Page 3267 - Week 10 - Thursday, 25 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Similarly, the government will rework its estate development code to see how it can better prioritise vulnerable road users and to be conducive to slower speed environments. One of the existing problems with some of Canberra’s neighbourhoods is that they are designed for higher speeds, so obviously vehicles adapt to higher speeds and it can be difficult to retrofit traffic calming measures.
The response does not include a lot of detail about changes to infrastructure designed to assist and facilitate vulnerable road users. It does agree to take more opportunities to use raised priority crossings as a way of giving foot and cycle traffic priority over other vehicles. There are many opportunities for the territory to use this infrastructure.
Through my role as TAMS minister, I am also committed to exploring and prioritising further infrastructure improvements. TAMS is at the moment reviewing its design standards, and I have asked that they look at best practice in terms of supporting users of sustainable transport and vulnerable road users.
One area to expand the government’s infrastructure response is in the provision of facilities that separate cyclists from general traffic at key locations. This type of infrastructure is particularly good at attracting new cyclists or cyclists who are apprehensive about riding in traffic—more often women and children. This is where great gains can be made in increasing the number of people who ride. As I have said before, I would love to see the ACT become the “women’s cycling capital of Australia”.
Through the implementation of this report there will be several meaningful changes to rules and regulations governing the road environment. One change which I know will interest many in the community is the government’s agreement to trial a minimum passing distance rule under which vehicles must leave a minimum of a one-metre gap when passing a cyclist, and a 1.5 metre gap if the speed limit is over 60 kilometres an hour. This rule works well elsewhere, and will work well as part of an overall package of vulnerable road user reforms and education measures.
It is important to specify that the government is aware of practical implementation issues with this rule and will be working through the details of its implementation closely. There are a variety of options. One example which I have discussed with TAMS is using a nuanced version of the rule which would apply where the physical width of the road would not allow a vehicle to legally pass. In this circumstance a vehicle could pass, but only after slowing down to a safe passing speed. Similar exemptions have been implemented in California following a lengthy review process.
This is not necessarily the only or the complete answer, but I mention it to emphasise that there are options and nuances available if practical issues become problematic. Governments are flexible enough to accommodate these challenges. The practicalities that have been raised are not a reason to say no to implementing this rule, when it obviously can play an important safety and educational role.
Something I am also pleased to note is that the government will also explore the introduction of a specific offence for people who harass, assault or endanger
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video