Disclaimer and Usage Terms of StreamingOpinions expressed and statements made during a Council meeting are those of the individuals making them and not those...
Cr Johnston talks about her motion from last week, calling on a decrease to the speed limit on Venner Rd, Annerley. Apparently after a pedestrian died there a few years ago, Council did nothing other than put some yellow paint down, despite sight lines not being part of the cause of the problem.
Cr Wines responds and says that “the motorist was found criminally at fault…at some point, if a person uses a motor vehicle to the level that is criminally dangerous, it is very difficult to engineer away that behaviour. Right? I’ll say that again, if a person is in control of a motor vehicle to a criminally dangerous level, it is very difficult to engineer, through road markings, signs, and concrete build outs; you cannot engineer that away.”
Cr Wines is now moving an amendment to Cr Johnston’s motion to remove the part about “reducing the speed limit from 60 km/h to 50 km/h to protect pedestrians and cyclists”, and instead to merely note the actions that Council has already taken, and to undertake another speed limit review.
Cr Johnston asks that this amendment be ruled out of order for substantially changing the intent of the motion. After what seems to be some whispered advice from a clerk, the Chair says that it does not out of order because it does retain the fundamental intent of the motion. Dissent is moved and is voted down.
In speaking to the amendment, Cr Wines says that because of Cr Johnston’s concerns, his amendment is going to call for another speed limit review after just 2 years instead of their normal minimum of 5 years, and that this is him taking the concerns very seriously.
Personally, I actually agree with him on this. There are clearly problems with how the speed limit review process works, but I believe council is required by law to follow it, and their willingness to at least try it again now is not a bad thing.
edit: see below. This is not true, and it’s really weak from the LNP.
Cr Johnston says that actually no, engineers do not have to be consulted to sign off on speed limit reductions, as seen in Boundary Rd, Camp Hill.
While the speed limit review committee will need to consider the new rules and make an official decision, today we have reduced Boundary Rd to 60 km/h.
She quotes from Cr Adams, speaking on a speed limit reduction made for the safety of koalas.
Every year the LNP vote down motions I move to make people safer.
Unfortunately the potentially beneficial nature of their amendment is vastly overshadowed by some appalling bullying from Crs Wines, Murphy, and even the Chair of Council Cr Toomey, towards Cr Johnston.
Cr Johnston talks about her motion from last week, calling on a decrease to the speed limit on Venner Rd, Annerley. Apparently after a pedestrian died there a few years ago, Council did nothing other than put some yellow paint down, despite sight lines not being part of the cause of the problem.
Cr Wines responds and says that “the motorist was found criminally at fault…at some point, if a person uses a motor vehicle to the level that is criminally dangerous, it is very difficult to engineer away that behaviour. Right? I’ll say that again, if a person is in control of a motor vehicle to a criminally dangerous level, it is very difficult to engineer, through road markings, signs, and concrete build outs; you cannot engineer that away.”
Yikes.
Cr Wines is now moving an amendment to Cr Johnston’s motion to remove the part about “reducing the speed limit from 60 km/h to 50 km/h to protect pedestrians and cyclists”, and instead to merely note the actions that Council has already taken, and to undertake another speed limit review.
Cr Johnston asks that this amendment be ruled out of order for substantially changing the intent of the motion. After what seems to be some whispered advice from a clerk, the Chair says that it does not out of order because it does retain the fundamental intent of the motion. Dissent is moved and is voted down.
In speaking to the amendment, Cr Wines says that because of Cr Johnston’s concerns, his amendment is going to call for another speed limit review after just 2 years instead of their normal minimum of 5 years, and that this is him taking the concerns very seriously.
Personally, I actually agree with him on this. There are clearly problems with how the speed limit review process works, but I believe council is required by law to follow it, and their willingness to at least try it again now is not a bad thing.edit: see below. This is not true, and it’s really weak from the LNP.
Cr Johnston says that actually no, engineers do not have to be consulted to sign off on speed limit reductions, as seen in Boundary Rd, Camp Hill.
She quotes from Cr Adams, speaking on a speed limit reduction made for the safety of koalas.
Says a clearly emotional Cr Johnston.
Cr Wines was clearly not saying the truth when he said “I value human life the highest”. Suggests Cr Johnston.
Unfortunately the potentially beneficial nature of their amendment is vastly overshadowed by some appalling bullying from Crs Wines, Murphy, and even the Chair of Council Cr Toomey, towards Cr Johnston.