Chapter 2 Speed

Regular reviews of speed limits, together with increased enforcement, have failed to temper the "culture of speed". Speeding vehicles deny pedestrians mobility, amenity and easy access. In particular, there is wide community concern about vehicles speeding through residential streets.

In Victoria 16% of the road network has a general urban speed limit of 60 km/h, yet 90% of all pedestrian crashes occur in those zones.

The Committee recognises that in some 74%⁴⁹ of incidents pedestrians are themselves at fault and elsewhere the report highlights the benefits of engineering design to both guide and protect pedestrians. The report also canvasses design approaches to control speed levels through shopping centres and residential areas.

But the main thrust of research and submissions to this inquiry relates to speed. Two research findings stand out:

• Approximately 80% of pedestrians struck at 60 km/h will die⁵⁰
  
• Each 1 km/h reduction in average vehicle speed brings a 3% reduction in accident frequency.⁵¹

Together they frame a compelling argument for a further review of speed limits in local areas. The Committee therefore proposes a reduction of the general urban speed limit to 50 km/h.

This speed limit is now common overseas and some countries are considering a further reduction to 30 km/h in built-up areas. A number of countries with lowered limits have reported significant reductions in fatalities and serious injuries. ⁵²

The reduction in the urban speed limit should be accompanied by a major review of the existing road hierarchy (discussed in chapter 3).

The Committee is conscious that some municipalities may have special situations that require the maintenance of a 60 km/h limit to avoid severe traffic build-up. In these rare cases the option of an appeal should be provided.

A reduction in urban speed limits to 50 km/h on local roads is a significant measure to reduce the number of pedestrians who become road casualties.

The distance required for the driver to stop safely and avoid the pedestrian will depend upon the speed the vehicle is travelling.

The faster a vehicle is travelling at the time of a crash the greater the likelihood of injury or death to the pedestrian. For a driver to take evasive action he must first notice a hazard, such as a pedestrian, then react by taking his foot off the accelerator and applying the brakes.

Reaction Time

How quickly a driver reacts and applies the brakes will depend on a number of variables including:

• The driver's age
  
• Driving experience
  
• Degree of alertness
  
• The condition of the vehicle, and
  
• The surrounding environment including the weather.

Often the reaction time is limited because a pedestrian's behaviour can be unpredictable - a pedestrian will walk out from between parked vehicles where the driver has no line of vision or a child will chase a ball or pet onto the road without stopping to consider the traffic.

Stopping Distance

Stopping distance is affected by a number of factors including driver reaction time, vehicle speed, alignment of the roadway, weather conditions and the condition of the vehicle's brakes and tyres.

VicRoads, in their submission to the inquiry, provided the following stopping distances. They assume a one-second driver reaction time and a deceleration force of 0.5G:

At 60 km/h, stopping distance is 45m, At 50 km/h, stopping distance is 34m, and At 40 km/h, stopping distance is 24m.53

The following graph illustrates the distance covered during the driver's reaction time before braking. At 60 km/h a vehicle will have covered about fifteen metres before the driver begins to brake.

Length of Reaction and Braking Distances

Source: Drive Safely...or don't drive at all. Queensland Government brochure, p. 6

Impact Speed

The impact speed is the speed at which a vehicle collides with, for example, a pedestrian. An example cited in a number of reports is the 1994 Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS) report prepared by NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit, University of Adelaide, which demonstrates how a small difference in initial speed can affect a pedestrian struck by a vehicle. The example is based on a pedestrian stepping on to the road in front of a vehicle 26m away. The driver sees the pedestrian and brakes immediately.

If the vehicle is travelling at 60 km/h, the pedestrian will be struck at 40 km/h, a speed at which survival is uncertain and serious injury would result. If the vehicle had been travelling at 50 km/h, the driver could have stopped in time to avoid the pedestrian altogether.⁵⁴

A pedestrian struck at 50 km/h impact speed has a 20% chance of survival, whereas at 30 km/h there is a 90% chance of survival.⁵⁵ For elderly pedestrians, an impact speed of 25 km/h is likely to result in fatal injuries.⁵⁶

The European Transport Safety Council reported on impact speeds and the likelihood of serious or fatal injuries for pedestrians involved in a collision:

... about 5 per cent of those struck by a vehicle travelling at 30 km/h die, whereas at 50 km/h 45 per cent die, and at 65 km/h, 85 per cent die.57

Further European data cited in a report by Austroads in 1995 shows pedestrians struck at impact speeds less than 25 km/h usually sustain only minor injuries and those struck at speeds greater than 30 km/h usually sustain severe injuries. If impact speeds are less than 50 km/h pedestrians are likely to survive their injuries but at speeds greater than 55 km/h the pedestrians are more likely to be killed than survive.⁵⁸

Determining Speed Limits

Roads in Victoria are classified in a hierarchical manner that identifies the standard and primary use of the road. The use of functional classifications allows authorities to manage traffic planning, control and safety. The hierarchy of roads ranges:

... from roads with high through traffic function and high traffic volumes, to roads with a local access function and low traffic volumes.59

VicRoads is responsible for all "declared" roads. The Transport Act 1983 defines declared roads as:

... a freeway, State highway, main road, tourists' road, forest road, stock route, metropolitan bridge, the West Gate Bridge, the Link road or the Extension road; 60

VicRoads maintains the highways and freeways but delegates to councils the care and management of main roads. VicRoads funds the maintenance of these roads and councils must obtain approval before any changes may be made on those main roads.

All other roads are deemed to be "unclassified" and of local significance only, therefore Local Government manages, maintains and provides for those roads with some financial assistance from Federal Government.⁶¹

VicRoads has produced the Traffic Engineering Manual Volume 1 Traffic Management which defines and determines who has responsibility for roads and other matters relating to traffic management such as speed zoning, major traffic control items and intersections.⁶² In this publication, the various road classifications for the Melbourne Metropolitan area are:

FREEWAY Those primary arterial roads which have fully controlled access and provide the principle route for the movement of goods and people PRIMARY ARTERIAL Those roads whose main function is to form the principal routes for the movement of goods and people. Some of the Primary Arterials are designated Principal Traffic Routes by VicRoads for the improvement of traffic flow. SECONDARY ARTERIAL Those roads which supplement the primary arterial roads in providing for through traffic movement to an individually determined limit that is sensitive to roadway characteristics and abutting land uses. COLLECTOR ROAD Important local roads whose function is to distribute traffic between the arterial roads and the local road system and to provide access to abutting property. LOCAL ROAD Those roads or streets not having a significant through traffic function, whose function is to provide access to abutting property.63

The current general urban speed limit in Victoria is 60 km/h. This speed limit applies on all urban or "built-up" roads unless otherwise signposted. The Road Safety (Traffic) Regulations 1998 define a "built-up" area as a road, street, lane on which there is:

(a) urban development; or (b) provision for lighting by means of street lamps; 64

The Traffic Engineering Manual states the urban limit is:

... intended to cover the majority of roads in urban areas with all variations from this requiring signposting.65

Despite the hierarchy system, local roads have the same speed limit as collector and some secondary arterial roads. The guidelines, as found in the Traffic Engineering Manual, for the application of 60 km/h general urban limit is:

This limit may be set on sections of dual carriageway road having intense abutting development with a high level of associated "side friction", eg. from driveways and parking turnover, pedestrian and bicycle activity, etc. This would be typical of some strip shopping streets or divided roads in fully developed areas, with 2 lane carriageways beside a raised median, but with no extra width available for parking.66

Local street speed limits of 50 km/h apply on roads:

... whose primary function in the network is to provide access to property and are undivided carriageway local streets along which there is substantial or full abutting urban development having direct access (driveways).67

The Committee considers that most local roads would fit the above definition yet the present speed limit is 60 km/h.

The guidelines also describe local traffic precincts of 50 km/h as above. The zones can either have each street signposted or by signposting the boundary of an area containing many small streets.⁶⁸

Proportion of Road Network by Speed Zone

Speed Zone km/h	% of Road Network
100 or more	78
70, 80, 90	6
60	16
Less than 60	0.1

Source: VicRoads, Submission, p. 10

The above table indicates the proportion of road network by speed zone in Victoria as supplied by VicRoads in their submission to the inquiry.

As 90% of pedestrian crashes occur on roads that are 60 km/h it is time to consider the appropriateness of the speed limits on these roads. The Committee considers the general urban speed limit should be 50 km/h and the hierarchy of speed limits must begin on local roads. Arterial and other appropriate roads would then need to be signposted at 60 km/h or higher.

The Committee is of the view that any changes to speed limits should be uniform. Currently, councils may apply for 50 km/h local traffic precincts. However the approach appears to be ad hoc with some areas having lower speed limits while other similar areas do not. The overriding objective of speed management is:

... to provide a credible system of speed zoning which meets driver expectation while achieving a balance between safety, mobility, and local land use amenity, and at the same time, retaining the integrity of the law enforcement process.69

Drivers build an expectation that in similar environments and situations a common, consistent speed limit applies.

For this reason the Committee supports a uniform lowering of the speed limits rather than by individual councils.

The Case For Reduced Urban Speed Limits

If the speed limit were reduced not only would there be fewer pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries but severe vehicle crashes would also be reduced. This would have the effect of reducing serious injuries to vehicle occupants and reduce property damage.

Where speed limits and actual speeds are higher than 60 km/h, the percentage of deaths per injury increases.⁷⁰ As an example, the FORS national statistics show for the period between 1989 and 1995 10% of all pedestrians struck at 60 km/h became a fatality whereas 18% of pedestrians struck at 70 km/h died and at 75 km/h 19% died.⁷¹

Research was conducted for FORS in 1994 regarding vehicle travel speeds on urban roads in Adelaide and the incidence of fatal pedestrian collisions. The study showed that:

... reducing all speeds to the current legal limit at each crash site would have reduced fatal pedestrian collisions by 12 percent overall, and by 13 percent in areas with a speed limit of 60 km/h.72

The study also demonstrated the benefit of reducing the speed limit by only a small margin:

• A 5 km/h reduction in speed would result in 32% of pedestrians surviving a crash and in 10% of cases a collision would have been avoided altogether and
  
• A 10 km/h reduction in speed would result in 48% of pedestrians surviving a crash and in 22% of cases a collision would have been avoided altogether.⁷³

In 1998, forty-eight Victorian pedestrian fatalities occurred in 60 km/h zones. While impact speeds are not known, if the assumptions of the FORS study are adopted, a 5 km/h reduction in speed would have resulted in four people surviving a crash. A 10 km/h reduction in speed would have resulted in eight Victorians being alive today. The Committee considers these numbers are compelling in their support for a reduction in the speed limit.

FORS commissioned a study in 1997 on actual speed and the risk of crash involvement.⁷⁴ The study related to speed risks in 60 km/h zones and showed how small changes in speeds affect casualty risks.⁷⁵

The study included a mix of casualty crashes including pedestrians. It estimated the pre-crash travel speeds of a sample of one hundred and fifty-one vehicles involved in serious casualty crashes in 60 km/h speed zones. The estimated speeds were then compared to measured travel speeds of control vehicles passing the crash locations at the same time of day and day of week as the crash.

The study found:

the risk of involvement in a casualty crash doubles with each 5 km/h increase in travelling speed above 60 km/h these risk increases are directly comparable to those associated with alcohol, for example travelling at 65 km/h involves the same relative risk increase as a BAC of 0.05 if none of the crashed vehicles in this study had been travelling above 60 km/h, nearly half of the casualty crashes in this sample would have been avoided, or reduced to non-casualty crashes moderate speeding (up to 72 km/h) causes as many casualty crashes as more extreme speeds (greater than 72 km/h)76

In their submission to the inquiry FORS stated that the data indicates that:

Illegal vehicle speeds were much more common in non-pedestrian casualty crashes (particularly single vehicle crashes) than in pedestrian crashes This suggests that speed management measures targeting clearly illegal speeds may have more impact on non-pedestrian than pedestrian casualties, while measures that reduce speeds more generally may be particularly important for pedestrian safety.77

The 1997 report by FORS states that a large proportion of the crashes in the study would have been avoided if the vehicles had been travelling at a slower speed.⁷⁸ Further:

... even modest reductions in travelling speeds can have the potential to greatly reduce crash and injury frequency. Large though these potential safety benefits are, it is probable they are still considerable underestimates. This is because we have only considered the effect of reduced travelling speed on the collision configuration that we actually observed and not taken into account possibilities for crash avoidance and the lower potential for injury at lower speeds.79

The FORS study highlights the need to reduce both speed limits and speeds. The report recommends that speeds can also be reduced by lowering speed tolerances.

Speed Tolerances

Speed tolerance is the extra speed allowed by police, typically 10 km/h, before they can charge a driver with exceeding the speed limit.⁸⁰

The Committee considers the fundamental goal in reducing speed limits is to reduce the average speeds at which vehicles travel. Allowing a speed tolerance above the posted speed limit is therefore counter-productive and a hazard not only to pedestrians but to every road user.

However in evidence to the Committee it was found that speed tolerances are permitted by the Australian Design Rules on vehicle speedometers. In correspondence the Victoria Police stated that:

Australian Design Rules (ADR's) 18/00 at 18.5.1.1. states, Unless otherwise `approved' every vehicle shall be fitted with a speedometer which shall: 18.5.1.1.1 indicate vehicle speed only in kilometres per hour, and 18.5.1.1.2 indicate the actual vehicle speed, for speeds above 40 km/h, to an accuracy of +/- 10 percent.81

In addition to the ADR, Victoria Police are required by legislation to add a further 3 km/h when speeding drivers are detected by speed cameras.⁸² Therefore, in a 60 km/h zone drivers will not be booked for speeding until they reach speeds of 70 km/h or higher. For laser or radar detectors the legislation allows a 2 km/h leniency. ⁸³

Through the years Victoria Police have adopted 9 km/h as the maximum tolerance at each speed zone.⁸⁴

The Australian Design Rules need to be reviewed. While +/- 10% may have been acceptable when speedometers were mechanically driven, it is no longer acceptable where new cars are fitted with electronic speedometers that can be finely tuned.

Victoria Police state they are concerned the community may be aware of speed tolerances and that "de facto" speed limits may be in force.⁸⁵ They state:

... a reduction in the current tolerance may lower speeds and reduce the severity of collisions.86

As Victoria has one of the oldest vehicle fleets in Australia, with an average age over eleven years, a change in the design rules today would take more than ten years for most of the vehicles with mechanical speedometers to be eliminated.

Examples of Reduced Speed Limits

The Committee considered the experiences of a number of overseas countries which have had lower speed limits for a number of years. The Australian experience was also considered. Two Australian states are implementing 50 km/h speed zones, although neither are conducting a statewide approach.

Overseas Experience

The Committee noted the experience in a number of European countries and the United States which have lower urban speed limits. The death rate of pedestrians aged 25 - 64 in countries with an urban speed limit of 50 km/h or less is, on average, 30% lower than the average for countries with an urban speed limit of 60 km/h.⁸⁷

These countries have been able to demonstrate reductions in serious injuries and fatalities even though the decrease in actual travel speeds was only a few kilometres per hour, much less than the posted speed limits.

Notable examples are:

Denmark

Denmark's general urban speed limit changed from 60 km/h to 50 km/h in 1985. Average speeds of 58 km/h on arterial and sub-arterial roads fell by 2 - 5 km/h. Crashes reduced by 9%, fatalities 24%, serious injuries by 7% and minor injuries by 11%.⁸⁸

Norway

When Norway reduced its general urban speed limit to 50 km/h, average speeds reduced 6%, that is, between 3.5 - 4 km/h. Fatal crashes reduced by 45% in urban areas. Where average pre-change speeds were already over 50 km/h, mean (average) speeds were reduced by up to 10 km/h.⁸⁹

Rural Speed Limits

Fildes and Lee in 1993 reported on an early study by Fieldwick (1981) on rural speed limits and accident rates in South Africa, Belgium, Finland, France, Great Britain, Germany, USA and New Zealand. Fieldwick reported there was:

a reduction in the incidence of road accidents associated with the reduced speed limit, the extent of the accident reductions ranged from 8 to 40%.90

Australian Experience

New South Wales and Queensland are implementing 50 km/h urban speed limits with the aim of reducing speeds, primarily for amenity reasons.

New South Wales

New South Wales has been experimenting with 50 km/h speed zones in a number of municipalities since 1996. A number of these councils have been able to demonstrate reduced mean travel speeds. The overriding reason for the lower speed limits was primarily for amenity issues rather than pedestrian safety.

Since 1996, seventy of the one hundred and seventy-seven councils have implemented 50 km/h as a speed limit in their municipalities. Some municipalities have introduced council wide reductions on all local streets while others have local area precincts. A few country shires have also introduced 50 km/h precincts.⁹¹

Queensland

The Queensland Government implemented 50 km/h on urban roads in south-east Queensland early in 1999. Research conducted by the Land Transport and Safety Division, Queensland Transport indicated that they could substantially reduce pedestrian injuries and fatalities, as well as car crashes by reducing the average speed of vehicles.⁹²

The new speed zones extend from North of Brisbane to Redlands and Noosa, all the way South to the border of New South Wales and East to Ipswich, an area covering two million people.⁹³

Initially, 50 km/h will apply on local streets only and signs will be erected at each entry to a local street to indicate the limit is lower than on the arterial road.

The next stage of the project will be to introduce speed cameras to roads that are controlled by local government, and then introduce 50 km/h in rural centres.

National Speed Limits

The urban speed management review conducted by Austroads in 1995 had a national focus to address uniformity of speed guidelines.

The Austroads report stated that a reduction in speed on local roads would impact on safety, the environment, amenity, and travel times. Lower speeds would result in a reduction in the number and severity of accidents, particularly those involving vulnerable road users. ⁹⁴

The report recommended a hierarchy of speed limits including 40 km/h at school zones and where Local Area Traffic Management devices are applied and 50 km/h on all other non-arterial roads.

In 1995, the National Road Transport Commission (NRTC) proposed that the Australian Road Rules specify a general urban speed limit of 50 km/h. This limit would apply on minor residential streets and streets that function as traffic routes at 60 km/h or more, would have speed zoning.⁹⁵

However, in their submission to the inquiry, FORS stated:

In November 1996, the Ministerial Council for Road Transport decided that the Australian Road Rules should be progressed with a 60 km/h limit, although the possibility of revisiting this issue in the future was left open. States and territories still have the option of speed zoning selected streets to 50 km/h or lower.96

In their submission to the inquiry, VicRoads dismissed the issue of lower speed limits and the experiences found in Europe and the United States, stating:

This is a complex subject since differences in road networks and traffic patterns need to be taken into account if reliable comparisons are to be made in regard to the effectiveness of lower speed limits in different jurisdictions.97

The Committee does not support this view. The Committee accepts that other countries have different traffic patterns and road networks but pedestrian safety is a universal problem in all developed nations. Pedestrians will always suffer severe injuries and fatalities when struck by fast travelling vehicles irrespective of the traffic patterns.

Speed Limits in Victoria Since 1990

The debate regarding reduced speed limits in Victoria is not new.

In 1991 the Victorian Parliamentary Social Development Committee conducted an inquiry into the issue of speed limits. One of the terms of reference was to consider "the merits of applying various speed limits in different circumstances...".⁹⁸

Much of the evidence on appropriate speed limits for residential streets suggested that 40 km/h was a safe speed for roads which were not collector roads.

The Committee concluded that 40 km/h speed zones would provide a level of safety in residential streets particularly for children, pedestrians and bicyclists and made the following recommendations:

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.99

 

The government in its response stated that it supported the "intent" of these recommendations and expected:

... to commence substantial implementation of lower speed limits on residential streets by the end of 1992.100

This work was to be incorporated in the review of speed zones including a hierarchy of:

40 km/h limit for small residential streets and special areas like local shopping centres or near schools in residential areas. 50 km/h limit for collector and sub-arterial roads. 60 km/h limit and above for arterial roads.101

By early 1993 different guidelines were developed by a Speed Management Policy Committee convened by VicRoads and including other stakeholders such as Local Government, Victoria Police, and the RACV. These were:

Local precinct zones (supported by traffic calming devices) of 40 km/h A general urban limit of 50 km/h 60 km/h for undivided urban arterials 70 km/h for divided arterials with direct access from properties, and 80 km/h for divided arterial roads with service roads or little access from properties.102

The commitment to change urban speed limits was reflected in correspondence sent by VicRoads to all municipalities in March 1993. The letter included the phrase "prior to the introduction of the 50 km/h general urban limit late in 1993".

However by November 1993 the then Minister for Roads and Ports advised that the 50 km/h limit would not proceed, but:

... where a community wishes to have a lower speed limit, councils may apply to regional managers [VicRoads] for 50 km/h speed limits, to be designated by signposting of the streets or precincts. 103

In 1995 the Road Safety Committee conducted an Inquiry into the Revision of Speed Limits to determine, among other things, whether the revised speed zones had been implemented. The Committee found that VicRoads had successfully implemented the new speed zones throughout Victoria, but noted:

... a stated Government intention to implement a general urban speed limit of 50 km/h was reversed late in 1994. This decision conflicts with the views of the Victoria Police, Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, Municipal Association of Victoria, bicycle groups and possibly other State Governments. The Committee considers Victoria should await the outcome of a recent Austroads urban speed management study and discussions at the Australian Transport Council before taking any action on changes to urban speed limits.104

The Committee concluded however that:

... as a matter of speed management principle, the speed limit on local streets should be lower than on the traffic-carrying arterial roads.105

This has not occurred. The Committee is disappointed that government and VicRoads have not assumed the role of leadership and encouraged the common adoption of a 50 km/h speed limit, particularly when there is growing support from both the community and local government.

The Role of Local Government

As local government controls 80% of the road network, municipal councils would be responsible for managing any change in urban speed limits. Wide support by local government and constituents for reductions in urban speed limits is a precursor to successful implementation.

Evidence to the Committee indicates that local government is willing to support such a change. Of the seventy-eight Victorian municipal councils twenty-five have 50 km/h local traffic precincts or limits on individual sections of roads. What is not known is the number of councils which have applied for lower speed limits and been rejected by VicRoads.

Speed limit signs are considered to be major traffic-control devices under the Regulations, which means that no speed sign may be altered without the consent of VicRoads.¹⁰⁶

Legislation exists in Victoria for local government to provide 50 km/h local traffic precinct speed limits under Section 1001 1 (da) of the Road Safety (Traffic) Regulations 1998. As a local traffic precinct zone, 50 km/h can only be installed on selected local or residential streets.

VicRoads indicated in their submission that:

This option has not been taken up by municipalities in Victoria to any significant extent, however more interest appears to be being shown in recent months.107

Application to change any existing speed zone, or for a new speed zone to be installed, can be initiated by a council, Victoria Police, or VicRoads. The VicRoads Regional Manager grants approval of amended speed zones after discussions with the council and the police. If the three parties have differing views on what the limit shall be, the case is referred to VicRoads' Director of Regional Services.

Implementing 50 km/h traffic precincts in the present legislative framework can only ever be an ad-hoc local government measure while VicRoads remains reluctant to take a lead role in implementing lower speed limits.

As such, the benefits of a co-ordinated, uniform hierarchy approach to speed limits are missed while the ad hoc approach continues and the potential to maximise pedestrian safety and amenity may never be achieved. It is of concern to the Committee that the credibility of speed limits will suffer if the speed zones are not consistent and uniform. Decision-making should be simplified for drivers but that will not be the case while the speed limit potentially varies from street to street.

Local Government Experience

The Committee pursued the matter with the municipalities to ascertain their level of support and commitment for reduced speed limits.

The Committee found a number of municipalities eager to either trial or introduce lower speed limits but several stated that their attempts had been thwarted by VicRoads guidelines.

Knox City Council

The Knox City Council submission outlined their attempts to introduce a blanket 50 km/h speed limit in residential areas as a general road safety initiative since 1992. The Committee considers the experience as chronicled by the Council demonstrates both the willingness of local government to provide lower speed limits and the frustration of working independently to achieve their aim. ¹⁰⁸

Knox City Council persisted and has commenced a six month trial of a 50 km/h Local Traffic Precinct in Wantirna bounded by Burwood Highway, Mountain Highway, Boronia Road and Stud Road. The area contains a secondary college and four primary schools and a large retirement village. Approximately 3,200 households are involved.¹⁰⁹

Knox City Council informed the Committee:

A street by street approach will legally apply the speed limit which is likely to reduce the severity of road accidents, particularly those involving pedestrians. The costs to implement speed limited local traffic precincts throughout Knox is $300,000 with an annual maintenance cost of $14,000. Such costs are to be met by Council. Not all councils will support local traffic precincts leading to confusion by motorists as they cross municipal boundaries.110

City of Greater Dandenong

The City of Greater Dandenong state that excessive speed is a concern often raised by their community and the Council is having to spend considerable funds to address the issue through local area traffic management schemes. They were trialing 50 km/h zones both as isolated street treatments and as a local area traffic precinct. Preliminary results suggest positive outcomes both in terms of speed reduction and strong community support. ¹¹¹

The council is concerned however at the costs. They state that the current system of signing each 50 km/h zone is cost-prohibitive.

They believe it is unfortunate there is no distinct hierarchy of roads between local streets and arterial roads.¹¹²

City of Whitehorse

In their submission, the City of Whitehorse indicated that they propose to introduce 50 km/h in sections of their municipality where there have been prior concerns and residents' complaints.

They advise that when approval is received the lower speed limits will be implemented not trialed. The municipality will also conduct roadworks to install local area traffic management areas where speeds and traffic volumes are considered to be unacceptably high, as well as other traffic improvements on arterial roads to maximise traffic flow.

The City of Whitehorse plans to sign post the entrance and exit of every local street and estimates that implementation of reduced speed zones in the whole municipality would cost approximately $250,000.¹¹³

City of Whittlesea

The City of Whittlesea have been an advocate for reduced urban speed limits on local roads for a number of years and:

... it is considered that a reduced urban speed limit to either 40 km/h or 50 km/h is appropriate and necessary to reduce the severity of pedestrian accidents in local areas.114

The council is concerned about the major conflict that occurs on streets with strip shopping and vehicles that travel at excessive speeds for the level of pedestrian activity.

Reduced speed limits in these centres has been considered by VicRoads but this issue should be examined further.115

The City of Whittlesea is of the belief that both VicRoads and local Councils:

... tend to be staffed by road management engineers whose general emphasis has been upon the movement of vehicles, with little relative regard for the consequences to other road user groups and abutting land uses.116

City of Monash

The City of Monash compliments VicRoads' Safety First strategy as having a number of valuable initiatives, including educational and engineering treatments to deal with the pedestrian problem. They note however:

... the strategy does not embrace the concept that residential streets would be much safer for pedestrians if the urban speed limit was reduced from 60 km/h to 50 km/h.117

Frankston City Council

Frankston City Council informed the Committee that they are initiating a program for the installation of School Crossing Speed Limits. However:

... the VicRoads guidelines appear to be too restrictive and a number of applications have been rejected.118

Community Attitudes to Speeding

The Committee found surveys conducted for FORS in 1997 indicate a high level of community support for lower speed limits.

Some of the survey findings include:

• Sixty-two per cent of Victorians supported a 50 km/h limit on urban residential streets¹¹⁹
  
• Nearly 40% of the population identified speed as the main cause of road crashes
  
• Four in five people believed the 60 km/h limit in urban zones should be enforced with a maximum tolerance of 5 km/h. Similarly, 85% of people favour enforcement of 100 km/h rural speed limits with a tolerance of 10 km/h or less.¹²⁰

These figures are significant because they indicate the community is ready to accept lower speed zones.

Travel Times

The case against reducing speed limits in urban areas was considered by the Committee. The main concern in reducing urban speed limits would be an increase in travel times and therefore congestion on our roads.

Very little research has been completed to determine the trade-off between speed and mobility. FORS has commissioned research on the likely effects of different speed management options on travel times.¹²¹

Austroads suggest that increases in travel times due to reduced travel speeds on local streets are likely to be so small as to be deemed insignificant. Their report states:

Both the time spent and distance travelled in local streets is relatively small in a properly developed road hierarchy, so that the disadvantages to drivers of lower speed limits will also be relatively small. In practice, the parts of the journey when a driver is held up by other traffic, negotiating corners, or giving way at intersections which will be largely unaffected by a lower speed limit, are likely to be the major source of delays.122

Austroads estimates that a 7 km/h reduction in speed would result in a twenty second increase in travelling time per person per day.¹²³

Other Benefits of 50 km/h

Introducing 50 km/h as the general urban speed limit on local roads will not only increase the safety of pedestrians but the overall safety of all Victorians. Reducing the speed limit should not be considered as a penalty to drivers but rather a philosophy of increasing safety, amenity and access while still retaining mobility.

Lowering the speed limit on local roads will allow drivers to become further aware of the hierarchy of speed limits and the need to alter their driving behaviour in residential areas. The ensuing chapter focuses on land use and the need to categorise roads further by their functionality. By having a lower general speed limit on local roads drivers will be more aware of the different road environments and the need to consider other road users.

Reducing the speed limit to give equal access to pedestrians and cyclists will, more likely than not, increase such modes of travel which has the added benefit of being healthier, not only to the individual but to the community at large by the reduced emissions and noise levels.

The Cost of Introducing 50 km/h

Under the current system if a council implements lower speed limits and precincts they are required to sign most local streets.

In evidence cited above the cities of Dandenong, Knox and Whitehorse identified the significant cost of installing and maintaining such signs.

The Committee considers government has two options regarding the signing of 50 km/h speed limits:

One is to retain 60 km/h as the general urban speed limit and sign post all urban streets with the lower 50 km/h limit which essentially would require all residential streets to have 50 km/h signs posted.

The second option is to introduce 50 km/h as the general urban speed limit and as is the case currently for 60 km/h, sign upwards all arterial and other speed zones.

Estimates carried out by VicRoads in 1993, when 50 km/h speed limits were first proposed, had the first option costed at approximately $12.2 million and the second option at $3.4 million with an extra $1 million for publicity.¹²⁴

The Committee considers the first option is cost-prohibitive, overly bureaucratic and would create an unnecessary proliferation of signs. This Committee is of the view that an excessive level of signs already exists.

The second option is preferred as it would be far more cost-effective and continue the current practice of signing upwards of the general urban speed limit. It would also negate the annual cost of maintaining the extra signs.

Countermeasures

Reducing the speed limit is only one countermeasure. A reduction in the general urban speed limit may be complemented by selective re-zoning and speed reductions on main and arterial roads. Different measures to protect pedestrians are required on arterial roads. These roads have a different purpose from residential streets as they predominantly cater for traffic flow.

Countermeasures to protect pedestrians from inappropriate vehicle speeds include:

School Zones

A school zones is a sign-posted section near schools with reduced speed limits during specified times. Folding signs that can be either manually operated or by remote switch from the school are erected to warn motorists. Conspicuity devices such as flashing lights can also be used to draw attention to the lower limit. The recommended speed limit for school zones is 60 km/h in rural 100 km/h speed zones and 40 km/h in urban areas. VicRoads indicate that demand for their use is increasing within local communities.¹²⁵

The Committee noted a survey conducted in 1989 by Uber et al of folding signs with flashing lights fitted at three sites. The survey found that there was a reduction in mean speeds of about 20 km/h and reductions in the 85^th percentile speed by 7-15 km/h.¹²⁶

The Traffic Engineering Manual states that time based school speed zones are most needed where speeds are high and where motorists may not expect them.¹²⁷

The Committee is of the view that school zones should be encouraged outside every Victorian school.

Variable Speed Zones

Variable or time based speed zones can be used on traffic routes which have high pedestrian activity of an often unpredictable nature - such as in entertainment areas at night or in shopping centres (particularly those frequented by the elderly) during business hours. The added benefit of variable speed limits is that drivers become more aware of the prevailing road conditions, thereby making them more alert to situations which may occur.

Speed Enforcement

The current speed limits on arterial roads may be suitable if used in conjunction with enforcement.

In a paper to the pedestrian conference in Melbourne in June 1998, Mr C. Brooks from FORS cited MUARC research showing that the speed camera program:

... had its greatest impact on urban arterials (where enforcement was most intensive, particularly early in the program).128

The paper further states:

Any countermeasure which affects arterials selectively is likely to have more impact on fatalities than injuries, since both speed limits and actual speeds tend to be higher on arterials, and the number of pedestrian deaths per injury is higher on these roads. 129

The Committee is in favour of increased targeted speed enforcement.

Speed enforcement has a direct impact on pedestrian safety. Enforcement programs should be conducted in areas where there are a high number of pedestrian crashes.

The public needs to be made aware through police enforcement and public education that speeding is as dangerous and unacceptable as drink-driving. To that end the penalties for speeding should be reviewed to better reflect the seriousness of the offence.

Engineering

Engineering treatments at high risk locations serve to reduce speeds and provide clues to the driver that pedestrian activity is high. This topic is discussed in greater detail in the ensuing chapter, but measures such as chicanes, road width reductions, coloured or textured road surfaces assist to reduce vehicle speeds. These measures can be used to complement other primary measures such as lower speed zones.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The Committee finds the existing urban speed limit of 60 km/h to be inappropriate and recommends a statewide urban speed limit of 50 km/h on local roads.

The Committee finds the existing procedure requiring municipalities to apply to VicRoads for approval to initiate 50 km/h urban speed limits to be costly, overly bureaucratic and of doubtful effectiveness due to the lack of statewide uniformity.

The existing procedure should be reversed so that a statewide urban speed limit of 50 km/h is the standard and municipalities wishing to depart from the standard should apply to VicRoads for approval.

The inquiry found support for reduced speed limits in the submissions received. No submission was received opposing the introduction of an urban 50 km/h speed limit.

Based on current research, the Committee is of the view if lower limits on local urban roads were introduced and enforced, there would be a significant reduction in pedestrian and other casualties.

Introducing 50 km/h speed limits on local urban roads will enhance public safety by providing a further graded hierarchy of speed limits on different roads, matched consistently to differences in road design standards and land use.

Excessive speed in an environment where pedestrian activity is anticipated should be considered dangerous behaviour to be avoided at all costs and the culture of speeding needs to be addressed.

The Committee therefore recommends that a lower general urban speed limit be introduced as a matter of urgency in Victoria. Community surveys show that the public is ready to embrace lower urban speed limits.

As has been shown through the years with seatbelts and drink-driving, attitudes and behaviour can be altered by a long-term, co-ordinated approach of enforcement and public education. The combined involvement of VicRoads, Local Government and the Victoria Police will be essential in ensuring the successful adoption of a 50 km/h general urban speed limit by the community.

The Committee considers it is now imperative to implement a 50 km/h general urban speed limit to protect all vulnerable road users. The reduced limit should be introduced together with public education and police enforcement.

Recommendations

2.	That the general urban speed limit on local roads be 50 km/h but councils should have the option to apply to retain 60 km/h where justified.
3.	That the Minister for Roads and Ports recommends to the Federal Office of Road Safety that a review of speed tolerances in Australian Design Rule 18.5.1.1.2 relating to speedometers is required as a matter of urgency.
4.	That school zones of 40 km/h in urban areas and 60 km/h in rural 100 km/h speed zones be implemented.

 

Last update January 11, 2002
Copyright & Disclaimer | Privacy