wellington_street wrote:
1. It doesnt remove the stupid is it footpath / is it shared path mindbend we have now. Instead of 'can we ride on it?' it will be 'can i do more than 10km/h?'
Where as now, you should still be working out what speed is sensible, regardless of the markings.
wellington_street wrote:
2. It will be practically unenforceable as police will only do rare random blitzes.
Where as now, it's practically unenforced as the police ride there too.
wellington_street wrote:
3. It will be impractical as bicycles so not come with speedos. Not such an issue on the road given the much higher speed limits but on paths it will be 10-15km/h which is much easier to exceed without knowing.
I picked that speed because it's really easy to tell if you're going that fast - it's a fast jog. Faster than walking but not really anyone's riding pace.
If you feel like you're riding nicely, you're going too fast.
wellington_street wrote:
4. Blanket speed limits do not reflect actual safety concerns and through associated low compliance, have no safett benefit. This is why we dont have a blanket 30mph (50km/h) speed limit in the metro area anymore, we have speed limits tailored to individual roads.
Pardon? When I first read that I thought you meant tailored DOWN to individual roads. And whose safety concerns? Did you mean to say "subsequent low compliance" . In which case you'd be victim blaming.
The vast majority of motorists stay under the speed limit almost all of the time. It's the 10% who "just speed a little when it's safe" and the 1% who can't give a flying ****
areremain the problem - and do most of the whining.
(The best
evidence we have suggests 30kph is where the blanket speed limit should be)
wellington_street wrote:
5. Any blanket speed limit (10-15-20) is going to be either far too slow for somewhere like the Hepburn Ave footpath or far too fast for somewhere like Albany Hwy through Vic Park or your average footpath hard up against the property line.
Get the things that should be PSPs marked as PSPs. Don't use it as an excused. This is, after all, all about the average footpath.
wellington_street wrote:
6. I am against impractical blanket laws that have no safety benefit, will not be enforced and will have no compliance. A culture of creating stupid road rules results in a culture of ignoring road rules.
The safety benefit of altering the speed limit from what-ever-the-road-is to single digit mph is clear, as you've just pointed out.
wellington_street wrote:
Why would i think the 1m rule is stupidity? The risk is there every single event and there is a clear safety benefit to the rule. It of course needs to be enforced to be effective.
What, like the current safe passing rules are enforced? And anyway, how are motorists supposed to know how far away they are? Do they have to purchase expensive aftermarket laser range finders? Didn't you hear that 1m will be unenforceable because the police won't be able to get out their tape measures? Plus bicycles squeeze past me much closer than that when I'm stopped in traffic.
My point is that all of the complaints levied at a limit for speed on foot paths are entirely analogous to those raised against 1m rules.