Last week Auckland Transport opened consultation on a bylaw to set new speed limits. The programme over the next few years will hopefully put our speed limits in line with best international practice, and reduce the appalling level of road trauma our city has:
These statistics represent failings in two ways: too many people dying, and too few people walking, cycling and possibly motorcycling – because of the unsafe and unhealthy environment.
Auckland Transport has released a truly inspirational video, which outlines the healthy benefits to our communities of lower speeds. Well done, AT.
And yesterday they responded to myths and misconceptions about the speed limit changes, such as from misinformed mayoral hopeful, John Tamihere:
Why hasn’t Phil pushed back against the plan to slow the entire city down by making 700 kilometres of our roads only 30 km/hour? Even the Automobile Association says this will create even more congestion.
Despite the enormous benefits of these speed limit changes, the NZ Automobile Association has continued with its lobbying, with a media release asking AT to:
dial back its proposal for lower speed limits across the city in order to both improve road safety and get lasting buy-in from the public.
This post is about the AA member survey they are quoting, and gives suggestions for how the AA could use the valuable information. I will describe in another post what they have done instead, and examine whether that marries with their responsibilities.
In Part One I asked NZTA what they are going to do to remedy the problem of their own Speed Management Guide being used to undermine AT’s moves towards safety, and here I outlined how the AA’s use of Melbourne as a reason for supporting 40, not 30, in the city centre, is not supported by Melbourne’s actual experience. My apologies for the urban focus – I am limited in space.
First, some errors in the survey questions:
Question 11 said:
Auckland Transport is proposing that all roads in the CBD have 30 km/hr speed limits. How do you feel about this proposal?
In fact, Auckland Transport is proposing a mix of 30 km/hr and 10 km/hr in the city centre. People who wanted to support 10 km/hr might have responded with any of the options, so the results of this particular question is meaningless.
Question 17 said:
Auckland Transport is proposing to reduce speed limits in some residential areas to 40 km/hr. How do you feel about this proposal?
I think this must be a typographical error. The vast majority of residential suburban roads in the consultation have 30 km/hr speed limits proposed, including the three given as examples in the survey. Again, this error meant that people who wanted to support 30 km/hr could have responded to any of the options, so the results of this question are also meaningless.
Next, some arresting results:
- 13.6% thought the current 30 km/hr speed limit in Queen St was right. 86.4% thought it should be raised. No option was given for a lower speed than 30. Yet data shows that lowering the speed limit to 30 reduced deaths there by 36%.
- Only 3% thought that Hobson St should have a speed limit of 30 km/hr. This high risk road is the most densely populated residential street in the country, a place where walking needs to be safe and prioritised.
Above is the image used in the survey for High St. Approximately 50% thought that this road should have a speed limit of 40 km/hr or more. High St has very high pedestrian numbers, is very narrow, and has what planners call “high place function”. If anyone was to emerge from behind a parked car – such as a wheelchair user or a child, a car at 40 km/hr would not be able to stop to ensure they survive. The requirements of the Road Code to “Be careful when driving past parked vehicles. Pedestrians may walk out without warning.“ could not be met.
Younger members’ responses
I asked for, and received, the results for younger members. I did so because the city centre has a young population with low rates of car ownership and driving, and high rates of walking. On these high-risk roads, a typical young central city resident would be well aware of their vulnerability, and have different concerns to
- a youngster from the general population, let alone
- a typical young AA member, and it may be that their views cannot be represented at all by
- a typical young AA survey respondent.
The AA told me when they provided the results:
our younger Members were less in favour of lower speed limits than the older ones.
In contrast, the NZTA found that young people are more likely to take risks, but are more aware of the safety gains offered by slower speeds than older drivers are.
Some results from the younger members:
For this image of Symonds St, 38% of young male respondents aged 18 to 24 thought the speed limit should be increased to 60 km/hr. Symonds St bisects the university campus, has many people walking, crossing, catching buses, cycling. Would the results have been different if the image had been taken at a busier time of day? Perhaps even a slightly different choice of streetview image could have received a different response:
For the image below, of Vincent St, the corresponding figure was 20%. That’s still a high number. Vincent St has a high residential and working population housed in buildings up to 13 storeys high. It is only 400m in length and has busy intersections at either end. What acceleration rate would be required to get – briefly – to 60 km/hr?
Who were the AA member survey respondents?
The survey was sent to Auckland members, and there were 14,000 respondents. There are apparently 1.5 million members in NZ, with 36% living in Auckland and Northland. At a guess, the response rate was about 3%.
We know the survey was not accompanied by any education about the city centre context, Auckland’s safety crisis, safety research, nor Vision Zero principles.
What we can learn from these results:
- Errors in the survey render the results of some questions worthless.
- Many respondents didn’t appear to understand that fewer of our people have died on Queen St as a result of the 30 km/hr speed limit there, and that raising it again would result in more lives being lost.
- Many respondents didn’t appear to understand that the city centre is a dense residential area with high pedestrian numbers, and that safety requires 30 km/hr speed limits in such areas. Nor that this is recommended by international researchers and authorities including the OECD’s International Transport Forum.
- Many respondents didn’t appear to understand that the tragedy of the 92 fatal and serious crashes in the city centre between 2012 and 2018 was avoidable, and that safer speeds are part of an appropriate response to prevent further tragedy.
- The response about High St indicated a lack of concern from many respondents about driving fast near parked cars, and the dangers this presents to children and wheelchair users.
- Younger respondents preferred higher speeds. This indicates more about the opt-in nature of the survey than about the awareness of younger drivers of the need for safe speeds.
In short, opt-in surveys of drivers cannot inform decision-making about speed limits.
What the AA’s survey reveals is not a flaw in Auckland Transport’s decisions around speed limits, but that some drivers are out of touch with their responsibilities to other road users.
How the AA could use this information
The results of the member survey suggest the AA should plan a comprehensive education programme about safe driving and the benefits of safer speeds. As AT has realised, the public are more likely to respond positively to safer speeds if they can see that healthy streets allow families and communities to thrive.
Processing...
I am an AA member and have been for 25 years and the seeing how the survey results has been used frankly makes me sick. I will be writing directly to the CEO and asking how he can justify what seems to be bullying people into making an appalling decision.
I also work in the CDB and have had too many near misses with vehicles either going well over 50kph or running red lights. I dont see a need for cars on Queen st or any of the joining streets. And before any one asks I have contacted AT about this over the years and the standard response is call the police we don’t care. I was hoping the proposal to lower speed limits was a sign AT has changed I guess we shall see if they stand up to the bullies.
If we’re going to eliminate opt-in surveys as valid, doesn’t that kind of render all types of proposal feedback as invalid? What about pro-forma templated submissions from lobby groups?
Honestly I suspect the photos chosen would have received a different response if they had included a different FOV and some details of pedestrian movements per hour. It would have been interesting to see if that changed people’s initial responses.
They’ve chosen long-focal shots that might as well have been of drag strips, but a different FOV would have shown the enclosed nature of those spaces far better.
The type of membership and the type of survey determine the use that the results of the survey can be put to. There are different expectations of a group that people join for its advocacy activity, and of a group that people join for another reason, such as a break-down service. The results of this opt-in survey are far from invalid. They are very interesting, and should be informing the AA’s work.
I’ll go into this in another post.
The problem with consultation exercises that solicit explicit approval/disapproval is that they often get distilled down to “73% of respondents were against the proposal” and reported as if the numbers matter.
Consultation is part of living in a democratic society but a consultation is not an election. A majority agreeing/disagreeing with a proposal shows it is popular/unpopular but says nothing about whether it’s a good idea. That’s why consultations usually provide space for written submissions where respondents can articulate an argument about the good and bad aspects of the proposal.
You’re right about the photos chosen being misleading but those are actually wide angle shots. The real problem is that the camera (Street View) is sitting on top of an SUV so it’s unrealistically high up and can see everything. A similar wide-angle shot taken from the drivers eye-line inside a car would better show how complicated the road environment is to navigate.
Knowing the echo chamber this subject creates but…..
it should come as no surprise that Phil Goff may lose his Mayorilty for this.
Why, because in a city where getting around is slow, the very organisation that gets the lions share of rates and 11 cents for every litre of gas to improve these problems has failed and to throw petrol on to the fire wants to slow us down even more with what is really just the beginning of 30 ks per hour for Auckland.
Add the little man with a red flag walking in front of cars policy with cat chipping, fireworks bans, eliminating parking and raising the costs for those spaces left, shutting a major arterial like Quay St down and Christ knows what else, and leaving us with the basement option of our woefully inadequate bus based PT, Phil will be the front running candidate for putting the Nanny firmly back into Nanny state.
John Tamihere is going do well from this latest attempt to slow Auckland down and it will be very easy for a politically astute man like him to connect with frustrated commuters on this one.
Waspman, watch the AT video. Which bit of that do you not understand? I thought you were a bit of a community-minded man. The narrative has to change. Even economically we’re better with safe speeds.
I do know that the science behind the reason for vehicle crashes is very imprecise and quite subjective at times and a blanket 30 ks will not be the answer. A 36% drop on injury from vehicles in Queen St may well be based off a low number anyway and or the previous changes to Queen St traffic management for example means less traffic anyway that contributes to that stat. The traffic lights all conflict and its near impossible to go down there in any sort of timely manner which may further reduced traffic. Also half of it is now a bus lane. Stats are what the writer wants them to be. In fact Japan are raising the speed limits on some of their motorways to achieve the same goal. Again I can only imagine a set of stats out there that if interpreted a certain way will suit that argument.
But politically its a big sell. It will only piss frustrated drivers off and or cause law breaking. Most definitely fatal and injury crashes have speed as a factor but I am aware too that it matters not what the sign says in many and to me a blanket 30’s is futile. I would choose my battles on this one, because there are streets that justify this without doubt and most definitely some if not most of our crappy rural roads. But there are others that do not.
Based on that I am simply making a political observation. And it would be really easy to run a campaign to derail Goff and like minded councilors and take this subject with them.
The Japanese motorway increase is completely irrelevant here as none of AT’s plans involve motorways. They are generally either town centres with numerous pedestrians or country roads with numerous intersections, driveways etc.
You are right Tamihere will try and use this to his advantage and will probably score a few votes but the arms length nature of AT means even if he gets in he wont change much. The older right leaning voters who voted him in would then be stuck with him for the next three years. Almost makes me hope it happens actually.
It will be very interesting to see how he can get AT to do anything as elected people have no control anyway. JT has somewhat more drive in forcing his beliefs upon others so he may perform a miracle.
Kind of makes me wonder why we bother voting actually, probably why most don’t.
So in other words: outside in the real world, kiwis do not care if 100 people die on our streets tomorrow. Any candidate who gives a toss about road safety will be voted out of the office.
Hmm, maybe.
Funny that you mention fireworks. If you have small kids they’ll be kept awake by fireworks for weeks and weeks on end around Guy Fawkes day. I don’t even know how pet owners cope. If people are too dumb to show even basic consideration for others, then yes you need a nanny state.
John Tamihere’s attitude to reducing speed limit is one reason why I don’t want him as mayor. I cannot support people who believe vehicle travel times should come before personal safety.
Here is some AA funded research (done in New Zealand) that boils down to: implicit design cues are not as effective as the same ones that have been explained to them (explicit) when trying to get people to drive to speed limits – people who look at High Street, Nelson etc. and don’t regularly drive in the city won’t be considering pedestrians, bicycles, children on the side of the road for etc. appropriate speed context – just the rules they are familiar with – signs, lane width, etc. Which is the AAs point – people will drive the wrong speed and be ‘unfairly’ punished with ticketing. The AA is a lobby group for cars after all, not city centre residents and children getting to school.
“When the speed limit signs were removed and participants had to rely solely on the road markings it became clear that there was a significant advantage associated with the Explicit instruction conditions. The participants who had received explicit instructions about the meaning of the markings drove closer to the speed limit at 60 and 100 km/h, whereas the implicit groups appeared to adopt a strategy of driving somewhere between 85–90 km/h for all of the roads”
For me this also means that asking people what they think the appropriate speed for a road is meaningless in any important context beyond “what people reckon”.
https://www.aa.co.nz/assets/about/Research-Foundation/Risk-Awareness/CharltonStarkey2018-RoadMarkingsforSpeed.pdf
AA quote a membership of 1.5m, with 36% in Auckland / Northland. I suspect they base their “membership” on cards issued. I got one one when I bought a new vehicle, but didn’t receive their survey because I never got around to logging onto the website and entering an email address. I am also a “member” for their breakdown cover, not anything else that they do. To claim that a 3% opt-in response from their members justifies that their views are considered to be representative of all Auckland motorists is just rubbish. Don’t know why they are considered a “key stakeholder”. For most members, they fix broken down cars and replace batteries – period.
There is a lot to uncover about this: “Don’t know why they are considered a “key stakeholder”.”
It’s a quirk of our history of car dependency, and is actually embedded in legislation! The responsibilities the AA hold require of them a very high standard.
You could read that as “96% of AA members don’t mind speed change.”
Everyone is always in a rush to get to the back of the next queue up ahead.
I find it hilarious that people think 30km in the city will slow things down. The average speeds through a large chunk of the CBD is below that for most of the day. That’s with all the traffic engineers trying to get as many cars through there as possible. It’s a minor sign change that just reinforces what is already happening. Ignorant people just creating a storm in a tea cup.
The survey is fine as long as it is interpreted correctly. “A self-selection biased opinion survey of a biased older, more masculine subset of a biased older membership giving a statistically non-representative result. This group of old men gave their totally unqualified opinion that they didn’t like the change regardless of whether they live near or ever drive past any of the roads in question.”
When it comes down to it, these people are saying they are totally ok with other people dying as long they can save a few seconds that they will then waste on trivial things such as watching funny cat videos.
RE: CBD avg speed being nowhere near 50 at the moment – The problem is that you and I are taking an evidence-based viewpoint in deciding that there won’t be a net negative impact on the lowered speed limits.
Your average Joe/Josephine on the street will react impulsively, without even seeing the need to think the proposal through. The average person will simply think that lower speed limits equals lower travel speeds, simplez.
It’s this lazy thinker that we need to reach, as they (in my observations) appear to be in the majority. We can’t take the city on a journey if they don’t want to come along.
There is no validity to surveys or consultation around whether speed limits should be reduced. Reducing speed limits has been proven in countless studies to improve safety through a reduction in injuries and deaths. It should be completely irrelevant whether people like it or not. Even if 100% of people in Auckland think it’s a terrible idea it should still go ahead. It’s not a popularity contest.
Perhaps that an organisation which represents drivers is gathering evidence to fight safe speeds is no surprise. After all the wear the motoring hat. The people that should be asked are the cyclists and pedestrians that spend their time on the streets of the CBD and other areas, as they will be the direct beneficiaries of reduced speeds, and conversely, those in most danger if the speeds are not reduced. My main comment on the AT survey was can we please reduce all town centres to a 30kmh limit. Suburban pedestrians deserve some serenity too!
As an add on to this, I recently filled out the quarterly AA “pulse survey” last week. It was framed as:
“The Government spends your petrol taxes on transport but has no direct way to find out what you want. AA Pulse – this quarterly survey of Members is one of the few ways people like you can pass on their experience and opinions to decision makers.”
Question 7 asked if I support or oppose a wide range of vaguely transport related issues, including “reducing the urban speed limit to 40km/h”. I said “support”, because 40 is safer than 50.
It was only after completing the survey that I realised “urban” probably referred to the Auckland CBD, rather than Urban Areas in general.
Because of that, the AA can use this poorly phrased question as part of its campaign against dropping the urban limit to 30km/h.
Frankly, the misdirection seems deliberate at this point.
Another attitude which sticks out: Town centres, meh. Just keep on going 50.
Some of the rural ones are terrifying.
https://www.google.co.nz/maps/@-36.9717898,174.9627747,3a,75y,153.6h,82.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sptxpdkohQYjB7U97S9XNrQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
About 1 in 4 responds with 80 km/h or 100 km/h. Seriously, WTF.
I know… the rural stuff could be a post in itself! But I do think this is a function of who was motivated to respond rather than being an indication of what 1 in 4 AA members think.
oh yeah that looks like a good rally car race route…
oh yeah, good looking rally car route that one, complete with poles to wrap around and creeks to slip into…
Wellington have 30Km in many parts of the City. I never saw such a fuss when it was done there. They just got on with it. In my opinion, AT are being too Politically Correct.
I also completed the AA Survey and was astounded at the way they were guiding people into getting the result that they wanted.
It’s funny because the people in the AA running these campaigns are all based in Wellington. They have no idea what the City Centre of Auckland is even like, with only a passing concept of the populations involved on Nelson and Hobson
The wider central city 30 km/h area failed by one vote due to the fuss made.
Lower speed limits will be a massive boost to the road building industry. Imagine all the extra delay in their ‘do minimum’ models and how that will translate into time savings and vehicle operating cost improvements in any proposed motorway that comes along.
Ah, but the mode shift, miffy, leaving people driving with fewer cars to contend with. Which is why the RACV have realised that to improve DRIVING conditions for their members, they need to advocate for CYCLING superhighways:
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/top-motoring-body-urges-investment-in-bike-superhighways-20190212-p50xa6.html
Heidi I can’t imagine the change will have any effect in the peak hours but it will in the interpeak where most motorway benefits occur. I think they will all be rubbing their hands together and getting ready to update business cases. Practically every motorway or new highway project through Auckland is going to get an immediate increase to its B/C ratio. Then they can move on to brand new road projects that never would have stood a chance before.
Who cares what the survey says anyway? If the survey said the speed limit should be increased to 100km/hr in the city, is that a reason to do that? What if the survey said we should do away with Warrant checks and the need to have tread on tyres and the need to wear a seatbelt?
I highly doubt a decision about safety should be decided by a survey. Ideally the decision should be made based on facts by an organisation that cannot be politically influenced (obviously AT can if Tamahere says he would stop it). The decision should really come down to a comparison of the economic effects of longer journey times compared to the economic effects of saving lives.
I think there is a fundamental, and at this stage largely irreconcilable culture clash.
On one side are those that believe that motoring should give pleasure.
The quality of your car gives status. And status as a road tax paying individual, and two tonnes of fast moving mass, is what gives priority over pedestrians, cyclists, slow drivers etc.
Driving requires skill, fast driving more skill, and demonstrating this skill is both fun and a chance to be competitive in an ordinary setting, accomplishing ordinary tasks.
Motoring as a source of pleasure and status is the basis of the entire massive advertising and sponsorship spending of the motor industry.
Even off road driving depicts vehicles being driven irresponsibly fast, without regard to environmental and safety considerations.
As well as direct advertising it is certain that the industry is active in employing “influencers” and lobbyists to ensure that their industry is sustained as long as possible. The AA is part of this.
On the other side are the kill joys. Who see commuting motoring as a chore that has to be endured only if there are no viable alternatives.
As pedestrians they don’t like having to make detours and then waiting minutes to just get across the road
As cyclists, they don’t like being constantly challenged for the meager scraps of roadway they do get.
They find the human tragedy of road kill as unacceptable as homicide.
They fear the emissions are affecting health and quality of life now, and by creating the conditions for global warming, threatening future life on the entire planet.
In our commercially driven world the resource availability currently heavily favours the first group.
Thankfully though we always have a new supply of youngsters coming through bring new thoughts and energy. Us old farts are time limited (I don’t actually need to remind myself)
We owe it to our heirs to give them power and information to make the world they are going to live in for hopefully a very long time, a better place.
We also owe them that we do not stuff to many things up in the meantime.
If school pupils think that by joining an international strike in support of changes to reduce climate change what right to us elders have to criticise? We should encourage them to think things through and to challenge and to act. Doing nothing, will get them no where. It will after all, be very shortly their world.
+1
The younger generation is showing encouraging signs of adopting a more mature attitude to transport policy than its crusty old seniors!
By the way, I do wonder how many of those who advocate for higher speeds and show disdain for the safety-implications, are also people who would, say –
– take very seriously the much-smaller threat posed by an unreinforced building in an earthquake-zone, or who would –
– run a mile from the tiny risk due to occasional asbestos-exposure.
In a society that generally places safety of its members high on the priority-list, its reluctance to deal with hugely-unsafe practice in road-transport stands out like bird-poop on a clean bedsheet.
“Motoring should give pleasure” is indeed a common one for advertisements. Another common assumption is that everybody drives. Getting out of your home by definition means driving the car. In that worldview lower speed limit will slow everybody down and will have no benefits. And crossing a street on foot is analogous to crossing a railway — only to be attempted at strictly controlled points, and very strictly making sure you don’t impede any traffic. We are literally fencing off street corners in many places.
I wonder for how many people that assumption is actually true. Or in how many areas. The census data shows almost zero walking or cycling mode share in large swathes of Auckland. Does Auckland still have any collective memory of ever getting around without a car?
Given this statistic: “How many times did you leave your house outside your car the past year”. For how many percent of people is the answer literally 0 times? (I guess double digits already) I wouldn’t be very surprised if the median is only a dozen or so.
Another thing — I am too young to ever remember a time without congestion in the morning. How many people do actually remember such times? I have heard that was as recently as the 90’s in Auckland. How many people are still out there assuming we can ‘fix’ congestion? How many people are sitting on our buses thinking it is some temporary thing until that magic fix arrives?
Lowering that speed limit will be an incredibly hard sell if there is no collective memory of ever getting around without a car. But perhaps that is why we would refer to our council and government as “leaders” instead of “followers”.
Yes interesting, the concept that some people never exit their property other than in a car or never walk beyond their letterbox or through their garden gate; and quite scary that some people see nothing amiss with this.
And if we think we have it bad here, parts of the USA take things to another level with some suburbs simply having no footpaths ( e.g. random suburban scene from Indianapolis here – https://www.google.co.nz/maps/@39.8447945,-86.0747142,3a,60y,262.59h,89.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI9-P-x5u0XKpWfNCi68ndQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en ).
There are those who point to these sprawling, road-dominated cities in provincial America as evidence that you can in fact build enough roads to conquer congestion. But is this how we should be restructuring our cities? https://www.google.co.nz/maps/place/Indianapolis,+IN,+USA/@39.7560593,-86.1340543,1441a,35y,260.58h,44.61t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x886b50ffa7796a03:0xd68e9df640b9ea7c!8m2!3d39.768403!4d-86.158068?hl=en
And what the US has failed to do is conquer its road toll. An average of 102 people per day were killed in 2016, though that seems to be pro-rata with our population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year
However as the developed-world becomes evermore ring-fenced with safety legislation, the spotlight is increasingly falling on the anomalous road-transport sector and we are seeing lower speed-limits steadily creeping in here and there in spite of the howls from the motoring lobby. There is hope.
OMG Greater Auckland suck down a cup of cement and harden yourselves up.
Stop complaining about someone else’s advocacy and do better at it yourself.
We’re doing pretty well, thanks Ad. We don’t have the revenue from 1.5 million members who joined for services unrelated to advocacy. Nor do we have our name embedded in the legislation.
Come on, you’re either ‘doing pretty well’, or you just got a case of influence envy. Not both.
You plural know how to get influence. And membership. And legislative change.
So, no point complaining. Chop chop.
Lol. I think you’ll enjoy the next post.
Slightly off topic and not mention of the AA but it is obvious that those in the police that specialise in traffic matters are saying the model they work under is not working at all and that there is non or very little work on prevention, rather response.
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/384133/road-police-high-turnover-low-experience-pool-means-response-not-prevention
Its sad we cant get even the most basic enforcement of laws right.
+1 On topic, I think.
“”When was the last time you saw someone on the road with a speed gun?,” asked one officer.” I see one nearly everyday on SH1. A couple of weeks ago I saw 3 between Huntly and Hamilton on the Waikato Expressway. Due to its modern design (continuous median barriers, no at-grade intersections etc) this is one of the safest roads in the country. I’ve still yet to see a police officer carrying out speed enforcement on Auckland’s streets (though I haven’t lived in Auckland that long).
Sure the Police have been under resourced for years but I’m not convinced their enforcement strategies are effective. They don’t seem to care about traffic offences that don’t involve speeding and they don’t seem to carry out speed enforcement in high risk areas (around schools, in town centres etc.).
The penalties for speeding and other traffic infringements also needs looking at. Inflation may have eroded the impact of fines over time (it certainly has for things like illegal parking). Plus speeding fines are proportional to the kilometres per hour you are over the limit, when they should be proportional to the percentage you are over the limit. So currently doing 120km/h in a 100km/h zone is penalised the same as doing 50km/h in a 30km/h zone when the latter is actually the worse offence.
Fines etc never make sense. The fine for having a dog off leash on a beach at the wrong time is 3.5 times the fine for driving using a cell phone.
Yes, I think huge problem areas like drug abuse, domestic violence etc etc have taken a strain on their staff resources & compounded their retention ability. Then again the article says:
“Another officer asked why, when the road toll was 380 last year, so many resources are put into homicide, of which there were only about 60.
The president of the Police Association, Chris Cahill, said road police shouldn’t be pulled away from their job to attend other crimes when the road toll is so high.
[..edited..] it was important that road police were left to their job because preventing deaths on the road was more important.
“With 300 plus people dying on the roads each year, it’s more than the homicide rate so you’d argue that’s where people should be,” he said.”
It seems odd that there is such fuss over lowering the speed limit to the CBD to 30kmh in most places as I would say (from my totally unscienfic observations) few cars are actually travelling at 30kmh or faster anyway. However, on the awful Hobson and Nelson that might be true.
It seems that some people still think Auckland is a big town where you park on Queen Street as you wait for your takeaways. This is why is best that local issues get solved at the local level – we actually know what’s going on.
With 800 extra cars per week in Auckland, l we’ll all be at 30 soon anyway.
The picture for Hobson St is surely going to get a higher speed response in the survey as it looked like a wide as drag strip with little obstacles or context to make an informed decision. Useless information really.
There are others however where the ‘context’ is clearly visible — the town centre ones. Even Tamaki Drive a majority chooses 50km/h. Not that you’d actually be able to drive that fast over there but hey.
(all the pictures are here → https://www.aa.co.nz/assets/about/newsroom/Auckland-Matters/Auckland-Speed-Survey-2018-Results.pdf)
Yes, just pointing out Hobson had higher 50 or 60 km/hr response. They needed pictures with people in them trying to cross….like a saw today somewhere & nearly tripping halfway to cross in front of 50 km/hr cars in both directions 4 lane road….then ute in front deliberately ran left turn red arrow.
If the person was crossing at the lights the speed limit is irrelevant.
But they didn’t. And why didn’t they? One reason is you have to walk 100m down the road or up & wait what seems like about 5 mins choking on fumes for the green crossing signal. This is for one direction, wait again for another direction. Seen many do this here.
The AA is a lobby group just like Greater Auckland.
Please read the other comments. There are fundamental differences.
No there isn’t.
They lobby on behalf of their members, you lobby on what you believe is “correct”
The AA claims to lobby in the best interests of 1.5 million people but there’s scant evidence that they have member buy-in for what they’re advocating. Their arguments (explicitly or implicitly) are justified as “this is what our large membership wants.”
GA doesn’t claim any kind of constituency, their advocacy must be judged on the merits of their arguments and the evidence they provide to back them up.
Do the AA just push the personal opinions of their leadership? Who knows, maybe. Does GA do the same thing? Of course but it’s completely transparent and they don’t claim to represent anyone else.
Members? Are you a member? Am I? Did I pay to join, do I get a badge, I hope so!
It might be bias, as we all are to our beliefs but at the end of the day it’s a Blog with anonymous comments section, get a grip.
I personally won’t vote for John Tamihere. I think he is somehow ignorance on a lot of Auckland issues.
Motorists have no one to blame but themselves. It is their driving behaviour that has brought this about.
There are issues with this whole topic from multiple sides here.
For example AT has cherry picked data and then misrepresented facts to make it sound like there is a big issue that speed that can be easily addressed through reducing the posted speed.
For example, they chose the years 2014 and 2017 as 2014 was abnormally low and 2017 was abnormally high. They have also said the increase in fatal crashes over this time was 78% when in reality it was 54%.
They fail to metion that fatal crashes reduced by 20% between 2017 and 2018.
They claim 44% of crashes were speed related when only the data shows only 30% were speed related.
They also fail to mention that over 80% of fatal crashes were due to people breaking the low, such as running from the police, street racing or driving while intoxicated.
They also claim they are following “international best practice”, yet upon review it can be seen they are using their own cookie cutter treatment.
So Richard why do you think New Zealand has such a poor road accident record compared to other culturally and economically similar countries such as Australia, and In Europe (especially the UK)? My observations are that like here, most of their driving, and most of their fatalities occur on two lane roads remarkably like our own. The people in these countries do not receive notably better driving training, they are not significantly less substance impaired, or generally more law abiding if they think they can get away with things.
What do you think is the cause of the now statistically significant recent rise in road trauma?
That’s a good question and what we should really be looking into.
Like I mentioned about, over 80% of the fatal crashes on our roads were from people breaking the law showing no regard for the posted speed limit. It would be worth while looking into these and see what the common factors are that we can target.
In general however, one of the big things both Europe has going for it is that everybody lives in dense urban areas where PT usage is very high. When it comes to them traveling between those urban areas they have large expressways which are extremely safe.
Most of the crashes we seem to have here are on rural roads that haven’t had any improvements made to them for 60 years or so, meanwhile our cities have been growing out into the country side resulting in every increasing volumes of traffic using these roads. This is why I think many of our rural roads make sense being posted at 80km/h.
Certainly in the UK, In and around London public transport use is predominant. It is much lower and declining in the next tier cities, Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool which have suffered the same decline in provision and quality of services that the privatised model of bus service provision that caused grief here is still doing there. For the rest of the UK bus patronage is in serious decline. Local Rail services lurch from crisis to crisis.
I think the UK road death rate is like New Zealand’s rising after years of decline which I ascribe to reduced enforcement a consequence of current austerity measures.
Good question indeed.
Motorways are one big thing, you won’t often travel for 100s of km on two-lane roads especially in the west of Europe.
Now another big thing is exactly this: speed limits, and how you build streets.
Here’s a somewhat analogous street to Hobson Street, arbitrarily picked out in The Hague, Netherlands. On a map it looks like a main arterial road going into the city centre. On a street view…
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.0770784,4.3157862,3a,75y,125.54h,91.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8jtJPYkGnJDYWyURaUCnWA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I assume you can spot some differences with Hobson Street.
My guess is you were trying to make a deliberate misrepresentation.
After using your link I had a quick look at to how their motorway tied into the city and found the following.
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.0776323,4.3360823,3a,75y,75.68h,72.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPFLhlLr5onCFaBN4_Qay_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
What they have done looks much nicer and would work posted at 30 (although they post it at 50.
It is however 80m wide when Nelson St is 30m wide in comparison. They also appear to have a heavy vehicle ban and have their bus routes setup to not need to turn corners.
That road doesn’t go into the city centre.
If you go west towards the city centre, you’ll see a frontage road between the main arterial and the buildings (limited to 30 km/h). The road turns south after a short while, to go to the centre you’ll have to go on the much smaller roads to the northwest.
Note too sure who you’re talking to Roeland.
I will also note that there were only 3 fatal crashes in the CBD between 2012 and 2017, all 3 were available if the pedestrian hadn’t walked directly into live traffic. None of the crashes showed speed as a factor.
Note I am still in favor of a 30km/h speed limit on most of the roads in the CBD, just not the main arterials.
The motorways are the arterials. Streets within the city centre should not be arterials, except perhaps for buses, but for their journeys to be less delayed, they simply need more priority and fewer cars to contend with. Access For Everyone will make all of this more intuitive.
My concern is for the welfare of all people, including
-car occupants in side impact crashes, who have a far higher survival rate at lower speeds
-people who are not walking because it is not a healthy environment for walking, who will be encouraged into a healthy lifestyle with lower speeds.
I’d suggest you read the Road Safety Business Improvement Review and pedestrian safety research before laying blame on pedestrians walking into live traffic.
The motorways are the largest arterial roads, but they are not the only ones.
There is a level system where at one end you have quiet access roads and the other you have busy roads that need to carry large volumes of traffic. In the CBD roads like Fanshawe, Hobson, Nelson, Beach Rd and Symonds street all play important roads.
If you make these roads easier to drive on, and all the others harder to drive on, then you will leave most of the city cycle and pedestrian friendly with cleaner air and reduced noise.
If you make everything 30km/h people will feel more compelled to rat run as the arterial provide no benefit. The motorway meanwhile is already congested around the CBD for 18 hours of the day and so unlikely to be used much more than it already is.
I don’t get your last point sorry.
So make the city centre arterials 30km/h, and the non-arterial local streets and lanes dead ends with a 10km/h limit. You still have a level system that way, the arterials are still easier to drive on that the local lanes. Half a dozen bollard lines would stop all rat running overnight.
Speed hardly matters for the CBD, it’s already riddled with traffic signals every couple of hundred metres, and it’s only 2km long and 1.5km wide. The difference between top speeds of 50km/h and 30km/h in that context, is measured in seconds of travel time, if you can measure it at all.
Nelson and Hobson are the most densely populated patches of land in the country. You don’t care about our neighbourhoods, so why should your ‘arterials’ matter to us?
Why are you separating society into the us and them, we are all here together.
If the aim was to improve safety on Hobson and Nelson St, reducing the speed limit from 50 to 30km/h is probably least effective things that could be done.
My last point was that you should read the Safety Review. It’s gives a good overview of the reasons for the level of traffic trauma. Simplifying the cause of the problem to people breaking the law and walking into traffic is simply ideological. There’s a world of evidence-based safety research to inform us.
I think you have things back to front there, completely ignoring the fact that the reason for the crash was that a pedestrian stepped directly into the path of a truck is pure fact.
Imagining that posting the road at 30km/h would mean people are less likely to jump into the paths of trucks is simply ideological.
It’s not about apportioning blame Richard, it’s about avoiding accidental death.
People make mistakes, they don’t deserve to die for a misstep.
The science on survivabity being hit at 30km/h vs 50km/h is clear, and it doesn’t change whether it’s your fault or someone else’s.
Well Nick, if the only thing you are worried about is road safety you would simply ban everyone from the road who isn’t in vehicle. If that wasn’t enough you would then ban all vehicles as well.
What we have however is a number of factors that we need to provide for. If one person was to drown at the beach we don’t ban everyone from going to the beach or going on boasts as that cost is impracticable.
To a similar extent, if 1 person every 5 years runs into the path of a truck we shouldn’t then resort to making driving so hard, slow and stressful that we’ve effectively banned driving or forced them out of the city/country.
Out of all fatal crashes roughly 80% won’t be effected by a change in posted speed. Of the remaining 20% you may be able to get a 10% saving (of those 20%) which could equate to about 1 person every 5 years.
So to save that one person who choose to run into the path of a truck, you have turned an average persons 2 hours on the road into 3 hours, costing the country billions every year.
Also, I don’t every recall saying its about blame. I’m saying it should be about facts. If 90% of people die for one reason, we shouldn’t ignore it and focus all our attention on the other 10%.
So what Richard is trying to proclaim is that the economic cost of congestion is greater than the social of death and injury on our roads.
Then the solution isn’t to keep speed limits at the limits they are, the solution is to have less traffic.
Honest question for you Alex.
Do you think ladders should be banned?
Because every day people get hurt using ladders so why should be keep them if they have such a high social cost?
The social costs of death and serious injuries in New Zealand as a result of road crashes in 2017 was estimated at $4.17 billion according to the Ministry of Transport.
Yet we don’t see calls to ban motor vehicles so the call to ban ladders is also ridiculous.
But we can apply controls to both to ensure they are used safely and appropriately for the environment they are used in.
So what controls do you propose we make for ladders? Should be limit their height to 0.5m?
How about these: https://worksafe.govt.nz/topic-and-industry/working-at-height/working-safely-at-height/
Then if people are following the guidelines and still killing themselves or others, we can look at changing the rules. Motorists are still killing hundreds of themselves and others every year so we need to change the regulations on motorists.
Sailor Boy, the vast majority of these injuries occur at home where people aren’t required to follow worksafe guide lines.
‘To a similar extent, if 1 person every 5 years runs into the path of a truck we shouldn’t then resort to making driving so hard, slow and stressful that we’ve effectively banned driving or forced them out of the city/country.’
Richard, where is your evidence to show that speed limits of 30 kmh induces the paragraph above?
You keep saying things like banning ladders, or banning swimming but at no point does anyone advocate banning cars….anywhere!
You’re making ridiculous analogies and you know it. Lowering the speed limit is a safety measure not a band, just like safety gear on a work site is for your ladder analogy, or lifeguards and life jackets are for your swimming ones.
So once again, show the data that lowering speed limits is akin to literally banning cars?
I’m still waiting for the data to suggest that lowering the speed limit on arterial roads from 50 to 30km/h will improve safety.
You mean you haven’t read the research and the conclusions of the ITF?
Nope, I don’t mean that at all.
You mean you’ve read it but you don’t believe it?
I mean that much of it is flawed, for instance they say travel times wont be effected because average speed will actually increase.
But then they claim the reduction in average speeds will result in a 78% reduction in fatal crashes ignoring the fact that 80% of fatal crashes are results of illegal activity running from the police, street racing or driving under the influence.
Where does it say any of that in the conclusions of the ITF?
I’m referring to the proposed speed limit changes.
So in reply to my actual question, then, “You mean you haven’t read the research and the conclusions of the ITF?” I wasn’t asking about AT’s public education.
If you’re not referring to the research regarding the speed limit changes, what research are you referring to?
And why the change in topic?
“But then they claim the reduction in average speeds will result in a 78% reduction in fatal crashes ignoring the fact that 80% of fatal crashes are results of illegal activity running from the police, street racing or driving under the influence.”
I’m glad they are ignoring your made up facts. Go and talk to your colleagues with access to CAS. Alcohol is a factor (or suspected factor) in about 1/3 of fatal crashes, street racing in about 1/3 of 1/%, and running from the police is a factor in about 1%. That totals 35%, not 80%.
100% of fatal collisions are caused by the rapid transfer of kinetic energy transferred to a human being from another object (potentially the inside of their vehicle). Reducing the kinetic energy of a vehicle reduces the chances of a fatal result in 100% of collisions.
Nice try Sailor Boy, however I do have access to CAS and hence why I know the statistics.
Ok, so it’s not that you haven’t looked, it’s that you’re lying about what you found.
This link contains a really simple graphic from the MoT Showing that alcohol is a factor in a bout 1/3 of crashes and that both of street racing and running from police are less than 1% and don’t even warrant a mention.
Could you please stop lying to a forum of people who know their stuff on transport. You bring our entire profession into disrepute.
Nice try sailor boy, but again you fail.
The numbers I have are for the Auckland region only and were for all crashes for which the posted speed would have no effect, obviously the 3 things you’ve cherry picked to mention are not the only factors that aren’t influenced by posted speed.
You cherry picked those three things Richard, not me. I’m responding to your comment about what causes the majority of crashes. I think anyone following the links can see that your claim (“over 80% of fatal crashes were due to people breaking the low, such as running from the police, street racing or driving while intoxicated.”), is a lie.
If you’re going to shift the goal posts and say that you’re only talking about crashes where the posted speed limit would have no effect, then my response is “so what” that portion of road trauma won’t be affected by lowering the speed limit. the vast majority of trauma does become less likely
It seems you don’t understand the meaning of “cherry picking”, or what examples are.
Maybe try googling the meaning of those things and you wont get so confused.
The problem in Auckland is that those main arterials also have the highest population density in the city. Therefore they have a very large number pedestrian/cycle/motor vehicle interactions, which for a pedestrian or cyclist an intimate interaction with a motor vehicle, is spectacularily less life threatening at sub 30kph. For both Nelson and Hobson street, driving it from end to end on one green phase is now almost impossible and will become more so with the increased pedestrian activity generated by further building intensification, especially proximaty to the new Aotea Station.
What is the credible average time saving of 50kph max rather then 30kph? and what economic or societal benifits will accrue? It would be a big ask that those benifits out way even one fatality.
The issue is not about motor vehicle traffic flow it is about freedom of movement for all modes and freedom from injury and death.
Nelson Street is 900m long. So even in the scenario of going end to end non stop at full legal speed with a green wave of lights and no traffic to speak of, the difference between 50km/h and 30km/h is 43 seconds.
The is the disingenuous part of the entire thing, this is just the 1st 10% of what will be applied to the entire city.
Reducing the posted speed on roads like Hobson Street my increase the travel time for those few who will comply with the posted speed, but once you take the entire raft of changes into consideration you turn 30min trips into over 1 hour journeys.
These few seconds there a few seconds there degradation are what have resulted in our world record congestion.
Increasing road capacity induces traffic, on a 1 to 1 ratio. 60 years of investing almost solely in the driving mode and not in the other modes is what has created our congestion.
The solution is to improve planning and reallocate investment funds, to give transport choice and return liveability and health to the streets.
The solution is not to require continuation of unsafe speeds in at attempt to mitigate the travel delays due to poor planning and investment choices.
Although that sounds great, I’m afraid little of what you said is true.
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.6.2616
https://editorialexpress.com/cgi-bin/conference/download.cgi?db_name=ITEA2017&paper_id=137
I hope the research papers are what you are happy to read, since you seem to mock the plain English versions prepared for the public. But let me know if you need something simpler.
‘Although that sounds great, I’m afraid little of what you said is true.’ – Much like your claim:
‘once you take the entire raft of changes into consideration you turn 30min trips into over 1 hour journeys.’
Which journeys do you anticipate will increase from 30 mins to 1 hour.
Jezza, as noted above, this is the first 10% of what will be rolled out across the entire city.
As shown in Te Atatu South and Rosehill Papakura the posted speed on almost all urban roads will be reduced to 30km/h over the next 10 years. Roads such as Te Irirangi Drive will be reduced to 60km/h. In general you are looking at 20-40% lower speeds.
So take into account the speed reductions, take into account the capacity removal, and take into account everyone is being forced onto the motorways. A 30min trip will easily take an hour once the changes are done.
Thanks for the links Heidi.
I’ve been through this debate many times before so not really up for getting into it again. In summary though, I find many of those papers are flawed in they adopt a narrative and cherry pick data to support it. In reality its a very complex issue that needs to be looked at from multiple perspectives.
‘take into account the capacity removal’ – that doesn’t really stack up with your previous claim that intersections govern capacity on urban roads.
You appear to be confusing top speeds with average speeds, the average speed reductions will likely be smaller.
I’m not sure about your thin end of the wedge argument either, there’s more chance of pigs flying the roads such as the EP Highway or Penrose Rd for example becoming 30kmh on 10 years time.
“that doesn’t really stack up with your previous claim that intersections govern capacity on urban roads.” Sorry, the reduced capacity comes from the auxiliary lanes that are being removed. I mentioned that somewhere else.
In regards to travel times, I’m comparing current average speeds with people following the new posted speeds. In reality people are unlikely to actually slow down and so travel times will stay the same and crash rates may go up. I’m one of those people who follows the speed limit and hence why this inappropriate speeds annoy me as it will mean I will have queues of angry people behind me.
In regards to this being the first 10%, if you read the “Speed Management Guide” you will see RCA’s are meant to do 10% each year and most of them are about 3 years behind schedule. As this is the first 10% this is what will set the standard for Auckland. Hamilton has already been through this (maybe about 20% of the way) and they followed the guide coming out with a much more appropriate system.
“In reality people are unlikely to actually slow down”
A few hefty fines should change that.
MFD, not really. Police have been handing out hefty fines and telling people every few minutes to slow down. Yet they still speed.
When they changes SH16 from 100, to 80 back to 100, there was almost no change in the mean speed. Even when it was posted at 70 during construction there was little change.
“I’ve been through this debate many times before so not really up for getting into it again. In summary though, I find many of those papers are flawed in they adopt a narrative and cherry pick data to support it. In reality its a very complex issue that needs to be looked at from multiple perspectives.”
So meta studies are cherry-picking the data?
Can you link me please to your discussion here about the one that came out in February 2017, and which confirmed the earlier one?
“MFD, not really. Police have been handing out hefty fines and telling people every few minutes to slow down. Yet they still speed.”
You must know the police haven’t been enforcing at anything like the level they should. Articles about it have been linked in comments on this post, but you would have seen other articles before, I’m sure.
As a transport engineer, you must also be aware that even without a change in enforcement, a change of speed limit reduces the average speed.
As I’ve mentioned before. Reducing the speed limit below the context of the road has a very minor impact on the mean speed people travel at.
To really reduce speed to need to change the context of the road, make it narrow, put in speed bumps and other traffic calming measures. Most of which reduce capacity.
How minor is too minor when we’re talking about lives? Even with only a 1% reduction in observed mean speeds, we’d expect to see approximately a 4% reduction in fatalities, a 3% reduction in serious injuries, and a 2% reduction in other injuries.
To reduce speeds we need to change the driving culture, and there are a number of ways to do that, including better enforcement, better education, and changing the Driver License Test Guide so that learner drivers are allowed to follow the road code and drive slowly.
But one of the most effective things to change driving culture is to allow drivers to drive at the lower speeds that many of them want to drive at – the latent demand for driving slowly is well researched here, in Australia and in the US. Lower limits allow these drivers to drive more slowly, which resets the environment, and others are encouraged to see the benefits too.
Our problem is too much expectation of speed for any particular built environment, which has led to a poor attitude around ignoring what’s in the peripheral vision, and of course that blurred zone is bigger at higher speeds.
You don’t fix that problem by changing the environment every time, although certainly there are changes that need to be made as well.
Great, let’s change the context of the road then. In fact, lets change it to a street.
If the aim is to reduce speed, the most effective way to do this is to change the environment. And I would be in favor of this in many cases.
If you look at roads like high street, it could be posted as an open road, yet the mean operating speed would remain around 10-20km/h like it is today.
If I was wanting to improve safety on Fanshawe St I would look at the pedestrian desire lines and see if an additional signal controlled mid-block crossing or two could be added. This would not only slow traffic but reduce the frequency of people jaywalking.
If a new crossing can’t be added I would look at ways to prevent jaywalking, such as a fence along the median or landscaping on the roadside.
A signalised midblock crossing would be great. Removing traffic lanes would also be great to reduce the severance caused by the width.
But reducing the speed limit is a proven technique that needs to be used as well. It resets people’s expectations around what an appropriate speed is.
Hedi, you could look at the social costs this way.
Lets say we reduce the average speed from 40-30km/h on a 2km long road that has had 1 fatal crash in the past 20 years.
That change in speed will mean the journey time is 60s longer. If we have 40,000vph that’s 243,333 lost hours a year. If we rate the social cost of each hour as $5 that’s $24 million over 20 years.
As we have reduced the average speed by 25% we can expect we can expect a 70% reduction in fatal crashes. Each fatal is worth around $5 million so we have a $3.5 million saving at a cost of $24 million.
I agree that reducing the speed of vehicles is effective, I dispute that simply posting the road with a lower speed is effective.
You can read more about this in the “Speed Management Guide” where they say any reductions in speed need a change in environment. Unless the 85% free flow speed already reflects the speed you want to post the road at.
AT has committed in full and without question to not trading off safety for any other reason such as traffic flow.
You’re going to have to change, Richard, because Vision Zero doesn’t muck with people’s rights to safety.
Looking at it like that is indeed saying that little bits of drivers’ time somehow add up to being equal to someone’s life, and that’s not true.
In your calculation you’ve – typically, because this is what’s been going on now for decades by transport engineers – ignored:
– the costs that accrue because of the reduced rate of active transport when we have unsafe speeds,
– the costs that accrue because of the delays to pedestrians in such an environment.
– the costs that accrue because of the loss of opportunities to people who don’t drive, such as teenagers and children.
– the costs that accrue due to climate change and environmental damage that comes with an unsafe, car dependent environment.
Amongst many others.
That would be the Speed Management Guide that was developed in conjunction with the AA, wouldn’t it?
Plenty has to change, Richard, including the Speed Management Guide… these documents have mode bias and unsafe principles embedded deep within them.
It will take a while to clean all that out.
I don’t think the AA had much input into the SMG, maybe none.
My understanding is that it was developed based on much of the same research you have mentioned and is regarded as the best approach to setting speeds in the world because of the range of factors it takes into consideration.
AT is actually required to use it for determining their speed limits.
“AT is actually required to use it for determining their speed limits.”
Glad to see that you have admitted that AT are required to reduce the speed limits on Fanshawe, Nelson, and Hobson Streets to 30km/h.
“Glad to see that you have admitted that AT are required to reduce the speed limits on Fanshawe, Nelson, and Hobson Streets to 30km/h.”
Where did you read that, I effectively said the complete opposite.
43 seconds multiplied by how many cars per day? If it was 30,000 cars per day then that is 21,500 minutes wasted per day or 7,740,000 minutes (129,000 hours or 5375 years) delay per year (assuming 5 days of minimal traffic Xmas etc).
That is a lot of wasted time, wasted money, extra pollution, extra fuel cost. And that’s just one street. Don’t mind 30 on a lot of CBD roads but leave the main arterials alone.
The funny thing here is that AT claims lower speed limits will reduce fuel consumption.
Unfortunately for me, driving at 30km/h requires me to be in 2nd gear and increases fuel consumption by about 30% in comparison to driving 50km/h.
So much for sustainable transport and reducing our CO2 emissions.
43 seconds is the maximum additional time assuming a clear run. In reality that addition time will be negligible because in peak traffic low is limited by capacity and at other times traffic will be required to stop at any of the major intersections controlled by traffic lights.
Average speed on these streets is 19 km/hr. The speed limit will simply reduce the pointless burst of speed to the next traffic light.
Have you read AT’s myths and misconceptions page that I linked, Richard?
Travel time reliability is severely impacted by our current speeds due to the delays created by crashes. That means people have to leave more time for each trip.
Hi Heidi, I found the AT myths page a bit of a laugh, although some of what they said was true, in most cases the myth was true and what they said was false.
Such as the “cherry picking” data myth.
Richard – I think your logic is a bit off regarding emissions. Your car may well use more fuel cruising at 30 than at 50, however the biggest user of fuel is accelerating, by restricting the speed limit to 30 it will reduce a lot of pointless acceleration, which will definitely help emissions.
Either way it would be absurd to set speed limits higher simply because of the way car manufacturers have geared their cars.
Jezza, I’m not asking for speed to be increased. I’m pointing out that reducing them will increase vehicle emissions. The current speed limit on the main arterial actually meets international best practice and NZ guidance, so really I’m not advocating anything special.
Also, be the posted speed 30 or 50km/h, if all things are equal you will accelerate the same number of times.
‘Also, be the posted speed 30 or 50km/h, if all things are equal you will accelerate the same number of times.’
Yes, but it will reduce the amount of time you are accelerating which is they key difference. It also depends on the type of car as to whether emissions are lower or higher when cruising at 30. It may well be higher for your car, but for many small cars it is lower, all depends on what they are geared for.
“Also, be the posted speed 30 or 50km/h, if all things are equal you will accelerate the same number of times.”
Accelerating to 50 km/h takes 2.78 times the energy that accelerating to 30 km/h does.
Jezza, the typical car is most efficient around 80km/h, some higher some lower.
To be most efficient at 30km/h you will need to be in a go-kart or something.
In most cases you will be driving 1 to 2km between stops, and so the acceleration difference between 30 and 50km/h would be negligible. You may actually find people have trouble accelerating to 30km/h and will get to 40km/h before slowing back down again.
In reality I think the main roads to be effected by this will be the rural roads that are being reduced to 60km/h. Many of these a straight and people already drive around 80km/h without an issue, some of them haven’t had a single crash in the past 20 years yet are still being reduced from 100 to 60km/h.
The 43 seconds is only if you acheive the totally unacheivable. Enter at posted speed and depart at posted speed and maintain that speed the entire distance.
The maximum credible time savings would be in the order of half of that, and the average time savings for all journeys probably less then half of that again. Have you ever worked hard to get through motorway traffic to find yourself at the next holdup only two or three cars ahead of that slowcoach you passed some kilometres further back?
It would be great of AT overlay the DSI data on the GIS survey map.
It would certainly answer the question whether tge streets are actually dangerous.
There was a post here a while back trying to say the DSI rate in the CBD was higher than average but was flawed as was based on per km and not per person. The latter stat showed the rate in the CBD was actually much lower than the wider Auckland region. But of course the only good stat to use is one that backs up the narative being pushed.
Safety improvements (or any other road upgrades) cost more the longer the piece of road you have to upgrade. So targeting the roads with the highest DSI/km is the best bang for your buck. It’s not rocket science…
Totally agree if the stat is used for that purpose. But it was instead used to state that the CBD was more dangerous than the rest of Auckland as part of the current push.
And as made clear on many blogs here and comments just spending money on roads is not the answer to lowering the DSI.
“None of the crashes showed speed as a factor.”
…but speed undoubtedly WAS a factor in the outcome. It always is. No speed, no kinetic energy…and that kinetic energy increases as the square of the speed.
Sort of like saying breathing is a factor in all deaths….
So the solution is to have no vehicles (including buses) or pedestrians.
In very high pedestrian density areas that is exactly the solution. Many cities have pedestrian only streets in their CBDs.
So by that logic we should make high volume roads like Fanshawe, Nelson, Hobson and Beach road for motor vehicles only and ban all pedestrian movement?
Seems like a rather drastic measure.
Yes, that would apply for high volume roads like the Southern, Northern, NW, SW and Upper Harbour Motorways.
There are loads of pedestrians on all those streets, it’s just pedestrians are pushed to the side to make room for loads of single occupant cars. Hobson and Nelson have the highest population density in the country. Not directly related to speed, but all of those streets should be easier to cross for pedestrians than they are now.
My rationale is that safety of pedestrians should always take priority over driving convenience.
Um, very few pedestrians or cyclists have a desire to travel down the alignment of any of the motorways. Pedestrians aren’t interested in traveling 40km through nothing. The northwestern cycleway gets about 1000 bikes a day and the road carries around 160,000.
Fanshawe, Hobson, Nelson and Beach Rd are similar in that they have large volumes of vehicles and comparatively few pedestrians.
So why is it that you rank 1 pedestrian as being more important than 100 other people who happen to be in a vehicle at this point of their journey? Are we not all equal?
Why can’t we just make things safer for the pedestrian without punishing vehicle occupants?
Would you advocate reducing the speed limit of the busway to 30km/h and letting cyclists on it?
Pedestrians and cyclists are more interested in getting to where they need to go. If the quickest route is along the motorway corridor they’ll use it.
‘So why is it that you rank 1 pedestrian as being more important than 100 other people who happen to be in a vehicle at this point of their journey? Are we not all equal?’
I don’t believe the ratio of pedestrians to car occupants is anywhere near as low as 1:100 on those streets so I’m not sure what the relevance of that question is.
The relevance is that you are advocating for lower speeds because a handful of pedestrians like to run across roads that carry 20-40k vehicles a day.
Richard you are shaming yourself and your trade. Admitting that traffic engineers like yourself actively believe killing people is a reasonable cost for saving yourself a few seconds sitting in your car is horrifying.
Claiming that’s it’s ok ‘cos they jump out in front of trucks’ is frankly sick. What a morally bankrupt individual in a dangerous position. I wouldn’t leave you unsupervised in charge of a designing a sandcastle, let alone a street.
Patrick, I suggest you leave the grown ups to the talking if you can’t have a reasoned debate.
Although if you must have a go at someone, I suggest you talk to your friends at GenZero who today stated that nothing should be done to improve safety for cyclists if it discourages cycling in any way.
Let’s face it Richard, you do seem a tad short in the empathy department.
Care to highlight how I have shown a lack of empathy.
On one hand there is me looking at the actual facts as to the cause of our roads deaths.
On the other hand there are anti-car zealots completely ignoring the cause of the deaths and simply hijacking a lost life to try and guilt others so they can get their own way.
From the simple facts at hand, I am the only one to have actually shown any interest in the people who have lost their lives and question would could have been done to save them.
I’d suggest the lack of empathy are those trying to use this lost life to further their own personal agendas showing complete disregard to the people who have lost their lives.
Wow, I can’t believe that people are willing to openly express the opinion that a pedestrian deserved to die for stepping out in front of traffic. I especially can’t believe that they use their real name, under which they have a linkedin account stating the name of their current employer on a blog that is widely read within their industry, potentially including their managers.
I’m embarassed to be a transport engineer knowing that people with this attitude are able to maintain senior positions in the industry.
Cut Richard some slack. He has mellowed and posts under his own name. He does articulate a point of view that is popularily held, and so is useful to sharpen counter arguments. He agrees with 30kph for the CBD with the exception of the arterials, and he has agreed with 80kph for many rural roads.
I agree with him that footpaths along our existing designated motorways would be thoughly unpleasant and if isolated from the surrounding city fabric not very useful.
However the urban arterials, especially those in the CBD, are rapidly finding themselves located in high to very high density housing areas subject to even greater intensification. Significant mode shift away from SOV transport is adding to their challenges. Many many pedestrians and cyclists of the full range of age, ability, and attributes are rapidly finding that crossing, or travelling along these arterials are a big part of their everyday journeys. These arterials in their present form are unsustainable in their dangers and barriers to the everyday living in the new high density city form.
Sailor boy, when did I ever say someone deserved to die?
Your first comment at the top of this post. It’s classic dogwhistling to the motoring public: Pedestrian deserved to die because they stepped into traffic, motorists shouldn’t have to slow down to protect people’s lives.
Sorry Sailor Boy I never said anyone deserved to die, or even suggested/implied so.
I simply mentioned the facts related to the 3 deaths we’ve had in the CBD over the past 5 years.
If you had read the discussion you would see that I was suggesting that a lower posted speed limit was unlikely to have mitigated these 3 deaths. In actual fact, a lower speed limit would make these events more likely as pedestrians would feel more emboldened to cross the road anywhere they please.
So rather than saying they deserve to die, I’m saying we should look at other more effective means to prevent the circumstances that lead to their death.
And yet the research shows that there is a lower death rate at lower speed limits. Who’s trying to cherry pick now?
It’s quite simple Richard, the risk of death/injury decreases dramatically with a lower traveling speed. This is because drivers have a greater reaction time, they require a shorter braking distance and in the case of pedestrians being struck, they are more likely to survive.
Will pedestrians take more risks? Possibly. But they are far less likely to be harmed if they do.
The data shows lower impact speeds have less trauma, a rather obvious assertion.
The real issue however is, what reduction in speed are we likely to see, and behaviorally changes are we likely to see.
The standard method says a 10% reduction in mean speed will result in 10% less crashes, however due to the mean speed being so slow already and there being suggestions the mean speed may actually increase due to better traffic flow it gets hard to say there will be crash savings.
The observed mean speed is low. Reducing the speed limit to 30 gives no one any justification for that pointless, but dangerous, burst of speed. It means they can’t be justified trying to beat the lights, and so won’t end up red light running, which puts pedestrians in such danger.
And let’s face it, mistakes happen. Wind might blow an item into a cyclist’s path and they topple. At 30, drivers have far more chance to react, and the consequences will be much less severe.
This is why international guidelines say that if vulnerable users and traffic share the same space, the maximum limit should be 30.
This is what I observed when living on Hobson Street:
Hobson Street has 2 modes of operation: during the PM Peak it is just a long row of stationary cars. Speed limit is irrelevant.
Outside rush hour the car lanes are basically empty, and I’m pretty sure there are much more pedestrians than drivers. Should we delay all those pedestrians, often by more than 5 minutes, so a couple of drivers can arrive at the motorway a few dozen seconds faster?
Did we count both pedestrians and cars on Hobson Street recently? There are lots of apartments there. If you think the ratio of pedestrians to drivers is as low as 1 : 100, well, you’re completely out of touch with reality over there.
I also find that driving 30 instead of 50 in town centres involves much less abrupt braking and accelerating. That will balance out the somewhat higher fuel usage while cruising.
“This is why international guidelines say that if vulnerable users and traffic share the same space, the maximum limit should be 30.”
Because that’s good practice. Shared spaced should have a 30km/h or lower speed limit.
Hobson, Nelson and Fanshawe aren’t shared spaces.
Oh yes they are. They are not talking about shared streets here, they are talking about these modes sharing the same space.
The only places that do not have vulnerable users sharing space with traffic are motorways, and limited access arterials.
Fanshawe, Hobson, Nelson, etc… are streets where the modes share the space. They have cyclists. They have parking – so drivers and passengers get out on the road. They have people crossing at lights.
That’s a really basic error you’ve made. If you can’t understand this, you should stop practising.
The guide lines say the following:
30km/h when vulnerable users share the same space. i.e a carriageway that carries both vehicles bikes and pedestrians (a shared space)
50km/h when pedestrians, bikes pedestrians and vehicle have their own designated areas.
>70km/h physical protection between pedestrians/cyclists and vehicles.
Yes. So on these streets it needs to be 30.
What, how do you get that?
Fanshawe St isn’t a shared space and I certainly wouldn’t support cyclists riding along Nelson, Hobson or Beach Road from a safety perspective. Two of these roads already have “protected” cycle lanes and I would support one being put on Hobson Street as well.
‘there being suggestions the mean speed may actually increase due to better traffic flow’
Seems to undermine your other assertions about journey times being longer. If I were to read your comments without any other knowledge I’d assume you didn’t have a clue what you are talking about, there are a number of contradictions. But given I know you are reasonably intelligent, the best assumption would be that you are being deliberately disingenuous.
The guidelines say
“Working towards a Safe System, reasonable speed limits are 30 km/h in built up areas where there is a mix of vulnerable road users and motor vehicle traffic….
30 km/h in built-up and residential urban areas where motorised vehicles and vulnerable road users share the same space;
50 km/h in other urban areas with intersections and high risk of side collisions;
70 km/h on rural roads without a median barrier and a risk of head-on collisions.
Can you please give a link to the “ie a carriageway that carries both vehicles bikes and pedestrians (a shared space)”
Is that your interpretation?
These roads meet the ITF description for 30 km/hr streets: “built-up and residential urban areas where motorised vehicles and vulnerable road users share the same space”
I’m not sure why you’re going to such pains to try to show they don’t. Of course there are vulnerable users there. It’s a city centre.
“road users share the same space”
This it he definition of a shared space.
The extension here is that most roads will have a dedicated footpath but don’t have designated cycle lanes, such as most residential streets.
It seems you have taken the assumption that if both vehicles and anyone else is allowed in the road reserve its as a shared space. However this would mean under your interpretation that motorways are with shared paths next to them are shared spaces and should be posted at 30km/h because they are all in the same road reserve.
It’s you that is playing with words. I have interpreted:
“where motorised vehicles and vulnerable road users share the same space”
to mean
“where motorised vehicles and vulnerable road users share the same space”
It’s you who has interpreted it to mean
“shared space”
and then put limits on what that can mean.
To what end, Richard? O’Connell St will be 10 km/hr if you’re thinking of that sort of shared space.
Jezza, you are appear to be deliberately interpreting me pointing out the contradictions in AT’s material as a contradiction I have made.
Please note that I have not written AT’s material and therefore I’ve played no part in making any of their contradictions.
Presumably the guidelines that Richard refers to are the NZTA guidelines.
These guidelines were prepared when the Government in power had as a central plank in its overall policy to improve motor vehicle amenity. Part of this amenity was to build fast roads, and to detail roadworks primarily to improve travel times for the motorist with little regard to other road users and their safety. The direct outcome of these policies is our increasing road fatality and injury rate.
Guidelines prepared under these circumstances must reflect, to a significant degree, the policy objectives of the Government of the time.
The NZTA guidelines are now, like so much else in that organisation, not fit for current purpose and at best, should be referred to with considerable caution
Heidi, what is your interpretation of space?
Are you suggesting people should not be allowed to walk along the road, and cars you now be allowed to drive along the footpath?
If we were to use your interpretation effectively every single road in the country would be posted at 30km/h or less.
There are drawings that show what is meant by these road types so I will have to try and hunt them down to show you.
I’m sorry Don Robertson but that simply isn’t true.
The safety objectives of the government and the NZTA haven’t actually changed as they remain based on the same “Safe System” (AKA vision zero) that we’ve had for over 10 years now.
The key difference is more that the previous government had a large focus on improving safety through infrastructure whereas the current government is more trying to address all safety issues through lowering posted speeds which is more akin to victim blaming.
When it comes to the local road network, this has been up to local councils. I for one are rather interested in what has contributed to the notable increase in trauma.
Sorry in my last post I should have said “with lesser regard to safety and other road users” What I said was respectful to the many dedicated and competant staff that worked for the NZTA. It is their political direction at the time I have issue with.
The strategy to date is widely accepted as having failed. The review of Austroads has shown a number of ways it doesn’t align with the Safe System. The review has also shown that the most vulnerable users should be the starting of the design, and that practitioners should take into account urban design principles as they have many common safety objectives.
That’s what is happening here. Soon there will be A4E. Those arterials need a diet and rehumanising. They are an embarrassing failure of traffic engineering. Safe speeds are an important starting point.
I would agree that both Hobson and Nelson are horrible streets, I don’t know why they need parking on them, I don’t know why none of the buildings were required to have set-backs, or that the design of the street doesn’t account for the absence of set-backs, and I don’t know why they have been designed in such a way as to encourage high speeds. The absence of urban design controls certainly haven’t helped improve their appeal.
They both have a long list of issues that could be resolved through various ways, however if I was going to make a list of ways to improve safety and ambiance, I would list changing the posted speed as one of the least effective and more likely to have negative than positive safety outcomes.
Richard It seems that you are argueing, that imposing a lower speed limit on Nelson and Hobson Streets will lower their utility to motorists but not give a safety improvement.
I would argue that with a 30kph speed limit the carrying capacity is unchanged, the time penalties to motorists are negligible, sub thirty seconds at most, and given the rapid rise in non motorised traffic caused by the rapid adjacent population growth, lower speeds will indead make it much safer.
But more importantly lower speeds, and more pedestrian crossing points are required to meet the needs of what is already a highly populated suburb, whose residents should not have to suffer the full severence consequences of the 50kph road that you are advocating for any longer. Any meagre benifits of a higher speed only accrue to the declining number of commuters bringing their cars in to clutter up the rest of the CBD each day. The CBD is now home to many primary school children who have to cross these roads and the Union Street traffic mangle daily to and from the only primary school serving the area. Perhaps you think that their parents should drive them to school instead as is the norm in other suburbs.
The main issues I see with lowering the speed limit on the main arterial roads is as follows:
1) Evidence has shown that posting road with inappropriately low speeds results in a minor change in average speed but a significant increase in lane changing and dangerous driving.
2) 30km/h is inappropriately low as these roads are 5-6 lane one-way arterial roads that feed directly to or from a motorway.
3) The increased disparity in vehicle movements will result in increased jaywalking increasing the probability of pedestrians being hit.
4) Of the 3 fatal crashes in the previous 5 years one of them was due to a pedestrian cutting across traffic, thinking traffic was stopped and not noticing the vehicle in the other lane. The higher speed disparities will increase the probability of this happening.
5) In terms of pedestrians in the area, I think a far better option would be to make the adjacent roads, such as Federal St, pedestrian friendly roads with 10km/h speed limits. I would also require developments to provide safe pedestrian connections within the blocks, as opposed to dumping them directly onto the street. I don’t really understand why people seem insistent on shoving pedestrians into the busiest traffic areas they can find while completely ignoring the quiet streets 200m away.
6) If pedestrian safety is the main goal here there are plenty of other more effective options, some of the easiest options would be to remove parking and rebuild the footpaths. To a greater extent they could look at grade separation which would be pretty simple given the topography.
‘ I don’t really understand why people seem insistent on shoving pedestrians into the busiest traffic areas they can find while completely ignoring the quiet streets 200m away.’
I don’t really understand why people seem insistent on shoving cars into the busiest pedestrian areas they can find.
Richard, does your boss know you’ve spent the last few days on a one man mission to try and convince people to listen to you? You must have written a good 10,000 words thus far, I hope you’re not a contractor otherwise I’d want my money back!! 🙂
Richard in reply
1) Could that not be solved with more enforcement, which experience shows that it would eventually lead to cultural change. Increased enforcement of drink driving laws resulted in greatly increased compliance and now cultural unacceptability of drink driving in urban communities. The difficulty of enforcement in rural areas has meant that the compliance and cultural acceptability of drinking and driving has not changed as much there.
2) The risk should be determined by the total surrounding environment and prevalent conditions, and this risk should be the only determining factor in setting the required mitigation. The connection to a motorway is surely irrelevant to risk determination?
I am not sure what additional factors you think should be factored to determine, what is appropriate.
3) The design of the streets, 5 lanes to cross at once is inherently dangerous to pedestrians. Given the density of population, they are seriously under supplied with pedestrian crossing points. Just a trip across the road and back should not require a 800 metre detour.
4) The result may well have been much better if the vehicle was travelling at 30kph
5) Making the parallel streets more pedestrian friendly is a great idea but does not address the needs to provide more safety to pedestrians crossing them.
Unfortunately the building and street form has largely been set but your suggested ideas are worthy of being incorporated into future developments.
6) Safety must be the main goal. As pedestrians are the most vulnerable, then they have the greatest need for both the required regulatory and street design changes.
Hi Joe.
I’m not really trying to change anybodies mind, I’m more just trying to see if the proponents of 30km/h are actually wanting it for safety reasons or if its more they don’t like cars in the CBD and are simply using this as a means to an end.
My hypothesis was that the later, and indeed this seems the case.
“The data shows lower impact speeds have less trauma, a rather obvious assertion.
.
The real issue however..”
Why is the first statement not the “real issue”, Richard? I note that you go on to quote some “standard method” (which in the context of the CBD is obvious nonsense) that supposedly correlates crash likelihood with average speed (with no consideration of the consequences of these crashes).
Why do you not debate the consequence aspect of a crash instead of dismissing it as as a “rather obvious assertion”? Why do you not acknowledge the exponential influence of speed on trauma? Why do you bang on about average speeds when it is clear that in the case of a crash it is the actual speed that matters?
Good questions MFD.
As you will know, the average speed in the CBD is already rather low, in some cases something like 20km/h. So changing the posted speed from 50 to 30km/h isn’t really going to change this average speed during the busy parts of the day.
As I said in my post, “The real issue however is, what reduction in speed are we likely to see, and behaviorally what changes are we likely to see.”
If we see zero reduction in speed then we can’t expect any safety benefits. If we see an increase in speed (as has been suggested by others) we should see a safety reduction. If we see more people changing lanes and weaving around other cars they feel are going too slow we will again see a safety reduction.
I will note that I have time and time again mentioned a reduced posted speed will created greater speed disparities so I’m clearly talking about a range of speeds.
Based on my comments I’m obviously rather interested in the actual speed of vehicles, and not just what the number on a little sign on the road happens to be.
“isn’t really going to change this average speed”
You are doing it again, Richard; banging on about average speed. You just can’t help yourself, can you?
“I will note that I have time and time again mentioned a reduced posted speed will created greater speed disparities”
Your repeating it does not make it so. You are asking us to believe that a 30 km/h speed limit that permits a legal range of speeds from zero to 30 will be subject to greater speed disparities than a 50 km/h limit that permits a legal range of speeds from zero to 50.
Your argument against a 30 km/h limit in the CBD seems to boil down to your belief that a significant proportion of drivers are unwilling or unable to exercise due control of their vehicles. I don’t believe that that will be the case (based on my observations and experience driving in 30 km/h areas elsewhere). If, however, there are significant numbers of such incapable drivers they should ultimately be denied the use of their vehicles.
So where are these 5-6 lane one-way arterial roads that are posted at 30km/h and everybody fully complies with the posted speed?
The best reference I can give you to what happens when you post a road with an out of context speed is SH16, which I think I’ve mentioned already.
When it was posted at 100km/h the average speed was 95km/h with a tight distribution. When it was posted at 80km/h the average speed stayed at 95km/h but the distribution of speeds increased and there was a notable increase in lane changing and tail gating. When the speed was put back to 100km/h the average speed still stayed at 95km/h and the distribution became tight again and the traffic flows stabilized.
(Note: The above speeds are off-peak free-flow speeds)
“When it was posted at 100km/h the average speed was 95km/h with a tight distribution. When it was posted at 80km/h the average speed stayed at 95km/h but the distribution of speeds increased.”
Richard, that has such a strong odour of BS that I am thinking that you may have made that up…but that notwithstanding, how is that fiction relevant to a street with multiple traffic lights? How is a an area with a lower limit of zero (imposed by the lights) going to have a bigger distribution under a limit of 30 km/h than with one of 50 km/h? Are you proposing that some drivers who drive at, say, 60 under the current limit will increase their maximum speeds to, say 80, under a 30 km/h speed limit? Explain the statistical basis for your claim.
Its rather simple MFD.
If a road has no speed limit people will tend to drive at what they feel comfortable based on the environment. In most cases the 85%ile free flow speed is what is posted as it’s results in the least disparity of speed between vehicles and greater safety.
If you go out there and post the road at the 50%ile, or 15%ile you will get a large disparity of speeds as some people will drive at the speed limit, some will drive under because speedometers are required to overstate speed, and many will drive over it.
The example I gave above, which is based on survey data, shows just one example of when a road is posted at a speed too low for its context and feel.
Another example will be a 30km/h temporary speed limit on a 100km/h road. In most cases people will only slow down to 70km/h or so. I’ve driven through a temporary work site at 40km/h and still had a agitated police car tail gating me because they felt I was going to slow.
In another example, you get modern subdivisions that have narrow road and tight corners. The one I live in comes off a 70km/h road and doesn’t have a posted speed limit, yet most people drive around 40km/h yet some still race through at around 60km/h.
In the case of Nelson, Hobson and Fanshaw, you currently get people choosing to drive at around 50-60km/h, a speed that few pedestrians would think is ideal for causally walking across the road through moving traffic. Lower the speed limit to 30km/h and you will get people going 30-60km/h, as some will follow the rules to the letter yet most will simple ignore it and travel at a speed they feel comfortable.
None of what I have said is new information, its been human nature since speed limits existed and the guides around speed limits are all based on the environment and function of the road.
“The example I gave above, which is based on survey data,”
I am requesting a link to that “survey data” as pertains to SH16 (in accordance with user guideline number 6) because I don’t believe your numbers. Based on my knowledge of statistical distributions I suspect that you have fabricated them.
Where have you gained your knowledge on the statistically distribution of free flow speeds when altering the posted speed limits on otherwise unaltered roads?
I’m also still waiting for the 5-6 lane one-way arterial that is posted at 30km/h that you claim everybody fully compiles with?
Unfortunately I’m not permitted to provide the reports to you and so you will need to request them from the government.
“Unfortunately I’m not permitted to provide the reports to you”
Busted
What do you mean by busted?
You think the fact I have access to official data sources that I can’t freely publish on the internet makes me busted?
Richard, you can’t provide the data for “The best reference I can give you to what happens when you post a road with an out of context speed”… because it’s secret. Can you please provide the second best reference?
Portland’s Bureau of Transportation, Vision Zero specialist countered this myth: “Changing speed limits is pointless unless paired with more enforcement or street design changes.”
by saying:
“But we see no real downside to adjusting speed limits as another action. Changing speed limits is relatively affordable and fast. And we know that some people do obey speed limits. If people are concerned about speed variance, where some people obey the speed limit and others do not. As I mentioned earlier, we really rely heavily on the NTSB report from 2017 which found that the degree to which speed variance contributes to crash involvement is inconclusive. Whereas the link between speed and injury severity in a crash is consistent and direct.”
From the point of view of a mum on the footpath walking along with a toddler, it’s nice to have most of the cars going slower. They are quieter, meaning you can listen out for the odd stupid fast one, but generally you can relax more, they crash less, they splash less water up and spew fewer emissions from unnecessary acceleration. They make a more pleasant environment. The odd one racing past is then just a chance for the mum to talk about values and community.
Interesting comments from Portland, and they are somewhat true.
There have been very few situations where a speed limit has been lowered (with no other changes) or raised for a significantly long amount of time and then put back again to test the difference.
Most trials only run for a short period of time, and they are generally always accompanied with a large amount of additional works which in themselves could be the reason for the improvement if any is seen.
“From the point of view of a mum on the footpath walking along with a toddler, it’s nice to have most of the cars going slower. They are quieter, meaning you can listen out for the odd stupid fast one, but generally you can relax more, they crash less, they splash less water up and spew fewer emissions from unnecessary acceleration.”
This sounds straight from the video and makes sense in many cases. In the likes of Hobson, Nelson and Fanshawe, it would be a rather strange and rare occurrence for a mum to be taking her toddler for a walk down the roads. I still think upgrading the footpaths would be far more effective at improving the environment however. The greatest hazard on that road as well are the various access ways which will be unaffected by a change in speed limit.
The noise levels are an interesting one as the data I have only goes down to 50km/h so hearing there was apparently going to be a 40% noise reduction was news to me. Unfortunately, in most cases AT is going to be putting speed bumps everywhere and so we will get more noise, more needless acceleration and more emissions.
The ‘green wave’ they talk of may help reduce acceleration issues, however the issue there is that it reduces intersection capacity and so you will get more cars sitting still wasting fuel and generating emissions.
Why would a mum not be walking with her toddler on one of the most densely populated streets in the country? I did, frequently, to visit Atwaters, amongst other places, and I didn’t even live there.
You were unable to provide the reference MFD requested. Please provide the reference I asked for, in order to comply with the user guidelines.
In the likes of Hobson, Nelson and Fanshawe… About the first two, read the following statements very carefully to see if you can understand:
There are a lot of apartments on Hobson and Nelson Street. A lot of people, including young families will walk on these streets just trying to get in and out of their home.
That is why we may want to make them a bit more pleasant to pedestrians.
Heidi, as I mentioned before I don’t have permission to be posting reports online. You are more than free to ask the government for them.
As I understand it you’re under the impression the majority of people follow out of context speed limits on arterial roads. I’m not here to change your mind on that so you are free to maintain that optimistic view.
I think its rather clear that your desire is to make all the streets in the CBD car free and the safety thing is just a smoke screen. That’s fine with me and I appreciate your view.
“Sort of like saying breathing is a factor in all deaths…”
No, it isn’t. There seems to be a willful ignorance of the exponential consequential effects of speed on collision survivability combined with a total focus on the likelihood aspect of hazard analysis to the exclusion of the consequence aspect.
1) The average travel speed in the CBD will be mainly dictated by the junctions. Pointless doing 40kmh if you’re going to get stopped at the lights anyway.
2) Where desireable the implemetation should include setting any signal coordination to 30kmh and putting up signs stating that.
3) Traffic management may be required on some roads. Cannot rely on enforcement alone.
#2 is exactly what is planned for Nelson and Hobson
So one lobby group (AA) puts out a survey. And another lobby group (GA) doesn’t like the results. Hardly surprising.
The AA survey looked quite detailed, had clear options and backed it up with examples and while not perfect looks a lot better than most AT surveys or other Have Your Say ones. They are typically so vague that they are meaningless and like all surveys they are designed to get a predetermined result.
Of course the AA results will favour not restricting speed. But just because you don’t agree with them doesn’t invalidate the survey. Yes they dont represent all members just like GA don’t represent all readers.
I am sure if you designed a survey it would have the opposite result and could just as easily be criticised as bias towards non drivers.
It will be interesting to see how AT deal with the feedback from all lobby groups and individuals.
Do you count city centre residents as lobbyists? These are the streets we live on after all. Is asking for safer, quieter streets for our families and children lobbying, or just asking for dignity and respect?
No of course not. You are an individual whose opinion should be taken abive ALL lobby groups.
And I hope you provide your opinion to AT.
But lets face it this would have to be the worst response form to date. Just one open ended question. Individual responses will be lost in the noise of the lobby groups.
Particlarly if like me you see some pros and some cons in the proposal.
Well the AA does claim to represent all its members, it’s pretty big on that angle of legitimacy.
The AA survey was flawed. It asked if you supported lowering all speeds to 40km/h (their suggestion). So if you supported 30km/h (AT’s plan) you could either answer no and be taken to support not lowering speed limits, or answer yes and be taken to support lowering to a higher limit.
Clever, but dishonest.
Yes, it’s difficult to deny the AA, and especially the media, tend to point towards the AA’s opinions representing their 1.7 million members. Ignoring the fact that it’s quite likely a large number of people just join for their breakdown assistance and/or other benefits (insurance discounts if you’re with their insurance) and barely know or care about their lobbying arm. At least if their were carrying out scientific polling of their members, perhaps they could claim they represent the majority or plurality opinions of their members, but they’re not.
I don’t think most people support lowering the speed limits. As a long-standing AA member who doesn’t want to waste time ‘debating” with the people who have lost all reasoning, I would say:
1. congestion is the problem; lowering speed limits is surrendering to the bureaucrats etc who are doing their very best to avoid solving the problem (eg the multi-$Bn tunnel that does nothing to solve the key problems).
2. We have insane things like motorcyclists zooming between traffic congested lanes on motorways; no wonder we have such hi accident rates!!
You, certainly couldn’t be accused of debating with that comment. All you have done is thrown out a couple of things that are unrelated but obviously bugbears of yours.
haha!
Assuming you are referring to the SH20 tunnel, in which case it has been the single most effective thing in Auckland to have reduced congestion on both the motorway network and local roads. Peak time throughout the city has been reduced and many roads are only carrying a fraction of the traffic they once did.
Show me the PIR, Richard. Do you not have a critical bone in your body? What the Waterview Connection has done to Pt Chevalier is dire. And they refused to count traffic on the local roads that would be affected, so it’s only local knowledge that can show the damage iti’s done. School kids are faced with enormous traffic volumes and danger on new ratruns.
And all because traffic engineers refused to model it properly. Utterly unethical.
Actually a huge amount of effort was taken to monitor the local road network both before and after the tunnel was opened. I can’t imagine there being any real changes at Point Chec (traffic wise), however other roads like Manukau Rd carry 30% less traffic than they did before it opened. This has resulted in less traffic on the roads next to Manukau Rd as well.
“A huge amount of effort” was not taken. They refused to measure, for example, Motions Rd, that was not a rat run, but now is choked with traffic right at the time the kids are going to school.
The goal of the connection was to take traffic off SH1. Of course the short term effect has been to relieve traffic on Manukau Rd. But the effect of routing that traffic around to Waterview where it competes with everyone coming from the west has been that the ratruns from there into the city are overloaded.
Pt Chev Rd reached record numbers after the tunnel opened, but the congestion there means the figures can probably not rise anymore – the extra traffic is going on the ratruns like Motions Rd.
Note too that they ‘lost’ any pedestrian count data they’d taken as part of the project.
I don’t see how the congestion on Motions Rd is related to the SH20 tunnel. I’m more inclined to believe the increased congestion is related to changes on the local road network.
There was a similar issue when AT install the taxi (T3) lanes on Manukau Rd. This not only resulted in huge congestion on Manukau Rd, but also all the quiet ride roads then become congested as people tried to find faster alternative routes.
If you can’t see that, you’re not looking. Traffic on SH20 going into town on SH16 meant that traffic arriving on GNR no longer goes onto the motorway, but cuts through Pt Chev. The volume on Pt Chev Rd and Meola Rd rose so much that people ratrun through Motions Rd instead.
That may be a perception but it doesn’t make much sense. SH16 between the new interchange and the CBD is flowing better than it did prior and so it is unlikely that people would be avoiding it.
The more likely cause are the capacity reductions put onto Great North Rd to improve the bus services. I understand a number of capacity reduction have been put in place Grey Lynn and Ponsonby areas which could be playing a part.
Richard. I agree with a lot of what you are saying elsewhere here, but on this you are wrong and Heidi is right. With Waterview tunnel there was a change in driving pattern where large volumes of traffic head city bound (I think the numbers are higher than expected but you may know better). This has led to the increased congestion getting onto the motorway city bound at GNR and more importantly creating the morning and afternoon queues on SH16 to SH1 north. This coupled with the huge increase in use of Google maps with traffic means 1) the quickest route north from west via GNR is not to enter motorway but to go Pt Chev Rd, Meola Rd etc. and 2) people actually exiting the motorway at GNR and going Pt Chev Rd. Meola Rd etc. Now that Meola Rd 7-8 minutes, people are using Motions Rd – and Google tells them to!
The modelling probably didn’t take into account the increase in use of google or maybe didn;t extend to SH16/1 north queuing.
Of course a “simple” fix would be close Wellington St onramp in peak (or permanently as planned), and make the VPT left lane SH16/1 only. The icing on the cake would be to leave AHB as 4×4 in morning as yesterdays post showed that it is not the bottleneck anymore.
Good luck with your other responses. I suggest it is probably a lost cause on the audience.
To add. Yes some of the Motions Rd traffic is due to the other changes such as the lights on Bullock track which has basically stopped the GNR to city route.
Like the motorway changes, it amazes me how AT go out of their was to make arterials slow encouraging rat running.
I think people underestimate how many people just follow what google says…. My friends out west do it daily and simple take the “quickest route” sort of on auto pilot.
On my morning commute “she” tells me to go motions rd to city instead of the more direct Meola Rd which is true in that it might save me 2 minutes. Then it becomes what is the time “saving” that would make me go the long route rather than sitting in the queue.
[And yes Heidi I know I should just bike in and not be an evil SOV’er]
Hi Stu, I’ll really have to try and hunt down some data to see if its true or not. The easiest traffic volumes to find stop at 2015 so aren’t much use.
I just tried using google maps to go from Kelston to Smales farm, no matter what time of day I used it said the motorway was the best way.
I’m certainly aware of the large new queues that form on the SH16 to SH1 north link, not too sure if this is due to growth or the fact people are now forced to driver up through Grafton and loop around to get onto the motorway as part of the city centre east-west work.
There is a good rat run down by were I live these days.
During the evening peak, a steady stream of traffic on Mill Rd take a detour around the block so they are on the leg of the Mill Rd / Alfriston Rd roundabout that doesn’t need to give way.
I don’t take the route myself but I’ve seen google maps recommending it.
SH16/SH1 north queues really started with Waterview for morning peak. I assume they might be worse now with city changes. They was some queuing for evening peak before. I have friends who work shift at the airport and now sometimes exit at Newton to avoid the queue. Having said that their trips are mostly way faster with the tunnel than before so a net positive even with the queue. Other friends in Glen Eden use the google method and usually go via Pt Chev (either Meola or Motions Rd).
Do the models take into account human behaviors such as desire to keep moving vs time? i.e. people will change lanes when the next lane is moving faster but invariably there is no real time saving. Same as people taking a rat run instead of sitting in a queue.
Lower speeds increase traffic throughput and reduce congestion. The faster you go the greater the separation distance required. The optimum speed is a touch over 30km/h on an urban arterial, and around 70km/h on a motorway.
Not true I’m afraid Nick. Although the 2s rule would be nice, in reality the time separation between vehicles tends to reduce the faster they go. Motorways can get to crazy levels of capacity such as 2300 per lane whereas at 2s it would be 1800.
Urban roads have their capacity almost always limited by junctions, which due to AT removing auxiliary lanes results is <800 per lane in many cases.
You then add to that, when you have inappropriate posted speeds (either too high or too low) for the environment you get all sorts of strange diver behavior resulting in more flow breakdown, more crashes and less capacity.
‘Urban roads have their capacity almost always limited by junctions, which due to AT removing auxiliary lanes results is <800 per lane in many cases.'
So the speed doesn't really impact on capacity? Shouldn't see to much of an impact on congestion with these speed reductions in this case, makes it really hard to see how your previous claim of trips going from 30 mins to 1hr stacks up at all.
The trick lies in the fact that peak hour isn’t 24/7, as much as people may joke it does.
The well resourced AA has never produced any better argument for limiting the CBD speed reduction to 40kph other then 30kph is “A step to far”. It then produced a dodgy survey on “what our members want” again without any reasoned pro’s and cons. No where did they produce any quantified benefits of higher CBD speeds. The time savings are miniscule but the benifits to anybody hit my a motor vehicle in the CBD are immense at the lower speed. A benifit for individual motorists is that at the lower speeds accidents, regardless of fault are less likely to happen. Even minor fender benders are incredibly time consuming, filling in forms to insurance companies and arranging repairs, and the alternative transport arrangements required. Many many more seconds that achieving 40kph between traffic lights on Hobson Street instead of 30kph could ever acheive.
Here is something of interest for those of you interested in the safety of vulnerable road users.
Based on crash data between 1998 and 2018 there has been a 135% increase in serious or fatal cycle crashes.
Between 2001 and 2008 the trend was flat, we reached a record low in 2012 from where things have grown by over 180%.
Its somewhat interesting that its over this time that we’ve started doing more “safe” cycle treatments with one “protected” cycle lane showing no safety improvements and the other a 100% increase (1 serious to 2 serious). Another protected lane when from zero to 1. Note that the cycle volumes in these places have likely changed by over 100 or 1000%.
It seems like you might have a hypothesis. There is a field of traffic engineering that studies this sort of thing. Perhaps when you have a peer-reviewed paper on the subject we could have a copy?
My hypothesis is that these new cycle facilities attract new users but they have a few issues when it comes to intersections and where these facilities stop.
In many cases, they make what was previously the safest part for cyclists safer, but make what was previously the most dangerous part more dangerous.
It would indeed be interesting to do a study into it to find out what the most problematic parts are.
Yes, leaving out the intersections has been a terrible mistake. I imagine that’s why the 13-year-old boy was killed in Hastings this year.
In most cases the intersections have been included, its the way they have been included that I find lacking. I actually find the old standards safer than the new standards.
I’m unfamiliar with the circumstances around the Hastings crash so can’t really comment.
“Its somewhat interesting that its over this time that we’ve started doing more “safe” cycle treatments with one “protected” cycle lane showing no safety improvements and the other a 100% increase (1 serious to 2 serious). Another protected lane when from zero to 1. Note that the cycle volumes in these places have likely changed by over 100 or 1000%.”
If cycle numbers at least double, and crash numbers change by less than double, then that *is* a safety improvement. People cycling on that road are less likely to be seriously injured.
I’d be interested to know which cycle lanes you are talking about. The intersections on Quay Street, Nelson Street, and Beach Road are certainly safer than anything that would meet any iteration of previous guidance.
Thanks for pretty much repeating what I said. Not too sure what you were trying to prove while doing so.
You stated that the cycle lane showed no safety improvement. You gave supporting facts. I demonstrated that you missed a step in your logic, and that your supporting facts demonstrate that the cycle lane did show safety improvement.
PS, when someone puts what you said in quotation, it isn’t ‘repeating what you said’, it’s quoting you. Internet users often use this technique to draw attention to the specific comment to which they are replying.
Ahh, do you think I said
“Note that the cycle volumes in these places have likely changed by over 100 or 1000%”
As some sort of a joke? Quite clearly I was noting that the volume of users had exceeded the increase in crashes.
Were you too busy trying to troll to notice that?
For christ’s sake…..
You said this: “we’ve started doing more “safe” cycle treatments with one “protected” cycle lane showing no safety improvements”. Literally one sentance before the comment about user numbers.
You said the cycle lanes showed no benefit and now you are admitting that your next sentence was meant to imply that the cycle lanes improved safety. You have made two contradictory statements in a row and have the temerity to accuse anyone else of trolling?
Quite obviously going from 1 serious crash to 2 serious crash doesn’t mean there has been an improvement in safety, you need to take a more in depth look at things. Even if the volumes have increased.
We don’t go round celebrating the road toll has increased simply because vehicle km traveled has increased. So I don’t think we should be going around celebrating that cycle crashes have increased just because cycle usage has increased.
For someone you so actively accuses others of not valuing human life you are being rather hypocritical.
Richard, thanks for all your comments, they certainly provided an alternate view to the repetitive general anti car comments common to this blog.
I guess it’s good to see comments from people who are anti human life every now and again. Reminds us all why we oppose the current volume and speed of motor traffic.
Where are these anti-human life posts you refer to? They sound like an interesting read?
You’re not referring to when MFD said he didn’t class people inside vehicles as vulnerable are you?
The ‘safe cycle route’ in Northcote would be a good example of making cycling more dangerous. What was always a pretty safe road – Lake Road – now has a cement shared cycle/footpath and anyone that knows what wet concrete is like will realise that this is a dumb idea. Also, while cyclists in the past would ride on a wide mostly straight road, with good vision, now they ride across driveways. talk about dangerous.
Also, on Queen Street – a road that had zero cycle injuries reported in the last 20 years, there is now a cycle lane between parked cars and the footpath. Heavy white paint has been used to mark the change of road use. Anyone with half a brain knows that when wet, painted road surfaces are lethal. What again was a very safe road to cycle on has become much more dangerous.
The cyclist lobby in NZ are bat shit crazy 🙁
Bat shit crazy enough to believe the data on cycle safety and participation from across the world over your intuition.
The tricky bit is as we introduce more cycle infrastructure we induce more cycle traffic (= good) but then we also get more bikelash (= bad) as many motorists or Hoskings find it hard to reconcile the financial investment being redirected from their roads.
I know I’m a much more considerate driver now that I’m commuting by bike most days however many other drivers struggle to understand the shared environment. I certainly pay a lot more attention to the really horrible merge points when cycle lanes just abruptly end.
And the worst part, it doesn’t matter if the cyclist is in the right, they will always be the one that pays the price in an accident between bike and car/truck.
What the AA, Hoskings etc seem to be forgetting is that the roads on which the lower speed limits are proposed are, in the main, urban roads within Auckland, and paid for by the ratepayers of Auckland, with a little help from the government, not the motorists through their fuel taxes. This means that any decisions around those roads need to take into account all users of those roads, be they cyclists, pedestrians or motorists.
I know Heidi wont like this – probably delete the comment – but for anyone without an irrational fear of cars, speed is not the problem. Obeying the road rules is the issue. Vehicle drivers need to respect red lights – amber means stop, not speed up. This also applies to cyclists who somehow think they are indestructible and others – suffering mid life crisis – think a silly hat is a substitute for a helmet. If all road users (including pedestrians) followed – what are simple rules – there would be zero accidents and therefore no problems at any speed.
Science – not emotion, none of you can argue against the above!
Your argument is:
If everyone perfectly followed the rules all of the time, no collisions would occur.
Therefore, [unspecified].
No one can argue with your premise. No one can argue with your conclusion either, because it doesn’t exist.
“none of you can argue against the above!”
Nothing could be easier. Since the adoption of the automobile there have been crashes with consequential death and injuries. A scientific analysis of the data illustrates that. The hypothesis that if everyone obeyed the rules there would be no DSIs has not been proven in what amounts to a very long running experiment. The subjects of the experiment cannot be made infallible.
Let’s turn now to a hypothesis that has been proven, namely that DSIs increase exponentially as a function of impact speed. Simple physics gives us the fact that kinetic energy increases as the square of the velocity and it is this kinetic energy that, in a crash, is dissipated by plastic deformation of steel and physical trauma to human bodies. The empirical evidence of the theory that trauma correlates with this kinetic energy is evident in the data.
The conclusion; since humans have proved incapable or unwilling to follow the rules then DSIs can be reduced more than proportionally by lowering vehicle speeds.
Science – not wishful thinking, David.
If you wish to follow your logic MFD, then modern cars should be allowed to go faster than models that are not NCAP 5 star rated. Cars have, after all, been massively redesigned to protect dumb arse peds that walk in front of cars and that’s also a fact 🙂
“dumb arse peds”
And thus you demonstrate your contempt for the vulnerable.
Do you also class someone driving the wrong way down the motorway “the vulnerable”?
If not, why not? As in David’s case they are the same.
Richard, do you not understand that in a collision between a pedestrian (or a cyclist) at say 50 km/h the gross mismatch in momentum, mass, speed, frangible structure and safety features makes it several orders of magnitude more likely that the person not in the vehicle will be killed or seriously injured. On a relative basis that makes them very vulnerable. Serious question…do you not understand that?
Someone here stated that you are an engineer. Is that actually true?
As for David’s distasteful comment re “dumb arse pedestrians” do you think this 12 year old falls into that category?:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/79864931/family-wants-greater-awareness-about-school-buses-after-death.
Do you think that maybe…just maybe…the motorist that killed that child was just going at a “comfortable” speed rather than the mandated 20 km/h?
Or how about this one:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10394796
Another “dumb-arse” 10 year old?
Or this one:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=10968271
A “dumb-arse” 13 year old?
Oh, so you’re ignoring the question. Very well.
“Oh, so you’re ignoring the question”
Based on my reasoning supporting the definition of vulnerable in the context of the discussion a competent reader will determine the answer to your non sequitur question above is no. The competent reader would also determine why the answer is no.
Please try to keep up.
MFD, thanks for resorting to personal attacks, but it seems you’re seemingly forgetting most moving vehicles have a person inside them.
A vehicle driving down a motorway the wrong way who crashes into someone driving the right way will experience the same “gross mismatch in momentum”.
As you have now clearly stated, you have no regard to the life of a person in a vehicle and so we know your bias making you no better than someone showing contempt for a “dumb arse” pedestrian.
2 vehicles with identical speeds and identical masses have the same momentum, Richard. Where do you get the idea that there is a gross mismatch? This is really basic physics.
Are you really an engineer?
Don’t worry MFD, I understand you don’t care about people inside vehicles so you don’t need to try an convince me further.
Richard, I appreciate that you don’t like my pointing out your dodgy physics but resorting to making stuff up again is unwarranted. As a daily driver with a spouse and children who are daily drivers it is reasonable to conclude that I do care about people inside vehicles (I can confirm that is, in fact, the case). That is one of the reasons that I support a reduction in speed limits.
MFD, If you are concerned about mismatched momentum then clearly you must want all cyclists on shared paths to travel only at walking speed.
MFD, that great to hear you’ve change your mind and now care about vehicle occupants.
I keep hearing that but then I see brand new utes on the road with bullbars and think how is it possible vehicles have been designed to protect pedestrians.
Could you please provide a reference? I haven’t been looking at cars. The research I’ve been reading about SUV’s is that they kill pedestrians at a rate of 2.5 times that of cars. I hadn’t thought to look at how cars have been redesigned.
Generally adults come off much better being hit by a sedan, hatchback or similar. The main safety feature here is that the bonnet of the car is raised above the engine so that when a pedestrian is hit and rolls onto it the impact is absorbed. Some modern cars even pop the bonnet up further when they detect and impact. The main hazard however is the windscreen right behind it.
The obvious new improvement is autonomous braking which is now standard in most vehicles and so in 10 years time pedestrians will be able to run onto the road as they please and the majority of cars will automatically stop for them. (not recommended however).
SUV’s however are worse in safety on multiple fronts, and I don’t know why bull bars or nudge bars are road legal. They are also the go to car for families and so most likely rate highly in driveway fatalities.
I’d say you both right, yet both of you are only looking at one side of the equation.
The DSI rating is pretty much (frequency of event x likely severity of event)
When looking for solutions you can either try to reduce the frequency or the severity. Lowering speeds will reduce severity but it can also reduce frequency, posting out of context speeds can increase frequency without even changing severity.
The best way to resolve the hazard is to remove it, if that can’t be done isolate it, if that can’t be done either mitigate it. Lowering speeds is the mitigation option.
“posting out of context speeds can increase frequency”
Do you understand root cause analysis, Richard?
Yes.
Serious question regarding Hobson/Nelson streets etc: If we can’t remove the hazard (vehicles/pedestrians), and we can’t separate them, does that just leave mitigation? Or am I missing something?
In terms of Hobson and Nelson the hazards already are separated as pedestrians aren’t allowed on the road with moving traffic. If there was an issue with pedestrians charging onto the road we could look at additional measures to prevent them from doing so and there are quite a few things that could be done.
If it proves impossible or impracticable to stop pedestrians charging onto the road in-front of moving vehicles lowering the speed limit would be an option.
“pedestrians aren’t allowed on the road with moving traffic”
Reference, please.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM302188.html
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303666.html
Clause?
Go to Part 11
Tell me the clause that says that
“pedestrians aren’t allowed on the road with moving traffic”
Thanks for your reply Richard, I appreciate you know the subject matter and have far more experience than I in transport related issues.
As a lay person though, it just seems like we don’t have much that actually stops people from doing what they want to do, whether it be to cross a road with moving traffic, or to drive through red lights. As a driver I’m well aware of the frustration you feel when you go slower than you’d like to for a stretch of road, but as a person who walks, bikes and drives on our streets I applaud AT for trying to do something that is actually within their power to mitigate the hazards.
Maybe a big enough education campaign for pedestrians and a massive improvement to the police budget to enforce all the new cameras and we might not need these speed changes. Maybe.
So clearly your being silly Heidi.
“11.6 Loitering on crossings or roadways
A pedestrian or rider of a mobility device or wheeled recreational device must not remain on the roadway, including a pedestrian crossing or school crossing point, longer than is necessary for the purpose of crossing the roadway with reasonable dispatch.”
I really hope none of this is news to you.
That does not say
“pedestrians aren’t allowed on the road with moving traffic”
Indeed, it says they are allowed on the road. Just no longer than is necessary.
Therefore, you are wrong.
These people need to be on a road:
– People getting out of cars on the driver’s side.
– People picking up litter the rubbish truck dropped.
– People unable to walk on a footpath because a car or truck has parked across it.
– People picking up the item that fell off their trailer.
Roads are part of the public realm, and people use them. And, we need to keep all these people safe.
RL thanks for ref to land Transport legislation, this part concerning LR, will apply to the planned LR up Queen St?
‘5.7 Speed limits for light rail vehicles
(2) A driver must not drive a light rail vehicle in any shared zone at a speed exceeding 10 km per hour.’
Isn’t lower Queen St a shared LR and pedestrian and other vehicles zone so the 10km speed limit applies?
What about upper Queen, Don McKinnon and onwards up Dominion is none of this shared zone?
As I said before Heidi, “clearly you’re being silly” or just trolling.
Hobson and Nelson streets could easy have 100kph speed limit and be safe. They are wide dead straight roads with good visibility. What we need to do is make sure there is no red light running, which is easy to solve by fitting cameras at every intersection and making the fines substantial. Then all you have to do is make sure the cyclists and the pedestrians obey the road rules.Maybe not walk along texting, J walking, crossing the road against the signal. Speed is NOT the problem, discipline is and on that problem, it is not only the drivers that are at fault.
And the point of and to what advantages David are there of 100KPH speed limits on Urban Arterials? A very few seconds at most of time saving, a more exciting drive for those who have a need to demonstrate their cars 0-100kph and back again performance and wroom wroom noises several times in front of the most possible number of spectators. And of course public roads should be provided to practice challenging driving skills just like those shown on those televised car ads each night.
The roadside barriers required would be horrendous, be strong enough to retain an out of control 44tonne truck nudged in a collision.
I am not suggesting to increase the speed to 100kph, rather pointing out that the road condition on Hobson and Nelson streets could safely support those speeds. Any sensible person understands that there is no need to change the speeds from what they are today.
“I am not suggesting to increase the speed to 100kph, rather pointing out that the road condition on Hobson and Nelson streets could safely support those speeds.”
People are being killed and seriously injured on those roads with people mostly doing <50km/h. How on earth could they be safer with higher motor vehicle speeds on the existing layout?
For Hobson and Nelson St and I there were 10 serious and 1 fatal pedestrian crash in the past 5 years, not a good number.
Of those 11 crashes, every single one was caused by a pedestrian illegally crossing the road. I can’t share details on the crashes but at least one of them occurred at about 10km/h with a vehicle that weighs not much more than a pedestrian.
It would be interesting to know, what measures, if any, are being taken to address the route cause of the safety issues here.
Note: I don’t support increasing the speed limit to 100km/h down either of these roads.
It seems to me the biggest issue here is how hard it is to cross Hobson and Nelson Streets. In this case I think you are right Richard, just lowering the speed limit isn’t really going to solve the problem.
It seems to me that these streets need an increase in the number of crossing points, more frequent pedestrian phases at existing intersections and maybe some narrowing as well.
Currently the greatest distance you need to walk to get to an intersection is 100m.
In the worst case you could get a detour of 200m, however due to the development on the street the detour would be next to nothing for vast majority of people.
I agree that the intersection are the issue, and part of this is the width of the roads including the side roads. The entire street layout is a bit of a mess in the CBD being full of non-compliant designs and compromises. If we could make vehicle movement more efficient we could look to reduce the number of lanes making the carriageway narrower and easier to cross.
At the same time, the main mode of transport is foot transport, and so their movement needs to be more efficient as well. Potentially closing a few intersections, or making them left-in left-out only could be a way of helping.
A few grade separations wouldn’t hurt either, although they would most likely be meet with furious opposition as they would be seen as promoting SOVs even though their doing the opposite.
Richard is wrong with the claim that all these injuries are cause by ‘illegal’ crossing of the road.
Crossing the road at any point, midblock or intersection, is legal. There is no such thing as jaywalking under New Zealand law. The only exception is crossing at a signalised pedestrian crossing where the red pedestrian signal is lit (but not if it isn’t lit).
Richard is assuming his own prejudices as law by describing crossing the road on foot, or ‘stepping out into traffic’ as he puts it, as illegal.
Nick R is wrong in claiming that it is perfectly legal to walk straight out onto the road in front of a moving vehicle.
Nick R is assuming his own prejudices by imagining that every pedestrian that gets injured is in full compliance with the road user rules.
NickR, re: illegal crossing road, a work colleague was given a ticket (fine) for crossing the road on Greenlane about 100m away from a signalised pedestrian crossing. Apparently he was endangering other road users by jaywalking.
Perhaps he should have went to court and challenged this if it in in fact not illegal.
Well the stats are in (Thank you Richard) of the 11 crashes, they were all caused by the pedestrian and one was at almost walking speed.
Goes to show that speed is not the factor – idiot pedestrians are the problem.
Perhaps our Police need to spend a few days patrolling the streets of Auckland and handing out fines for J walking. In the name of safety!
Clearly – of the 11 accidents in the last 5 years – 100% has been because of failure to observe the road law.
I am guessing a similar result would be found if we looked at cycle accidents.
A 300m detour plus the wait at a traffic light means it will take 3 to 5 minutes to cross the street in some cases. Many people find that unreasonable. And this is while most of the time there is not much traffic on that street.
You can observe many drivers keep going (or even accelerating towards a pedestrian who is halfway across. That would be considered crazy in many countries, and IIRC this is actually an offense in the UK.
Another place where you can encounter that kind of delays is when turning right at traffic lights. And guess what, you see people go through red almost every single cycle.
Richard I’m not assuming anything about fault or legality at all, you are the one bringing ‘illegal’ pedestrians into the conversation…
On that note I’ll just post my previous comment again:
“It’s not about apportioning blame Richard, it’s about avoiding accidental death.
People make mistakes, they don’t deserve to die for a misstep.”
Obsessively noting that the ‘illegal’ pedestrian was at fault, whether this is true or not, has little bearing on the outcomes. Except for, perhaps, a civil engineers ability to say ‘its all their own fault they got hit’.
Wow Nick R, your creative reading skills are really next level. Unless of course you’ve confused me with a conversation you’re having with someone else which would explain why only a fraction of your post related to anything I said.
Or potentially it’s something to do with your civil engineer derangement syndrome. I suggest you seek someone to talk to about it as you obviously have a few emotional scares there.
Roeland, given its 200m between intersections I don’t know how you manage to get a 300m detour.
In regards to the running of red lights, apparently this is all good provided you drive at 30km/h. (This is not my view)
According to Google maps, Hobson St has 297m between crossings at Union St and Cook St. On Nelson St, it shows 266m for the same block, shorter mainly because at the Cook St end, Hobson is missing a pedestrian leg, so pedestrians would have to cross Cook St twice, before and after crossing Cook St.
Is there some new midblock crossing that Google hasn’t captured?
Otherwise, Richard has got it wrong in this statement: “Currently the greatest distance you need to walk to get to an intersection is 100m.” and even when Roeland gave him the benefit of the doubt and allowed him to correct himself, he didn’t check Google, saying, “Roeland, given its 200m between intersections I don’t know how you manage to get a 300m detour.”
None of this provides an acceptable walking environment.
You are a funny one Heidi, completely ignore the 4 other blocks that are 200m in length and focus all your attention on the the longest one. Even then it only increases the distance from 100m to 140m.
So anyway Heidi, in your ideal world how often should pedestrian crossing over arterial roads, or any roads for that matter be placed?
Given the detour length in the vast majority of trips would be zero, it seems you have some rather inequitable expectations for pedestrian level of service.
That block is also one of the most populated ones. That is why I picked that one. I don’t know why, and yes I find that a bafflingly stupid arrangement. But it is what it is now.
I also would like to know when in a collision the pedestrian is assumed to be at fault. Is it when you step 20m in front of a car? What if you start crossing and 15 seconds later some car on lane #4 hits you? Or is it any time it doesn’t happen at a signalised crossing?
Roeland, you really need to look at the crash report to figure out who was at fault in every case, I was only saying what was the cause.
Of the 11 DSI’s, not a single one involved a pedestrian minding their own business on the footpath, or crossing at the signals during their phase.
To say the pedestrian was at fault is like saying a car running a red light is at fault, or a car that pulls out of a side road without giving way is at fault. In each case, the other vehicle that hits them may have had the ability to avoid them, but we don’t know without more detail.
All we can see is the type of crash and look at ways to avoid it from happening.
Just because a collision happened outside a signalized crossing, doesn’t automatically mean the pedestrian is at fault. How can we avoid these crashes? Whatever the answer, it will be much more nuanced than “X should simply stay out of the way of Y”. And whatever solution will have to be more humane than de facto prohibiting people living in the apartments over there to come out of their home.
There are obvious things you don’t do as a pedestrian — eg. cross the street while staring at your phone, or crossing mid-block at night in bad weather (car drivers will not see you, no matter how much you wish so).
Same goes for car drivers. There are obvious things you can do to avoid accidents. If you see a pedestrian crossing 50 m in front of you, you ease off the accelerator. And you let him finish crossing otherwise he may get stuck in the middle. Note that often you were not yet in view (eg. still on a side street or in a driveway) when he started crossing.
Now, as a pedestrian, if you do something stupid, you may die. That is strong motivation to avoid doing stupid things. You can safely assume most pedestrians will not do stupid things. And off-peak the roadway is often almost completely empty, so why go all the way around.
OTOH many drivers totally ignore pedestrians on the street. They keep accelerating even on collision course with a pedestrian. That is extremely stupid and dangerous (and may very well be how some of these accidents happen). Some cut off pedestrians while turning against a red arrow. As a driver you have in fact some responsibility to avoid collisions.
Also exciting to watch is multiple lanes accelerating to 60 km/h, with the leftmost swerving around a car pulling into the parking lane.
From the council point of view, allowing 50 km/h on that street is really stupid and dangerous, and they had better slow that down a bit.
On a side note:
As my main concern is people actually following the speed limit, how do people feel of the following to improve safety.
All vehicles, bikes and scooters are required to be fit with speed limiters.
1) Vehicles in the CBD are limited to 30km/h on main roads, 20km/h on side roads and 10km/h in shared lanes.
2) Bikes are limited to 20km/h on cycle lanes, 10km/h on footpaths and are prohibited from being on the road.
3) Scooters are limited to 10km/h and can only use bike lanes and footpaths.
4) Both scooters and bikes are required to wear helmets, scooters riders are also required to wear gloves and knee pads.
5) Pedestrians are banned from running in high pedestrian areas such as the CBD.
Richard you really are coming across as a dinosaur. One intent of preserving motoring privilege at the expense of other uses for increasingly constrained road corridor space. Intent on protecting income to the suppliers of road transport industry without regard to the rapid evolution of our city and in fact a world, increasingly faced with climate change reality.
The number of cars coming in and through the CBD will fall, not because of Greater Auckland but because the rapidly intensifying city results in increasing CBD land values that in turn demands better economic returns on that limited land. Car parking provision is being priced out of the market. It is this, as much as the massively increasing competing demands on CBD public space, which includes roadway space, that will continue to displace inefficient land users.
In short car travel is going to decline as our population becomes more and more urbanised and the space inefficiencies of carrigeway storage provision and energy requirements of cars becomes more and more critical, and society looses it’s appetite for a by kill of people.
I’ll take that as you not supporting speed restrictions then. Good to know.
Don, I love the way you write a personal prediction as if it is guaranteed fact. None of us know what even 10 years in the future will look like – unless you have some magical powers I am not aware of. In which case, why are you wasting your time here, when you could be investing in the next Apple or Google start up company?
If increasing CBD land value was a direct cause of decreased car travel, Mumbai would be car free.
I would say the opposite is just as likely to happen. As more and more apartments are built in the city of Auckland, more people will keep cars in the CBD and therefore travel in and out of and around the city.
As for climate change – Co2 reduction does not mean the end of the motor vehicle. If you think that you are really out of step with reality.
David The process of reduced car travel and reduced car parking provision into the CBD is already more advanced in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. Cities that are culturally and with built environments, very similar to Auckland. In the last two decades Auckland CBD has gone from a population of low thousands, to tens of thousands, with also a large increase in people studying and working in the CBD. This has been accomplished with no increase in car journeys to or through the CBD.
Quoting the experiences of the culturally very different Mumbai is irrelevant and smacks of desperation.
David predicting the next 10 years in terms of transport in Auckland is in fact very easy, because those budgets have been set and published, and in fact I’ve already done it for you so you don’t need to even look for it all. Conveniently in a post entitled: 10 years:
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2018/01/09/10-years/
This is a year old now. But one thing I can absolutely guarantee is there will be no cars in Queen St in a decade, or indeed much of the whole Queen St valley. Have a read. Things change.
I can’t see the logic of most of these speed limits, my thoughts:
1) 30kmh seems reasonable on side roads (assuming we both are thinking the same roads), agree on the others.
2) Why not the same limit as vehicles – 30kmh, agree for footpaths, not sure it is practical to prohibit them from the road given they will sometimes need to access properties on the other side of the road.
3) Can’t see any reason for them not being allowed to do 30kmh in cycle lanes either.
4) The best thing we could do is get rid of helmet and protective gear requirements, it will make cycle share systems so much easier.
5) Why?
Interesting reposes, but I appreciate them.
It’s interesting that you don’t seem to be interested in any safety improvements that limit the liberties of pedestrians and cyclists. Some people would say your “morally bankrupt” or that you make them embarrassed to be engineers with those responses.
2) Because crashing on a bicycle is extremely dangerous, especially in built up areas like this. Also riding on the road is very dangerous as well, a cyclist biking into a parked car can result in serious injuries.
3) Scooters are extraordinarily dangerous, their small wheels make them prone to snagging on small bumps with the potential for serious injuries.
4) It may make cycle share easier, but it would also greatly potential for serious injury.
5) Mainly because its rather dangerous on busy footpaths, and there are also quite a few vehicle access points with zero sight distance due to planning rules.
Let’s just plug into the Grid and live our lives through Virtual Reality…even safer than all your suggestions.
You really don’t want to lower speeds so much that you are banning people from jogging, that has to be your piece de resitance of nonsensical stuff you’ve been typing for the last few days,
I won;t ask for your data on jogging crashes because frankly I really do not care and we both know there is zero chance of banning City runners when car access is slowly being limited in the CBD.
Yes the banning running was a joke, along with helmets, knee pads and gloves for scooter riders.
All the other points a perfectly valid and not too onerous for safety improvements however.
My rationale for 2,3 and 4 is the difference between putting yourself at risk and others at risk. If a cyclist wishes to not wear a helmet and increases their risk of injury that’s their choice, I think the risk of a head injury in a protected cycleway is extremely low.
I’m not sure that is ‘morally bankrupt’ but I guess everyone has different morals.
I would probably continue to wear a helmet even when they are no longer mandatory, but I see no strong reason for compulsion.
While I agree not wearing a helmet is primarily only putting yourself at risk, it’s ignoring the social cost of a crash. This is similar to not wearing a seat belt or driving a car with poor occupant protection.
In terms of the risk of a head injury in a protected cycle lane, although low it is probably double that of being on the road. This is because you have two, not one, concrete kerbs to crack your skull, or break your neck on.
Driving a car with poor occupant protection is of course not illegal. From memory the reason seat belts became mandatory was the sheer cost to the medical system from injuries, I don’t believe the cost of head injuries from cycling was anywhere near this level.
‘In terms of the risk of a head injury in a protected cycle lane, although low it is probably double that of being on the road. This is because you have two, not one, concrete kerbs to crack your skull, or break your neck on.’
I assume you are taking the piss and have never tried to present this argument in a professional capacity.
“I don’t believe the cost of head injuries from cycling was anywhere near this level.”
Most likely the only reason for that is volume difference.
“I assume you are taking the piss and have never tried to present this argument in a professional capacity.”
Just raising a valid point in regards to head injuries. It would be interesting to know if any studies had ever looked into this.
I think it would be more than just volume it would also be likelihood. If you aren’t wearing a seatbelt in a 50kmh crash you will be seriously injured, if you come off your bike at a typical riding speed you might end up with a head injury.
Incedentally the majority of cyclists using a cycle lane would not get anywhere near 30kmh anyway.
Also on the second point I would imagine the reduced chances of being in a serious accident in a cycle lane would far outweigh any increased probability of hitting a curb if you do come off.
“Also on the second point I would imagine the reduced chances of being in a serious accident in a cycle lane would far outweigh any increased probability of hitting a curb if you do come off.”
This is entirely dependent on what you are comparing it to, the primary benefit of “protected” cycle lanes in comparison to other cycle facilities is the perceived level of safety. In reality the cyclist has little additional protection as an errant vehicle can easily mount a kerb.
This is course is moving the goal, we were talking about the probability of a head injury and not the probability of being hit by a vehicle. (Of course the later does increase the former.)
“if you aren’t wearing a seatbelt in a 50kmh crash you will be seriously injured, if you come off your bike at a typical riding speed you might end up with a head injury.”
I believe in most cases, if you have a crash at 50km/h in a car you will walk away, even if you weren’t wearing a seat belt.
In terms of cyclist, you can be stationary and fall off your bike and get a head injury, I’ve seen it happen.
One of the interesting observations of electric bikes is that you get people zipping along at 30-40km/h, yet they don’t have the skill to ride at 5km/h and end up bouncing of stationary cars or falling off when they hit a kerb.
I think it would be reasonable to expect helmets to be worn on e-bikes that can reach similar speeds to mopeds on urban streets.
I can see the power outputs of e-bikes becoming quite a big issue in the next 10 years.
Re the comment on cyclists not reaching 30kph in cycle lanes. I guess that highlights the misconception that 30kph is “fast” as many cyclists go along at 30kph+ (and talking about ebikes). It would be interesting to see people’s views here if there was a blanket 30kph limit on cyclists that was enforced.
Similarly maybe as a trial AT buses should be speed limited to 30 and let the complaints roll in.
“It would be interesting to see people’s views here if there was a blanket 30kph limit on cyclists that was enforced”
I suspect almost nobody would here would approve such a measure. They would claim its the cyclists choice to increase the risk exposure and the social cost of any injuries are irrelevant.
You are right on helmets. It is stupid not to wear one.
People on here would suggest that having to wear a helmet is a barrier to 100% of Auckland ditching cars for bikes, but Ill take a bad hair day over a head injury every day.
Predicting no pv traffic in Queen Street is akin to predicting The Blue and Warriors will not win championships. Some things are just obvious.
Predicting the fall of the motor vehicle is somewhat more bold (stupid) and out of step with vehicle sales and urban living trends in Auckland, Melbourne, Sydney and any other cities Don may have visited.
You are right about one thing though, things do change. Phil Goff looks likely to be brushing up his CV soon and Jacinda may well be following shortly afterwards. Political change could very well result in a different direction for NZ road users.
Do you know something we don’t?
https://www.colmarbrunton.co.nz/news/political-polls/
That’s very presumptuous.
There’s no real contention for the mayoralty other than a Labour party turncoat (Tamihere) whose mouth has gotten him into trouble in the past, and attempting to woo the right wing vote.
Meanwhile Palino is having a third crack despite his unpopularity in the last two, it may only endeavour to split the votes in this FPP election.
As for the 2020 election, National are looking hopelessly out of touch the longer they keep on Simon Bridges.
David, In the last decade The Auckland CBD has lost a lot of kerbside, and ground level carparks to road space reallocation and redevelopment. Any new build developments, have only meagre car parking provision if at all. There have been no new dedicated car parking buildings for decades. The future redevelopment of the City Works depot will almost certainly mean a net loss of car parks. So in spite of vastly more people working, studying and living in the CBD vehicle counts have remained remarkably constant. Rising pressure on the remaining car parks will mean the continuation of above inflation car parking charges. This pattern is evident in the other comparable Australasian cities. It is doubtfull that many of the CBD carparking buildings lost in the Earthquakes in Wellington will be replaced by another car parking building.
David you still haven’t been able to mount a coherent economic or social argument for not adopting a 30kph CBD speed limit. Your argument is just a restatement of the AA position that people won’t like it and they may even change their vote.
Your other position is that everything would be just fine if people just kept out of the way of cars.
Fatal accidents have many many more victims then just the deceased. Their family and even blameless drivers. 50 years ago an inlaw of mine, just admitted to the bar, hit and killed a drunk young lady that had stepped right out in front of his car on a wet dark night on a rural section of SH2. The trauma of the accident , police enquiries, and coroners court appearance completely derailed his life, in spite of being found blameless.
There are no reasons to lower the speed limit. Status Quo works for me.
As for reasons not to lower – more vehicle emissions and loss of time seem reasonable to me.
I dont think every vehicle driver should add length to their journey, just for the muppets that cant be arsed crossing at the lights.
“There are no reasons to lower the speed limit. Status Quo works for me.”
Translation: I don’t care that people die. I get to vroom vroom fast.
Translation: Being on time is more important than protecting vulnerable users because whenever I crash it is always their fault. Also I am ignorant and selfish.
Translation – I do not have a huge sympathy for people that are determined to kill themselves.
Crossing the road against the lights, or 50m from a controlled intersection – because you are too lazy to walk to the lights, or feel self entitled not to be inconvenienced by a slight wait for your turn to cross is stupid and selfish. If it gets you killed then I don’t think you should blame the driver that hit you.
I have a feeling you don’t have a sympathy for a lot of people, in many different aspects of life.
I suspect you use the terms PC gone mad, green washing, dole bludgers or virtue signalling on a regular basis.
I don’t believe you offer any actual solutions to any multifaceted problems especially if it doesn’t suit your personal needs.
Call me cynical 🙂
But you would not acknowledge that more pedestrian vs motorist collisions are the cause of motorists. Generally ones who fail to observe basic features such as pedestrian crossings and red lights.
And speeding through them doesn’t help either.
“more pedestrian vs motorist collisions are the cause of motorists”
Where do you get that gem from? Checking Hobson and Nelson St not not a single DSI there was the cause of a motorist. Potentially if you include minor and non-injury some may be.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/111241038/bus-drivers-guilty-plea-over-crash-that-killed-two-pedestrians-in-papatoetoe
So even though the bus driver has pled guilty to careless driving causing death, David Robertson will still find an excuse to blame the pedestrians.
Ah, If only Richard could paraphrase his arguments so succinctly.
Is it causing you concern that I’m taking the full context of a complex issue into account?
It was a bit tongue in cheek. There are pro’s and con’s and like the AA, you do represent a singnificant view point.
‘Is it causing you concern that I’m taking the full context of a complex issue into account?’
LOL, this is the same person that focused specifically on the risks of curbs on cycle lanes and not the overall risk to cyclists using the lanes.
“LOL, this is the same person that focused specifically on the risks of curbs on cycle lanes and not the overall risk to cyclists using the lanes.”
Wow you are special, I’ve probably made close to 100 posts, with one noting that protected cycle lanes have more static hazards. But sure, if that’s only thing you have picked up on good for you.
“It was a bit tongue in cheek. There are pro’s and con’s and like the AA, you do represent a singnificant view point.”
I’m interested to know what you think my view point is.
No, you’ve made some quite valid points in a number of your comments but it is stretching your credibility a bit to claim that you take the full context of a complex issue into account.
It is quite possible by aggregating all of your comments there is a coherent argument that accounts for the full context of a complex problem. Maybe it needs to be aggregated into a single post on that highly successful transport blog you edited a few years ago.
I’d be interested in having a read as I can see some valid issues you have raised with just sticking 30kmh signs on Nelson St and doing little else, but I also have issues with just leaving these one way streets as they are.
“No, you’ve made some quite valid points in a number of your comments but it is stretching your credibility a bit to claim that you take the full context of a complex issue into account.”
Oh, you were just deliberating lying when you claimed I “focused specifically on the risks of curbs on cycle lanes”, good to know.
“on that highly successful transport blog you edited a few years ago”
Yes that blog was quite good wasn’t it, I liked how my rough cost estimates for the light rail turned out to be so accurate.
“I am interested to know what you think my point of view is” Richard have you got an easier question?. I know I struggle to find coherence in determining your point of view from your multiple posts.