Victoria has been trialling safer streets, as has Moruya on the NSW South Coast. Photo: Yarra City Council.
If many young drivers are already flouting low-speed limits in Canberra’s streets, why should reducing speed limits even further make any difference?
Indeed, the UNSW Canberra’s own research showed that 80 per cent of survey respondents did not believe that lower-speed zones, such as the 30 km/h it has recommended, would improve drivers’ speeding behaviour.
Nonetheless, the university study believes there is merit in the lower limit being implemented in high-risk areas across the national capital, as part of a package of measures.
“In the ACT, where pedestrian activity is concentrated around schools and urban centres, non-compliance with low-speed zones continues to pose a serious risk,” it stated.
Other sites include hospitals and aged-care centres.
The suggestion is not new. In 2023, cycling lobby Pedal Power urged the adoption of 30 km/h limits in suburban streets.
It is incontrovertible that speed is a factor in collisions and determines how severely someone is injured or whether they are killed.
To that end, Canberra has a 50 km/h limit in suburban streets and 40 km/h school zones for most of the day, unlike in NSW, where it is in force from 8-9.30am and 2.30-4pm.
Some ACT schools are on major roads, yet drivers face a frustrating 40 km/h crawl despite a child being nowhere to be seen at certain times of the day.
In the city, the 40 km/h zone in Northbourne Avenue, a wide boulevard where there are safe, signallised crossings, remains contentious and a bugbear for drivers, who can easily exceed the limit without realising and incur hefty fines.
Many of the high-risk areas the study identified are where vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians coalesce and speed limits are already reduced and naturally enforced.
In Braddon, for example, the traffic volumes tend to self-limit. This is not to say that there are other areas where reduced speed limits could be warranted, along with other design measures.
But lowering speed limits remains a blunt instrument that requires enforcement, tying up resources and antagonising motorists.
The study’s other recommendations around urban planning, road design, signage and education offer more preventive and non-interventionist ways to make neighbourhoods safer.
For example, traffic calming speed bumps and chicanes, and narrower roads can all contribute to a safer environment.
But these need to be used judiciously and selectively.
While streets are not for the exclusive use of motorists, separating them from cyclists and pedestrians as much as practically possible is also a better strategy than simply imposing a lower speed limit.
That means more investment in public transport, cycle and walking paths, separating cyclists and vehicles on major roads and providing safer crossings for pedestrians.
A 30 km/h speed limit may help in certain circumstances and send the right signals, and feedback from trials should be heeded, but compliance and the irritation factor will be issues.
Where appropriate, taking the choice out of the equation, although more costly than a sign, would be more effective.
What remains important is that all road users are aware of their surroundings, walk, ride and drive to the conditions and are watchful of each other.
