[bikeqld] Fwd: Re: [BFA-Oz] Great safety presentation

[Michael Yeates]

Hi ...

The following report prepared for the "Safe Speed 
Interest Group" should be of interest ... as may be the following comments.

In relation to the comments, it is worth noting 
that BCC has finally after many years agreed to 
reduce the speed limit in the CBD of Brisbane ... 
but NOT on what have been the two most dangerous 
roads in the CBD in terms of both pedestrian and vehicle collisions.

MY..................

Subject: Re: [BFA-Oz] Great safety presentation
>Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:11:50 +1000
>
>Hi ... and thanks for the info Paul,
>
>The full report to this group (the "Safe Speed 
>Interest Group" - it does not appear to have a 
>website etc) can be found at 
>http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/attachments/o31705.pdf
>
>It is 2.33MB ... and it is well worth reading ...!
>
>What is interesting is seeing the selection of references ...!
>
>However, this work, though admirable, is yet 
>another in a line of documents which do little 
>to ADVANCE (as distinct from update) the policy 
>position/problem namely that Australia has 
>possibly the most dangerous urban and suburban 
>roads in the (equivalent) world for pedestrians 
>(using the PCA "Pedestrian Charter" inclusive definition) and for cyclists.
>
>The dangers are hidden by a low KSI outcome that 
>does not take account of low or varying exposure 
>... but make the roads appear safe from a statistical/data perspective.
>
>The dangers are hidden by the road UNsafety 
>education/indoctrination ... and THAT continues to this day ... unquestioned.
>
>Well almost unquestioned.
>
>The other problem is the trend in Australian 
>policy processes towards (i) re-inventing 
>history and (ii) relying or requiring the need 
>for "proof" in circumstances where evidence is 
>almost inevitably problematic and where 
>evaluated trial-demonstration projects can 
>provide far better supportive evidence.
>
>By the reference to history, I mean conveniently 
>"forgetting" by way of just two examples, (i) 
>the claim for 40km/h that has been on the books 
>in Victoria in particular for some 30 or more 
>years by way of Alan Parker and Bicycle Victoria 
>in its earlier guise and (ii) the claim for a 
>"safe urban speed limit" by the BFA nearly 15 years ago.
>
>At the time of adoption of the "50km/h in 
>residential streets" speed limit which in some 
>areas/states morphed into "50km/h except on 
>signed main roads", some state road (safety) 
>authorities appeared to quite deliberately make 
>no mention of 40km/h or 30km/h ... as if to 
>imply that 50km/h was "safe". That too was around 15 years ago.
>
>Of course, 50km/h wasn't safe ... but Bicycle 
>Victoria and Vic Roads already knew that from 
>data extracted by BV from VicRoads data in the early 1990s.
>
>To that I can also add my own efforts including 
>promotion of the "Vision Zero" concept by way of 
>a paper to ATRF 2001 which can be found on the 
>web at http://www.patrec.org/atrf/papers/2001/1444_Yeates%20(2001).pdf
>
>So there is a well documented chronology of 
>informed claims for safer speed limits yet these 
>appear to get no mention in this report. Why so 
>little of the history? Surely the history isn't 
>thought to be well understood by current decision makers?
>
>What is also of interest is the selection of 
>examples and in particular, those that are not selected.
>
>One not included is the well known city of Graz 
>in Austria. In this field, it is well known 
>because it adopted TEMPO 30 as its default speed 
>limit in the early to mid 1990s so effectively 
>"every street (and road) is 30km/h" except where signed otherwise.
>
>That was 15 or more years ago.
>
>Graz is well known to those with a knowledge of 
>the issues of urban speed management. It is the 
>world's first and possibly only city to adopt 
>this strategy and it has worked well ... it has 
>been well evaluated and not just from a safety 
>perspective but also mode shift, environmental 
>impacts, etc. Yet it does not seem to appear in this report?
>
>Why not?
>
>The same goes for the City of Unley in Adelaide 
>South Australia which gets a mention but the 
>most recent reference seems to be to 1998. 
>That's 11 years ago. Nothing else done since? If not, why not?
>
>And similarly for projects such as "Supportive 
>Environments" which is another significant step 
>in the history ... as is the 
>perception-education emphasis of, for example, 
>Werner Brog and derivations such as TravelSmart.
>
>However in many ways, many projects though well 
>intentioned, failed to challenge orthodox road 
>management and paradoxically, some therefore 
>encouraged ideas of an independent network 
>without considering (i) how or if that might be 
>possible and (ii) whether challenging the 
>orthodoxy might be more beneficial, even by way 
>of smaller scale trials and demonstrations. The 
>results of these and similar projects were 
>beneficial but the roads remained the problem.
>
>It is therefore good to see the "safe urban 
>speed limit" issue back on the agenda (well 
>hopefully) yet there remains a nagging concern 
>that Australian policy processes require these 
>phases or cycles of interest followed by moving 
>to other issues ... until the cycle can "safely" 
>be revisited ... but with little or no change, 
>iterative or incremental over time.
>
> From a policy analysis perspective, very little 
> has changed in the recent 20-30 years in 
> Australia in regard to road safety for 
> pedestrians and cyclists if that is viewed as 
> safer roads for use by more pedestrians and 
> more cyclists "of all ages and abilities". And 
> that does not include outcomes such as 
> "reduced" reliance on cars ... whatever that might mean in practice.
>
>So will this revisit by the Safe Speed Interest Group be more successful?
>
>We certainly must hope so.  But thought needs to 
>be given to how success should be measured ... 
>and by whom? What might be used as evidence?
>
>Also the questions of "why 40, why not 30?" keep 
>emerging and for some writers, supportive 
>evidence seems to be elusive yet there are 
>detailed examples including Graz and Unley.
>
>One illustration is perhaps the notion that 
>according to Australia's road managers, a 
>"shared zone" needs (perhaps must) have a 10km/h speed limit ...!
>
>One wonders therefore what those same road 
>managers would suggest as the speed limit for 
>the well known European "pedestrian priority" 
>zone were it to be allowed on Australian roads?
>
>Surely not 5km/h?
>
>Although it gets mention by way of example, 
>there seems to be no detailed examination and/or 
>questioning of why we have adopted the current 
>speed limit "standards" and more particularly, 
>why 10km/h was chosen for "shared zones"? And 
>what about the effect of the 85% (85th 
>percentile) compliance "rule" as speeds get lower?
>
>In case it is not widely known, pedestrian 
>priority zones in Europe have speed limits of up 
>to 30km/h ... and this is safe mainly because 
>the onus is directly on the motorist (and 
>cyclist) to give priority to pedestrians. This 
>aspect of the law and Australian Road Rules 
>needs far more discussion and detailed inclusion in reports such as this.
>
>The fact we have amongst the safest roads in the 
>(equivalent) world in terms of numbers of 
>pedestrians and cyclists KSI seems to be a 
>product of 13-14 years of school and/or 
>community education that roads are very 
>dangerous for what are sometimes called "soft 
>people". It appears it is still not acceptable 
>to ask why ... or to suggest answers to that question.
>
>It is worth also noting that 100 years ago, many 
>if not most of current main roads in urban and 
>suburban areas were in place but were safe for 
>pedestrians ... and up to say 40-50 years ago, 
>they were also safe for surprisingly large numbers of cyclists.
>
>Not much has been changed other than how the roads are managed.
>
>THAT can be changed ... and indeed as elsewhere can be reversed.
>
>It just seems highly problematic to ignore the 
>history ... indeed some suggest that ignoring 
>history is one way of ensuring the same issues will occur again.
>
>That IS a real concern ...!
>
>The report is however a useful update ... and 
>certainly deserves careful and critical reading 
>from the full version by anyone at all interested in this vital issue.
>
>But it is a brave challenge to suggest that 
>little rigorous research has addressed the main 
>study question (see page 5) ... but perhaps that is exactly what is intended?
>
>In the interim, and taking the benefits of 
>slower speed limits as a given, it is perhaps 
>useful to consider and remember not only the 
>KSIs as measured for road safety but to add 
>those who have suffered from all the other 
>impacts that occur due to urban speed limits 
>that are too high ... and wonder how many lives 
>have been lost or impacted in the last 20-30 
>years since this issue has been on the policy cycle.
>
>Coincidentally that is a little less time than 
>when I recall my being able (and allowed) to 
>walk or cycle to my local suburban primary 
>school where perhaps hundreds of bicycles 
>created what may then have even been considered 
>something of a nuisance ... yet today there is barely one bike ...!
>
>"Why is it so?"
>
>More to the point, and this is the real issue 
>rarely addressed except by those of us 
>privileged to have experienced it, "what would 
>it be like if 30 or 40km/h applied not 50 or 60km/h?"
>
>Michael Yeates .................
>
>
>At 08:50 PM 23/03/2009, Paul Magarey wrote:
>
>>The human tolerance to injury by a car is exceeded if the vehicle is
>>travelling at more than 30 km/h. While most unprotected road users
>>survive if hit by a car travelling at 30 km/h, the majority are killed
>>if hit by a car travelling at 50 km/h (WHO 2008).
>>
>>This point is from a great presentation that can be found at
>>
>>http://www.saferoadsconference.com/presentations/Garrard_J_Tue_1330_BR3.pdf
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Paul
>>Paul Magarey
>>Project Manager
>>Bicycle Federation of Australia
>>
>>*************************************************
>>phone:  02 6248 5988
>>mobile: 0448 269 092
>>skype:  Paul Magarey
>>email:  projectmanager at bfa.asn.au
>>web:    www.bfa.asn.au
>>post:   PO Box 499 Civic Square ACT 2608
>>**************************************************
>
>
>          ********* BFA-Oz ***********
>“..but global oil production itself is likely to 
>peak, maybe as early as 2006.  But more 
>conventionally 2010 ­ 2015.” “It is also certain 
>that the cost of preparing too early is nowhere 
>near the cost of not being ready on time.”  Hon. 
>Alannah MacTiernan, WA Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, 2004
>see www.ASPO-Australia.org.au
>           ********* BFA-Oz ***********
>
>Sorry about the ads. They are forced upon us.
>
>BFA-Oz is a mailing list for people interested 
>in bicycle advocacy at a state and national 
>level in Australia.  It is an initiative of the 
>Bicycle Federation of 
>Australia  (www.bfa.asn.au).  However, views 
>expressed on this list do not necessarily 
>represent those of the BFA, and should not be 
>interpreted as being approved or condoned by the BFA.
>To subscribe send e-mail from that address to   bfa-oz-subscribe at topica.com
>Queries, complaints and suggestions to 
>Bruce.Robinson<at>[Delete-this].Westnet.com.au
>--^----------------------------------------------------------------