ABC and Raphael on safety / speed

Some material which may be useful for advocacy, never mind the history with this chap.

Views: 247

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

? which part?

The part that Point-to-point cameras safety are not turned on ie: lives traded for drivers convenience and votes?

Or the 30kmh as a best practice for pedestrian safety

Or the part that all tax payers aren't paying enough for proper road infrastructure for drivers?

I heard the question about cyclist sharing roads 25minute mark?  but I think it wasn't answered - or was it censored?

You could ask ABC. There were a few questions that got story on top of responses I think.

I wonder what editing was done.

I am keen on 30km/h, although I will surely be dead before we get it in AU

I recall a certain researcher making a submission to the NSW Parliamentary Road Safety Committee (Staysafe — Bikesafe) around 1989 stating that riding a bicycle to school was far more dangerous than going by bus.  Needless to say he received funding from the bus industry and l guess still receives plenty of funding from the NSW government agencies.

Ain't that a fact

Worth a listen. He was scathing on the Nationals, saying they "bartered lives" for votes on the point to point camera issue. Also said politics should play no part in road safety. He likened NSW pollies to Rumanian pollies, "who won't listen", only concerned with votes.

A caller asked  several questions including one on about allowing "push bikes" ( always used in a slightly derogatory way)  on roads with bike paths next to them, but Prof Grz didn't answer that one. Otherwise no mention of cyclists.

On pedestrians, he said most drivers wouldn't notice one at night on low beam if driving at 35kmh, a good argument for lower urban speed limits. He also noted that 30 was OECD best practice, and Australia has the highest urban speed limits of all the comparable countries. (He also said most pedestrian deaths were due to head injuries, but didn't mention helmets.)

Gave a caller a bit of a lecture on US , when she said higher speeds were common on their freeways. He pointed out their very high death rate, one of the worst in the world, not helped by lack of enforcement. On the German unlimited autobahns,  he reckons roads are better there, and on those that aren't the Germans are reducing speed limits now.

Said research here and elsewhere shows that a 5-10% reduction in actual speeds leads to a 20-30% reduction in serious crashes. And conversely, an increase in actual speeds leads to an increase in serious crashes, so sort of demolished the caller who wanted 130 limits on some roads. By the time a car doing 110 has stopped under braking, a car doing 130 initially is still going at "a high speed". Etc etc, all well known stuff. 

Take-outs for me:

1) A desire to campaign for urban limits in urban areas. For instance where Great Western Highway passes through mountains villages: 50 not 60. And off the arterials 30.

2) A desire to campaign for pedestrian safety features and amenity first (eg. motor vehicle exclusion, paths).

Cycling advocacy can follow that good stuff. And, because NSW pollies behave like Romanian ones, I feel that developing disruptive technology to achieve these goals is a necessary step. In effect, tech which achieves denial-of-service until the situation is improved.

RSS

© 2019   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service