reading through research papers as usual to refresh my memory, came across this little nugget..... holy shit, victoria really just made up figures for the results of their change from 60kph to 50kph urban limits? there's nothing quite like science to get results, and this is nothing, at all, like science.... "Victoria The likely benefits which were considered in the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) (4) for the introduction of a 50 km/h default urban speed limit in Victoria were reductions in crashes and reductions in fuel consumption (which consequently reduces vehicle operating costs and greenhouse gas emissions). Based on the NSW results, the RIS chose a 7% reduction in casualty crashes and a 16% reduction in propertydamage only (PDO) crashes as the lower limits of the possible crash reductions. Based on Kloeden et al.’s (5) work and assumptions of less than complete compliance, a figure of 15% was chosen as the likely upper limit of the possible reduction in casualty crashes. The upper limit for PDO crashes remained at 16%, given no other data." (http://acrs.org.au/files/arsrpe/RS010035.pdf) now, when the 50 limits came in the road safety nut jobs were predicting a 25% reduction, cause that's what zurich got, or 45% cause thats what norway got........ turns out that all the other states, who were more dependent on science than victoria, measured less than 10% improvement. Victoria just upped the TAC advertising budget to cover the lack of evidence. What's more, I doubt the figures from the other states, and i very much doubt the integrity of the figures from scandinavia that were used to justify the change, even though i'm not completely adverse to the change itself, just the enforcement regime.