Maintaining 50 km/h Residential Speed Limits in Australia: An Evidence Review

Executive Summary

Australia should keep the 50 km/h speed limit in residential areas. We shouldn’t introduce blanket 30 km/h zones across the board.

Here’s why. Only 13 per cent of road deaths happen in areas with 50 km/h limits or lower. The other 87 per cent happen elsewhere—mostly on rural and regional roads. The world’s safest countries keep 50 km/h as their urban default, using 30 km/h zones only in specific high-risk places. And changing everything to 30 km/h would cost somewhere between $135 million and $173 million nationally.

Australian roads are built to handle 50 km/h safely. When we changed from 60 km/h to 50 km/h back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, serious crashes dropped by 40 to 46 per cent. That was a success story.

What does make sense is using 30 km/h zones where they’re actually needed—near schools, in busy shopping areas, and places where we know pedestrian crashes happen. But we should back these up with proper infrastructure, not just signs.

The Safety Picture Isn’t Simple

Let’s start with where deaths actually happen. The Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics tells us that about 13 per cent of all road deaths occur in zones with limits at or below 50 km/h. That means 87 per cent happen somewhere else—mainly on rural and regional roads, where about two-thirds of fatalities occur.

If we focus too much on urban residential speeds, we might miss where the real problem is. We could end up spending money in the wrong places.

The change from 60 km/h to 50 km/h worked well. Monash University studied Victoria’s rollout and found a 40 per cent drop in fatal crashes in 50 km/h zones compared to 60 km/h zones. Serious injury crashes involving pedestrians fell by 46 per cent. All pedestrian casualty crashes dropped by 22 per cent.

These improvements happened even though actual speeds didn’t drop that much. The Australian Transport Council approved the national 50 km/h default in 2003 based on this Australian research. It was a win based on our own evidence.

Speed does affect crash severity—that’s real. Recent research by Hussain and others looked at 20 studies and found pedestrian fatality risk at 5 per cent for 30 km/h impacts, 13 per cent at 40 km/h, and 29 per cent at 50 km/h. But the same research found problems with how some studies were done. Earlier studies overstated the risks because they only looked at severe crashes.

German research by Rosén and Sander looked at a much larger dataset and found lower fatality risks than what’s usually reported. The commonly cited stat that only 10 per cent survive at 50 km/h comes from flawed studies. The risk at 50 km/h is still more than twice that at 40 km/h and more than five times higher than at 30 km/h, but the actual numbers are lower than what campaigners often claim.

One important thing gets overlooked—impact speed isn’t the same as travel speed. The studies measure speed at the moment of collision, not normal driving speeds. Modern cars have anti-lock brakes, stability control, and much better braking than older cars. Drivers brake before impact. There’s usually about one second of reaction time. So the speed you’re travelling isn’t the speed you hit at.

What Other Countries Do

Sweden invented Vision Zero—the idea that no road death is acceptable. But Sweden keeps 50 km/h as its built-up area default. They use 30 km/h only where it’s specifically signed in high-pedestrian areas. Sweden has 2.6 to 2.8 road deaths per 100,000 people. That’s world-leading, and much better than Australia’s 4.7 per 100,000.

The Netherlands, famous for cycling and road safety, also keeps 50 km/h as the default. About 70 per cent of their urban roads are designated 30 km/h zones, but they built up to this over decades with proper infrastructure. Between 1971 and 2021, fatalities in the Netherlands dropped by 80 per cent—from 3,300 to 582—despite a 30 per cent population increase and a 300 per cent increase in kilometres travelled.

The United Kingdom keeps 30 mph (48 km/h) as their urban default, with 20 mph zones in specific residential areas.

These are the world’s safest countries. They show that keeping 50 km/h as the default, combined with targeted lower-speed zones backed by proper infrastructure, is international best practice. It’s not outdated or unsafe.

Compliance is a problem when limits are too low. Two-thirds of Australians admit to speeding. A Melbourne study in a 40 km/h zone found 42 per cent of speeds exceeded 30 km/h. The 85th percentile speed was 35 km/h. A Newcastle trial on Darby Street showed 30 km/h compliance is possible—average speeds dropped from 42 km/h to 30 km/h—but it took serious enforcement and infrastructure changes.

When speed limits don’t match what the road looks like it’s designed for, compliance becomes heavily enforcement-dependent. That’s a problem.

The Costs Are Higher Than You Think

Infrastructure Victoria estimated $35 to $45 million to implement 30 km/h limits statewide in Victoria. That covers signage, policy changes, and coordination with local councils. Victoria represents about 26 per cent of Australia’s population. Scale that up nationally and you’re looking at $135 to $173 million just for the basics.

That’s a conservative estimate. It doesn’t include traffic calming measures like speed humps and road narrowing. It doesn’t include enforcement technology and cameras. It doesn’t include public education campaigns. All of these are consistently identified as necessary for 30 km/h zones to work effectively.

Australia already has a congestion problem. National congestion costs hit $16.5 billion annually in 2015. They’re projected to reach $27.7 to $37.3 billion by 2030 without intervention. Melbourne’s traffic speeds fell 8.1 per cent between 2013 and 2018—more than double Sydney’s decline rate. Brisbane drivers lost 84 hours per year to congestion in 2024, ranking tenth globally. Sydney’s average peak speeds drop to 20 to 40 km/h during peak periods.

Reducing speed limits further when cities are already struggling with severe congestion could compound productivity losses. We don’t have comprehensive Australian traffic flow modelling showing what widespread 30 km/h implementation would do during peak periods. That’s a major gap.

Supporters say 30 km/h limits add only about one minute to average local trips. But that’s for individual residential street segments, not entire journeys. For typical commutes using multiple residential streets, delays add up. This analysis doesn’t account for network-wide congestion, traffic pushing onto arterial roads, or increased queue lengths at intersections during rush hour.

The University of Sydney acknowledges travel times will increase by “what amounts to a few minutes for the typical Sydney commute”. Across metropolitan populations, that’s thousands of hours annually. Those are real productivity costs that haven’t been properly quantified.

Emergency Services

Emergency response times are critical, but they’ve been largely unstudied in the Australian context. Current ambulance response times already fail to meet targets in most jurisdictions. The Australian Capital Territory averages 16.8 minutes for Priority 1 calls—the fastest nationally. Tasmania averages 34.7 minutes. South Australia exceeds 50 minutes.

Emergency vehicles can exceed speed limits when responding with lights and sirens, but they must drive safely for the conditions. Victoria Police and Ambulance Victoria guidance suggests a maximum of about 25 km/h over posted limits as safe practice.

In 50 km/h zones, emergency vehicles might safely travel 70 to 75 km/h. In 30 km/h zones, they’re limited to 55 to 60 km/h maximum safe speed. That’s a 15 to 20 km/h reduction in emergency response speed.

Despite extensive searching, no comprehensive Australian studies quantify the specific impact of 30 km/h limits on emergency services response times. That’s a critical evidence gap. Emergency medical literature consistently shows each minute of delay in cardiac arrest situations reduces survival probability by 7 to 10 per cent.

Cost-benefit analyses claiming $1.6 to $3.5 billion in annual economic benefits don’t adequately account for productivity losses from increased travel times, higher business operating costs, reduced emergency services effectiveness, network-wide congestion during peak periods, or long-term economic impacts.

Wellington, New Zealand did an economic analysis and found travel time costs were larger than projected safety benefits for citywide 30 km/h limits. They concluded implementation might be justified when you factor in wider health and liveability benefits, but it’s not economically justified on safety benefits alone. That suggests the economic case for blanket 30 km/h zones isn’t proven.

Enforcement and Compliance Challenges

Enforcing widespread 30 km/h limits would require intensive resources. Australia currently issues 3.3 million speeding fines annually. Of these, 83.6 per cent (2.8 million) come from cameras and 16.4 per cent from police.

Research consistently shows lower limits need more enforcement to achieve compliance, especially when the road design doesn’t match the limit. Best practice requires combinations of fixed cameras, mobile cameras, point-to-point cameras, and both overt and covert police presence. Without physical road changes, enforcement becomes continuous rather than transitional.

Key stakeholders are pushing back. Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Shane Patton called 30 km/h limits “ridiculous” and “not the answer” to Victoria’s road toll in November 2023. That’s the state’s most senior traffic enforcement official rejecting the policy. New South Wales Premier Chris Minns expressed concerns that Sydney as a “major international city” shouldn’t be “treated like a country town”. Business Sydney’s executive director warned that “unreasonably low speed limits run the risk of stifling the commercial life of the city, which is already struggling to recover”.

This opposition from police leadership, political figures, and the business community shows the challenge of securing the institutional support needed for effective implementation.

Public opinion is mixed. Advocacy polls claim two-thirds of Australians want lower speed limits on local streets. But academic research tells a different story. A 2005 Australian Transport Safety Bureau study found only 3 per cent believed 50 km/h was too high in residential areas. A 2010 study of 4,100 respondents found only one-third supported lower limits in urban areas. Historical data shows 60 per cent supported the 60 km/h to 50 km/h reduction in the 1990s, and 87 per cent agreed speed limits were “generally set at reasonable levels”.

The gap between advocacy poll claims and academic studies suggests public support might be context-dependent rather than reflecting strong endorsement of blanket residential reductions.

Credibility Matters

Research on speed limit credibility raises concerns about inappropriately low limits undermining overall compliance culture. A 2007 study by Goldenbeld and van Schagen concluded: “If speed limits in a system appear consistently unreasonable, road users may question the utility of and perhaps disregard the entire system.”

Drivers report credibility as a “key reason” for compliance decisions. When drivers see limits as unreliable, they rely on personal judgement instead. Studies show drivers chose speeds 10 per cent lower than posted when limits were credible but ignored non-credible limits, showing 50 per cent deviation. New South Wales research confirms “motorists’ opinion as to appropriateness of speed limits is likely to influence their decision to speed”.

Michigan State Patrol warns that “inappropriately established speed limits cause drivers to take all traffic signals less seriously”. Unrealistic limits create two driver groups—those trying to obey versus those driving what they feel is safe. This speed variance increases crash risk according to multiple studies.

The Australian National Road Safety Strategy acknowledges this: “Without both social licence and enforcement, compliance with reduced speed limits may be limited.” Queensland’s road safety guidance states speed limits should be “realistic, consistent and consequently encourage voluntary compliance”. It notes that setting limits “much higher or much lower than current operating speeds may not achieve desired levels of compliance”.

The 60 km/h to 50 km/h transition succeeded because the reduction was modest (17 per cent), matched rebuilt urban streets better, featured strong public education campaigns, achieved community support exceeding 60 per cent, and produced achievable enforcement. A 40 per cent reduction from 50 km/h to 30 km/h on streets still designed for 50 to 60 km/h is fundamentally different.

Australian Roads Are Built for 50 km/h

Austroads design standards—the nationally consistent framework governing Australian road design—explicitly establish parameters for 50 km/h residential roads. This directly addresses claims that these speeds are inappropriate for current infrastructure.

The Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 3 specifies that for major urban roads, geometric design is based on operating speeds 10 km/h higher than legal limits. That means 50 km/h zones are designed for 60 km/h operating speeds. Australian Capital Territory Design Standards state roads should be “designed to deliver traffic volumes at speeds compatible with function”.

Road width, sight distance, and intersection geometry standards all accommodate 50 km/h operation. Normal lane width of 3.5 metres for kerbed roads, minimum stopping sight distance requirements at all points, Safe Intersection Sight Distance standards tailored to operating speeds, and appropriate intersection treatments all form part of Austroads specifications.

This comprehensive design framework directly contradicts claims that Australian residential roads can’t safely accommodate 50 km/h speeds.

Traffic calming measures work better than speed limit signage alone. Australian Road Research Board research found speed humps achieve 53 to 60 per cent reductions in odds of child pedestrian injury or death. Traffic calming devices produce 30 per cent reductions in traffic speed. Installations in Australian cities saw 85th percentile speeds drop by half or more after installation.

New Zealand’s rural-urban gateway treatments with roundabouts achieved 23 per cent reductions in fatal and serious crashes. One Auckland raised roundabout reduced crashes from 54 to zero, delivering US$6 million in cost savings. Australian implementations of raised intersections achieved 55 per cent casualty reductions, raised pedestrian crossings 63 per cent reductions, and midblock platforms 47 per cent reductions.

South Australia’s experience shows safety improvements are achievable whilst maintaining 50 km/h limits. Following extensive introduction from 1997 onwards, South Australia’s 50 km/h default urban limits delivered estimated financial savings of $1.5 billion per year nationally by 2006. South Australia alone saved 60 fatalities and 800 serious injuries over 12 years. Infrastructure investment of $17 million in targeted road improvements, combined with $110 million on arterial roads, achieved these outcomes without blanket reductions to 30 km/h.

New South Wales’s High Pedestrian Activity Areas programme implemented 40 km/h zones (not 30 km/h) in over 900 kilometres of roads with mixed uses. It showed statistically significant crash reductions compared to control roads, with benefits applying to overall crashes, not just vulnerable road users.

The critical principle is “self-explaining roads”—a Dutch concept where road design naturally induces appropriate speeds. Wide, straight roads with clear sight lines encourage higher speeds regardless of signage. Narrow, textured streets with visual complexity encourage slower speeds. Speed limit signs alone can’t overcome design-induced speed choices.

Many Australian suburban streets feature wide lanes designed for the 60 km/h era, straight alignments, limited visual complexity, and design that “looks and feels like through roads”. University of New South Wales research notes “the road environment in the city gives insufficient clues about the actual risks. Many streets still have very wide lanes and look and feel like ‘through roads’ where you can drive faster than you should”.

Setting 30 km/h limits on roads designed for 50 to 60 km/h without corresponding infrastructure changes creates the credibility problem identified in compliance research.

Targeted Approaches Work Better

Evidence consistently supports context-specific speed management over uniform blanket policies. The Safe System approach promoted by the World Health Organisation, OECD, and International Transport Forum recommends 30 km/h where vulnerable users and vehicles mix, 50 km/h in other urban areas with intersections, and higher speeds only where separation exists. This graduated approach matches speed to road function and design rather than applying uniform limits regardless of context.

School zone implementations show substantial effectiveness when properly designed. Canadian research found 45.3 per cent reductions in fatal and injury collisions with 30 km/h school zones, and 55.3 per cent reductions in injuries to vulnerable road users. Every 1 km/h reduction in mean speed produced 4 per cent reductions in fatal and injury crashes. Calgary achieved speed reductions from 35.9 km/h to 30.1 km/h with a 78 per cent reduction in collision rates.

But effectiveness depends on implementation quality. United States Transportation Research Board reviews found generally poor driver compliance when limits are set very low, with effectiveness highly dependent on physical design, signage quality, and enforcement. Australia’s existing 40 km/h school zone model during school hours represents a proven, targeted approach already achieving safety benefits without blanket residential reductions.

Shared zones or woonerven—the Netherlands model—show how very low speeds work in highly specific contexts. Operating at 10 to 15 km/h (walking pace) with pedestrian right-of-way throughout, level surfaces without physical separation, and legal liability heavily weighted against motorists, woonerven are used in over 6,000 Dutch communities. About 20 per cent of Dutch homes are located in woonerf areas.

Sweden’s Skvallertorget square in Norrköping recorded zero accidents after conversion, with speeds dropping from 21 km/h to 16 km/h. These spaces create natural speed reduction through psychological “mental speed bumps” and promote social interaction and child play in residential streets.

Critically, woonerven are used for very specific contexts—low-volume residential streets, not arterials. This demonstrates the principle of matching speed management to street function rather than applying blanket policies.

Cost-effectiveness analysis favours infrastructure investment in high-risk locations over blanket speed limit changes. South Australia’s targeted $17 million investment in road improvements resulted in $1.5 billion annual national savings—a return on investment approaching 100:1. Auckland’s single raised roundabout delivered US$6 million in cost savings from crash prevention.

Speed humps, as the most cost-effective physical intervention, allow quick installation using modular rubber designs at lower cost than asphalt or concrete with immediate effectiveness upon installation. The Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 8 recognises different treatments are appropriate for different street types. Local access streets target 30 km/h with 15 km/h slow points, whilst local distributors target 50 km/h with 35 km/h roundabouts. This tailored approach proves more effective than blanket measures.

International Evidence Supports Graduated Approaches

Countries with the best road safety records maintain 50 km/h (or equivalent) as default urban limits, using 30 km/h selectively.

The Netherlands maintains 3.7 to 4.5 fatalities per 100,000 population with a 50 km/h default and about 70 per cent of urban roads designated as 30 km/h zones through strategic implementation over decades. Evaluation of 150 zones found 22 per cent average injury crash reductions but with large variation in effectiveness based on zone design, urbanisation degree, quality of speed-reduction measures, and traffic volume changes. Implementation quality matters more than blanket policy.

Sweden and Norway, Vision Zero originators, achieve world-leading safety performance (Sweden 2.6 to 2.8, Norway 2.0 to 2.3 per 100,000) whilst maintaining 50 km/h urban defaults. Sweden reduced fatalities by 73 per cent from 2000 to 2020 (from 6.7 to 1.8 per 100,000). Norway became the first country to record fewer than 100 annual road deaths in 2020 despite traffic quadrupling since 1970.

Their success stems from holistic Safe System implementation emphasising shared responsibility, infrastructure design as the primary tool, graduated speed limits based on road function, extensive use of 2+1 roads on rural highways, strong enforcement with cameras and section control, political consensus, and sustained long-term commitment with continuous evidence-based adjustments. Both maintain 50 km/h urban defaults rather than adopting blanket 30 km/h policies.

Variable and time-based speed limits offer alternatives that maintain efficiency whilst ensuring safety. School zones commonly implement 30 to 40 km/h during school hours only, with signalised systems using flashing lights indicating active periods. This maintains higher limits when risk is lower, improves credibility and compliance versus constant restrictions, and allows flexibility for different time periods and conditions.

British Columbia’s staged approach first implemented 30 km/h zones around schools and playgrounds, gradually expanding based on evidence and acceptance, with emphasis on road design that “looks and feels” like 30 km/h. They built on pre-existing 30 km/h school zones established since the early 2000s that created social acceptance.

European cities implementing citywide 30 km/h limits show positive outcomes but with important caveats. Reviews of 40 cities including Brussels, Paris, Zurich, and Bologna found consistent lower speeds, reduced collisions (especially serious crashes), and particular effectiveness for pedestrians and cyclists. Brussels saw 7 to 19 per cent speed reductions depending on road type.

But most implementations occurred during 2020 to 2021 (during or near the pandemic), making long-term effectiveness assessment and separation of effects from reduced traffic challenging. These implementations typically occurred in city centres with extensive traffic calming infrastructure as part of comprehensive urban redesign in cities with fundamentally different street layouts than Australian suburbs.

Swiss public opposition illustrates implementation challenges. A 2023 poll found nearly two-thirds oppose blanket 30 km/h urban limits, with three-quarters favouring the current mixed regime of 50 km/h default with case-by-case 30 km/h zones. Whilst 67 per cent support 30 km/h on residential streets and near schools, 61 per cent worry about “rat-running” if slower speeds spread to thoroughfares. Voters rejected a blanket 30 km/h cap in a 2001 referendum.

This shows that even in compact European cities with good public transport, blanket approaches face public resistance. Targeted implementation enjoys far stronger support.

Australian Cities Are Different

Australian cities rank among the most car-dependent globally, with sprawling, low-density suburban development. This creates fundamentally different transport contexts from European cities where 30 km/h has been implemented.

Melbourne, Perth, and Brisbane’s outer growth areas feature low density (except some transit-oriented developments), with greater distances between destinations compared to compact European cities. Very high car ownership rates reflect necessity rather than choice in outer suburbs, where limited public transport creates car dependency.

Newman and Kenworthy’s research documents that Australian cities have two times higher per capita auto use than European cities, three to four times more road per capita than Europe, and seven to nine times more than Asia. Melbourne is Australia’s most car-dependent city.

Trip distances and travel time budgets create different impacts from speed reductions. European cities feature high density, extensive public transport, and shorter trip distances. Australian cities’ low density, car-orientation, and longer distances mean the same percentage speed reduction translates to substantially greater absolute time increases.

Australian cities approach the limits of acceptable travel times (the one-hour threshold). Outer suburban residents already face 41 per cent of commute time in congestion (77 hours per year). Further speed reductions disproportionately affect these residents who are already disadvantaged by location.

Infrastructure legacy presents retrofit challenges. Australia’s extensive existing 50 km/h road networks were designed for higher speeds with wide, straight, multi-lane configurations. Retrofitting for 30 km/h would require massive infrastructure investment.

British Columbia’s lesson emphasises roads must “look and feel” like 30 km/h for compliance. Most Australian suburban streets don’t meet that standard without substantial physical changes.

Climate factors including high temperatures, greater use of air conditioning in vehicles, and extensive road networks (20 to 50 per cent of urban land use) contributing to urban heat island effects create different environmental contexts from temperate European cities. Melbourne studies show impervious surfaces raise temperatures up to 5°C.

Australian research indicates caution about blanket approaches. Monash University research suggests reducing to 30 km/h in high-pedestrian areas could reduce serious injury crashes by up to 50 per cent, but this supports targeted implementation in specific high-risk areas rather than blanket citywide application.

Victorian experience shows policy misalignment and bureaucratic hurdles slow implementation. There are equity concerns that lower socioeconomic outer areas have worst access to services and highest car dependency. Queensland and New South Wales have been cautious about blanket approaches, preferring targeted, evidence-based implementation focused on school zones, High Pedestrian Activity Areas, and specific high-risk locations.

Unintended Consequences

Rat-running and traffic diversion present well-documented challenges. A Ku-ring-gai Council case study in Sydney found over 50 per cent of drivers used residential “rat runs” to avoid main roads. Of peak hour drivers, 92 per cent were avoiding main roads.

Modern navigation apps like Waze, Google Maps, and TomTom significantly increase rat-running by routing drivers around congested areas in real-time. Studies show rat-running causes traffic spikes on residential streets, increased speeding on unsuitable roads, and “traffic migration” where accidents move from one location to another rather than being prevented.

Physical barriers, bollards, and one-way streets can prevent rat-running but require enforcement. Low Traffic Neighbourhoods increasingly used to combat this remain politically controversial. Traffic calming on individual streets may simply push traffic to adjacent streets without overall network benefits.

Air quality and emissions effects remain contested with complex evidence. A German study found Tempo 30 led to neither NOx reduction nor CO2 savings but overall worse results. Belgian research found emissions of most classic pollutants should not be expected to rise or fall dramatically with 30 km/h zones. French studies documented vehicles’ U-shaped pollution curve—higher at very low and very high speeds, with optimum over 50 km/h. Engines are optimised for 50 to 80 km/h and at 30 km/h constant speed generate more CO2 than 50 km/h.

Conversely, Imperial College London research found it would be incorrect to assume 20 mph restrictions would be detrimental to ambient local air quality as effects are mixed. Particulate matter reduced for both petrol and diesel vehicles despite moderate CO2 and NOx increases for petrol cars.

The critical finding centres on 30 km/h limits potentially reducing stop-start driving, which is the main emissions source. But this depends heavily on whether limits are area-wide, traffic flow patterns, vehicle fleet composition, and gradient effects.

Public transport efficiency faces potential degradation. Journey time, ranked fourth in importance for patronage (74 per cent consider it important), could suffer as traffic calming devices on bus routes “lead to excessively increased journey times for buses by requiring diversions or slowing them down significantly more than other vehicles” according to Auckland Transport guidance.

Speed humps can reduce average bus speed by 20 to 25 per cent between humps. Bus acceleration limits for safety (1.0 m/s²) trade off against operational efficiency. Transit authorities already navigate lower public-transit ridership, declining air quality, and growing financial pressures.

Driver frustration and behavioural responses present compliance risks. Japanese studies found almost all drivers had exceeded 30 km/h limits and intended to continue doing so, viewing residential streets primarily for traffic rather than residential activities. Bristol studies documented “JIMBYism” (Just In My Back Yard)—wanting 30 km/h on one’s own street but being less concerned about speeds on others’ streets.

Driver surveys show positive beliefs about complying but weak actual compliance, with key discriminators including self-enhancement bias, social contagion, and inattentive or automatic driving. A 1994 Federal Highway Administration study found changing speed limits produced changes less than 1.5 mph in actual speeds, with violations increasing when limits were lowered—not because behaviour changed but because the measurement threshold changed.

The Evidence Has Limitations

The comprehensive Wales Government evidence review of 29 studies found no systematic reviews or meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials exist for 30 km/h limits. All studies were “non-randomised controlled trials, case-control studies, and weaker study designs”. Most were rated as Type 2+ or 2- quality (moderate to high risk of bias). Only seven achieved Type 2++ rating (low risk of bias). This represents a significantly weaker evidence base than commonly acknowledged in advocacy materials.

Confounding variables plague most research. Studies often can’t separate speed limit effects from concurrent traffic volume changes, roadworks, seasonal variations, or other interventions implemented simultaneously. Regression to the mean affects sites chosen for intervention—those with recent high crash rates that may naturally decline regardless of intervention.

Many 30 km/h zones are implemented alongside increased police enforcement, public education campaigns, physical traffic calming (even in “signs only” zones), and changed road layouts. Studies struggle to isolate which element caused observed effects.

Selection effects create self-selection bias where people preferring slower speeds move to or travel in areas with lower limits whilst those preferring speed avoid them. Observer or Hawthorne effects mean behaviour may change simply due to awareness of being studied or new signage presence, not the speed limit per se. Few studies adequately control for weather and seasonal factors.

Short follow-up periods limit conclusions. Many evaluations use only two years post-implementation data when three to five years are recommended. Edinburgh’s study noted “assessing casualty reduction as a direct result of the Pilot was restricted, however, as there only existed verified incident data covering a nine month period”. Bristol’s report acknowledged “it is not possible to draw any firm conclusions until longer term data have been collected”.

Early compliance may deteriorate over time once enforcement reduces and novelty wears off. Lack of control groups further weakens causal inference.

The widely cited speed-crash relationship coefficient claiming “6 per cent reduction in collisions with each 1 mph average speed reduction” is based on Transport Research Laboratory studies from 1994 to 2000. It applies specifically to roads “with low average speeds” and assumes a linear relationship that may not hold across all speed ranges.

Portsmouth’s evaluation notes many sites already had low average speeds of 20 mph or less before the scheme was implemented, suggesting limited scope for further safety gains.

The commonly cited pedestrian survival curves claiming 90 per cent survival at 30 km/h versus 10 per cent at 50 km/h face challenges from Swedish research showing that “even though fatal collisions are rare in speed environments where mean travel speed is below 40 km/h, over 30 per cent of severe injury collisions occur in speed environments below 35 km/h”. This indicates “30 km/h speed limits might not be as safe as previously believed”.

Survival rates depend on vehicle design, pedestrian age, and impact location on the body. Most cited curves come from 1970s to 1980s research that may not reflect modern vehicle design.

Publication bias affects the evidence base, with studies showing null results or negative effects less likely to be published. Pro-30 km/h advocacy groups fund much research. The German ADAC study showing negative emissions effects had a “broken link” in the Wales review.

Studies often “mix results from zones with limits” even though “they are significantly different as interventions”. Physical traffic calming (zones) versus signs-only (limits) are frequently conflated. Portsmouth’s success is cited extensively, but this represented a comprehensive intervention with high community engagement, not typical of rollout elsewhere.

Counterarguments Are Real

The case for maintaining 50 km/h limits must acknowledge substantial counterarguments. The speed-severity relationship, despite methodological limitations in specific studies, is real and significant. Pedestrian fatality risk at 30 km/h impact speed (5 per cent) versus 50 km/h (29 per cent) represents a substantial sixfold difference.

Even accounting for better modern vehicle design and more accurate risk estimates than earlier studies claimed, the physics of impact severity at different speeds is undeniable. Every life saved matters. Vision Zero’s principle that “life and health can never be exchanged for other benefits” reflects a legitimate ethical position that some argue should override economic considerations.

Child safety constitutes perhaps the strongest argument for lower limits. Road trauma is the leading cause of death in school-aged children. Children are disproportionately vulnerable as pedestrians due to size, developmental factors affecting risk perception, and limited traffic experience. Creating safer environments for active transport aligns with public health objectives encouraging walking and cycling.

Infrastructure Victoria’s recommendation focuses on areas children visit—schools, playgrounds, childcare. About 300 children are seriously injured annually, mostly on 50 km/h local roads. This concentration of vulnerable road users in specific locations strengthens the case for targeted interventions even if it doesn’t justify blanket reductions.

Multiple co-benefits extend beyond safety alone. Lower speeds reduce noise pollution, with European studies showing 2.5 dB reductions. At optimal speeds, emissions may decrease (though evidence is mixed). Improved amenity and liveability enhance community character, potentially increasing property values. Portland, Oregon research documented 1 per cent increases in home prices following traffic calming.

Encouraging walking and cycling produces public health benefits beyond road safety through increased physical activity. Creating more vibrant, pedestrian-friendly communities with spaces for children to play outdoors safely reflects legitimate quality-of-life aspirations that pure crash statistics may undervalue.

International implementations show measurable safety gains. Welsh 20 mph limits produced 25 per cent injury reductions on 20/30 mph zones (versus only 2 per cent on faster roads), preventing 14 deaths over 18 months. That’s a substantial, real outcome representing families who didn’t lose loved ones.

European cities’ reviews of 40 cities found consistent crash reductions of 20 to 30 per cent typically reported, particularly effective for pedestrians and cyclists. These aren’t hypothetical benefits but actual measured improvements in communities that implemented lower limits.

Public support may grow post-implementation even with initial scepticism. Brisbane’s experience with 60 km/h to 50 km/h reduction saw support rise by almost 20 percentage points after implementation once residents experienced benefits. Newcastle’s Darby Street trial achieved 59 per cent agreement that it improved safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Edinburgh found support increased over time.

This pattern suggests initial resistance based on perceived inconvenience may transform into acceptance once communities adapt and benefits become tangible.

The Safe System approach’s biomechanical principles provide a theoretical foundation. Human tolerance to impact forces has physical limits. 30 km/h represents the threshold where pedestrians struck have high survival probability with low risk of permanent serious injury. This isn’t arbitrary but reflects evidence-based assessment of human vulnerability.

Vision Zero’s framework argues we should design road systems around human frailty rather than expecting perfect human behaviour, making speeds compatible with survivability rather than optimising for efficiency and accepting fatalities as inevitable.

What Should Australia Do?

The evidence supports maintaining 50 km/h as Australia’s default residential speed limit whilst implementing strategic 30 km/h zones in genuinely high-risk contexts with appropriate supporting infrastructure. This graduated approach aligns with international best practice from the world’s safest countries (Netherlands, Sweden, Norway), respects Australian contextual realities (car-dependent, low-density, long-distance urban form), addresses resource constraints (focusing investment where risk is highest), and maintains credibility essential for voluntary compliance.

Priority applications for 30 km/h implementation include school zones with appropriate hours of operation (expanding on the successful existing 40 km/h model), high pedestrian activity shopping and dining precincts with demonstrated mixed-use intensity, residential streets receiving traffic calming infrastructure investment (not signs-only implementations), areas with demonstrated pedestrian crash problems based on evidence rather than assumptions, and new developments designed from inception for low speeds with appropriate street design.

Each application should feature physical infrastructure supporting the limit, clear boundaries distinguishing different speed environments, time-based variation where appropriate (school zones), strong community consultation and support, and enforcement capability.

Infrastructure investment should prioritise self-explaining road design (streets that look and feel like their intended speed), physical traffic calming measures (roundabouts at intersections with conflict history, raised crossings at high pedestrian activity areas, speed humps on residential streets with speeding issues, chicanes and narrowing where appropriate), separated facilities for vulnerable road users (Copenhagen-style protected bicycle lanes on arterials, shared paths where appropriate, pedestrian refuge islands at crossings, improved crossing infrastructure), and technology integration (pedestrian detection systems at high-risk locations, vehicle-activated warning signs approaching hazards, support for automatic emergency braking adoption in vehicle fleet, smart crossing systems for enhanced visibility).

Resource reallocation should shift focus toward rural and regional roads where 67 per cent of Australian road deaths occur and where 87 per cent of fatalities happen outside areas with limits at or below 50 km/h. Prioritise infrastructure improvements over signage changes. South Australia’s model of $17 million investment producing $1.5 billion annual savings is instructive. Focus on separation of road users rather than speed limit dependency, vehicle safety technology mandates leveraging fleet renewal, and addressing fatigue, distraction, and impairment as primary rural road risk factors.

Implementation should follow staged, evidence-based processes. Begin with highest-risk, highest-acceptance locations (schools and demonstrated crash sites). Build on existing successes (expanding proven 40 km/h school zone model). Conduct rigorous evaluation with adequate follow-up periods (minimum three years, ideally five). Use matched control groups and control for confounding variables. Incorporate community consultation ensuring genuine support rather than token engagement. Ensure equitable implementation prioritising disadvantaged areas not just wealthy inner suburbs. Adapt based on measured outcomes rather than ideological commitment.

The economic analysis supports targeted over blanket approaches. Implementation costs of $135 to $173 million nationally for basic signage, additional tens or hundreds of millions for traffic calming infrastructure, enforcement technology and ongoing operational costs, and opportunity costs from resources diverted from higher-mortality road categories should be weighed against demonstrated safety benefits in targeted high-risk locations, infrastructure investments with superior cost-effectiveness ratios (roundabouts, raised crossings), and maintaining network efficiency for emergency services, public transport, freight, and general mobility.

Wellington’s finding that travel time costs exceed safety benefits for blanket 30 km/h but may be justified for targeted implementation with broader co-benefits provides the appropriate framework.

Conclusion

Australia should resist pressure for blanket 30 km/h residential speed limits. Instead, strengthen the already-successful 50 km/h default with strategic, infrastructure-supported lower-speed zones where vulnerable road users and vehicles genuinely interact intensively.

This approach learns from international best practice. The Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway all maintain 50 km/h urban defaults with targeted lower zones. It respects Australian evidence. Only 13 per cent of deaths occur in areas at or below 50 km/h. The successful 60 km/h to 50 km/h transition delivered 40 to 46 per cent crash reductions. Existing infrastructure is explicitly designed for 50 km/h operation.

It addresses practical implementation realities. Enforcement resource constraints are real. Credibility is essential for compliance. Costs are substantial and need cost-effective allocation. Institutional opposition exists from police and political leadership.

And it maintains the efficiency necessary for car-dependent, low-density cities with long trip distances whilst ensuring safety where risk is highest.

The evidence supports evolution, not revolution. Expand proven school zone approaches. Invest in physical infrastructure that naturally induces appropriate speeds. Separate vulnerable road users through dedicated facilities. Target genuine high-risk locations with comprehensive interventions.

This strategy respects both the legitimate safety concerns driving 30 km/h advocacy and the practical, economic, and contextual factors that make blanket implementation problematic for Australian cities.

International experience demonstrates that the world’s safest countries achieve outstanding outcomes through graduated, infrastructure-supported speed management—not through blanket speed limit reductions applied uniformly regardless of context. Australia should follow their example with policies that are evidence-based, cost-effective, contextually appropriate, and focused relentlessly on where deaths actually occur.

The path to safer roads runs through smart infrastructure investment, separation of road users, vehicle safety technology, addressing rural road trauma, and targeted speed management where evidence demonstrates need—not through blanket policies that risk undermining compliance culture, misallocating scarce resources, and imposing substantial economic costs for modest safety gains in areas accounting for only 13 per cent of road deaths.

Maintaining 50 km/h residential limits whilst strategically implementing 30 km/h zones represents evidence-based policy that can command community support, institutional backing, and voluntary compliance essential for success. This is the approach Australia should pursue.

References

Anderson, R. W. G., McLean, A. J., Farmer, M. J. B., Lee, B. H., & Brooks, C. G. (1997). Vehicle travel speeds and the incidence of fatal pedestrian crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 29(5), 667–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(97)00036-5

Archer, J., Fotheringham, N., Symmons, M., & Corben, B. (2008). The impact of lowered speed limits in urban/metropolitan areas (Report No. 276). Monash University Accident Research Centre. http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc276.pdf

Atkins. (2010). Interim evaluation of the implementation of 20mph speed limits in Portsmouth. Department for Transport, London.

Atkins, AECOM, & Maher, M. (2018). 20mph research study: Process and impact evaluation - Headline report. Department for Transport, London. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5bf2bab940f0b6078acc6f4d/20mph-headline-report.pdf

Austroads. (2001). Speed enforcement in Australasia: Volumes 1 and 2 (AP-R189-01). Austroads, Sydney. https://austroads.com.au/publications/road-safety/ap-r189-01

Austroads. (2009). Guide to road design part 3: Geometric design (AGRD03-09). Austroads, Sydney. https://austroads.com.au/publications/road-design/agrd03-09

Austroads. (2019). Road risk assessment, case studies and engagement guidance for speed management (AP-R587-19). Austroads, Sydney. https://austroads.com.au/publications/road-safety/ap-r587-19

Austroads. (2020a). Guide to traffic management part 5: Link management (Edition 4.0, AGTM05-20). Austroads, Sydney. https://austroads.gov.au/publications/traffic-management/agtm05

Austroads. (2020b). Guide to traffic management part 8: Local street management (Edition 3.0, AGTM08-20). Austroads, Sydney. https://austroads.com.au/publications/traffic-management/agtm08

Austroads. (2020c). Integrating Safe System with Movement and Place for vulnerable road users (AP-R611-20). Austroads, Sydney. https://austroads.com.au/publications/road-safety/ap-r611-20

Austroads. (2020d). Network design for road safety (stereotypes for cross-sections and intersections): User guide (AP-R619-20). Austroads, Sydney. https://austroads.com.au/publications/road-design/ap-r619-20

Austroads. (2022). Best practice speed information management (AP-R671-22). Austroads, Sydney. https://austroads.com.au/publications/road-safety/ap-r671-22

Austroads. (2024). Guide to road safety part 3: Safe speed (Edition 1.1, AGRS03-24). Austroads, Sydney. https://austroads.gov.au/publications/road-safety/agrs03

Belin, M. Å., Tillgren, P., & Vedung, E. (2012). Vision Zero – A road safety policy innovation. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 19(2), 171-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2011.635213

Bristol City Council. (2012). 20MPH speed limit pilot areas: Monitoring report. Bristol City Council, Bristol.

Budd, L., Scully, J., & Newstead, S. (2011). Evaluation of the crash effects of Victoria's fixed digital speed and red-light cameras (Report No. 307). Monash University Accident Research Centre. https://www.monash.edu/muarc

Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics. (2021). Road trauma Australia 2020 statistical summary. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/road_trauma_australia_2020_statistical_summary.pdf

Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics. (2022). Road trauma Australia 2021 statistical summary. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/road_trauma_2021.pdf

Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics. (2023a). International road safety comparisons report 2022. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. https://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety

Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics. (2023b). Road trauma Australia 2022. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/road_trauma_2022.pdf

Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics. (2024). Road trauma Australia 2024. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/road-trauma-australia-2024.pdf

Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics. (n.d.a). Australian road deaths database. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety/fatal_road_crash_database

Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics. (n.d.b). Road deaths Australia—Annual summaries. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/road_deaths_australia_annual_summaries

Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics. (n.d.c). Road deaths Australia—Monthly bulletins. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/road_deaths_australia_monthly_bulletins

Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics. (n.d.d). Road safety statistics. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety

Cameron, M. (2000). Estimation of the optimum speed on urban residential streets. Australian Transport Safety Bureau. https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-publications/topics/speed

Cameron, M., & Elvik, R. (2010). Nilsson's Power Model connecting speed and road trauma: Applicability by road type and alternative models for urban roads. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(6), 1908–1915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.05.012

Cameron, M., Newstead, S., Diamantopoulou, K., & Oxley, P. (2003). An evaluation of the default 50 km/h speed limit in Victoria (Report No. 261). Monash University Accident Research Centre. https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-publications/reports/muarc261

Cameron, M. H., Newstead, S. V., Diamantopoulou, K., & Oxley, P. (2007). The interaction between speed camera enforcement and speed-related mass media publicity in Victoria, Australia. Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Melbourne. https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-publications/topics/speed

Center for Safe and Responsible Transportation. (2020). Guide to developing a Vision Zero plan. University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. https://www.roadsafety.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CSCRS_VZGuide_FINAL.pdf

City of Edinburgh Council. (2010). Road safety action plan: Working towards Vision Zero (updated 2023). City of Edinburgh Council. https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/13611/updated-road-safety-action-plan-aims-for-vision-zero

City of Edinburgh Council. (2013). South Central Edinburgh 20mph limit pilot evaluation. City of Edinburgh Council, Edinburgh.

City of Melbourne. (2024). 40 km/h speed limit rollout. City of Melbourne. https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/road-safety-and-speed-limits

City of Yarra. (2024). 30 km/h speed zone trials. City of Yarra. https://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/news/2024/05/09/yarra-city-council-green-lights-new-30kmh-speed-limit-trial

Clark, B., Budd, L., Thompson, L., Cameron, M., & Newstead, S. (2019). Evaluation of the ACT road safety camera program. Monash University Accident Research Centre. https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/evaluation-of-the-act-road-safety-camera-program

Davis, A. L. (2018). The state of the evidence on 20mph speed limits with regards to road safety, active travel and air pollution impacts: A literature review of the evidence. Welsh Government, Cardiff. https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2019-08/the-state-of-the-evidence-on-20mph-speed-limits-with-regards-to-road-safety-active-travel-and-air-pollution-impacts-august-2018.pdf

Department for Infrastructure and Transport, South Australia. (2021). Speed limit guideline for South Australia. Government of South Australia. https://dit.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/338713/Speed_Limit_Guideline_for_South_Australia.pdf

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. (2001). Evaluation of a 50 km/h default urban speed limit for Australia. Australian Government. https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/publications/evaluation-50-kmh-default-urban-speed-limit-australia

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. (n.d.). Road safety data. Australian Government. Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://catalogue.data.infrastructure.gov.au/organization/road-safety

Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland. (2022a). Queensland road safety action plan 2022-2024. Queensland Government. https://cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2021/Nov/RoadSafetySAP/Attachments/Plan.PDF

Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland. (2022b). Queensland road safety strategy 2022-2031. Queensland Government. https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/safety/road-safety/road-safety-strategy-and-action-plans/strategy-and-action-plans

Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland. (2025). Queensland guide to road safety part 3: Safe speed(QGRS Part 3). Queensland Government. https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/-/media/busind/techstdpubs/road-safety/qgrs/qgrs-part-3.pdf

Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland. (n.d.a). Queensland guide to road safety - Part 3: Safe speed. Queensland Government. https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/-/media/busind/techstdpubs/Road-Safety/QGRS/QGRS-Part-3.pdf

Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland. (n.d.b). QRSTUV: Guide to speed management. Queensland Government. https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/business-industry/Technical-standards-publications/Queensland-Road-Safety-Technical-User-Volumes/QRSTUV-Guide-to-Speed-Management

Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland. (n.d.c). Speed limit setting. Queensland Government. Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/business-industry/business-with-us/speed-limit-setting

Department of Transport and Planning, Victoria. (2021a). Speed zoning policy (Edition 2). Victorian Government. https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/-/media/files/documents/safety-and-road-rules/driver-safety/speed-zoning-policy--edition-no-2.ashx

Department of Transport and Planning, Victoria. (2021b). Speed zoning technical guidelines (Edition 2). Victorian Government. https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/-/media/files/technical-documents-new/traffic-engineering-manual-v3/tem-vol-3-part-211--speed-zoning-guidelines-dec-2021.ashx

Department of Transport and Planning, Victoria. (n.d.). Speed limits. Victorian Government. Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://transport.vic.gov.au/road-and-active-transport/road-rules-and-safety/speed-limits

Elvik, R. (2009). The Power Model of the relationship between speed and road safety: Update and new analyses (TØI Report 1034/2009). Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo. https://www.toi.no/getfile.php?mmfileid=35912

Elvik, R., Vadeby, A., Hels, T., & van Schagen, I. (2019). Updated estimates of the relationship between speed and road safety at the aggregate and individual levels. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 123, 114-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.11.014

European Conference of Ministers of Transport. (2006). Speed management. OECD Publishing/ECMT. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/06speed.pdf

Fildes, B., Keall, M., Bos, N., Lie, A., Page, Y., Pastor, C., Pennisi, L., Rizzi, M., Thomas, P., & Tingvall, C. (2015). Effectiveness of low speed autonomous emergency braking in real-world rear-end crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 81, 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.03.029

Friedman, L. S., Barach, P., & Richter, E. D. (2020). Vision zero: Speed limit reduction and traffic injury prevention in New York City. Eastern Economic Journal, 46, 698-722. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41302-019-00160-5

Global Road Safety Partnership, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, & World Health Organization. (2023). Speed management: A road safety manual for decision-makers and practitioners (2nd ed.). World Health Organization. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/documents/health-topics/road-traffic-injuries/3146-wbk-speed-mgmt-2nd-edition-131023-electronic.pdf

Goldenbeld, C., & van Schagen, I. (2007). The credibility of speed limits on 80 km/h rural roads: The effects of road and person(ality) characteristics. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39(6), 1121-1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2007.02.012

Government of South Australia. (n.d.). Speed limits. Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://mylicence.sa.gov.au/road-rules/the-drivers-handbook/speed-limits

Government of South Australia. (2020). Towards Zero Together: South Australia's road safety strategy 2020. Department for Infrastructure and Transport. https://towardszerotogether.sa.gov.au/

Haworth, N., Ungers, B., Corben, B., & Vulcan, P. (2001). Evaluation of a 50 km/h default urban speed limit for Australia. Monash University Accident Research Centre for the National Road Transport Commission. ISBN: 0642544948

Hussain, Q., Feng, H., Grzebieta, R., Brijs, T., & Olivier, J. (2019). The relationship between impact speed and the probability of pedestrian fatality during a vehicle-pedestrian crash: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 129, 241-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.05.033

Infrastructure Victoria. (2024). Victoria's infrastructure strategy 2024-2054 [Draft 30-year strategy]. Infrastructure Victoria. https://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au

International Transport Forum. (2018). Speed and crash risk (IRTAD Report). OECD Publishing. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/speed-crash-risk.pdf

International Transport Forum. (2020). The Safe System approach in action: Sustainable Safety in the Netherlands. OECD Publishing. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/itf-safe-system-case-study-netherlands.pdf

International Transport Forum. (2023). Road safety annual report 2023. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/12/road-safety-annual-report-2023_f83ca809/8654c572-en.pdf

Janssen, S. T. M. C., & Mathijssen, M. P. M. (1992). Safety effects of 30 km/h zones in The Netherlands. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 24(1), 75-86. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1547016/

Johansson, R. (2009). Vision Zero – Implementing a policy for traffic safety. Safety Science, 47(6), 826-831. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.safestates.org/resource/resmgr/imported/Vision%20Zero%20Article%20-%20Safety%20Science.pdf

Kloeden, C. N., McLean, A. J., & Glonek, G. (2002). Reanalysis of travelling speed and the risk of crash involvement in Adelaide South Australia (Report No. CR 207). Road Accident Research Unit, University of Adelaide for Australian Transport Safety Bureau. https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/publications/cr-207-reanalysis-travelling-speed-and-risk-crash-involvement-adelaide-south-australia-2002

Kloeden, C. N., McLean, A. J., Moore, V. M., & Ponte, G. (1997). Travelling speed and the risk of crash involvement(Report No. CR 172). Federal Office of Road Safety, Canberra. http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/

Kloeden, C. N., Ponte, G., & McLean, A. J. (2001). Travelling speed and the risk of crash involvement on rural roads(Report No. CR 204). Road Accident Research Unit, University of Adelaide for Australian Transport Safety Bureau. https://trid.trb.org/view/712279

Lahausse, J. A., van Nes, N., Fildes, B. N., & Keall, M. D. (2010). Attitudes towards current and lowered speed limits in Australia. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(6), 2108–2116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.06.024

Mandic, S., Hewitt, J., Dodge, N., & Sharma, N. (2023). Approaches to managing speed in New Zealand's capital. Journal of Road Safety, 34(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.33492/JRS-D-22-00086

Merri-bek City Council. (2024). 40kmh safer speed on local roads. Merri-bek City Council. https://www.merri-bek.vic.gov.au/building-and-business/projects/transport-projects/40kmh-safer-speed-on-local-roads/

National Health and Medical Research Council. (2006). Reducing speed, improving safety: Case study. NHMRC. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/resources/impact-case-studies/reducing-speed-improving-safety

National Road Safety Data Hub. (n.d.). Home. Australian Government. Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://datahub.roadsafety.gov.au/

New South Wales Government. (n.d.). Speed limits. Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/roads-safety-and-rules/safe-driving/speed-limits-and-cameras/speed-limits

Newstead, S., Cameron, M., & Narayan, S. (1998). Further modelling of some major factors influencing road trauma trends in Victoria: 1990-96 (Report No. 129). Monash University Accident Research Centre. https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-publications/topics/speed

Newstead, S., Diamantopoulou, K., Cameron, M., & Candappa, N. (2019). Evaluation of the crash effects of Victoria's fixed freeway speed cameras (Report No. 350). Monash University Accident Research Centre. https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/2506909/MUARC-Baseline-Fixed-Speed-Camera-Evaluation-MUARC-Report-350.pdf

Newstead, S., Hoareau, E., & Cameron, M. (2002). Evaluation of 50 km/h speed limits in Victoria: Summary of interim analysis of all crashes and crashes involving pedestrians. Monash University Accident Research Centre. https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/217622/vic50.pdf

Newstead, S., Rampollard, C., Budd, L., Keall, M., & Cameron, M. (2024). Vehicle safety ratings estimated from police-reported crash data: 2024 evaluation - Australian and New Zealand crashes during 1987-2022 (Report No. 371). Monash University Accident Research Centre. https://bridges.monash.edu/articles/report/Vehicle_safety_ratings_estimated_from_police-reported_crash_data_2024_Evaluation_-Australian_and_New_Zealand_crashes_during_1987-2022_MUARC_Report_No_371/27263391

Newstead, S., Watson, L., Delaney, A., & Cameron, M. (2004). A model for considering the 'total safety' of the light passenger vehicle fleet. Proceedings 2004 Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Perth. https://www.monash.edu/muarc

New Zealand Government. (2019). Road to Zero: New Zealand's road safety strategy 2020-2030. Ministry of Transport, Wellington.

New Zealand Government. (2022). Land Transport Rule: Setting of speed limits 2022. New Zealand Government, Wellington.

NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). (2017). Air pollution: Outdoor air quality and health (NICE Guideline NG70). NICE, London. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng70

OECD/International Transport Forum. (2016). Zero road deaths and serious injuries: Leading a paradigm shift to a Safe System. OECD Publishing. https://www.itf-oecd.org/safe-system-approach

Office of Road Safety. (2021). National road safety strategy 2021-2030. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure-transport-vehicles/roads/road-safety

Office of Road Safety. (2023). National road safety action plan 2023-2025. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. https://www.roadsafety.gov.au/nrss

Office of Road Safety. (n.d.). Speed management through the Movement and Place approach. National Road Safety Strategy website. https://www.roadsafety.gov.au/nrss/fact-sheets/movement-and-place-approach

Pilkington, P., Bornioli, A., Bray, I., & Bird, E. (2018). The Bristol Twenty Miles Per Hour Limit Evaluation (BRITE) study. University of the West of England, Bristol. https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/875541/the-bristol-twenty-miles-per-hour-limit-evaluation-brite-study

Queensland Government. (n.d.). Speed limits. Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/speed-limits

Road Safety GB. (n.d.). What happens to casualties and collisions when a 20mph scheme is implemented? Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/what-happens-to-casualties-and-collisions-when-a-20mph-scheme-is-implemented-3161/

Rosén, E., & Sander, U. (2009). Pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact speed. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(3), 536-542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.02.002

Rosén, E., Stigson, H., & Sander, U. (2011). Literature review of pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact speed. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(1), 25-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.04.003

Senedd Research. (2023). 20mph in Wales: Implementation and effectiveness. https://research.senedd.wales/research-articles/20mph-in-wales-implementation-and-effectiveness/

Swedish Transport Administration (Trafikverket). (n.d.). Speed management - Vision Zero Academy. https://bransch.trafikverket.se/en/startpage/operations/Operations-road/vision-zero-academy/Key-interventions-based-on-Vision-Zero/speed-management/

SWOV. (n.d.). 30 km/h zones. Institute for Road Safety Research SWOV. https://swov.nl/en/fact-sheet/30-kmh-zones

Tefft, B. C. (2013). Impact speed and a pedestrian's risk of severe injury or death. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 50, 871-878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.07.022

Transport Accident Commission. (2020). Towards Zero 2016-2020: Victoria's road safety strategy and action plan. Victorian Government. https://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/victorian-road-safety-strategy

Transport Accident Commission. (n.d.). Speed limits on Victorian roads. Victorian Government. Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/victorian-road-safety-strategy/towards-zero-2016-2020-road-safety-strategy/safer-speeds/speed-limits

Transport for NSW, Centre for Road Safety. (2018). Evaluation of permanent 40 km/h speed limits: Summary report. NSW Government. https://transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/media/documents/2023/Evaluation%20of%20Permanent%2040kmh%20Speed%20Limits.pdf

Transport for NSW. (2011). NSW speed zoning guidelines version 4.0. NSW Government. https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/downloads/nsw_sza.pdf

Transport for NSW. (2023a). Evaluation of 40 km/h speed limits. NSW Government. https://transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/media/documents/2023/Evaluation%20of%2040%20kmh%20Speed%20Limits%20-%20Martin%20Small%20Consulting.pdf

Transport for NSW. (2023b). NSW speed zoning guidelines. Transport for NSW Centre for Road Safety. https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/speeding/speedlimits/safespeedlimits.html

Transport for NSW. (2026). NSW 2026 road safety action plan. NSW Government. https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety

Transport for NSW. (n.d.a). Lower speed limits to protect pedestrians in western NSW. NSW Government. Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/news-and-events/media-releases/lower-speed-limits-to-protect-pedestrians-western-nsw

Transport for NSW. (n.d.b). Speed zones and speed management. NSW Government. Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/topics-tips/speeding/speed-zones-and-speed-management

U.S. Department of Transportation. (2022). National roadway safety strategy. USDOT. https://www.transportation.gov/safe-system-approach/safer-speeds

Vaa, T., Assum, T., & Elvik, R. (2014). Driver support systems: Estimating road safety effects at varying levels of implementation (TØI Report 1304/2014). Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo. https://www.toi.no/getfile.php?mmfileid=35912

Vadeby, A., & Forsman, Å. (2017). Traffic safety effects of new speed limits in Sweden. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 114, 34-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.02.019

VicRoads. (n.d.). Speed zoning policy (Edition 2). Victorian Government. Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/-/media/files/documents/safety-and-road-rules/driver-safety/speed-zoning-policy--edition-no-2.ashx

Vision Zero Network. (n.d.). Vision Zero cities. Transportation Alternatives. https://transalt.org/visionzerocities

Vis, A. A., & Kaal, I. (1993). De veiligheid van 30 km/uur-gebieden. Een analyse van letselongevallen in 151 heringerichte gebieden in Nederlandse gemeenten [Safety of 30 km/h zones. An analysis of injury accidents in 151 redesigned areas in Dutch municipalities]. R-93-17. SWOV, Leidschendam.

Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency. (2022). Speed management guide: Road to Zero edition. Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Wellington.

Weijermars, W., & Schagen, I. van. (2009). Tien jaar Duurzaam Veilig. Verkeersveiligheidsbalans 1998-2007 [Ten years of Sustainable Safety. Road safety balance 1998-2007]. R-2009-14. SWOV, Leidschendam.

Welsh Government. (2020). 20mph task force final report. Welsh Government, Cardiff. https://www.gov.wales/20mph-task-force

Welsh Government. (2024). Written statement: 20mph early speed data. https://www.gov.wales/written-statement-20mph-early-speed-data

Welsh Government. (n.d.). Introducing 20mph speed limits: Frequently asked questions. https://www.gov.wales/introducing-20mph-speed-limits-frequently-asked-questions

Williams, A. J., Manner, J., Nightingale, G., Turner, K., Kelly, P., Bhatia, S., ... & Jepson, R. (2021). Evaluating the citywide Edinburgh 20mph speed limit intervention effects on traffic speed and volume: A pre-post observational evaluation. PLOS ONE, 16(12), e0261383. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261383

World Bank, World Health Organization, & Global Road Safety Partnership. (2008). Speed management: A road safety manual for decision-makers and practitioners. Global Road Safety Partnership. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/documents/health-topics/road-traffic-injuries/speed-management-manual.pdf

Yannis, G., & Michelaraki, E. (2024). Review of city-wide 30 km/h speed limit benefits in Europe. Sustainability. https://www.roadsafe.com/30kmhspeedlimitbenefitsineurope/