Urban Speed Limits- the need for Urban Speed Limits- the need for uniform action in the N.T.uniform action in the N.T.

Presentation to PHAA(NT) 2008 AGM

Urban Speed Limits- the need for Urban Speed Limits- the need for uniform action in the N.T.uniform action in the N.T.

The evidence baseThe benefitsThe national strategyThe action needed

The Evidence BaseThe Evidence Base

The faster you drive, the longer it takes to stop-the harder you hit.

Average reaction time is 1.5 seconds.

Braking distance is reduced by 10 metres if travelling at 50km/h rather than 60km/h in dry conditions

Stopping distance is made up of 4 partsStopping distance is made up of 4 partsHUMAN HUMAN VEHICLE PERCEPTION + REACTION + REACTION + BRAKING

REACTION TIME

REACTION DISTANCE +

During this time the vehicle will pass through ….

+ BRAKING TIME=

BRAKING DISTANCE=

A child runs onto the road 45 m ahead of you while you are travelling in 60 km/h zone. You brake hard.NOTE: Road is dry, you have a modern vehicle with good brakes and tyres. Reaction time used in calculations is 1.5 seconds.

Wet surfaceWet surface

Small changes in speed have Small changes in speed have large changes on injury and fatalitylarge changes on injury and fatality

These change are very dramatic in These change are very dramatic in accidents involving pedestrians accidents involving pedestrians

Impact of 50km/h limits in urban areasImpact of 50km/h limits in urban areas

NSW- crashes down 25.3% (262 actual crashes)

Qld- 18% reduction in fatal crashes, 8% reduction in causality crashes

VIC 12% reduction in casualty crashes (pedestrian casualty 25-40%)

WA 21% reduction in casualty (51% pedestrian)

TAS 89 fewer causality crashesSA 20% reduction in casualty crashes

Simple easy cost effectiveSimple easy cost effective A relatively straight froward and cost effective

speed management measure involves reducing speed limits

Reduced speed is likely to bring about a reduction in average travel speed and have a positive impact on both the number of accidents and accident outcome severity.

Archer, N. Fotheringham, M. Symmons & B. Corben Monash University Accident Research Centre January

2008:i

Other BenefitsOther Benefits

Other secondary benefits are also derived including: reduced fuel and vehicle operating costs and significant reductions in vehicle emissions and noise. …..reducing urban speeds is only likely to have a marginal impact on travel time.

Archer, N. Fotheringham, M. Symmons & B. Corben Monash University Accident Research

Centre January 2008:i

Other issuesOther issuesSpeed paradox- design speed often has greater

influence on drivers than speed limit.

Measures that can effect speed- Road designRegulation enforcementSocial values related to speeding- being held

responsibleRole modelling- vehicle advertisingLack of knowledge about speed and relationship to

accident- real information.Vehicle technologyAge, health and attitude of driver

National StrategyNational Strategy The National Road Safety Strategy 2001–2010 aims to

reduce the annual number of road deaths per 100,000 population by 40 per cent to no more than 5.6 by December 2010. (NT currently 25)

Vigorous action is required in 2007 and 2008 by all jurisdictions to achieve a major step-down in road deaths: to get back on track towards the 2010 National Road Safety Strategy target, and to provide a basis for continuing progress beyond 2010. This will involve concurrent short and longer term actions in several areas:– • education and enforcement measures addressing

road user behaviour, with speed management as an important priority

– • improving the safety of roads and roadsides– • accelerating the introduction of vehicles with

improved safety systems.

Action areas for 2007–2008Action areas for 2007–20084.1 Safer Speeds4.1 Safer Speeds Implement best practice speed management

incorporating consistent speed zoning, improved enforcement, public awareness campaigns, ‘anytime, anywhere’ enforcement and selectively-reduced speed zones.

Implement a review of criteria for setting speed limits that considers a safe system/harm minimisation perspective in setting limits.

Examine the possibility of developing a national campaign on the risks of low-level speeding.

What needs to be doneWhat needs to be done

Change in social acceptanceRegional evidenceCoalitionNew regulatory system

referencesreferences Archer, J., Fotheringham, N., Symmons, M. & Corben, B (2008) The

Impact of lowered speed limits in urban/metropolitan areas. Monash University Accident Research Centre Rpt No. 276. http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc276.html accessed 25 September 2008

Fleiter, J. & Watson, B. (2007) The speed paradox: the misalignment between driver attitudes and speeding behaviour. Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety - Queensland (CARRS-QUT) paper presented at the 2005 Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, November 2005. http://www.carrsq.qut.edu.au/publications/ accessed 25 September 2008

Australian Transport Council (2007) National Road Safety Action Plan 2007-2008

Auburn and Parramatta City Councils (2005) Stopping Distance www.auburn.nsw.gov.au/uploadedFiles/AuburnWeb/About/STOPdis.pdf accessed 9 October 2008

Richter, E., Berman, T. Ben-David, F. & Ben-David, G. (2006) Speed, Road Injury and Public Health. Annual review of Public Health (27) pp125-152.