The RTA's original 3-Year trial proved that flashing lights significantly improve road safety and also showed which lights were most effective. The government claimed however that the original lights were unreliable as they had an average of 2 faults in 18 months (99.3% reliability). They embarked on a new trial at 100 schools that ran for 6 months commencing in February 2007.
Seven companies were selected to install lights, at a total cost of $7.2M for 100 school zones. There were many problems with the trial:
The original 3-year trial found that the most effective lights were two simple flashing lights on the 40kmh sign. They were found to reduce average traffic speeds by 50% more than the next most effective lights, those with flashing lights plus flashing LEDs around the "40" numerals.
In spite of that the RTA has included the more expensive latter type of lights in the 100-school trial. The 3-year trial was therefore a complete waste of time and money given that the RTA and government simply ignored its findings.
There were numerous faults with the lights during the second trial. They were found to be 98.2% reliable overall, less reliable than the lights used in the original trial. See this media release from the Premier (p.2 last bullet point).
The Schoolzone Santa was monitoring half a dozen of the 100 sites. He recorded and photographed the following
failures during the trial. Full details are on his web site.
The above fault trend with the RTA's much-hyped "new technology" lights has continued. Notable examples include:
Only one type of lights was 100% reliable during the trial (and for the 2 years since then) - those that I installed at Peakhurst and Lugarno costing $350 each.
The lights used in the original trial cost $12,000 per sign.
The lights used in the second trial cost up to $75,000 per sign yet were less reliable. eg.
| Astucia | 10 signs | $750,000 | $75,000 per sign |
| Streetscape Projects | 20 signs | $1,475,000 | $73,750 per sign |
Part of the high cost of the new lights was the back-to-base monitoring, an RTA requirement. In spite of that capability it took up to a week for faults to be fixed during the trial.
If faults with lights on some of Sydney's busiest roads during the government's much-hyped trial were not fixed for a week, what is the point of back-to-base monitoring?
Hundreds of students and parents pass the signs each day. The schools simply need to offer a small reward to the first child who reports a fault with the lights. Parents who drop off their children every day can also be rostered on to check the lights daily.
Lights that are monitored by the public are better than no lights at all, which is the government's preferred option for 96% of school zones.
Many of the lights were installed behind trees, poles or bends in the road. What is the point of spending thousands of dollars on lights that cannot be seen? See Media Releases link for details.
