War on cars

[g-boaf]

Schofield et al. (2017),

403 Forbidden - AGGH Analytics.

[opik_bidin]

Car Culture in Indonesia
https://mobile.twitter.com/kumparan/sta ... 6456448000

Experts say if cyclists want to ride safely on the roads, its better to ask for police or transport departement escort

[opik_bidin]

The Innovative Way Ghent Removed Cars From The City

379854529

https://vimeo.com/379854529

[opik_bidin]

Oslo, and particularly Norway lead the way, It is a very good work, hope other countries follow suit

Oslo saw zero pedestrian and cyclist deaths in 2019. Here’s how the city did it

reducing the number of cars reduced the number of traffic fatalities
https://www.curbed.com/2020/1/3/2104806 ... F3HK8StrXQ

City data for the Norwegian capital, which has a population of about 673,000, show a dramatic reduction in traffic fatalities, from 41 deaths in 1975 to a single roadway death last year. One adult man was killed in 2019 when his vehicle struck a fence.

According to a story in the Norwegian paper Aftenposten, safety advocates are directly attributing the virtual elimination of roadway deaths to recent initiatives which have allowed fewer cars into the city’s center.

over the last five years, the city has taken dramatic steps to reduce vehicular traffic in its downtown, including replacing nearly all on-street parking with bike lanes and sidewalks. Major streets have been closed to cars, and congestion pricing raised the fee to drive into the city center, with the goal of making most of downtown car-free by 2019.

Oslo has not only reduced the number of places where it is possible to drive, the city has also lowered the speed limit

Perhaps most remarkably, no children under 15 died in roadway crashes anywhere in the country of Norway during 2019, which has a population of about 5.3 million

[opik_bidin]

Is it just me.

Most of the timee, the ads I see in Youtube are cars, and the UTE and SUV type, although I rarely watch car related videos (mostly music and cycling, + other documentaries), yet are given ads of the most destructive type of car

[Shred11]

In the case of over sized dual cab utes and SUVs (a mis-nomer, since there is nothing sporting or utilitarian about them), the car makers make significantly more profit from selling these compared to a regular car. Their marketing experts seem to have convinced urban dwellers that they “need” these over sized vehicles to take the kiddies to school, or to go to the shops. More $$$ for the car maker, but to me it seems like a form of collective insanity that as petrol becomes more expensive and land to park the car on becomes harder to obtain and more expensive, these monstrosities are becoming more common on our roads.

[opik_bidin]

Now Birmingham wants to apply what Ghent did, interesting as it is the city o sphageti junction

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonrei ... 0f984b760f

Birmingham—the U.K. “motor city” of Spaghetti Junction fame—wants to reduce the number of car journeys in the city. The “allocation of road space will change away from single occupancy private cars,” promises the Birmingham Transport Plan launched on January 13.

The idea is to “move people not [motor] vehicles,” adds the draft masterplan, saying that, in the near future, there has to be preference for “mass transit and active modes of travel.”
---------------------

It's also important that business owners tend to overestimate customers coming in by cars

https://mobile.twitter.com/carltonreid/ ... 7923127297

Half of the business owners on a Toronto street estimated that more than 25% of their customers arrived by car. In fact, it was 4%. And the number for those who walked or cycled? 72%

[Comedian]

Is it just me.

Most of the timee, the ads I see in Youtube are cars, and the UTE and SUV type, although I rarely watch car related videos (mostly music and cycling, + other documentaries), yet are given ads of the most destructive type of car

Australians and particularly the US will really only buy SUV. It makes sense to try and sell people something they want to buy.

[brumby33]

Is it just me.

Most of the timee, the ads I see in Youtube are cars, and the UTE and SUV type, although I rarely watch car related videos (mostly music and cycling, + other documentaries), yet are given ads of the most destructive type of car

I don't think SUV's or UTES are a destructive car anymore than a Toyota Corolla or a motorcycle if it's driven by a dim witted or a dangerous driver, all can have the same outcomes for a bicycle rider.

SUVs are the new Station Wagons that were popular with families for decades. They can store a fair bit of stuff with the seats folded down, I can even get my Vivente Tourer in my Corolla with the front wheel off with the seats down so and SUV has even more space and are useful to many cyclists wanting to get out of the city to the best riding places.
Ute drivers seem to have a different mindset in general and a total disregard to rules or other road users and tend to have a yobbo mentality or so it seems at times but on saying that, a Ute can carry many bikes too...it ain't the car, it's the nut behind the wheel

brumby33

[Comedian]

Is it just me.

Most of the timee, the ads I see in Youtube are cars, and the UTE and SUV type, although I rarely watch car related videos (mostly music and cycling, + other documentaries), yet are given ads of the most destructive type of car

I don't think SUV's or UTES are a destructive car anymore than a Toyota Corolla or a motorcycle if it's driven by a dim witted or a dangerous driver, all can have the same outcomes for a bicycle rider.

SUVs are the new Station Wagons that were popular with families for decades. They can store a fair bit of stuff with the seats folded down, I can even get my Vivente Tourer in my Corolla with the front wheel off with the seats down so and SUV has even more space and are useful to many cyclists wanting to get out of the city to the best riding places.
Ute drivers seem to have a different mindset in general and a total disregard to rules or other road users and tend to have a yobbo mentality or so it seems at times but on saying that, a Ute can carry many bikes too...it ain't the car, it's the nut behind the wheel

brumby33

The problem is there are a couple of different types of vehicles in the same class of SUV. Crossovers are really just small sedans with upright bodies. I agree they don't really present any more danger than any other car to VRU. Their design would encourage VRU over the car rather than under.

However a good proportion of SUV are actually 4x4's that are built with commercial/offroading origins. Typically their front end design is not VRU friendly. Some of them are shaped so that in a collision with a pedestrian they would funnel them under the car which is a very very bad outcome. Some big selling names that are shaped like this are Hilux, Ranger, and Triton.

I don't understand how they are legal for sale - but they seem to be.

[brumby33]

Yes but high set 4 X4's have been around for decades but you're right about the new type utes, they are some of the highest sellers in Australia right now overtaking even the smaller hatchbacks. The American style big pick-ups have been heavily marketed at Australian men as adventure vehicles (and bully vehicles) in particular the Ford Ranger in many different model levels especially the Raptor. They are also marketed at those who can't afford the Dodge Ram and the soon to be released Silverado Chevvy Pick-up. (these vehicles being in the $150K+ range won't be in high numbers...I hope)

But at the end of the day, whether it's a Toyota Yaris or a Range Rover, they don't do anything by themselves.....yet!!

brumby33

[mikesbytes]

Some good points, there are SUV's that are just sedans that have been made higher and there fuel consumption wouldn't be much more than a sedan. A big point is pedestrian safety, apart from the obvious of not hitting the pedestrian in the first place, if it does happen we want the head strike on the bonnet and not the windscreen. Reduced speed limits will improve the probability of the head strike being on the bonnet. As for funnelling the pedestrian under the bonnet, those kind of vehicles should be banned. For new vehicles we need to see pedestrian safety standards implemented, I'm aware there is on vehicle where if the sensor detects a pedestrian, then it pops the bonnet up to make it a more likely place to hit and a softer place to hit

[Comedian]

Some good points, there are SUV's that are just sedans that have been made higher and there fuel consumption wouldn't be much more than a sedan. A big point is pedestrian safety, apart from the obvious of not hitting the pedestrian in the first place, if it does happen we want the head strike on the bonnet and not the windscreen. Reduced speed limits will improve the probability of the head strike being on the bonnet. As for funnelling the pedestrian under the bonnet, those kind of vehicles should be banned. For new vehicles we need to see pedestrian safety standards implemented, I'm aware there is on vehicle where if the sensor detects a pedestrian, then it pops the bonnet up to make it a more likely place to hit and a softer place to hit

Like I said - we're not banning them! They are our top selling vehicles. I suspect.. this is all well known but there is money to be made.

Top sellers 2019
1st Toyota Hilux
2nd Ford Ranger
3rd Toyota Corolla
4th Mitsubishi Triton
5th Toyota RAV4
6th Mitsubishi ASX
7th Hyundai i30
8th Isuzu D-Max
9th Mazda CX-5
10th Nissan X-Trail

[Comedian]

The war on cars.. is like Iran taking on the US.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/enviro ... 53s3g.html

The need to act on climate change was fully accepted when the federal government launched plans to make the fumes that come from your car exhaust a little bit cleaner. Josh Frydenberg, the environment minister at the time, was confident Australians would save money over time from changes that would gradually reduce noxious and greenhouse gas emissions from millions of cars.

“Fuel efficiency standards are about reducing fuel costs and carbon emissions at the same time,” he wrote in August 2017 with Paul Fletcher, the urban infrastructure minister at the time.

The changes were meant to bring petrol and diesel standards into line with other developed countries and save Australians more than $500 a year on their fuel bills, or $28 billion by 2040.

But the changes never came. Caught up in a climate change war that split the Coalition party room, the government discovered that action was harder than words. Malcolm Turnbull was facing an uprising within a year and everything came to a shuddering halt.

The big idea to save money and help the environment was steered into a ditch on the side of the road. Nobody even bothered to lift the hood and attempt some repairs. The idea was left there, waiting for a day when someone might try to restart the engine.

The peak group meant to make this change happen, the ministerial forum on vehicle emissions, went into limbo. It was led by Frydenberg and Fletcher and met eight times in 2017 and 2018 but has not met since.

The last gathering was a few months after Scott Morrison became Prime Minister. Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack convened the meeting with Energy Minister Angus Taylor and Environment Minister Melissa Price. That was on November 29, 2018.

The result? “Nothing has happened,” says one industry observer. The government identified the challenge in 2015, explained why it mattered and outlined its plans. And then did nothing.

This is a reality check when the government is now talking, again, about acting on climate change. If action is so important now, why were ideas shelved for a year or more?

Morrison is responding to a brutal political awakening during this bushfire season. Australians are losing patience with the deniers within his government. Liberals in metropolitan seats are losing patience, too, because they are losing voters who can see the way the conservatives block action at every turn.

The answer this week is a technology investment roadmap. It will be released for public comment in the coming weeks and will promise to reduce emissions using renewables, energy efficiency, carbon capture, hydrogen and advances in agriculture.

Governments are preparing for electric vehicles around the world. Not in Australia, yet. There are significant advantages in this shift, not least reducing the reliance on oil imports, but Morrison has positioned himself on the wrong side of the change.

Who can forget Employment Minister Michaelia Cash thundering against Labor for wanting half of all new vehicles to be electric by 2030? “We are going to stand by our tradies and we are going to save their utes,” she declared during the election campaign. It was fevered nonsense then, but it hobbles policy now.

Governments are improving fuel standards around the world. Not in Australia. The go-slow not only means inaction on climate change but also means Australians are exposed to more noxious fumes.

In the government’s defence, one change is underway. The government chose last year to apply a new petrol standard to reduce sulphur to 10 parts per million from July 2027 and reduce aromatic content as well from January 2022.

But noxious gases and carbon emissions are covered by separate standards. There are no decisions on these so far, even though the ministerial forum was set up more than four years ago to act on these challenges.

The danger for Australia is that it is being left behind by a world that is moving to cleaner fuel to suit cleaner cars. Whether the government acts or not, carmakers are upgrading to meet higher standards in Europe and America, which means we will need better fuel.

There is a trade-off for motorists in any transition to cleaner fuel. Mandating a higher standard means pushing up the price of a new car, but it also means saving money at the petrol pump because the car is more efficient. The government’s own analysis shows the benefits outweigh the costs, but they take time to arrive.

Frydenberg and Fletcher drew on this analysis when they promised savings two years ago, and Labor used it again to argue for better fuel standards during the May election campaign.

Morrison had a different take. He focused on the up-front costs to accuse Labor of adding $5000 to the cost of a car. He applied the worst-case scenario to the capital costs and ignored the long-term savings. For good measure, he claimed Labor wanted to “end the weekend” with its support for electric vehicles.

Does this surprise? The election debate on cars was just another instance of a climate change debate full of hysterical rhetoric, tricky numbers and overblown scares. And now the government wants Australians to accept its technology roadmap as the answer.

The government is also planning a National Electric Vehicle Strategy in the first half of this year. This is a good idea, but also proof of the opportunities lost. It will arrive long after the government should have come to a position on how EVs will change energy use and erode fuel excise revenue.

Liberals privately worry that Australians will not believe them on climate change because they think Morrison does not speak with conviction when he says the science is real and he is acting on the problem. What do words matter when Morrison is branded by the moment he walked into Parliament with a lump of coal?

Morrison talks of going “even further” to reduce emissions and building “resilience” to cope with a changing climate, but it is too soon to judge if this rhetoric signals anything other than a political panic.

The technology roadmap may include wonderful ideas for the future, but it is only required because of the failures of the past.

David Crowe is chief political correspondent of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald.

[Bunged Knee]

From https://au.news.yahoo.com/harsh-new-pen ... 52964.html

Harsh new penalties in force from today for 'reckless' act on roads,

From today, January 17, motorists caught tossing a lit cigarette will cop a hefty fine and for the first time, the thoughtless offence will see demerit points imposed.

During a total fire ban, throwing a cigarette out the window in NSW will cost drivers up to $11,000 and ten demerit points.

The offence will also be punishable during times without a fire ban, where drivers will be penalised with five demerit points.

Passengers who throw cigarettes out the windows onto a road, or near a highway, will also be fined $660, and during fire bans, the penalty will be doubled, amounting to $1320.

In a statement released by the NSW Government in December 2019, when the new penalties were announced, it was reported more than 200 people had been busted throwing lit cigarettes out the window, across the state.

The decision was welcomed by fire authorities throughout the state when the penalties were announced.

“I hope this move makes people think very carefully about the consequences of their actions next time they go to discard a lit cigarette,” NSW Rural Fire Service Association President Brian McDonough said in December.

“This reckless behaviour puts the safety of firefighting volunteers at risk.”

Cigarettes do cause roadside fires
According to Fire and Rescue NSW, every year the firies tend to “hundreds” of roadside fires, which are believed to be caused by discarded cigarette butts.

Jennifer Dainer, a student at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) conducted an experiment with FRNSW and CSIRO, to conclusively prove a lit cigarette can cause a fire.

Hey smoker tossers , you asks for it and then stop flicking it out of polluting vehicles.

[opik_bidin]

Even AAA is posting vision zero result of Oslo. Looks like we are in for a big change in 2020

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 2077409311

Oslo, Norway, where the toward zero vision is becoming a reality. "Between 2010 & 2017, Norway reduced road deaths by nearly 60% compared with a nearly 10% drop by Australia, according to the OECD

[fat and old]

10% fall? Lucky we live in Australia then.

Malaysia recorded a 10% increase 2003 - 2012.

https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/tra ... laysia.pdf

[opik_bidin]

The replies in this tweet show how many aussies are just blind haters and don't research enough
----------------------
https://mobile.twitter.com/australian/s ... 7461709824

Nationals leader Michael McCormack says “lower travel speeds can ­result in lower emissions from ­vehicles”, and the Morrison government supports slowing down cars in areas with “high volumes” of pedestrians, ­cyclists and aged or frail people. #auspol
---------------
The replies showed many people haven't read deep enough on why lowering speed limit is a climate change action. The recommended speed limit is 30 kmh or 20 mph in high pedestrian activity area.

Yes it is coming from someone you hate, but it doesn't take away that what he said is right

Further reading:

Benefits:

1 20mph is 10 times safer (than 30mph) for 60+yr olds compared to 7x for others
2 Fuel use and pollution fall due to smoother driving.
3 Profits & tourism rise with slower speeds as footfall rise
4 20mph speed limits are a crucial platform for people to choose active travel. All local transport methods and journeys become safer and more pleasant. 20mph helps keep people safe and gets their legs moving more often!
5 20mph is child protection. It encourages parents to allow kids out so children can move, be fit, sporty, explore, have fun and see friends. Playing out encourages walking or cycling to school.
6 20mph limits can help our public realm be better for more people to walk and cycle regularly. The rationale is simple - provide safer spaces and people will use them.20mph cuts air and noise pollution
7 20mph limits offer huge population-wide benefits such as reducing the health burden of crashes, chronic diseases, inactivity, stress, pollution, loneliness and inequalities
8 Reducing speed limits from 30mph to 20mph typically results in more than 20% fewer casualties
9 Women Gain Confidence, Exercise, Time & Freedom From 20mph
10 20mph Limits Help the Invisibly Disabled Gain Social Equality
11 20mph reduces the power imbalance between road users so some drivers can choose to drive less far or less often. It also smooths traffic flow. Independent travel by the young and vulnerable groups rises too.
12 20mph is Key to Vision Zero. No Fatal or Serious Injuries
13 20mph is a friendly limit - it raises liveability and quality of life. It’s key to healthy streets.
14 Victoria’s own Road Safety Strategy – Towards Zero 2016-2020, recognise this.
15 a fatal injury to a pedestrian is at least twice as likely to occur in a crash at 40km/h than at 30km/h.
16 reduction in speed limits in urban areas has minimal impact on travel time. Travel time in built-up areas is related to how much time is spent slowing and stopping at intersections, parking and in local congestion. Maximum travel speed has very little to do with travel time in these areas.
17 create streets that everyone can enjoy – whether they are walking, driving or riding. We want people to feel safer, which in turn will make them more likely to spend time in the streets.
18 will make our neighbourhoods more lively, more vibrant and more welcoming – and we think that’s worthwhile.
19 The impact on travel time is likely to be insignificant. Research shows the difference in travel time, where the maximum speed was varied between 30km/h and 40km/h, was minimal. In fact, according to the research, a lower speed limit in congested areas may actually reduce travel time since it allows a constant traffic flow and less friction.
20 There are many locations around the world where 30km/h or 20mph (imperial equivalent) speed limits are in place, and there isn’t any evidence suggesting that crashes have increased as a result of the reduced speeds..
21 There is no solid evidence to support the idea that a lower speed limit either raises or lowers emissions. Factors like the type and age of cars, driving styles and the amount of slowing and speeding up (like when turning) have a greater impact on carbon emissions and pollution.


references :

1 Towards Zero 2016-2020 – Victoria’s Road Safety Strategy and Action Plan
2 National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020
3 National Road Safety Action Plan 2018-2020
4 City of Yarra Safe Travel Strategy 2016
5 Speed and Crash Risk - International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group for International Transport Forum (OECD), 2018
6 City of Yarra - 30km/h Speed Limit: Pre-Trial Final Report - Monash University Accident Research Centre for Yarra City Council, 2017
7 Managing speed - World Health Organisation, 2017
8 Speed limit setting and the Safe System principle - Mooren, L, Grzebieta, Raphael, Job, S, for Australian Road Safety Research, Policy and Education Conference, 2014
9 Factors influencing travel speed: Velocity Series Discussion Paper 4 - Monash University Accident Research Centre, 2012
10 Recent Progress in Implementing the Safe System Approach - Blair Turner, Peter Cairney, Chris Jurewicz & David McTiernan, in Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 2010
11 Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach - OECD/ITF Transport Research Centre, 2008
12 Speed Management - OECD/ECMT Transport Research Centre, 2006
13 Evaluation of a 50km/h Default Urban Speed Limit for Australia - Monash University Accident Research Centre for National Road Transport Commission, 2001
14 Vehicle Travel Speeds and The Incidence of Fatal Pedestrian Collisions - NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit for Federal Office of Road Safety, 1994
15 WHO Global Health Observatory Data – Road Safety
16 http://www.20splenty.org/
17 https://thanksfor30.com.au/why-30kmh

[baabaa]

Good to know you are talking the same crap as him. This bloke and his side of politics mocked the whole alternative powered vehicle sector.
He thinks that that a Skoda Fabia with a 1.2 litre engine with four people sitting in it doing 100 kmph using 4.5L/100km is more harmful to the environment than a 4.5 litre land cruiser using 10.3 L/100km and a one person driver sitting in urban traffic.
If they really cared, they would tax and set import duty on any vehicle on the fuel consumption not the speed.
Ped or anything other than cars on road safety of any vehicle in urban regions is a completely different matter to them and they just don't care.
BTW, Have you ever heard of Duncan Gay?

[opik_bidin]

Good to know you are talking the same crap as him. This bloke and his side of politics mocked the whole alternative powered vehicle sector.
He thinks that that a Skoda Fabia with a 1.2 litre engine with four people sitting in it doing 100 kmph using 4.5L/100km is more harmful to the environment than a 4.5 litre land cruiser using 10.3 L/100km and a one person driver sitting in urban traffic.
If they really cared, they would tax and set import duty on any vehicle on the fuel consumption not the speed.
Ped or anything other than cars on road safety of any vehicle in urban regions is a completely different matter to them and they just don't care.
BTW, Have you ever heard of Duncan Gay?

Yup, he is wrong at that side, but he is right on lowering speed limits in high pedestrian activity areas, in cities.

and contrary to what many people believe and laugh, it is climate action. it enables active travel, it enables reducing cr trips, it allows city to be built smaller and not sprawling.

I'm not denying he is wrong on many things, like tahat horse manure thing. but this is something that urbanists, cycling advocates, pedestrian advocates, public health experts, traffic safety experts, climate scientists and economists should back.

[baabaa]

So name one seat in an urban area the nats hold.
No matter what you say this is still total crap please stop posting fluff on this site.

[warthog1]

Some good points, there are SUV's that are just sedans that have been made higher and there fuel consumption wouldn't be much more than a sedan. A big point is pedestrian safety, apart from the obvious of not hitting the pedestrian in the first place, if it does happen we want the head strike on the bonnet and not the windscreen. Reduced speed limits will improve the probability of the head strike being on the bonnet. As for funnelling the pedestrian under the bonnet, those kind of vehicles should be banned. For new vehicles we need to see pedestrian safety standards implemented, I'm aware there is on vehicle where if the sensor detects a pedestrian, then it pops the bonnet up to make it a more likely place to hit and a softer place to hit

Like I said - we're not banning them! They are our top selling vehicles. I suspect.. this is all well known but there is money to be made.

Top sellers 2019
1st Toyota Hilux
2nd Ford Ranger
3rd Toyota Corolla
4th Mitsubishi Triton
5th Toyota RAV4
6th Mitsubishi ASX
7th Hyundai i30
8th Isuzu D-Max
9th Mazda CX-5
10th Nissan X-Trail

I don't know if your defender would be the same?
My GU patrol is, largely due to the ride height and bar work on the front.
I bought it when I lived in Alice Springs and still use it as a remote area tourer and workhorse.
It is set up for that.
Unfortunately the remote area travel has requirements that are inconsistent with the requirements for urban travel.
The bar work and ride height particularly.
Both have however been specifics that have enabled the remote area use we do.
I don't use it as a commuter or town car but beyond that I am unsure of what practical specifics to address the urban use I'd be happy with?
It is a task focussed vehicle for me and is specifically set up for same.

[opik_bidin]

So name one seat in an urban area the nats hold.
No matter what you say this is still total crap please stop posting fluff on this site.

Total Crap that even Melbourne implements it
https://www.news.com.au/technology/inno ... 14b07a4685

Total Crap that even BN supports it
https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsr ... er-speeds/

Urban seat has nothing to do with "lowering speed limit means lowering emission"

But I can imagine the nats trying to hold the urbanites in contempt by lowering speed that actually increase the urbanites wellbeing.

Meanwhile, I can already envision the comedy when McCormack calls the so called "experts" laughing at him and fighting lowering the speed limit and then make them go face to face with Melbourne city council, Cycling advocates,climate scientists, urban planners and economists.

[baabaa]

It is not the topic that is in question it is the very fact you really consider that this man and his party really will act on it that I am questioning. This is truly embarrassing. Please stop posting fluff.

[fat and old]

The replies in this tweet show how many aussies are just blind haters and don't research enough
----------------------
https://mobile.twitter.com/australian/s ... 7461709824

Nationals leader Michael McCormack says “lower travel speeds can ­result in lower emissions from ­vehicles”, and the Morrison government supports slowing down cars in areas with “high volumes” of pedestrians, ­cyclists and aged or frail people. #auspol
---------------
The replies showed many people haven't read deep enough on why lowering speed limit is a climate change action. The recommended speed limit is 30 kmh or 20 mph in high pedestrian activity area.

Yes it is coming from someone you hate, but it doesn't take away that what he said is right

Further reading:

Benefits:

1 20mph is 10 times safer (than 30mph) for 60+yr olds compared to 7x for others
2 Fuel use and pollution fall due to smoother driving.
3 Profits & tourism rise with slower speeds as footfall rise
4 20mph speed limits are a crucial platform for people to choose active travel. All local transport methods and journeys become safer and more pleasant. 20mph helps keep people safe and gets their legs moving more often!
5 20mph is child protection. It encourages parents to allow kids out so children can move, be fit, sporty, explore, have fun and see friends. Playing out encourages walking or cycling to school.
6 20mph limits can help our public realm be better for more people to walk and cycle regularly. The rationale is simple - provide safer spaces and people will use them.20mph cuts air and noise pollution
7 20mph limits offer huge population-wide benefits such as reducing the health burden of crashes, chronic diseases, inactivity, stress, pollution, loneliness and inequalities
8 Reducing speed limits from 30mph to 20mph typically results in more than 20% fewer casualties
9 Women Gain Confidence, Exercise, Time & Freedom From 20mph
10 20mph Limits Help the Invisibly Disabled Gain Social Equality
11 20mph reduces the power imbalance between road users so some drivers can choose to drive less far or less often. It also smooths traffic flow. Independent travel by the young and vulnerable groups rises too.
12 20mph is Key to Vision Zero. No Fatal or Serious Injuries
13 20mph is a friendly limit - it raises liveability and quality of life. It’s key to healthy streets.
14 Victoria’s own Road Safety Strategy – Towards Zero 2016-2020, recognise this.
15 a fatal injury to a pedestrian is at least twice as likely to occur in a crash at 40km/h than at 30km/h.
16 reduction in speed limits in urban areas has minimal impact on travel time. Travel time in built-up areas is related to how much time is spent slowing and stopping at intersections, parking and in local congestion. Maximum travel speed has very little to do with travel time in these areas.
17 create streets that everyone can enjoy – whether they are walking, driving or riding. We want people to feel safer, which in turn will make them more likely to spend time in the streets.
18 will make our neighbourhoods more lively, more vibrant and more welcoming – and we think that’s worthwhile.
19 The impact on travel time is likely to be insignificant. Research shows the difference in travel time, where the maximum speed was varied between 30km/h and 40km/h, was minimal. In fact, according to the research, a lower speed limit in congested areas may actually reduce travel time since it allows a constant traffic flow and less friction.
20 There are many locations around the world where 30km/h or 20mph (imperial equivalent) speed limits are in place, and there isn’t any evidence suggesting that crashes have increased as a result of the reduced speeds..
21 There is no solid evidence to support the idea that a lower speed limit either raises or lowers emissions. Factors like the type and age of cars, driving styles and the amount of slowing and speeding up (like when turning) have a greater impact on carbon emissions and pollution.


references :

1 Towards Zero 2016-2020 – Victoria’s Road Safety Strategy and Action Plan
2 National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020
3 National Road Safety Action Plan 2018-2020
4 City of Yarra Safe Travel Strategy 2016
5 Speed and Crash Risk - International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group for International Transport Forum (OECD), 2018
6 City of Yarra - 30km/h Speed Limit: Pre-Trial Final Report - Monash University Accident Research Centre for Yarra City Council, 2017
7 Managing speed - World Health Organisation, 2017
8 Speed limit setting and the Safe System principle - Mooren, L, Grzebieta, Raphael, Job, S, for Australian Road Safety Research, Policy and Education Conference, 2014
9 Factors influencing travel speed: Velocity Series Discussion Paper 4 - Monash University Accident Research Centre, 2012
10 Recent Progress in Implementing the Safe System Approach - Blair Turner, Peter Cairney, Chris Jurewicz & David McTiernan, in Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 2010
11 Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach - OECD/ITF Transport Research Centre, 2008
12 Speed Management - OECD/ECMT Transport Research Centre, 2006
13 Evaluation of a 50km/h Default Urban Speed Limit for Australia - Monash University Accident Research Centre for National Road Transport Commission, 2001
14 Vehicle Travel Speeds and The Incidence of Fatal Pedestrian Collisions - NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit for Federal Office of Road Safety, 1994
15 WHO Global Health Observatory Data – Road Safety
16 http://www.20splenty.org/
17 https://thanksfor30.com.au/why-30kmh

There's something wrong here.

Your twitter link is to The Australian. OK.

Then "Further Reading" Benefits are all imperial measurement. Not Australian, but your references are pretty much all Australian, and go back to metric measurements.

Copy paste is one thing, no real issue I guess. But mix and match copy/paste? That makes no sense.....your message is being lost in the presentation.