Quote:

School zones should be enforced up to 24 hours a day with even higher penalties for speeding, the NSW government has been urged by its own road-safety inquiry. In a report commissioned by Roads Minister Duncan Gay and obtained the NSW Parliament's Staysafe Committee will this week recommend sweeping changes, following a six-month inquiry into the 40km/h school zones. The joint standing committee, which is run by Liberal MP Greg Aplin and Nationals upper house MP Rick Colless, says the government should consider increasing the number of hours school zones are in operation across the state. Any move to add more hours of operation of school zones as well as fines will be met with fierce opposition by motorists because one of the government's most popular election pledges was to reduce the number of revenue-raising speed cameras. School zones with a 40km/h speed limit operate from 8.30am to 9.30am in the morning and 2.30pm to 4pm in the afternoon outside more than 3000 schools. But the Staysafe report cites examples from the ACT, where school zones are enforced for eight hours a day and South Australia, which has a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week regime. Raphael Grzebieta, professor of road safety at UNSW's Transport and Road Safety Research unit, said the government should make school zones 24 hours and look at reducing speeds in school zones from 40km to 30km/h. "Even at 40km we are travelling at 10km faster than Europe," he said. "It's a matter of saving lives or allowing people to travel at speeds which are dangerous to our children." The report also recommends increasing fines for school zones, which are already at least $60 more than normal speeding fines, to pay for a rollout of flashing lights in all school zones. It also calls on the government to increase enforcement in school zones, with many still not having fixed cameras. Mr Gay said he could not comment on the 19 recommendations because he was yet to receive the report. But he said he would "closely examine" all of them. Harold Scruby, chairman of the Pedestrian Council of Australia, said the recommendations were "wonderful" but said motorists would reject 24-hour zones. "You have to balance safety with mobility, so 12-hour speed zones, seven days a week, would be more acceptable," Mr Scruby said. NRMA president Wendy Machin said the state's motorists were sick of being used as "cash cows" for state government projects. "Motorists already feel a strong sense of entrapment about school zones," she said. "We would be disappointed should Duncan Gay move to introduce any of these recommendations." The government earns about $60 million each year in fines for school zone speeding.

http://www.news.com.au/national/report-calls-for-24-7-school-zone-fines/story-e6frfkvr-1226309359465

I concede that there might be some justification for increasing the hours of school zone operation maybe by about half an hour or so, but 24/7?  Surely that's nothing but blatant revenue raising.  Is there any need for a 40km/h limit around schools at 2am on a Sunday morning for example?  And there's the effect that this would have on Sydney's traffic flow.  How many school zones are in 80km/h limited roads?  Quite a lot.

Hopefully reason (and the will for political survival) will triumph and this proposal will not be implemented.

If kids are going to their school at midnight I think the police should be talking to them not drivers

A stupid rule brought about by a stupid government intent on being seen to doing something.

NSW is basically in recession and this is all Barry can come up with ?

If Gillard did the same thing there would be howls from every wolf in town.   

NSW lacks a decent opposition.   Look what you are in for QLD.

Frances wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 3:28pm:

Quote: School zones should be enforced up to 24 hours a day with even higher penalties for speeding, the NSW government has been urged by its own road-safety inquiry. In a report commissioned by Roads Minister Duncan Gay and obtained the NSW Parliament's Staysafe Committee will this week recommend sweeping changes, following a six-month inquiry into the 40km/h school zones. The joint standing committee, which is run by Liberal MP Greg Aplin and Nationals upper house MP Rick Colless, says the government should consider increasing the number of hours school zones are in operation across the state. Any move to add more hours of operation of school zones as well as fines will be met with fierce opposition by motorists because one of the government's most popular election pledges was to reduce the number of revenue-raising speed cameras. School zones with a 40km/h speed limit operate from 8.30am to 9.30am in the morning and 2.30pm to 4pm in the afternoon outside more than 3000 schools. But the Staysafe report cites examples from the ACT, where school zones are enforced for eight hours a day and South Australia, which has a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week regime. Raphael Grzebieta, professor of road safety at UNSW's Transport and Road Safety Research unit, said the government should make school zones 24 hours and look at reducing speeds in school zones from 40km to 30km/h. "Even at 40km we are travelling at 10km faster than Europe," he said. "It's a matter of saving lives or allowing people to travel at speeds which are dangerous to our children." The report also recommends increasing fines for school zones, which are already at least $60 more than normal speeding fines, to pay for a rollout of flashing lights in all school zones. It also calls on the government to increase enforcement in school zones, with many still not having fixed cameras. Mr Gay said he could not comment on the 19 recommendations because he was yet to receive the report. But he said he would "closely examine" all of them. Harold Scruby, chairman of the Pedestrian Council of Australia, said the recommendations were "wonderful" but said motorists would reject 24-hour zones. "You have to balance safety with mobility, so 12-hour speed zones, seven days a week, would be more acceptable," Mr Scruby said. NRMA president Wendy Machin said the state's motorists were sick of being used as "cash cows" for state government projects. "Motorists already feel a strong sense of entrapment about school zones," she said. "We would be disappointed should Duncan Gay move to introduce any of these recommendations." The government earns about $60 million each year in fines for school zone speeding. http://www.news.com.au/national/report-calls-for-24-7-school-zone-fines/story-e6frfkvr-1226309359465 I concede that there might be some justification for increasing the hours of school zone operation maybe by about half an hour or so, but 24/7?  Surely that's nothing but blatant revenue raising.  Is there any need for a 40km/h limit around schools at 2am on a Sunday morning for example?  And there's the effect that this would have on Sydney's traffic flow.  How many school zones are in 80km/h limited roads?  Quite a lot. Hopefully reason (and the will for political survival) will triumph and this proposal will not be implemented.

I don't see any justification for them to exist at all, let alone be expanded.  The overwhelming majority of kids will arrive and leave school within 15 minutes of each other.  Only small groups, outliers of eggheads and delinquents arrive outside this window.
Of course theres the elephant in the room though - kids (including high school students) should know how to cross a bloody road.  If they don't know by the time they start school, let alone high school, they're living on borrowed time already.  Someone so incompetent that they can't cross a road without slowing traffic to a crawl (and primary schools on main roads usually have crossing guards too) is going to fall prey to their own stupidity sooner rather than later. 

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 3:29pm:

If kids are going to their school at midnight I think the police should be talking to them not drivers

If kids are going to their school at midnight, they probably are carrying an armful of aerosol cans of paint....

24/7 wouldn't bother me in the slightest, although 12/7 is probably more realistic: 7am to 7pm, Monday to Sunday.

Some schools have after hours child minding facilities, which stay open until about 6pm. 

Also, many schools have after hours events that sometimes go well beyong 6pm (band practice, meetings, school socials, sporting events, etc.).

Plus, lots of kids play on school ovals on the weekend so speed restrictions on Saturday and Sunday are justified (even though the kids shouldn't actually be there in the first place).

As far as revenue raising goes, I'm all for it.  I have no problem with my local police force being cashed up, and as long as I don't break the law I don't have to make a contribution.

Probably worth lowering the speed to 30kph too.  That way the drivers will probably cut their speed down to about 50.

I mean, I know everyone wants to keep their kids safe, but is the best way to do that to wrap them in cotton wool, or to help them find their own way?

Frances wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 3:41pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 3:29pm: If kids are going to their school at midnight I think the police should be talking to them not drivers If kids are going to their school at midnight, they probably are carrying an armful of aerosol cans of paint....

Whatever happened to toilet paper

... wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

I mean, I know everyone wants to keep their kids safe, but is the best way to do that to wrap them in cotton wool, or to help them find their own way?

Finding their own way is fine.  Let them walk to school and learn to negotiate traffic.  No problem with that.

However, a 40kg kid doesn't stand much chance against an SUV doing 60kph.

Plus, their peripheral vision isn't as developed as an adult's.

Slowing the cars down to give the kids a better chance, while "finding their own way", is fine by me.


(I always do 30 in school zones anyway)

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 3:55pm:

... wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 3:46pm: I mean, I know everyone wants to keep their kids safe, but is the best way to do that to wrap them in cotton wool, or to help them find their own way? Finding their own way is fine.  Let them walk to school and learn to negotiate traffic.  No problem with that. However, a 40kg kid doesn't stand much chance against an SUV doing 60kph. Plus, their peripheral vision isn't as developed as an adult's. Slowing the cars down to give the kids a better chance, while "finding their own way", is fine by me. (I always do 30 in school zones anyway)

What if the child was extremley obese?

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 3:55pm:

... wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 3:46pm: I mean, I know everyone wants to keep their kids safe, but is the best way to do that to wrap them in cotton wool, or to help them find their own way? Finding their own way is fine.  Let them walk to school and learn to negotiate traffic.  No problem with that. However, a 40kg kid doesn't stand much chance against an SUV doing 60kph. Plus, their peripheral vision isn't as developed as an adult's. Slowing the cars down to give the kids a better chance, while "finding their own way", is fine by me. (I always do 30 in school zones anyway)

Neither does a 120kg man.  The trick is not to get hit....

never had school zones when I was a kid.  Total number of people bowled over outside school throughout the whole 12 years = nil...Though one did get bowled by a train.   :(

Anyone ever been infuriated by no-good-punk-teenagers who wander in the middle of the road, as though saying "I dare you to hit me"?

I have several times, and I blame the advent of school zones.  They just don't seem to grasp the concept of no-good-punk-teenager vs car = car wins.  We owe it to our children to teach them this very important lesson, to save them many problems in the future.

... wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 3:59pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 3:55pm: ... wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 3:46pm: I mean, I know everyone wants to keep their kids safe, but is the best way to do that to wrap them in cotton wool, or to help them find their own way? Finding their own way is fine.  Let them walk to school and learn to negotiate traffic.  No problem with that. However, a 40kg kid doesn't stand much chance against an SUV doing 60kph. Plus, their peripheral vision isn't as developed as an adult's. Slowing the cars down to give the kids a better chance, while "finding their own way", is fine by me. (I always do 30 in school zones anyway) Neither does a 120kg man.  The trick is not to get hit.... never had school zones when I was a kid.  Total number of people bowled over outside school throughout the whole 12 years = nil...Though one did get bowled by a train.   :(

A grown man's vision is fully developed, they are between 5 and 6 feet tall, and they usually have several years experience negotiating traffic.

Children need to develop their skills.  Slowing down the traffic to give them a fighting chance is no big deal.

"AT least one child will be hit by a car in a school zone today, according to frightening statistics revealed by the NSW Ambulance Service. "

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/school-zones-threat-to-children/story-e6freuzi-1225997086869

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

... wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 3:59pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 3:55pm: ... wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 3:46pm: I mean, I know everyone wants to keep their kids safe, but is the best way to do that to wrap them in cotton wool, or to help them find their own way? Finding their own way is fine.  Let them walk to school and learn to negotiate traffic.  No problem with that. However, a 40kg kid doesn't stand much chance against an SUV doing 60kph. Plus, their peripheral vision isn't as developed as an adult's. Slowing the cars down to give the kids a better chance, while "finding their own way", is fine by me. (I always do 30 in school zones anyway) Neither does a 120kg man.  The trick is not to get hit.... never had school zones when I was a kid.  Total number of people bowled over outside school throughout the whole 12 years = nil...Though one did get bowled by a train.   :( A grown man's vision is fully developed, they are between 5 and 6 feet tall, and they usually have several years experience negotiating traffic. Children need to develop their skills.  Slowing down the traffic to give them a fighting chance is no big deal. "AT least one child will be hit by a car in a school zone today, according to frightening statistics revealed by the NSW Ambulance Service. " http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/school-zones-threat-to-children/story-e6freuzi-1225997086869

What about high schools?  Don't you think a high school student should be able to negotiate a road?

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 3:43pm:

24/7 wouldn't bother me in the slightest, although 12/7 is probably more realistic: 7am to 7pm, Monday to Sunday. Some schools have after hours child minding facilities, which stay open until about 6pm.  Also, many schools have after hours events that sometimes go well beyong 6pm (band practice, meetings, school socials, sporting events, etc.). Plus, lots of kids play on school ovals on the weekend so speed restrictions on Saturday and Sunday are justified (even though the kids shouldn't actually be there in the first place). As far as revenue raising goes, I'm all for it.  I have no problem with my local police force being cashed up, and as long as I don't break the law I don't have to make a contribution. Probably worth lowering the speed to 30kph too.  That way the drivers will probably cut their speed down to about 50.

Yep, I agree. At the very minimum it should be during school holidays and on weekends as well. How many people who don't have school aged children are aware when the first term goes back after 6 weeks of not having to slow down?

The flashing lights are a great idea. No revenue will be raised if people do the right thing and slow down near schools.

... wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

What about high schools?  Don't you think a high school student should be able to negotiate a road?

Yep, for sure.

However, when you're at high school the last thing on your mind is traffic.

Plus, kids today walk around with their heads down texting while they walk.  I don't condone that behaviour at all, however, it's a fact of life. 

If we can convince teenagers to get their thumbs off their mobile phones, and their minds off the new girl's ass, then I'd reconsider my stance on school zones.

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 4:19pm:

If we can convince teenagers to get their thumbs off their mobile phones, and their minds off the new girl's ass, then I'd reconsider my stance on school zones.

Then we should pull out all stops to make this a reality.  the mobile phones thing, not the new girls ass - that's just an inescapable fact of life. 

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 4:18pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 3:43pm: 24/7 wouldn't bother me in the slightest, although 12/7 is probably more realistic: 7am to 7pm, Monday to Sunday. Some schools have after hours child minding facilities, which stay open until about 6pm.  Also, many schools have after hours events that sometimes go well beyong 6pm (band practice, meetings, school socials, sporting events, etc.). Plus, lots of kids play on school ovals on the weekend so speed restrictions on Saturday and Sunday are justified (even though the kids shouldn't actually be there in the first place). As far as revenue raising goes, I'm all for it.  I have no problem with my local police force being cashed up, and as long as I don't break the law I don't have to make a contribution. Probably worth lowering the speed to 30kph too.  That way the drivers will probably cut their speed down to about 50. Yep, I agree. At the very minimum it should be during school holidays and on weekends as well. How many people who don't have school aged children are aware when the first term goes back after 6 weeks of not having to slow down? The flashing lights are a great idea. No revenue will be raised if people do the right thing and slow down near schools.

why? :-?

... wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 4:22pm:

Then we should pull out all stops to make this a reality.  the mobile phones thing, not the new girls ass - that's just an inescapable fact of life.

Yep, I'm all for doing that.

Because I said so.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 4:25pm:

Because I said so.

but why?

Because it's easier to obey a rule that is in force every day rather than 5 days a week for 40 weeks of the year.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 4:29pm:

Because it's easier to obey a rule that is in force every day rather than 5 days a week for 40 weeks of the year.

It's even easier to do away with weak, coddling ineffectual rules altogether.

It's hardly weak to protect the safety of children. We're talking about slowing down for a few seconds.

Is it really that difficult?

Doesn't surprise me.

NSW is already a virtual police-state, and it gets worse by the day.

... wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 4:33pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 4:29pm: Because it's easier to obey a rule that is in force every day rather than 5 days a week for 40 weeks of the year. It's even easier to do away with weak, coddling ineffectual rules altogether.

"Last year, 16 children were killed in pedestrian accidents across Australia, and hundreds more were seriously injured."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/school-zones-threat-to-children/story-e6freuzi-1225997086869

I have no problem slowing down.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

It's hardly weak to protect the safety of children. We're talking about slowing down for a few seconds. Is it really that difficult?

I question whether it is actually protecting them.  But it seems these days, good intentions rather than good outcomes is all that is required.  In itself, school zones are a minor annoyance, but taken as part of the pervasive culture of enshrining every hand-wringing suggestion from meddlesome busybodies into law, it's an annoyance I'm not prepared to endure. 

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 4:29pm:

Because it's easier to obey a rule that is in force every day rather than 5 days a week for 40 weeks of the year.

If your concentration is that bad you shouldn't be driving.

Why the hell should you have to do 40Ks at 1AM on a six lane road just because you can't concentrate?

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 4:42pm:

... wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 4:33pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 4:29pm: Because it's easier to obey a rule that is in force every day rather than 5 days a week for 40 weeks of the year. It's even easier to do away with weak, coddling ineffectual rules altogether. "Last year, 16 children were killed in pedestrian accidents across Australia, and hundreds more were seriously injured." http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/school-zones-threat-to-children/story-e6freuzi-1225997086869 I have no problem slowing down.

Even with school zones?  Gosh...it's a;lmost as if....as if school zones don't do bugger all but make hovering mums feel morally superior. 

Hmm...that "shocking" statistic seems to be very carefully worded.  16 children killed australia wide - doesn't say anything about where those fatalities occurred.


Quote:

Last year, 16 children were killed in pedestrian accidents across Australia, and hundreds more were seriously injured

http://www.ronanlyons.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/helen-lovejoy.jpg

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 4:18pm:

The flashing lights are a great idea.

Especially if some of the street lights are out when you drive past at 2am.....

... wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 4:43pm:

In itself, school zones are a minor annoyance, ...

Seriously?

Bit of an effort to lift that foot off the accelerator?

Let's just make it 40kph everywhere: you won't have to be constantly moving your foot then.  We all know how annoying that can be.

... wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 4:45pm:

Hmm...that "shocking" statistic seems to be very carefully worded.  16 children killed australia wide - doesn't say anything about where those fatalities occurred.

It's getting late in the afternoon, I'm afraid you're going to have to explain to me what you're getting at.   :-/

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 5:08pm:

... wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 4:45pm: Hmm...that "shocking" statistic seems to be very carefully worded.  16 children killed australia wide - doesn't say anything about where those fatalities occurred. It's getting late in the afternoon, I'm afraid you're going to have to explain to me what you're getting at.   :-/

Those "16 children killed in pedestrian accidents" could be 17 year olds playing on the freeway. 

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 5:04pm:

... wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 4:43pm: In itself, school zones are a minor annoyance, ... Seriously? Bit of an effort to lift that foot off the accelerator? Let's just make it 40kph everywhere: you won't have to be constantly moving your foot then.  We all know how annoying that can be.

I can put up with minor annoyances when theres a good reason to do so.

But in this case, there aint one. 

NOT a move I'd support.

Basically a revenue-raiser.

Saving kids has smack-all to do with it, and never did.

I drive through between 15 and 20 school zones during the enforced time period each day.

I could not tell you the last time I actually seen a school student in one of these zones.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 7:33pm:

I drive through between 15 and 20 school zones during the enforced time period each day. I could not tell you the last time I actually seen a school student in one of these zones.

They usually get stuck between the wheel and mudflap

How many people who don't have school aged children are aware when the first term goes back after 6 weeks of not having to slow down?



You didn't give that much thought did you.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 8:55pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 7:33pm: I drive through between 15 and 20 school zones during the enforced time period each day. I could not tell you the last time I actually seen a school student in one of these zones. They usually get stuck between the wheel and mudflap

They havn't put blue/grey - green/grey speed humps in all school zones?

school zones are dysgenic.

School zones protect our kids in the outer suburbs from killer drivers...
http://images.whereilive.com.au/images/uploads/2010/02/03/e90dab1cd46e06db97fb3ccc1cdf6506_resized.jpg http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b45/sbreik/animated%20images/smileys/mgyes.gif

Kat wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 5:46pm:

NOT a move I'd support. Basically a revenue-raiser. Saving kids has smack-all to do with it, and never did.

What is it about revenue raising that you don't like?

If you don't break the law, you don't contribute to the revenue.

If you do break the law, you help finance a vital service in your community: Police.

So, what exactly is it that you don't like about revenue raising?

Do you think the Police spend that money on beer?  What is it you're objecting to?

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 28^th, 2012 at 6:07pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 5:46pm: NOT a move I'd support. Basically a revenue-raiser. Saving kids has smack-all to do with it, and never did. What is it about revenue raising that you don't like? If you don't break the law, you don't contribute to the revenue. If you do break the law, you help finance a vital service in your community: Police. So, what exactly is it that you don't like about revenue raising? Do you think the Police spend that money on beer?  What is it you're objecting to?

My wife got fined $150 for going 51km/h outside a high school at 3:57pm.  This high school gets out at about 2;50pm.  Funny how it's so shockingly unsafe to do so at 3:57, yet not unsafe at all 3 minutes later, depsite there being the same amount of kids teenagers around - 0.

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 5:04pm:

... wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 4:43pm: In itself, school zones are a minor annoyance, ... Seriously? Bit of an effort to lift that foot off the accelerator? Let's just make it 40kph everywhere: you won't have to be constantly moving your foot then.  We all know how annoying that can be.

When i was in primary school the teachers would tell us to look right,look left then look right before crossing the road and no kid from my school was ever hit by a car.

Do you think we could go back to teaching the kids to look before crossing the road, is that too much to ask?

Do you think it is better to teach kids to be responsible or make everyone else look out for them?

It must have been a leftist who imposed this nonsense on us.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 28^th, 2012 at 8:48pm:

It must have been a leftist who imposed this nonsense on us.

School zones were introduced in 1992.  I don't know the exact date, but that would have been when the coalition government of either Nick Greiner or John Fahey was in power.  You're not suggesting that they are "leftists" are you?

24/7 is ridiculous in school zones. Other than the nominated time these areas are devoid of children. I am kids' strongest supporter but surely this is overkill.

I was an expert in traffic accident for 7 years of my Police Service and have investigated literally thousands of accidents and their causes.

I can tell you that the biggest problem is the person behind the wheel, who generally exceeds the speed limit everywhere they go.

Try driving home where it isn't a traffic jam and see if you can do the limit, you will be run over by the others if you don't kick it at least 10 k's per hour.

I do believe the flashing lights and VERY HIGH  VISUAL sign posting, is the way to go with school zones. A number of schools have this in the Penrith Valley and Blue Mountains area. Those ones I have noticed get much greater driver awareness and a subsequent slowing to the 40K limit. Also speed cameras on school zones would work,  in select locations.

But 24/7 I am telling you now if it did come in, drivers would just get slack about it.  Familiarity breeds contempt.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 28^th, 2012 at 8:48pm:

Do you think we could go back to teaching the kids to look before crossing the road, is that too much to ask?

No, not too much to ask at all, however, I wasn't aware that they had actually stopped teaching that to children.

And, even if they do still teach them to look before crossing the road (which I'm pretty sure they do), a child's peripheral vision is not as good as an adults.

24/7 may be too much, however, 7am to 7pm on weekdays should be the minimum plus a reduction to 30kph.


"It is important to remember that children are not just small adults. Children are developing physically and mentally and have many characteristics that make them vulnerable near traffic.

Vision: A young child's peripheral vision is about two-thirds of adult’s. Children may not have the ability to see a car or obstacle that the adult next to them sees.

Hearing: Children have acute hearing, but have difficulty localizing sound. This means that they have difficulty determining the direction from which a sound is coming. Children may be unaware that the sound of a vehicle they hear is moving towards them."

http://www.preventioninstitute.sk.ca/child-injury-prevention/bike-wheel-safety/child-cyclists

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 29^th, 2012 at 11:20am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 28th, 2012 at 8:48pm: Do you think we could go back to teaching the kids to look before crossing the road, is that too much to ask? No, not too much to ask at all, however, I wasn't aware that they had actually stopped teaching that to children. And, even if they do still teach them to look before crossing the road (which I'm pretty sure they do), a child's peripheral vision is not as good as an adults. 24/7 may be too much, however, 7am to 7pm on weekdays should be the minimum plus a reduction to 30kph. "It is important to remember that children are not just small adults. Children are developing physically and mentally and have many characteristics that make them vulnerable near traffic. Vision: A young child's peripheral vision is about two-thirds of adult’s. Children may not have the ability to see a car or obstacle that the adult next to them sees. Hearing: Children have acute hearing, but have difficulty localizing sound. This means that they have difficulty determining the direction from which a sound is coming. Children may be unaware that the sound of a vehicle they hear is moving towards them." http://www.preventioninstitute.sk.ca/child-injury-prevention/bike-wheel-safety/child-cyclists

This document shows the flaws with childrens peripheral vision being less than an adult as you claimed.
The leftists grab any feel good article that is lacking in truth to back their position.

http://www.ciop.pl/9875

If you said asians have less peripheral vision due to...... i might believe that.

If they still told kids to look before crossing the road we might not have to slow eveyone down when there are no kids in sight near schools.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 29^th, 2012 at 12:01pm:

If they still told kids to look before crossing the road we might not have to slow eveyone down when there are no kids in sight near schools.

You've mentioned this twice now.

Where are you getting this information from?  Who says that kids are not being told to look before crossing the road ?

It would be interesting too if Baronvonrort could enlighten us on how "leftists" are involved in either the introduction of school zones or the proposal to extend their hours of operation.

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 29^th, 2012 at 1:34pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 29th, 2012 at 12:01pm: If they still told kids to look before crossing the road we might not have to slow eveyone down when there are no kids in sight near schools. You've mentioned this twice now. Where are you getting this information from?  Who says that kids are not being told to look before crossing the road ?

Well if they are being taught to look first, we wouldn't need school zones.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 28^th, 2012 at 8:48pm:

Do you think we could go back to teaching the kids to look before crossing the road, is that too much to ask?

I'm not aware of any kids who aren't taught that.

http://www.racv.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/Internet/Primary/road+safety/school+programs/primary+school+road+safety/bookings

http://www.kidsandtraffic.mq.edu.au/

"Check out our 2012 calendar of Kids and Traffic professional development workshops for NSW early childhood services in the greater metropolitan area.

If your children's service would like to host a Kids and Traffic workshop in your area, please just contact us. We're also planning lots of country trips this year so watch our website for details!"

"While holding their hands ask them to
help you look and listen for vehicles before
crossing the road and until you are both safely
on the other side."

http://www.kidsandtraffic.mq.edu.au/docs/StartingSchoolSafelyLeaflet.pdf

"Challenges and Choices is a suite of 3 teaching resources for Kindergarten to Year 10, including an early childhood, middle childhood and early adolescence kit. The 3 multi-media Challenges and Choices kits focus on age-appropriate road safety issues as well as social skills and positive attitudes and behaviours. All schools in Western Australia have received a free Challenges and Choices kit, supported by professional learning programs, delivered by SDERA across the state."

http://www.ors.wa.gov.au/Demographic-Pages/I-am-a-Parent/Children-Road-Safety-Programs.aspx

... wrote on Mar 29^th, 2012 at 1:47pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 29th, 2012 at 1:34pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 29th, 2012 at 12:01pm: If they still told kids to look before crossing the road we might not have to slow eveyone down when there are no kids in sight near schools. You've mentioned this twice now. Where are you getting this information from?  Who says that kids are not being told to look before crossing the road ? Well if they are being taught to look first, we wouldn't need school zones.

Your ignorance on this subject is, quite frankly, astounding.

You don't have children, do you?    ::)

Frances wrote on Mar 29^th, 2012 at 10:09am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 28th, 2012 at 8:48pm: It must have been a leftist who imposed this nonsense on us. School zones were introduced in 1992.  I don't know the exact date, but that would have been when the coalition government of either Nick Greiner or John Fahey was in power.  You're not suggesting that they are "leftists" are you?

School zones were introduced to NSW in December 2002 to reduce the chance of fatalities in school areas.


http://www.mynrmacommunity.com/motoring/2009/04/28/school-zones%E2%80%93have-your-say/

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 27^th, 2012 at 3:55pm:

However, a 40kg kid doesn't stand much chance against an SUV doing 60kph.

What a stupid thing to say, like a 40kg kid will be fine if it gets smashed by a Mini doing 60kph?

::)

Looks out kids! Oh, it's OK it's not an SUV, out you go.

:D

blackadder wrote on Mar 29^th, 2012 at 3:00pm:

School zones were introduced to NSW in December 2002 to reduce the chance of fatalities in school areas.

Well, we seem to have a few different dates to choose from:

The Audit Office of New South Wales says 1992
http://auditofficestaging.elcom.com.au/ArticleDocuments/142/197_Improving_Road_Safety.pdf.aspx?Embed=Y

The RTA (or RMS as it is now known) says 1992
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/speedandspeedcameras/40kmhcbdspeedlimit/index.html

The Staysafe Committee says it was 1992
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/a5596114ae83a5aaca2579ce00143152/$FILE/Inquiry%20into%20School%20Zone%20Safety%201.55.pdf

The NRMA says 2002
http://www.mynrmacommunity.com/motoring/tag/nsw-government/

The NRMA also says it was 2003
http://www.mynrma.com.au/images/About-PDF/NRMA-submission-NSW-Audit-Office-School-Zones.pdf

It seems that school zones were actually introduced in July of 1992, under John Fahey's coalition government (although it was only shortly after Fahey became Premier, so all the preparatory work for this would probably have been undertaken when Nick Greiner was Premier).  It was not at that stage applied to all schools, but was done at the request of the school or school community and, slightly later, also by local council traffic committees.  It was not until 2001 that the then Minister for Roads, Carl Scully implemented a 40kmh limit around all schools.

Frances wrote on Mar 29^th, 2012 at 3:48pm:

blackadder wrote on Mar 29th, 2012 at 3:00pm: School zones were introduced to NSW in December 2002 to reduce the chance of fatalities in school areas. Well, we seem to have a few different dates to choose from: The Audit Office of New South Wales says 1992 http://auditofficestaging.elcom.com.au/ArticleDocuments/142/197_Improving_Road_Safety.pdf.aspx?Embed=Y The RTA (or RMS as it is now known) says 1992 http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/speedandspeedcameras/40kmhcbdspeedlimit/index.html The Staysafe Committee says it was 1992 http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/a5596114ae83a5aaca2579ce00143152/$FILE/Inquiry%20into%20School%20Zone%20Safety%201.55.pdf The NRMA says 2002 http://www.mynrmacommunity.com/motoring/tag/nsw-government/ The NRMA also says it was 2003 http://www.mynrma.com.au/images/About-PDF/NRMA-submission-NSW-Audit-Office-School-Zones.pdf It seems that school zones were actually introduced in July of 1992, under John Fahey's coalition government (although it was only shortly after Fahey became Premier, so all the preparatory work for this would probably have been undertaken when Nick Greiner was Premier).  It was not at that stage applied to all schools, but was done at the request of the school or school community and, slightly later, also by local council traffic committees.  It was not until 2001 that the then Minister for Roads, Carl Scully implemented a 40kmh limit around all schools.

The NSW labor government did this


Quote:

School zones were first introduced in July 1992,on a selective basis at the request of a local school or school community. In 2001,the minister for roads Carl Scully MP ,announced the general implementation of 40 kmh speed limits on roads providing access to schools leading to the establishment of 10,000 school zones servicing all 3154 schools by 2003

Yep i was right it was a leftist who imposed this on us. :)

The speed camera outside of a private high school on Cleveland st  Moore Park is one of the states biggest revenue raisers.

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 29^th, 2012 at 1:55pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 28th, 2012 at 8:48pm: Do you think we could go back to teaching the kids to look before crossing the road, is that too much to ask? I'm not aware of any kids who aren't taught that. http://www.racv.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/Internet/Primary/road+safety/school+programs/primary+school+road+safety/bookings http://www.kidsandtraffic.mq.edu.au/ "Check out our 2012 calendar of Kids and Traffic professional development workshops for NSW early childhood services in the greater metropolitan area. If your children's service would like to host a Kids and Traffic workshop in your area, please just contact us. We're also planning lots of country trips this year so watch our website for details!" "While holding their hands ask them to help you look and listen for vehicles before crossing the road and until you are both safely on the other side." http://www.kidsandtraffic.mq.edu.au/docs/StartingSchoolSafelyLeaflet.pdf "Challenges and Choices is a suite of 3 teaching resources for Kindergarten to Year 10, including an early childhood, middle childhood and early adolescence kit. The 3 multi-media Challenges and Choices kits focus on age-appropriate road safety issues as well as social skills and positive attitudes and behaviours. All schools in Western Australia have received a free Challenges and Choices kit, supported by professional learning programs, delivered by SDERA across the state." http://www.ors.wa.gov.au/Demographic-Pages/I-am-a-Parent/Children-Road-Safety-Programs.aspx

Do you think you could provide links that show a little more than asking parents to hold the kids hand while crossing the road?

What if the parent has to start work before school starts who is going to hold the kids hand?

A leftist in Perth gives a link for victoria as if that applies in WA or NSW.

Everyday in Primary school the teacher would tell us to look before crossing the road, we had a deaf kid in my class how does listening for traffic help the deaf.

Why dont we use the revenue raised to build bridges or tunnels going over or under these roads?

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 29^th, 2012 at 4:06pm:

Yep i was right it was a leftist who imposed this on us

Depends on what you mean by "imposing this".  Looking at what you said earlier in its original context, it's not clear if you were referring to the original imposition of school zones (Liberal), the extension of school zones in 2002 (Labor) or the events of the last week or so.


Looks like it's not happening anyway.  It seems that Barry O'Farrell has decided (thankfully, this time) to do nothing.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8441046

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 29^th, 2012 at 1:56pm:

... wrote on Mar 29th, 2012 at 1:47pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 29th, 2012 at 1:34pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 29th, 2012 at 12:01pm: If they still told kids to look before crossing the road we might not have to slow eveyone down when there are no kids in sight near schools. You've mentioned this twice now. Where are you getting this information from?  Who says that kids are not being told to look before crossing the road ? Well if they are being taught to look first, we wouldn't need school zones. Your ignorance on this subject is, quite frankly, astounding. You don't have children, do you?    ::)

*sigh*

Misusing the word "ignorance." Again.   
You do realise that just because people have a different view than you, that they're not "ignorant" don't you? 

Hmm silly question - of course you don't.

You could "enlighten" me with the "facts" I am supposedly "ignorant" of - but you've already tried haven't you? and all you could come up with was "duuuhh I doan mind slooowing down".  Not a real convincing argument meaty.  Not convincing at all. 

But I certainly do have kids.  By the sounds of their peers, they'll be the smartest, strongest kids in the school when they get there. 

Frances wrote on Mar 29^th, 2012 at 4:28pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 29th, 2012 at 4:06pm: Yep i was right it was a leftist who imposed this on us Depends on what you mean by "imposing this".  Looking at what you said earlier in its original context, it's not clear if you were referring to the original imposition of school zones (Liberal), the extension of school zones in 2002 (Labor) or the events of the last week or so. Looks like it's not happening anyway.  It seems that Barry O'Farrell has decided (thankfully, this time) to do nothing. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8441046

Some schools requested the zones in 92.

In 2001 it was imposed on all schools under the Carr (who does not drive) government.

... wrote on Mar 29^th, 2012 at 4:33pm:

Misusing the word "ignorance." Again.    You do realise that just because people have a different view than you, that they're not "ignorant" don't you?  Hmm silly question - of course you don't. You could "enlighten" me - but you've already tried haven't you, and all you could come up with was "duuuhh I doan mind slooowing down".  Not a real convincing argument meaty.  Not convincing at all.  But I certainly do have kids.  By the sounds of their peers, they'll be the smartest, strongest kids in the school when they get there.

No, it's the absolute correct use of the word.  Again.

You are uninformed; lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject.

That subject being, the development of children.

And as far as trying to "enlighten" you, I already have.

Here, I'll give it to you again.  This time read it, and then you won't be so ignorant.  i.e. you will be informed on the subject of child development.

"It is important to remember that children are not just small adults. Children are developing physically and mentally and have many characteristics that make them vulnerable near traffic.

Vision: A young child's peripheral vision is about two-thirds of adult’s. Children may not have the ability to see a car or obstacle that the adult next to them sees.

Hearing: Children have acute hearing, but have difficulty localizing sound. This means that they have difficulty determining the direction from which a sound is coming. Children may be unaware that the sound of a vehicle they hear is moving towards them."

http://www.preventioninstitute.sk.ca/child-injury-prevention/bike-wheel-safety/c...

A child's eyesight, hearing and mental capability are not as developed as an adult's.  Thus, more care needs to be taken when driving by schools.  Anyone with children would know this.

"Mental Development: Many characteristics of children increase their risk of injury when they are near traffic.

•Children lack a sense of danger.
•Children may be impulsive, easily distracted and impatient.
•Children are not good at judging the speed and distance of approaching vehicles.
•A child may not have the ability to process all the pieces of information necessary to make safe decisions while near traffic, despite being taught correct safety practices.
•Older children may participate in more risk-taking behaviours."

So, take note of the quotes I've posted and try to learn something.  Once you've done that, you won't be so ignorant.

Take particular notice of this one:

"A child may not have the ability to process all the pieces of information necessary to make safe decisions while near traffic, despite being taught correct safety practices."


Until then, your ignorance is astounding (as is your ignorance of the correct use of the word 'ignorance').

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 29^th, 2012 at 4:41pm:

Carr (who does not drive)

Which should mean that he is more aware of the needs of pedestrians that the rest of us....

My 3 year old daughter knows to stop and look both ways before crossing a road.  3 years old.  yep - Three.  That wouldn't have been unusual 20 years ago, but now it is, thanks to hovering mums and herbly dads. (and uncles)  Which isnt to say I let her do it alone, but in 3 years time, yeah i reckon she might have da mad skillz required to *gasp* cross a road - you know, like everyone did a generation ago?


You keep relying on the "peripheral vision" thing as though it's a telling blow - I don't know about you, but I actually turn my head. 

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 29^th, 2012 at 4:57pm:

"A child may not have the ability to process all the pieces of information necessary to make safe decisions while near traffic, despite being taught correct safety practices." Until then, your ignorance is astounding (as is your ignorance of the correct use of the word 'ignorance').

But they also may. 
What do you do when someone hasn't quite grasped what you've been trying to teach them?  You keep at it until they get it. 

... wrote on Mar 29^th, 2012 at 5:37pm:

My 3 year old daughter knows to stop and look both ways before crossing a road.  3 years old.  yep - Three.  That wouldn't have been unusual 20 years ago, but now it is, thanks to hovering mums and herbly dads. (and uncles)  Which isnt to say I let her do it alone, but in 3 years time, yeah i reckon she might have da mad skillz required to *gasp* cross a road - you know, like everyone did a generation ago? You keep relying on the "peripheral vision" thing as though it's a telling blow - I don't know about you, but I actually turn my head.

Oh dear    ::)

"Until the age of 10 or so, children need active adult supervision to help them navigate cars, roads and car parks safely.
Even children who seem to know all the road safety rules won’t necessarily remember to follow them."

"Although children may think they can handle crossing a road by themselves, remember that children:

•are easily distracted and focus on only one aspect of what is happening
•are smaller and harder for drivers to see
•are less predictable than other pedestrians
•cannot accurately judge the speed and distance of moving vehicles
•cannot accurately predict the direction sounds are coming from
•are unable to cope with sudden changes in traffic conditions
•do not understand abstract ideas - such as road safety
•are unable to identify safe places to cross the road
•tend to act inconsistently in and around traffic

All of these factors support that children below the age of 10 years do not have the capability or judgement to handle many pedestrian situations. Children need to be accompanied and closely supervised by a parent or adult carer to keep them safer."

http://www.kidsafensw.org/roadsafety/pedestrian_safety.htm

http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/pedestrian_safety.html


There you go: no mention of peripheral vision.

No matter how bright your kid is or how well you teach them about traffic safety, they are still at much more risk than an adult.

http://www.kidsafensw.org/roadsafety/pedestrian_safety.htm

http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/pedestrian_safety.html


Organisations whos sole purpose is to have children wrapped in cotton wool. 

yeah I think I'll just do what I think is best for mine eh? 

... wrote on Mar 29^th, 2012 at 6:09pm:

http://www.kidsafensw.org/roadsafety/pedestrian_safety.htm http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/pedestrian_safety.html Organisations whos sole purpose is to have children wrapped in cotton wool.

Organisations guided by the advice of medical experts.

As opposed to a parent misguided by ignorance.

::)

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 29^th, 2012 at 6:51pm:

... wrote on Mar 29th, 2012 at 6:09pm: http://www.kidsafensw.org/roadsafety/pedestrian_safety.htm http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/pedestrian_safety.html Organisations whos sole purpose is to have children wrapped in cotton wool.    Organisations guided by the advice of medical experts. As opposed to a parent misguided by ignorance. ::)

If this is the standard of children "medical experts" are raising, you'd be a fool to listen to a word they say.



Quote:

A toddler's tantrum lasted all of five minutes, but it was enough to get a family of four removed from a JetBlue flight last month. Dr. Colette Vieau and her husband, Dr. Mordecai Stolk, told TODAY they believe the decision by the airline was excessive. By the time their two-year-old daughter, Natalie, was belted into her seat and brought under control, Vieau said the pilot had made up his mind: The family had to leave the plane for violating Federal Aviation Administration rules.

http://todaytravel.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/12/10651930-family-removed-from-plane-due-to-unruly-toddler-wanted-a-little-bit-of-humanity

Of particular interest is the herbly dad.  No "strong male role model" there.

However, I do note they say until age 10...so why do we need school zones outside high schools?

Frances wrote on Mar 29^th, 2012 at 5:01pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 29th, 2012 at 4:41pm: Carr (who does not drive) Which should mean that he is more aware of the needs of pedestrians that the rest of us....

Bob would have a comcar with a driver.

How do these poor kids cope 50m up the road from the school where the school zone has ended?

So how many kids were killed or injured by cars directly outside of a school there must be some evidence of this being a massive problem or was it just leftists thinking they could impose a knee jerk overreaction on everyone based on fear instead of facts.

The danger these kids face when walking outside of a school zone must be horrendous.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30^th, 2012 at 12:11pm:

Frances wrote on Mar 29th, 2012 at 5:01pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 29th, 2012 at 4:41pm: Carr (who does not drive) Which should mean that he is more aware of the needs of pedestrians that the rest of us.... Bob would have a comcar with a driver. How do these poor kids cope 50m up the road from the school where the school zone has ended? So how many kids were killed or injured by cars directly outside of a school there must be some evidence of this being a massive problem or was it just leftists thinking they could impose a knee jerk overreaction on everyone based on fear instead of facts. The danger these kids face when walking outside of a school zone must be horrendous.

As usual.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30^th, 2012 at 12:11pm:

So how many kids were killed or injured by cars directly outside of a school there must be some evidence of this being a massive problem or was it just leftists thinking they could impose a knee jerk overreaction on everyone based on fear instead of facts.

Interesting theory.

Anything to support the claim of "leftists thinking they could impose a knee jerk overreaction on everyone"?

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 30^th, 2012 at 1:56pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2012 at 12:11pm: So how many kids were killed or injured by cars directly outside of a school there must be some evidence of this being a massive problem or was it just leftists thinking they could impose a knee jerk overreaction on everyone based on fear instead of facts. Interesting theory. Anything to support the claim of "leftists thinking they could impose a knee jerk overreaction on everyone"?

You're a leftist, you support it.

I'm not a leftist, I don't support it.

ALL of these schemes which celebrate weakness originate from the left.

... wrote on Mar 30^th, 2012 at 2:10pm:

You're a leftist, you support it. .

Correct.


... wrote on Mar 30^th, 2012 at 2:10pm:

I'm not a leftist, I don't support it.

I believe you.


... wrote on Mar 30^th, 2012 at 2:10pm:

ALL of these schemes which celebrate weakness originate from the left.

Based on ... ?


... wrote on Mar 30^th, 2012 at 2:10pm:

... celebrate weakness ...

There's no weakness involved.

based on reality.

Isn't it "well known" that the left are the ones with "good intentions" (ie advocating open borders, welfare for all, special treatemnt for designated o-pressed people etc etc etc) and the right are heartless evil nazis?

... wrote on Mar 30^th, 2012 at 2:25pm:

...  and the right are heartless evil nazis?

That's a bit harsh.

I wouldn't say they're all heartless.

Looks like it was a proposal that is in the report and, at the same time, not in the report.... 


Quote:

Last Sunday, we carried a front page story revealing parliament's road safety advisory group was urging the government to consider extending school zone hours. The Premier obviously had plans for his Sunday that didn't include having to deal with a potentially unpopular proposal. So, instead of batting the proposal away as a recommendation he wasn't so keen on, he took aim at The Sunday Telegraph. Mr O'Farrell's strategy was simple: kill the story in its tracks so it didn't feature on radio news bulletins all day, and didn't get a run on the high-rating Sunday night TV news. Mr O'Farrell told journalists that the story was 'BS' and speculated the source of the "inaccurate" story was Labor upper house MP Walt Secord. He then trashed Sunday newspapers in general. "I've talked to the chairman of the committee this morning, and surprisingly - this is my scepticism about other stories in the Sunday papers - there is no recommendation in his report to extend the hours of speed zones outside schools," he said. With no other journalists having access to the yet-to-be published report, it was an easy kill, and his media strategy for that day stayed on course. The problem for Mr O'Farrell is that the story was accurate. Two days later, on Tuesday, the report was tabled in parliament, and there it was: "Recommendation 18. "The committee recommends ... an evaluation of alternative school zone hours of operation based on data from other Australian jurisdictions with a view to ... altering the operation of school zone hours in NSW." It then goes on to cite the ACT's 8am-4pm zones and South Australia's 24/7 school speed restrictions. Cut and dried, as The Sydney Morning Herald's Josephine Tovey wrote the next day on page three under the headline "Call to keep school zones in operation all day". "The report from the Staysafe inquiry into school-zone safety ... also recommends the O'Farrell government examine extending the hours of operation for school zones." Talk back radio - 2UE's Stuart Bocking and the ABC's Adam Spencer - were equally nonplussed by the O'Farrell smother. Bocking spoke on air about the Premier killing the story which turned out to be correct. Spencer took talkback calls from listeners eager to discuss the extension of school zones. Bizarrely, Mr O'Farrell kept the charade going, and also enlisted Roads Minister Duncan Gay into the theatre of the absurd. Mr Gay told parliament: "Whoever leaked that to The Sunday Telegraph was wrong." He went on: "The report in question was tabled in the House yesterday and there was no mention of any such thing." What's he talking about? There was a clear "mention" of "such a thing" in Recommendation 18 of the report. Mr Gay either can't read or he deliberately misled the House. The question is, why? Why does Mr O'Farrell, who has just clocked up 12 months as Premier, need to resort to such ridiculously transparent and unnecessary tactics to avoid controversy? He has an enormous majority and the goodwill of an electorate unlikely to swing back to NSW Labor any time soon. So why so brittle? Why so cautious? Why so, let's face it, silly and juvenile? Grow up, Mr O'Farrell. NSW needs a leader who is full of ideas and energy, not full of BS.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/barry-ofarrell-hes-the-premier-who-speaks-bs/story-e6frezz0-1226315410071

Frances wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2012 at 2:37pm:

Looks like it was a proposal that is in the report and, at the same time, not in the report....  Quote: Last Sunday, we carried a front page story revealing parliament's road safety advisory group was urging the government to consider extending school zone hours. The Premier obviously had plans for his Sunday that didn't include having to deal with a potentially unpopular proposal. So, instead of batting the proposal away as a recommendation he wasn't so keen on, he took aim at The Sunday Telegraph. Mr O'Farrell's strategy was simple: kill the story in its tracks so it didn't feature on radio news bulletins all day, and didn't get a run on the high-rating Sunday night TV news. Mr O'Farrell told journalists that the story was 'BS' and speculated the source of the "inaccurate" story was Labor upper house MP Walt Secord. He then trashed Sunday newspapers in general. "I've talked to the chairman of the committee this morning, and surprisingly - this is my scepticism about other stories in the Sunday papers - there is no recommendation in his report to extend the hours of speed zones outside schools," he said. With no other journalists having access to the yet-to-be published report, it was an easy kill, and his media strategy for that day stayed on course. The problem for Mr O'Farrell is that the story was accurate. Two days later, on Tuesday, the report was tabled in parliament, and there it was: "Recommendation 18. "The committee recommends ... an evaluation of alternative school zone hours of operation based on data from other Australian jurisdictions with a view to ... altering the operation of school zone hours in NSW." It then goes on to cite the ACT's 8am-4pm zones and South Australia's 24/7 school speed restrictions. Cut and dried, as The Sydney Morning Herald's Josephine Tovey wrote the next day on page three under the headline "Call to keep school zones in operation all day". "The report from the Staysafe inquiry into school-zone safety ... also recommends the O'Farrell government examine extending the hours of operation for school zones." Talk back radio - 2UE's Stuart Bocking and the ABC's Adam Spencer - were equally nonplussed by the O'Farrell smother. Bocking spoke on air about the Premier killing the story which turned out to be correct. Spencer took talkback calls from listeners eager to discuss the extension of school zones. Bizarrely, Mr O'Farrell kept the charade going, and also enlisted Roads Minister Duncan Gay into the theatre of the absurd. Mr Gay told parliament: "Whoever leaked that to The Sunday Telegraph was wrong." He went on: "The report in question was tabled in the House yesterday and there was no mention of any such thing." What's he talking about? There was a clear "mention" of "such a thing" in Recommendation 18 of the report. Mr Gay either can't read or he deliberately misled the House. The question is, why? Why does Mr O'Farrell, who has just clocked up 12 months as Premier, need to resort to such ridiculously transparent and unnecessary tactics to avoid controversy? He has an enormous majority and the goodwill of an electorate unlikely to swing back to NSW Labor any time soon. So why so brittle? Why so cautious? Why so, let's face it, silly and juvenile? Grow up, Mr O'Farrell. NSW needs a leader who is full of ideas and energy, not full of BS. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/barry-ofarrell-hes-the-premier-who-speaks-bs/story-e6frezz0-1226315410071

Staysafe are the ones who have lost credibility here.

24/7 school zones fair dinkum are they for real?

Some might question WTF are children doing out on the road at night when they should be home in bed, staysafe are being idiotic with this.

I have several High school principals in my social circle, not one of them can recall an incident where a student was hit by a car outside their schools.
The road toll will indicate how many pedestrians were killed and what are the figures for kids out front of their schools?

North Sydney Boys high school is on 2 main roads and in the history of that school not  1 kid has been hit by a car yet the government imposed a school zone for a problem that did not exist.

The principals are gagged by the department of education so was this school zone nonsense put forward by the old ladies at P&C meetings?

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 11:06am:

Some might question WTF are children doing out on the road at night when they should be home in bed, staysafe are being idiotic with this.

Well, they'd be idiots to raise such a question.

It's about consistency, not about children on the road at night.

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 11:06am:

Staysafe are the ones who have lost credibility here.

Yes, I agree, by putting forward such a patently ridiculous recommendation they have lost some credibility, but what about O'Farrell?  He told journalists that an accurate story was 'BS' and speculated the source responsible for it was Labor upper house MP Walt Secord.