I come from a family of petrol heads. My Dad was a motor mechanic for 55 years. I came to live in Christchurch because the Vintage Car Club scene was so alive down here. Whenever someone in the family talked about travelling from “A” to “B” the first question asked by a family chorus was “what time did you do it in?”. We were speeding sinners, complying carefully to the 11th Commandment which is “thou shalt not get caught”.
I used to travel to a Board meeting every 6 weeks in Kaikoura. The speed limit from Oaro was dropped to 80kph by the authorities, to my annoyance. It slowly dawned on me that I didn’t arrive much later for the meetings with the lower speed limit, but, the key discovery, was that I had up until that time missed the fabulous scenery I was travelling through.
So, when the cabinet Minister in charge of roads announced that he was going to raise speed limits I was appalled. I had become convinced that the way I had behaved for most of my life was just stupid. I could possibly apply for free counselling to get my head around my obviously bad parenting.
I’m not sure if it’s my getting older (probably) but I enjoy the speed limit reductions around town, and into the countryside. To talk about raising the speed limits around schools outside school hours is just plain dumb. I see kids playing in school grounds after school and they don’t know that the cars will be driving faster when school is out. When a kid is hit when a car is being driven faster their chances of their being badly injured, or killed, goes up hugely.
What are the proposed rules?
Under the proposed new rules, all speed limits on local roads, arterial roads, and rural state highways, which had been reduced since January 1, 2020, would be reserved. The changes vary but, in some cases, 30km/h limits would be reversed to 50km/h and 80km/h limits would be reversed to 100km/h. On some roads the government is considering introducing speed limits of up to 120km/h.
All school zones would be required to have a variable speed limit of 30km/h during drop-off and pick up times (instead of a constant 30km/h limit) and every new speed limit change would require a cost benefit analysis with the “economic impacts” considered alongside safety.
In 2023 there were 341 fatalities on New Zealand roads – speed was a factor in about a third of these.
Risk increases exponentially with speed. If a pedestrian were to be hit by a car travelling at 30km/h, their risk of death would be about 10%, if the car was travelling at 40km/h that risk would increase to 32%, and if the car was travelling at 50km/h the pedestrian would have a very high chance – 80% – of dying. Speed also increases the chances of a driver hitting a pedestrian by reducing their ability to stop quickly.
The proposed changes, while expensive, come after the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told local councils they needed to “rein in the fantasies” on spending. In a speech at a Local Government NZ conference last month, Luxon said the “the days of handouts are over” and asked councils to “get back to delivering the basics brilliantly”.
When asked about costs associated with the new speed limit rules, Simeon Brown avoided the specifics.“Well ultimately, New Zealanders voted to reverse Labour’s blanket speed limit reductions. That’s what we committed to do.”
The speeches at the LGNZ conference by both Luxon and Brown were, in my opinion, offensive. The imposition of speed increases by the Government on already successful speed slowing policies whilst speaking about “nice-to-haves” was them speaking twaddle.
Let us consider how much their “nice-to-have” changes would cost the Auckland City Council:
Roads affected: Potentially more than 1400 local roads near schools and more than 30 urban arterial roads may need to have speed limits changed. Estimated cost: Between $7 and $21 million.
Comments: Auckland Council is “concerned that the approach taken will compromise safety and lead to an increase in deaths and serious injuries”.The changes are “unlikely to lead to substantial improvements in travel times and economic productivity” and “if no additional funding is made available, additional cost would mostly fall on ratepayers.”
So, it was interesting to read articles throughout NZ reporting on people shocked at the gall of this misguided Minister of speed…
In the NZ Herald Simon Wilson wrote:
There’s no denying this issue divides us. A recent Auckland Transport (AT) survey found 46% of respondents were in favour of the lower limits, with 38% against. Not conclusive, but not what the minister thinks public opinion is, either.
Two factors bear on this.
One: The promise National made before the election was to “end Labour’s attempt to reduce all suburban streets to 30km/h and all state highways to 80km/h”.Neither part of that statement is true: Labour’s plan never encompassed all suburban streets or all state highways.Yet the claim is still on National’s website.
Two: In its survey, AT discovered that when people were told the new limits had led to 30% fewer deaths, support for those limits rose to 61% and opposition dropped to 23%. It’s possible. Evidence-based policy, with public support, a stronger economy and safer streets. And all you must do is tell the truth.
In retrospect, the coalition agreements’ loud insistence that decisions “will be based on data and evidence” can be read as prospective virtue-signalling: a gesture emptied of actual meaning. Parts of the Government seem, if anything, to be at war with science.
Brown recently eliminated the position of chief science adviser to his ministry. And no wonder: the last incumbent, professor Simon Kingham, argues that “no science adviser would tell them [ministers] that the policy they’re pursuing at the moment is sensible”.
In the Kaka Simon Kingham was interviewed:
I found a recent interview with Simon Kingham, who spoke to the Tuesday Club on road safety in the past, instructive on just how badly thought through the current Minister’s ideas are. Have a listen to this interview https://thekaka.substack.com/p/too-much-haste-and-waste-in-simeon.
From a recent Economist magazine there was this comment:
For all the safety features available in cars today, crashes are still often determined by the laws of physics. When two vehicles collide, it is usually the heavier one that prevails. I failed dismally at physics, but much of my early driving experiences was in an Austin 7. I developed a healthy respect for bigger vehicles, so the Economist comment rings home, that speed will kill more people especially if they are hit by something revolting like a Ford Ranger.
Cutting Co-Funding to Councils
It’s not just on raising the speed limits that the Minister is obsessed with, he’s cutting funding to Councils for things like cycleways and public transport. Jim O’Malley who chairs the Dunedin City Council Infrastructure Committee recently stated:
They are gearing up to cut all discretionary funding to councils, especially in transport. Footpath co-fund has dropped from 50% to 25% already. It is a common feeling that there are more cuts to come. I’m getting our staff to add up the lost assistance along with the increased cost of changing the speed limits back etc.
The interference from Wellington for the last six years has damaged councils and this round of “finger in the pie” will be even worse and push rates up dramatically.
Other local councils have expressed concern…
In its submission on the policy, Kāpiti Coast District Council wrote: “We believe the changes proposed are illogical and irresponsible”.
Hamilton City Council pointed out: “none of the proposals for reversing speed limit reductions have a safety assessment associated with them.”
As well as raising speed limits, and reducing funding for footpaths, cycleways and public transport Brown has established a list of “Roads of National Significance” (RONS). I was on the initial Waka Kotahi, NZTA, Board. A new Minister, Steven Joyce, came into office and a bit like Brown came up the same sort of approach. As I looked at the RONS list there appears to be a strong correlation between this list and National Party seats. That is not the way to decide which roads are to be built. However, this Minister is following on the same path as Joyce, for whom he used to work.
It is worth pausing to reflect on Simeon Brown is also the Minister of Local Government (LG) Remember his lectures to LG on misspent money and “nice-to-haves”. Here’s a Minister being told by his own Ministry “Decisions are increasingly being made without business cases being completed and the project scope and cost being fully understood”. This demonstrates that we have a dangerous, spendthrift, hypocritical Minister.
In Bernard Hickey’s Kaka recently there was a report on NZTA’s view on the Minister’s decision-making process...
Waka-Kotahi-NZTA is now introducing a “planning and investment evidence base programme,” to “enable evidenced-based decision making,” the Ministry of Transport (MOT) has advised Simeon Brown after telling him big investment decisions such as Brown’s $10 billion Northland Expressway were being made without business cases or evidence, as RNZ’s Phil Pennngton reported:
The government has been warned that business cases for many projects – even large roading projects – have become so weak that they are disconnected from reality. The Transport Ministry (MOT) has told the government that “investment decisions have become disconnected from the available revenue and market capacity,” in proactively-released documents.
“There has been a breakdown in the relationship between business case developers, decision makers and funders.”
The MOT is also beginning work on a ‘Future of the Transport Investment System’ plan. MOT’s warning to Brown in November overshadowed subsequent planning for the RONs, when it said:
“Decisions are increasingly being made without business cases being completed and the project scope and cost being fully understood, meaning more cost increases, delays and ultimately an inability to deliver intended benefits.”
The initial cost for RONs – estimated to complete 14 of the 17 highways – was $17.3 billion in the MOT papers, plus another $3b for the other three. The latest estimates have been entirely blanked out of the newly-released documents. “Initial cost estimates are increasingly unreliable indicators of final costs”, MOT stated.
MOT has now adopted Treasury’s ‘Better Business Cases’ framework.
“Business cases will be targeted and include only what is required.
“This work aims to create a significant improvement in the time and cost to develop business cases, as well as a more accurate cost estimation.”
The agency is now introducing a “planning and investment evidence base programme” to make a change to “enabling evidenced-based decision making”.
At the Local Government conference, the Prime Minister abused his speaking opportunity and demonstrated his lack of understanding of Local Government. His “nice-to-have” poll driven speech was for his red necked supporters. It wasn’t about building bridges between the two sectors. It’s so easy for Central Government to kick Local Government.
Every political party does it. It’s the same as shooting ducks on a pond. However, think about his nice-to-have on speed limits. Christchurch City Council will have a bill of hundreds of thousands of dollars to change the speed signs around the city.
If I was on the Council I would nod politely to the Minister and completely ignore him. Is CCC brave enough to tell the Minister of speed that he’s wrong?
Comments
Pat McIntoshsays
All the Council needs to do is put the speed limit changes on its list of things it intends to do sometime when it has the money. The speed limit increases will of course happen in the fullness of time, like all the other things our communities are waiting for. Unless perhaps the political direction changes again….
All the Council needs to do is put the speed limit changes on its list of things it intends to do sometime when it has the money. The speed limit increases will of course happen in the fullness of time, like all the other things our communities are waiting for. Unless perhaps the political direction changes again….
Excellent idea.