Press Release

Crashes in Hobart involving pedestrians need more study and analysis. An alarming spike in injuries in the past month is definitely a cause for serious concern, says the RACT, but any solution must be based on evidence and a risk assessment approach.

So far, the only solution being promoted in the media is a blanket speed reduction. But this option is being promoted in a vacuum, without details of the causes and circumstances in which pedestrian incidents occur.

With respect to pedestrian crashes in Hobart, the RACT has posed the following questions which it believes are essential in helping to provide a real and lasting solution - and that need answering:

• To what extent is speed an identified factor in Hobart pedestrian incidents over the last five years?
• At what time of the day/night, based on historical data, are collisions occurring?
• Where are they occurring? In the CBD, close to the CBD, or in suburbs or outside cities altogether? What is the correlation between traffic speed flows and collisions with pedestrians in these distinct areas at different times of the day/night?
• What do pedestrian flows in Hobart look like, and is there any understanding of how localised engineering - tunnels, foot links - can provide solutions to improve pedestrian flows?
• How many incidents occur at pedestrian crossings? How many incidents occur within 50 metres of a pedestrian crossing?
• Has an audit been done to establish the appropriateness of pedestrian crossing locations? Are there too few? Are they in the right area? Are they adequately sign posted?
• Is roadside lighting an issue in night time incidents? (Experts say that some street lighting in Hobart may not be up to Australian standard.)

• To what extent is alcohol or drugs a factor in crashes involving pedestrians - whether it is the driver or the pedestrian?
• Is pedestrian education properly resourced and implemented, both to pedestrians and drivers?
• If implemented, does a blanket speed reduction solution have a set of criteria to benchmark its success? What happens if blanket speed reductions are introduced and they have little or no impact on the number of incidents?
• Has appropriate baseline comparative data on the traffic volumes, pedestrian movements, and real travel speeds under a range of traffic conditions and times-of-day actually been collected?  If so can it be transparently presented to ascertain whether motorists are in fact presenting over-speed-limit risks to vulnerable road-users?

A variety of infrastructure-based solutions used in many other places to reduce pedestrian and other road-user risk should be considered in Hobart, including (but not limited to):

• The immediate renewal of a range of faded, worn and non-existent line markings in and around the CBD; for example upper Macquarie Street outside the Wheatsheaf building.
• Variable speed limit zones, where electronic signage varies speeds in high risk areas and at high risk times, similar to the 40km/h speed zones that currently exist around schools on school days when students are arriving or leaving the school
• Pedestrian light count downs, where pedestrians have the comfort of knowing how long they have to cross the road.
• Phased traffic lights which include a pedestrian only phase, during which pedestrians can cross the intersection in any direction, even diagonally. This precludes the need for pedestrians to wait at two sets of pedestrian lights. Examples are common in WA and the Sydney CBD.
• Roadside engineering to funnel pedestrians to pedestrian crossings by the use of railings, as occurs in other cities.
• Targeted overpasses or pedestrian tunnels, as occurs in other cities (one example is Sydney's Military Road, where railings now prevent pedestrians crossing the road, but an overpass has been built to give pedestrians safe passage).

• Other technology-based solutions such as intelligent on-road/in-road or vehicle-activated warnings.

The RACT is also concerned about pedestrian safety and wants to ensure that whatever measures are put in place are effective. Like many issues, there is no simple answer to road trauma, and those who advocate a blanket speed reduction only, may ultimately be doing pedestrians a disservice by failing to address other real and serious issues gleaned from a cases-by-case risk assessment.

"To suggest that reducing speed limits alone will somehow magically solve pedestrian crashes, as some are claiming, ignores the complexity of the issue," said RACT spokesman Vince Taskunas.  

"The community needs to be aware that this approach is comparatively cheap - and offers increased revenue-raising potential - whereas infrastructure-based solutions cost significant amounts of money.

 "The RACT holds a real concern that speed limit reductions could become more widely used as a low-cost substitute measure for adequate funding of the maintenance and replacement of road assets, or as a cheap alternative to investment in infrastructure-based road safety measures."

For further information:             Vince Taskunas

See also an RACT discussion paper on this issue: http://www.ract.com.au/uploaded/9/19924_1950kmhhobartuniversityre.pdf

The RACT is a foundation member of the Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) which crash tests cars to determine occupant safety, and then makes car buyers aware of the results. This program also determines pedestrian safety in impacts with different car makes, and the RACT would urge new car buyers to visit the ANCAP site at http://www.ancap.com.au/crashtesting to understand pedestrian survivability and injury in terms of different car makes and designs.

General Manager Public Policy and Communications RACT     0417 005 647