanced warning signing of the lower zone were as effective as a buffer speed limit. Where a buffer limit was installed in areas of low adjacent roadside development (eg, sparsely spaced housing) a differential zone should be considered where only the approach direction to the lower speed limit had the buffer speed zone introduced with no buffer zone for drivers leaving the lower speed zone. [63]
The Committee finds that the Government had still not fully implemented the Social Development Committee's recommendation on the need for fundamental research by MUARC (or other research bodies) into the effect of speed and crash causation. Despite the acknowledged difficulties, there is still a need for such fundamental research.
The Committee is pleased thatthe advanced techniques for speed zoning determination (VLIMITS) pioneered in Victoria are now being recognised as leading the world.
The Committee finds that the Government had only partly implemented the recommendation it had accepted on the need to adequately educate road users on the reasons for speed zoning.
The Committee considers that, given the previously poor safety experience with the 110 km/h speed limit, it would be prudent to first determine the safety experience of the current 110 km/h roads before extending this speed limit to any other roads.
The Committee notes the change in Government policy on speed limits for residential streets since it was last reported to Parliament in May 1992. Unlike all other aspects of the speed management policy the Government's current approach to addressing the issue of speed limits for residential streets does not have the widespread support of road safety-related agencies and organisations.
The Committee also notedmoves at a national level, through the Austroads organisation, to study urban speed management and a possible forthcoming regulatory impact statement for 50 km/h precincts in Victoria.
The Committee considers that, as a matter of speed management principle, the speed limit on local streets should be lower than on the traffic-carrying arterial roads. What speed this should be in Victoria and the methods of advising road users of this speed (or speeds) should take into account current action by Austroads and implementation of the National Road Safety Strategy. It would be prudent for Victoria to wait until the outcome of the national study was known before taking further action.
The Committee considers that VicRoads should continue to monitor variable speed limit signing developments, both with regard to poor weather and traffic conditions.
The Committee recommends that:
2. Funding should be provided for fundamental research into the effect of speed on crash causation.
3. There be further education of road users on the reasons for speed zoning.
4. The road safety experience of the current 110 km/h roads be determined before extending this speed limit to any other roads.
5. As a matter of speed management principle speed limits on local streets should be lower than on traffic-carrying arterial roads.
6. Victoria await the outcome of the Austroads urban speed management study and subsequent discussions at the Australian Transport Council before taking any action to change urban speed limits.
Committee Room
20 March 1995
Footnotes to Chapter 5
Return to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
