Last day before 3Apr to oppose 30kmh speed limit

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Last day before 3Apr to oppose 30kmh speed limit

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

677 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 322

#2895912 2-Apr-2022 20:14

if they’re wanting more people to travel/commute etc by means other than cars given the environmental harm caused by driving it makes sense. There is plenty of evidence around about how being hit by a car at 30kmh causes a certain level of harm while at 50kmh the harm is exponentially higher. If more people are walking, cycling etc, they need to reduce the risk to those people.

Jase2985

13735 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6216

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2895913 2-Apr-2022 20:19

SheriffNZ:

if they’re wanting more people to travel/commute etc by means other than cars given the environmental harm caused by driving it makes sense. There is plenty of evidence around about how being hit by a car at 30kmh causes a certain level of harm while at 50kmh the harm is exponentially higher. If more people are walking, cycling etc, they need to reduce the risk to those people.

correct but doesnt there need to be accidents in the first place for it to make a difference?

In the area i talked about above they recently raised all the pedestrian crossings which slows traffic in those places.

There are plenty of people who dont care for speed limits not and they wont care when they lower the limits.

Im not saying there arent places that need lower limits i just question how they come to some of their decisions

BlakJak

1330 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 735

Trusted

#2895915 2-Apr-2022 20:24

SheriffNZ:

if they’re wanting more people to travel/commute etc by means other than cars given the environmental harm caused by driving it makes sense. There is plenty of evidence around about how being hit by a car at 30kmh causes a certain level of harm while at 50kmh the harm is exponentially higher. If more people are walking, cycling etc, they need to reduce the risk to those people.

Yes evidence that speed contributes to the magnitude of injury exists. This is the main argument in favour of reducing speed limits and increasing enforcement of speed limits. Easy math. More energy due to inertia, needs to go somewhere, boom, clearly speed is the issue.

I retain the view that speed is the easy lever to pull so it gets pulled too often. Instead of, y'know, generating actual consequences for those who ignore posted limits anyways (insufficient enforcement), or providing effective driver education (i.e. our licensing system is a bit of a joke).

No signature to see here, move along...

insane

3325 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1006

ID Verified

Trusted

2degrees

Subscriber

#2895918 2-Apr-2022 20:35

I'm guessing it's less about safety and more about subtly encouraging use of public transport by reducing the benefits of driving. Additional unnecessary transit lanes, transformation of roads into pedestrian spaces, now super slow speed limits.

Councils should be making the end-to-end user experience of taking public transport better, not simply relatively better by making driving worse.

BlakJak

1330 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 735

Trusted

#2895919 2-Apr-2022 20:40

Well if you relate it to the move to strip car parking out from so many streets, clearly public transport is being favoured. But they've missed the point that this doesn't suddenly mean you don't need a car.

This being said I do think that residential properties should be providing more OSP.

I live in suburban Wellington, due to geography it's quite common to have limited or no OSP at properties, and additionally very narrow and windy streets in some areas. Most of Auckland doesn't have those same constraints, but the move to cram as much residential area as possible into your square-footage makes providing car parking inefficient.

No signature to see here, move along...

rugrat

3142 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 945

Lifetime subscriber

#2895926 2-Apr-2022 21:00

Obraik:

We've had 30km/h speed limits in the Christchurch CBD for many years now and we seem to be able to cope. Are gear boxes different in Auckland?

And I find I get green lights all the way once in flow :), mainly referring Tuam Street.

Faster then doing 50km/hr and having to stop 2 minutes plus when light is red.

Didn’t like at start but got use to it, gear box seems fine.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

BlakJak

1330 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 735

Trusted

#2895927 2-Apr-2022 21:07

rugrat:

Obraik:

We've had 30km/h speed limits in the Christchurch CBD for many years now and we seem to be able to cope. Are gear boxes different in Auckland?

And I find I get green lights all the way once in flow :), mainly referring Tuam Street.

Faster then doing 50km/hr and having to stop 2 minutes plus when light is red.

Didn’t like at start but got use to it, gear box seems fine.

It's true that many manual transmissions don't particularly like 30km/h. It's way too fast for 1st, generally too fast for 2nd and quite low in the rev range for 3rd... so you're basically idling and any further downward speed variance forces you to drop a gear. a lot.

I lived in a 30km/h zone for my young childhood (military base) and watched my dad get a warning for being caught doing 42km/h in a 30km/h zone; wide open road with tonnes of visibility so it wasn't dangerous, but it was technically too fast. When I worked for NZDF many years later I can vouch for the fact that in the (manual) pool cars we had, it tended to be easier to cruise just a few km/h faster (and you had to be prepared to clutch and shift down for speed bumps and whathaveyou anyway).

Gearage in automatics tends to be different (generally fewer gears) so it's probably easier in an auto to maintain 30km/h.

Also in metro areas, they actually don't want you to stop-and-start (less efficient) so 'green waves' like you describe are actually highly desirable. And they do depend on motorists hitting consistent speeds and maintaining them properly.

No signature to see here, move along...

jlittle

200 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 76

ID Verified

Subscriber

#2895962 3-Apr-2022 01:19

BlakJak:
I have a real problem with the blind dependence on speed changes as a safety measure.

There's a vast amount of research on this stuff been done over the years overseas. By the time such measures trickle down to New Zealand they've been well tested somewhere. Maybe they're misguided in applying overseas experience here, but saying "blind" is silly IMO.

Regards, John Little

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2895965 3-Apr-2022 01:40

Yip. Anyone who bothers to look can find any amount of information about how speed correlates to serious accidents.

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

#2895992 3-Apr-2022 08:27

Yes but actually doing your own research is hard. Far easier to assume no professional knows what they're talking about; governments just do stuff for fun and not for any good reason; and that your amateur reckons are worth more than actual facts. Also remember - everyone is the center of their own universe, so finding a minor inconvenience to oneself more important than consequences for others is no real surprise.

Jase2985

13735 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6216

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2895994 3-Apr-2022 08:30

Handle9:

Yip. Anyone who bothers to look can find any amount of information about how speed correlates to serious accidents.

no one is arguing that fact.

its the fact in areas where there have been no accidents they still deem there to be a need to lower the speed. or when the speed self regulates, or the already have speed reducing measures when at higher pedestrian traffic times.

Have to be seen to be doing something

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Nate001

677 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 465

#2895998 3-Apr-2022 08:46

Not to mention the fact these public responses are a box ticking exercise. After seeing how AT dismiss every response to forge ahead with the original plan I can't be bothered.

My favourite was when Highbrook Dr was 70kmh and they changed it to 60kmh citing "70 is too confusing for drivers". Everyone still does 80kmh with zero enforcement.

scuwp

3927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2510

#2896000 3-Apr-2022 08:55

Jase2985:

Handle9:

Yip. Anyone who bothers to look can find any amount of information about how speed correlates to serious accidents.

no one is arguing that fact.

its the fact in areas where there have been no accidents they still deem there to be a need to lower the speed. or when the speed self regulates, or the already have speed reducing measures when at higher pedestrian traffic times.

Have to be seen to be doing something

So your position is that people have to be harmed or die before there is justification to respond to a safety risk? Interesting.

30km/h vs 50km/h makes but a few seconds difference in travel times across town, the trade-off being streets that are far safer for everyone, and more inviting for multi-mode travel options. It's part of the social shift. That trade-off, those few precious seconds, seem a step to far for some.

This is also not only the councils doing's. Waka Kotahi are leading councils to set speed limits appropriate for the road and environment, and to make these consistent across the country. Google 'speed management guide'.

The thing about 'cars not being designed to travel at 30 km/h' (or words to that effect) is ridiculous. My last point here, is it's a speed limit NOT a target. If your car travels more comfortably at 28km/h or 27 km/h, then do that. It's not like your car will explode if you don't travel at exactly the speed limit.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

#2896007 3-Apr-2022 09:05

scuwp:

So your position is that people have to be harmed or die before there is justification to respond to a safety risk? Interesting.

30km/h vs 50km/h makes but a few seconds difference in travel times across town, the trade-off being streets that are far safer for everyone, and more inviting for multi-mode travel options. It's part of the social shift. That trade-off, those few precious seconds, seem a step to far for some.

This is also not only the councils doing's. Waka Kotahi are leading councils to set speed limits appropriate for the road and environment, and to make these consistent across the country. Google 'speed management guide'.

The thing about 'cars not being designed to travel at 30 km/h' (or words to that effect) is ridiculous. My last point here, is it's a speed limit NOT a target. If your car travels more comfortably at 28km/h or 27 km/h, then do that. It's not like your car will explode if you don't travel at exactly the speed limit.

Amen. Sometimes a proactive approach is far superior to a reactive one - and it's about time we were proactive about roads and transport rather than reactive. New Zealand is not good at being proactive though, we tend to think no more than 5 minutes into the future.

30 vs 50 makes very little difference for the amount of time anyone would be travelling on these roads (ie impact to private car drivers is low), and leads to a much safer and better experience for all users of our transport network (ie impact on everyone else like pedestrians, cyclists, scooter riders, wheelchair users, etc is quite high).

I just submitted in support of the Safer Speeds Programme generally, and also specifically on a few streets near where I live and where I work. The town centre near me was changed from 50km/h to 30km/h in the last round, and what a difference that has made. There are way more people in the town centre now and the traffic actually flows better in my experience).

I hope that Auckland Transport (and Waka Kotahi and other councils and road authorities) have the guts to go through with changes in the face of vocal opposition from a minority. Unfortunately AT have a tendency to use consultation as a box-ticking exercise and then an excuse for why they've done something that pleases no one.

We should have less granular consultation IMO. We don't actually need to consult on every single decision - especially when they make other changes and decisions (eg to the public transport network) with zero consultation.

BlakJak

1330 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 735

Trusted

#2896028 3-Apr-2022 09:29

On a road occupied by other vehicles the safest speed of travel is influenced by many factors, including the speed of other vehicles... Expecting to be able to travel slower than the posted as a habit of ores the affect on others. Driving up the frustration of other motorists is not going to lead to better outcomes, because people suck, basically.

I retain the view that most accidents where speed was a factor, the speed concerned was in excess of the posted limit anyway, so reducing the posted speed limit is of limited value because, again, people suck... People disinclined to comply with the posted limit will continue to create accidents. People who drive under the influence or without considering all the other conditions (weather, traffic, etc) are still going to put themselves and others at risk.

A reduced speed limit over a short distance will have limited impact on people driving that short distance. The affect is magnified for people travelling longer distances. And I've found that lower limits can actually reduce driver attention to the road as well.

Yes this is all my opinion and there are references that would debunk at least some of this. I agree that speed has a part to play and some speed limit changes are appropriate... I maintain its still a lever pulled far too often.

Much of https://www.aa.co.nz/membership/aa-directions/driver/how-fast-should-we-go/ I find myself agreeing with.

Oh and to be clear - I've personally attended hundreds of motor vehicle accidents over the years... I'd be surprised if many of them had significantly changed outcomes if the posted speed limit was lowered. More focus on driver behaviours and less on just making everyone travel slower, would be lovely.

Selective limit reductions are appropriate.

No signature to see here, move along...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6