Over the weekend, the Minister of Transport Simeon Brown proudly announced his new speed-setting rule, a decision that will undoubtedly lead to greater harm on our roads. It’s a tragically predictable decision by a Minister who seems to be on only nodding acquaintance with both evidence and international norms.
Fueled by misinformation, gaslighting, and falsehoods, and disregard for the outcry from experts home and abroad, and ignoring well-founded pleas from local councils across the country, Brown has chosen to impose blanket speed limit increases, and short stretches of time-restricted safe speeds around schools – touting the latter as offering (the bare minimum of) protection for (only some of) the most vulnerable members of our communities (at specified times and only on weekdays).
The Minister describes his accomplishment as returning our local streets, arterial roads, and state highways to December 2019. Half a decade of progress undone in one fell swoop – described in the same news story by road safety experts as “irresponsible and extremely concerning.”
The media release outlined three main changes:
- “Reverse Labour’s blanket speed limit reductions on local streets, arterial roads, and state highways by 1 July 2025.”
- “Require reduced variable speed limits outside schools during pick up and drop off times by 1 July 2026.”
- “Enable speed limits up to 120km/h on Roads of National Significance where it is safe.”
There will be much more to say once the full document is uploaded – along with, hopefully, a full analysis of the public feedback, including how much of it poured in after the Minister took the unprecedented and very weird step (for an incumbent) of emailing his party supporters begging them to speak up in support of his legislation.
It’s also crucial to reiterate that the only “blanket” in this entire picture belongs to Simeon Brown. This is something the media need to get on top of, as many have just continued to uncritically repeated his claim.
However, in this post I want to focus on another aspect of the Minister’s approach: the way he has very firmly grabbed the extremely wrong end of the stick when it comes to peer nations and what they’re doing for road safety.
He’s so wrong, it’s embarrassing. Indeed, it would be laughable if it didn’t have such dire implications for actual human beings.
Note: The header image is a screenshot from the Three News report in this story – as is the image below of the Minister returning to his Crown car after making the Saturday announcement at an unspecified location in South Auckland.
The Minister’s reckons vs the actual facts
In short, Simeon Brown appears to be actively misrepresenting the international evidence in an attempt to justify his imposition of a standardised 50km/h speed limit in cities.
The one-page info sheet that accompanied his media release lists a handful of countries, which he says have a “default” urban speed limit of 50km/h with exceptions for lower limits. This information is presented in a way that entirely misrepresents what these countries do in practice.
Here’s the info sheet: Reversing Labour’s Blanket Speed Limit Reductions
What was the Minister’s source for this information? It might just be Google – or it might have been a document from the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC), procured by the Green Party and cited in Parliament last Thursday and seen by Greater Auckland.
As Newsroom’s Fox Meyer outlined in an article on Friday:
Transport Minister Simeon Brown cited overseas countries with 50 km/h urban speed limits as evidence that his similar policy was reasonable, but omitted the fact that those countries allow municipalities to lower the limit as they see fit.
On Thursday, Brown cited a document sought by the Green Party from the European Transport Safety Council as evidence that 50 km/h was “the standard” across similar countries. But he neglected to read beyond that line, where the document said his proposal was concerning, contradicted scientific consensus, and “would lead to an increase in road crashes, injuries and deaths”.
The countries Brown cited allow local municipalities to lower the European 50 km/h standard, the majority of which have done so. Critics of his proposal, including some local councils, raised concern that his legislation did not include similar local provisions.
[…]
The advice given to Genter said this was the case, as Brown was quick to retort in the House. “I’m happy to table the information that she actually wrote to me about yesterday, which says ‘in Norway, the standard speed limit in urban areas is 50 km/h. In Sweden – ditto. In Denmark – ditto’.”
But this wasn’t the entire picture, as Brown only read partial quotes. Only in the case of Norway was “standard speed limit in urban areas is 50km/h” the end of it; in every other instance, the statement was followed by a clarification that local municipalities could – and often did – mandate a lower speed limit of 30 or 40 km/h.
As Meyer pointed out, the ETSC document contained far more information than what was read in parliament.
At a glance, you can immediately spot the lie-by-omission. Sure, all the countries the Minister name-checks may have a starting point for urban speed limits of 50km/h.
But they all allow cities and local governments to change and lower those speed limits, and implement safety measures, and make urban environments safe – and they are all actively pursuing safer speed areas to protect their citizens.
These safer speed areas are not random ‘exceptions’: they are liberal applications of flexible, evidence-based policy to places where people live, work, study and play. Exactly the freedom that Simeon Brown and the government are hell-bent on removing, for no clear reason.
So, let’s take a look at Norway, Sweden, and Denmark all of which are mentioned in the ETSC document and Simeon Brown’s 28 September “information sheet”. We’ll add Japan and Iceland as well, because it pops up in the info sheet so best to complete the set.
This simple infographic is presented with all the naive confidence of a school project or a junior debater. Where to start?
Perhaps with a quick overview by looking at this long list of trendsetting European cities with 30km/h speed limits. Then take a look at this 2024 meta-review of 30km/h policies across Europe, which concludes:
On average, the implementation of 30 km/h speed limits in European cities demonstrated a 23%, 37%, and 38% reduction in road crashes, fatalities, and injuries, respectively. Lower speed limits also yielded environmental benefits, with emissions decreasing on average by 18%, noise pollution levels by 2.5 dB, and fuel consumption by 7%, indicating enhanced fuel efficiency and reduced environmental impact.
A question to bear in mind while you scroll through the facts below: Why is our Minister of Transport so blatantly misrepresenting how these countries have achieved safer streets? Is it deliberate untruthfulness, or simple ignorance?
Either way, is he fit for his role?
The facts
1. Norway
Since 2015, the capital city of Oslo has had the power to implement a raft of safety changes including speed humps, cycleways, lower speeds, street designs and traffic control, drastically lowering the number of traffic fatalities in the city.
While Simeon Brown is draining all new investment in safety and cycling infrastructure to funnel it into huge roading projects and maintenance, Oslo’s approach has been to invest in shaping a road environment that makes it natural for people to travel at the safe speed for all users of street space.
Remarkably, in 2019 not a single pedestrians or person on a bike was killed in Oslo (the same was true of Helsinki in neighbouring Finland, which also reported no road deaths of children under 15 in the entire country).
A key part of Norway’s safety approach has involved the introduction of “hjertesoner”, or heart zones – areas around schools where cars are not permitted.
Moreover, as of 2020, fully two thirds of Oslo’s streets are 30km/h zones.
2. Sweden
Sweden is a pioneer for safe speeds and the birthplace of Vision Zero, having had 30km/h on the table since 1972, In 1998 municipalities were allowed to introduce 30km/h areas themselves. Stockholm, the capital city of 1.4m people, has had 30km/h limits on all residential strets since 2004 – two full decades.
In 2020, at the Third Ministerial Conference on Global Road Safety 2020 in Sweden, an Academic Expert Group (2020) recommended:
In order to protect vulnerable road users and achieve sustainability goals addressing livable cities, health and security, we recommend that a maximum road travel speed limit of 30 km/h be mandated in urban areas unless strong evidence exists that higher speeds are safe.
Simeon Brown will have seen in the ETSC document that Sweden allows cities to adopt lower speed limits than the standard 50km/h. That paper also notes that 32% of municipal roads have a limit of 30km/h, an increase from 9,700 km in 2010 to 13,600 km in 2018.
(Note: Sweden has also flirted with a default 40km/h in built-up areas, as a compromise for “travel time savings” – while also noting that the greater benefits come from just going to 30km/h.)
This is a tide against which our Minister of Transport is single-handedly attempting to swim, while denying he’s taking on water.
3. Denmark
Denmark, likewise, allows its cities to introduce lower speed limits than the 50kmh default – which Copenhagen is doing as elected offical Line Barfoed noted last year:
Barfoed added that Copenhagen already has positive experience with zones under the 50 km/h which is the regular speed limit in residential areas.
“There are markedly fewer accidents and also markedly fewer serious accidents, especially for cyclists and pedestrians. I am looking forward to us now being able to extend this to the whole city in the coming years,” she said.
That’s a lot of 30km/h and 40km/h zones.
4. Japan
The Minister also cites Japan as a country with “default” 50km/h limits. Which is interesting, because anyone who’s visited Japanese cities knows they’re full of streets and residential areas that are 30km/h, or even less.
Moreover, as reported by the Asahi Shimbun on 24 July 2024, Japan plans to standardise 30 km/h for residential neighbourhoods nationwide as of September 2026.
A 30 kph speed limit will apply to traffic in many residential neighborhoods from September 2026 to reduce accidents.
Under a revision to the Order for Enforcement of the Road Traffic Law, approved at a Cabinet meeting on July 23, the new legal speed limit will be applied to community roads that have no center line, center divider or similar guideposts.
Many of the roads that will be subject to the 30 kph speed limit are less than 5.5 meters wide, according to the National Police Agency.
It is a significant reduction. Currently, vehicles can travel on these roads up to 60 kph unless the maximum speed limit is specified otherwise by a road sign.
5. Iceland
If you’re renting a car in Iceland, the first thing to know is that the top speed limit on the open road is 90 km/h – the lowest upper speed limit in Europe. While 50km/h is a default on city roads, residential areas are more likely to be 30km/h.
As a Canadian observer wrote in 2017:
One of the big pushes in Iceland is to reduce the speed of traffic on local roads to improve safety for children and vulnerable road users. Major roads similar to King George Boulevard or Fraser Highway have speed limits between 45km/h and 60km/h. Side streets, most streets in downtowns, and all streets near public facilities such as schools and recreation centres were capped at 30 km/h.
Iceland’s transportation department has a guide called “Umferðaröryggisáætlanir sveitarfélaga” or “The Traffic Safety Planning Guide for Local Government” which offers advice on how to building safe streets including maximum speed limits.
Since implementing 30km/h speed zones, accidents with injuries have decreased by 27% and serious accidents have decreased by 62%.
In recent years, Icelandic parliamentarians have been considering bringing in default 30km/h limits for cities, and granting municipalities the right to set their own speeds.
6. And elsewhere
These are not unique cases. Cities and countries all over the world are reducing speeds to enhance cities for the people who live and work there. The entire country of Wales is implementing a 20mph (30km/hr) speed limit in all residential and urban areas. A recent study by the Norwegian Institute for Transport Economics, also cited in the ETSC document, says of multiple cities in Northern Europe, the UK, and Spain:
With some exceptions for main roads, the 30 km/h general speed limit have been implemented on all or most streets and roads throughout the city or city region. Information about speed limits and enforcement of compliance are important elements of implementation. The cities have documented that the measure has produced desired effects, such as lower speeds, high levels of compliance, reduced noise and local pollution, no increase in travel time or congestion for vehicular traffic, and significantly fewer accidents, especially serious ones and those involving pedestrians and cyclists.
This is in stark opposition to Simeon Brown’s assertion that safety is due to “these countries [having] strong road safety records, targeting alcohol, drugs, and speeding.” These countries are safe because they implement safer infrastructure and lower speeds.
These countries, and the cities within, design and build safe streets, with safe infrastructure including speed bumps and cycling lanes, and lower speeds, to obtain significant safety results. All of which Simeon Brown and this government is fiercely beating upstream against.
Unfortunately for the Minister – and even more unfortunately for the people whose safety he bears responsibility for, as the person in charge of delivering “an efficient, effective and safe land transport system in the public interest” as set out in the Land Transport Management Act 2003 – physics doesn’t care about his feelings.
So with all these countries forging ahead on lower speeds, perhaps the Minister just needs to get out more?
Processing...
I mean great article and evidence and all – but Brown just doesn’t care about that. Same with Costello, or any other politician currently supporting what we might think of as regressive policies.
They have an idea that will appeal to loads of their voters – ie “cars need to go faster – brm brm basically” or “let’s build a shiny new road” – that’s my policy and I will get it done. Looks great in the eyes of their voters and they can say cool, I’ve followed through and achieved something while look at Labour who “tried” to do [insert here].
I mean most of these things are not particularly difficult to implement because they are reversing previous initiatives put in place and they are questionably flying in the face of evidence, etc. But they genuinely do not care.
Sure the Coalition Government want to play a culture war with transport and Simeon is all in on this. At one level they don’t care about evidence and facts. It is just populist BS they are after. But at another level they want to be treated seriously with calls for bipartisanship support for infrastructure. It is at this level their lack of seriousness needs to be laughed at.
I don’t like what he is doing, I think they guy is an absolute muppet. But at the end of the day, we do live in a democracy. I certainly know many people that despise all the speed bumps and 30 kmh areas, and they all get to vote.
I think Labour went a bit too far a bit too fast. 40kmh would have been more accepted than 30kmh which feels like you are barely moving. 90kmh would have been more accepted than 100kmh (that 90kmh stretch towards the Coromandel was never really questioned). Chicanes are much better than annoying speed bumps.
“30kmh which feels like you are barely moving” – ummm, incorrect. 30km/h through city streets is quite normal and feels comfortable, and is actually what city streets are averaging at, with or without the 30. speed restrictions.
50km /hr on city streets just feels awkward and far too fast, especially if there are people around on the sidewalks.
That is the part I don’t understand. The Associate Health minister is owned by the tobacco industry. What she does makes sense from that perspective. The woman making gun laws is a gun lobbyist so that makes sense. But who is Simeon trying to please? Is there a constituency pissed off about going slow past children? Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but even the gun owning sovereign citizen I know thinks we should drive slowly where people live.
Boomers that listen to NewstalkZB 24/7.
Reckon. I can only assume it’s a culture wars thing about laws interfering with ‘freedoms’.
I agree with the overall majority Brown is ruled by political ideological dogma and is totally disinterested in facts or contrasting views. He’s a dangerous little man being a bit of a Nats poster boy.
But the reference to culture wars and blaming boomers (again) is ironic considering Brown is Gen Y
It is much more weird than that. The key thing is that those 30 km/h limits weren’t blanket rules, they only applied to small streets. Most people would have never driven on a 30 km/h street at all so far. The radio, or their local Facebook group basically told them about some imaginary bogeyman and then people got angry about it.
[I’m the same troll as yesterday using a different name]
Given his voting history of opposing marriage equality for same-sex couples and abortion rights for women and supporting conversion therapy, this is probably just another case of telling other people what they can do despite the harm being caused by it. #righteousness
Mr Brown is a Reformed Baptist which is Calvinist adjacent.
You may not have well-defined religious beliefs, but Mr Brown does and acts accordingly.
It has been recently reported that Christopher Luxton is an Evangelical Christian.
These aren’t just personal beliefs, but also patronage networks with likely international funding attached.
These people’s beliefs are written down! It would be good if the media would take it seriously and report in detail the policy implications their beliefs hold, so I wouldn’t have to try and piece it together myself. Time is short.
Thank you for a comprehensive post showing just how far Simeon Brown is deviating from proven current road safety practice in even countries he has held up as examples.
Higher speeds will undoubtedly lead to considerably higher fatalities here in NZ and increasing environmental degradation especially in our urban areas with an increase in airborne pollutants including road and vehicle wear particulates, but also noise.
In short urban environments will become more hostile to everyone and thing apart from car speed enthusiasts out for a blat.
Increased deaths and hospital occupants will quickly become apparent after the changes.
But why do people, many completely innocent in creating this predictable increased risk have to die, or be maimed just to once again prove a basic law of physics?
That in a collision the damage is massively influenced by the impact speed differential.
Not proportional, but the speed differential squared.
In fact as this post, shows the effects of reaction time, even enlarge this differential.
Simeon Brown’s legacy is going to be a significant increase in avoidable death and injuries. And a significant, and avoidable degradation to our environment.
How can he reconcile this with his self professed Christianity and sanctify of life?
I am sorry but Government utterings, on evidence based decision making , are rapidly proving to be just populist lies, degrading government overall credibility.
He’s not a christian in my eyes.
And on that point not, nor is the PM. He was horrible as my boss at Air NZ and was anything but Christian like to it’s workforce
[Trolling removed as per comments policy]
‘Oh also complaining about the minister telling people to submit is just really having a tanty the greens did the same thing to their base stop whinging.’
What is so inherently wrong with pointing out the truth? Better to point it out than hide it, even if it wont make a huge difference in the short term.
The reality is despite the poor performance of Labour National’s grip on power isn’t exactly strong. For every person pleased to be able to drive the Napier-Taupo Rd at 100kmh there will be someone else (or possibly even the same person) annoyed that people can drive past their house at 50kmh again and that their council has to waste a pile of money removing and replacing signs.
This is going to butt up directly against the government’s claims of leaving more decisions to local councils at some point.
Nailed it Jezza.
[I’m a troll]
Yes but not a very good one.
Ever hear of punctuation? I think you don’t have an argument, try reading the article again.
Simeon Browns policy will end up saving thousands of lives… Not in New Zealand, hundreds of people will die or be maimed over the next 10 years here. But other countries around the world will be able to point to New Zealand as what NOT to do and make safer choices for their communities easier. We are going to be the lesson learnt for the rest of the world and it will cost us a lot of misery.
There is a petition by the Greens here, please everyone sign it and share if you care about saving lives on our roads.
https://action.greens.org.nz/safer_speeds_petition
[Trolling comments removed]
‘the overwhelming majority’, really?
He just states that over and over again hoping it will catch on.
I think he is confused with the WK survey – the only one that I know of that specifically polled people on speed reductions in their community – in which 70% supported them.
The privileged love trotting that line out, as if democracy is only when they, the important (rich/upper class) people who “matter in society” get their say and get their way, and anything else is totalitarianism.
Remember folks, don’t feed the trolls.
It’s tempting to engage but it doesn’t achieve anything as they’re here to disrupt, not to learn or share.
What a world we live on where an MP who did some shoplifting has their career destroyed while MPs who are implementing policies that will objectively kill people (Costello as well) seem to carry on like it’s nothing.
I think the removal of ‘where it is safe to do so’ from the policy is an acknowledgement that it is unsafe. I explicitly stated in my submission gainst the draft GPS with reference to many studies (and I preume others did the same) was that there was no safe way to raise speeds according to any evidence. So that being documented, followed by the specific deletion of the clause, points to purposeful maliciousness – not simply incompetence.
if you take all the accidents that have death involved then remove all the ones where the driver was either drunk or under the influence of drugs . then you also have the ones that so for over the speed limit , those are the real cause of the death toll . we also have the pedestrian that just steps out in front of a vehicle and expects it to stop instantly .
“the pedestrian that just steps out in front of a vehicle and expects it to stop instantly”
Yeah, nah. That only happens by mistake. Which is part of the point of lower speed limits – allow for natural human mistakes.
I do believe there’s an element of social darwinism in the whole car-head’s take that pedestrians should ‘be more careful’ (i.e. defer to the holy automobile) or it’s their fault if they get run over. Conform or die/stop being our problem, basically.
You can work out all the various causes as much as you want, all of them are compounded by speed.
Someone being stupid walks out in front? Slower speeds means it’s not a death sentence.
Someone is drunk? Slower speeds mean less harm they can cause, maybe even if they’re going too fast, if the other car they hit is going at safer speed then less harm.
There’s no scenario where going faster is ever safer. If there’s a choice to go from 80% chance of serious injury or death for a simple mistake to 20%,and the real difference in travel time is seconds or even a few minutes (like the time you might wait at a normal set of traffic lights),then trying to defend faster speeds is very sad.
[I’m the same troll as yesterday using a different name]
Let’s face it, driving to and from home to generally a limited array of destinations is incredibly boring, and often frustrating.
Which makes selling the reliable competant cars, aka boring, a hard sell for car manufacturers for the boring everyday motoring that consumes by far the bulk of our motoring time.
So we are now seeing, the demise of the best of the boring, from car manufacturers lists, in favour of imitation all terrain vehicles, suburban trucks operated as cars, and high performance cars operating on our multipurpose urban transport pathways.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/350434179/ford-ceo-confirms-no-replacements-boring-fan-favourites
So Miffy, our transport minister is also beholden to overseas manufacturing interests. Interests intent on putting the wrooom back into motoring, at the expense of lives, and our general environment.
Simeon: “I promise to tell the truth, the truth with holes in it and nothing like the truth.”
He can hardly claim ignorance, when he has so actively ignored the evidence and supressed expert advice, refusing to allow a proper Impact Statement before seeking public feedback. Requiring that cost-benefit evaluation is carried out with false economics. Forbidding RCAs from including safety measures in NZTA Activity Class funding, while loading costs with benefit ratios below 1.0 onto Councils.
He needs to look seriously at his ethics, with some help from his church. Baptist theology can be understood as: We all make mistakes, either wilfully or through ignorance, but we can acknowledge them as mistakes and ask to be forgiven. But we should not carry on making the same mistakes.
the statistics that are gathered from accidents as to cause , condition of the driver , drunk , using drugs , or outright high speed . which no speed limit will stop them , then the issue around schools , just the sheer volumne of vehicles slows all down at pick up and drop off times, we were all taught at primary school about crossing the roads . Now days so many adults just walk out onto the road and expect a vcehicle to stop instantly ,
Oh, and many drivers are on their phone and/or expect that they can just go through a pedestrian crossing without stopping.
All the more reason to lower speed limits so that vehicles can stop in time.
+1
Lowering speed limits and traffic calming – narrower lanes, speed bumps – is all about ensuring that mistakes don’t cause death, on both the part of drivers and pedestrians (and in areas of high foot traffic pedestrians really should have complete priority over vehicles, cars SHOULD stop for them. isn’t that legally already the case at any t-intersection?)
Pedestrians always have to give way to cars in any situation on intersections.
There has been talk about changing this rule to be more in line to standard practice overseas but nothing came of it.
It’s interesting how many people think that most crashes (esp serious ones) are due to all those “reckless” bad drivers, simply because they’re the ones you hear about in the news. Meanwhile, we have research from Sweden, Australia and here (AA Research Foundation) showing that the majority of fatal and serious crashes are simply due to people (inside or outside a vehicle) making a human mistake or misjudgment. At which point, I’d certainly wish that the relevant vehicle(s) were going a bit slower (and, from an ethical point of view, I’d rather that even the “reckless” drivers didn’t become a casualty either…).
I don’t think people here want to admit or acknowledge that they could make a mistake or misjudgement that might add them or someone they hit to the road toll. Easier to tell themselves it’s an inherent trait, ‘othering’ the offending drivers. Before COVID it was tourists and asian drivers, but once the pandemic proved otherwise they had to shift the goalposts.
Be honest, how many times have you made a mistake which resulted in the possibility of a crash? And how many of those were done while paying attention and being responsible behind the wheel?
Obviously we don’t have the stats, but for most drivers the answer to the first question could be a few to a handful in their whole lifetime, while the second one will likely be zero.
I’m not sure where you get tourists and Asian drivers from – we have plenty of bad drivers on our roads as it is: inconsiderate merging, not looking, running stops/reds, etc. And even more yet driving under the influence or too busy texting their mates and watching tiktok. The point is that people who are careful and cautious won’t make the decisions – not mistakes, since these are all conscious decisions – which lead to accidents. Sure, you’ll get the odd one where you turned into the wrong lane or forgot to take the right off-ramp, but these kinds of mistakes don’t lead to serious accidents.
I was not able to complete learning to drive because of migranes and disability, but I do not remember doing anything that was intentionally careless. I made mistakes while attempting to pay attention and juggle spatial awareness and predicting everyone else’s movements on the road all at once.
You’re really not making a case for the fact that lower speed limits and physical traffic calming will make roads safer without adversely affecting travel times, regardless of what you debate the cause of accidents are.
Andrew you are a rude individual and it is clear to me you have no interest in actual debate or changing your mind.
Of course I don’t drive anymore; I walk and use public transport, and quite frankly you speed-obsessed types come off incredibly ‘first world problems’ whingers to me. Try my on-foot 2 hour round trip food shops on for size and come back to me about how lowering residential speed limits to 30 would be the end of the world.
Because you’re not providing any credible evidence that speeds above 100 aren’t fuel efficient or that hooning around at 50-60-70 in an urban area doesn’t have significant economic and social costs. But your feelings are more important than facts to you, I guess, just like for Simeon.
I was in Ukraine a few years ago, I had long taxi ride, about 150km, when I got into the car the seat belt buckle was blocked so i was unable to insert the tongue. I asked the driver to remove the blocking device, he did the I’m a fantastic driver song and dance, he’d never has an accident, I replied I’m not worried about you but what about everyone else on the road. He unblocked the buckle. About 20 minutes into the drive he did up his own seat belt and said to me ‘I never about the other drivers’.
GlenK – I remember having this discussion with you a few odd months ago and presenting a multitude of evidence showing that it’s really not “mistakes” that lead to crashes, but rather willful disregard for road safety. Here’s the article if you forgot, where ironically the misinformation was in the way this particular poll was conducted:
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2024/07/17/a-blanket-of-misinformation/
I vividly recall you making factually incorrect claims – such as fatalities in Auckland mostly being from active modes – and then backtracking from them once I called you out on it.
The fact that 30-40% of people surveyed admitted to texting while driving shows that people don’t “just make mistakes”, but that they purposefully introduce risk into an otherwise mostly-safe activity.
If 50% of road deaths involve drugs and alcohol, that’s not a case of making mistakes – it’s a systemic problem which needs to be addressed.
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/About-us/docs/oia-2024/oia-14334-attachment-1.pdf
Human mistakes should be rare, and they would be if people were more vigilant. Pulling out on the road or turning right from a left turn lane isn’t a mistake – it’s a case of incompetence which is the real driver of accidents. Now, you can’t fix everything – but you can at least take away phones and booze with cameras like Aussie states have done.
If you would actually post your data for once then maybe there would be something to discuss, but without that it’s very difficult to make a valid counterpoint. Not sure though, maybe my post will get removed for “trolling” (see: opposing viewpoints) before you get a chance to read it.
Regardless of “purposely introduced risk” or “mistakes – the cause there is ample evidence and basic logic that slower speeds = less risk of death or serious injury, regardless of whether it’s a vehicle hitting a pedestrian, cyclist, or another vehicle. Less energy upon impact, shorter braking distance, more time to react. And it really doesn’t affect travel times that much in an urban environment.
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-8139-5
https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/cp_data_news/none-of-the-european-cities-that-lowered-the-speed-limit-to-30-km-h-regrets-it/
Traffic calming and narrower roads will subconsciously make people drive slower; i’ve been in an uber over the centre lanes of the AHB where the driver would not go above 60. Maybe people will take more care not to get on their phones, although I would agree that enforcement and tougher, more expensive licence tests like Europe would help.
If you take that reasoning to its logical conclusion then all speeds everywhere should be 30km/h. After all, pedestrians are everywhere in NZ and that’s the speed which gives them a 10% fatality risk. Even 70km/h is 80% fatal for a side-on, an accident profile which can occur on any road whatsoever.
Licence tests don’t matter, you only take the test once in your life and never again. Enforcement action is different – if you can assign a fine which is representative of the risk you introduce (e.g. mobile phone use) with automated cameras, people will quickly learn that it’s just not worth it and start paying attention to the road.
The study you linked to highlights the frequency and severity of pedestrian motor vehicle collisions (PMVC), an accident profile which just doesn’t happen that much in NZ, as you can see from all my posts two months ago and current MoT data. The second link is just another blog as far as I’m aware, so not much useful data there either.
Your main issue is that you want people to drive slower, so you find evidence which supports your case and ignore everything else. Yes, lower speeds inherently reduce the risk of DSIs. The question is by how much and at what cost, and how does that cost compare to other methods of achieving the same outcome.
Andrew if anything lowering speed limits is also proven to have economic benefits and would not increase travel times or decrease productivity.
https://acrs.org.au/files/papers/arsc/2021/Economic%20impact%20of%2030kmh.pdf
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Metz-2008.pdf
The first (article? – not sure what exactly this three page document is) states quite clearly that their methodology was carried out based on data which does not reflect the realities of New Zealand: “Pedestrian fatalities are the highest proportion of deaths from crashes in many low- and middle- income countries”.
The paper by Metz presents no valuable reasoning whatsoever, and basically claims that since people spend more time on the road, there are no economic benefits to reduced travel time/km. Usually papers with one author and multiple references to their own work are like this.
“As indicated in Figure 1, this has changed rather little over 30 years, during which period car ownership has more than doubled and the average distance travelled has increased by 60%”
If distance increased while time spent stayed constant, that means that more people can get where they want and time actually is the limiting factor. In this case the economic benefits went to businesses being able to hire people who lived further away, people who could now live further away and pay less for land, as well as others. In essence the person writing this doesn’t seem to have a clue about economics and latent demand as well as demand shifts.
Regardless it seems that you haven’t read the research yourself, and after reading four of your articles/papers it’s clear that you’re throwing them against the wall just to see what sticks.
Andrew, I tried to reply to your comments on that previous post but the system wouldn’t put them in for some reason (I had to get the GA admin to release the comment a few days later; maybe you should read that again). Anyway, in answer to your comments this time:
– Here’s the AA Research report about serious crash factors (could Google it yourself): https://www.aa.co.nz/about/aa-research-foundation/programmes/comparing-serious-and-fatal-crashes/ – can link you to the relevant studies from Sweden and Australia too if you’re interested. Any other data/evidence you want me to supply?
– Yeah, I was somewhat clumsy in talking about the prevalence of walk/cycle deaths in Auckland; my point was that most ped/cycle deaths happen in urban areas (vs rural areas) while most motor veh deaths happen in rural areas…
– I note that your stats on deaths due to drugs/alcohol includes those who were below the legal BAC limit…
– Human mistakes while travelling are relatively rare (thankfully), but they still happen enough nationally to cause sufficient crashes. And yes, some people also make bad calls about doing other behaviours like playing on phones or having an extra drink. Either way, ethically I don’t want any of them to get killed/injured, which is what we’re trying to do by introducing lower speeds in various places – reducing the likely consequences. So far, in the locations where they’ve been implemented, that seems to be working quite well…
[Continued trolling under a new name]
However, if the flow of traffic is at 30 kph and not 50 kph, they will still be going 30.
[more trolling]
There are certain circumstances when pedestrians must not enter zebra crossings, or the roadway at traffic lights. But there are literally zero laws that explicitly require pedestrians to give way when crossing the road
Hmm sadly this post is not helping since it does not pass the factcheck, the same issue that we are accusing Simeon Brown off.
Being familiar with Sweden I was confused when I read the authors confident statements about Stockholm, a city where my employer is based and I visit frequently and Sweden in general. It didn’t make sense to me since my lived experiences are very different. hence I did a quick factcheck and found that the claims for Sweden is not supported by what the relevant Swedish government agencies state on their respective websites:
Stockholm: the speed on all residential streets are not 30km/h
https://trafik.stockholm/trafiksakerhet-trafikregler/nya-hastigheter/
Actually reading further, 50km/h was the norm until 2022 when the new decision that stated 30km/h or 40km/h, depending on location and the road should be the new norm for residential streets (this is also something that the Greens have pushed and something the opposition has stated will be reversed if they win the next municipal election).
Sweden did not flirt with 40km/h, it introduced it as part of a shift that regulate speeds on national roads (generally the agency is reducing speeds with 10km/h, even if the website states that speed will go down and up depending on the condition of the road). The allowed speeds on Swedens national roads will be 120, 100, 80, 60, 40 and 30 km/h. There was no reduction to 20km/h.
https://www.trafikverket.se/resa-och-trafik/trafiksakerhet/sakerhet-pa-vag/hastighetsgranser-pa-vag/ratt-hastighet-pa-vagen/
I personally agree that S Brown is a very poor choice for minister and that he seems ideologically driven, in an unhealthy way. But if we are to critique him, we must do so based on correct facts and for Sweden (only country I fact-checked) that is not the case. I believe its important to go through the other countries as well to ensure that this post is accurate.
Quite possibly one of the most awful currently in power, although many others are trying to be terrible, anti human ministers.
Sad for us with young children, knowing how frightening anything on wheels can be; and terrible for any push away from private automobiles.
My children will always be with me, on a bus, or a ferry, or a train. That is where they can be safe. School and kindergarten pick ups are tough without a motor vehicle, but I am still young enough to be able to walk a block or three to catch a bus.
Continue being glad to not live anywhere near Wellington!
Yes, it is troubling how often Simeon Brown intentionally misrepresents the facts. Another of his favourite lines is that only Wellington did an economic analysis of lowering speed limits and found a negative benefit-cost ratio for lowering speeds. As Chris Morahan sets out this is note quite true:
https://talkingtransport.com/2024/01/25/are-lower-speed-limits-a-good-idea/
Similarly Simeon Brown continues to quote the cost of a raised crossing as $ 500,000 even though it has been pointed out to him that this is also not true. This is becoming a pattern and shows that he intentionally misleads. I wonder why he feels that he has to continue to resort to misrepresentation. It is one thing to clearly prefer certain outcomes, but there is no need to then mislead people. The real arguments Simeon Brown could advance may sound a bit feeble, but it is disheartening to see how the truth suffers.
120kph ??? Simeon, you have to be joking. For most of the reasons cited above, NZers are generally poor drivers. Cut the open road limit to 90kph so cars are doing the same as truck & trailers (except for passing lanes), 40kph in suburbs, & 30kph past schools, $1000 fines for using a cellphone, & get rid of judder bars, Remember the French for traffic ? -Circulation.
[I’m the same troll under a different name]
For those who would like to blame everything on distraction/impairment and pretend that exclusively applies to bad drivers, its worth remembering that drugs/alcohol aren’t the only forms of impairment and cellphones aren’t the only form of distraction.
Have you ever driven tired/fatigued/seriously unwell, those are forms of impairment too. Have you ever driven with kids/grandkids arguing in the back seat, that is distraction too. Can you still say you have never driven impaired or distracted?
Also, even if you are somehow the “perfect driver” who never makes mistakes your speed still determines the outcome of other peoples mistakes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2rFTbvwteo
+1. Last part is so important.
[More trolling, ignore]
Evidence once again says the speed demons are wrong.
‘The travel time argument is often raised by the community around a perception that lower speed limits will dramatically increase travel times and hence fatigue, especially in rural areas. Evidence to date shows
that where speed limits are lowered there has been a corresponding reduction in injuries and no rise in fatigue-related crashes. There are several factors that needs to be considered:
1. The reduction in travel time will generally be less than that expected as a result of an increase in speed limit. This is because vehicles are unlikely to travel at the speed limit for the total length of a journey. Other sources of influence on a vehicle’s speed can include lower speed limits in townships, intersections, curves, grade changes and interactions with other traffic. As such, the likelihood of a driver experiencing fatigue due to a slight increase in travel time is not significant.
2. Travel time savings are only likely to be significant over very long distances. For most routes, theaverage trip distance per vehicle using the route, will not be very long. Any potential (and debatable) fatigue reduction benefits of a higher speed limit for long distance drivers will be
more than offset by the increase in risk to all drivers on that route.
3. Safety improvements from lower speeds far outweigh any disbenefits from potential fatigue. Research shows this to be the case. For example:
a. In 1987 the speed limit on the rural and outer Melbourne freeway network was raised from 100 km/h to 110 km/h. An extensive evaluation of the change found that the casualty crash rate increased by 25%. When 100 km/h speed limit was reintroduced 12 months later, the casualty crash rate decreased by 19.3%. These results are consistent with national and international experience.
b. A study published in the September Journal of Public Health (USA) analysed the number of fatalities and injuries in crashes from 1995 to 2005 on interstate and non-interstate highways. It found a 3.2% increase in road fatalities attributable to speed limit increases on all road types and estimated that, over a 10 year period, over 12,500 deaths and over
36,500 injuries were attributable to increased speed limits.
https://safesystemsolutions.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Myth-3-Higher-speed-limits-mean-less-travel-time-less-fatigue-fewer-crashes-BUSTED.pdf
in other news, water is wet.
Some of the reported facts about Norway in the article need checking. There are no traffic free zones around any schools in the part of Norway where I live, nor have I noticed them around any schools in other towns in Norway.
Oslo did block many streets and made driving more difficult but then they also spent 10’s of billions of NOK upgrading and extending the motorway network through and around the city. It should also be noted that Oslo the city and Olso the region (are not the same, many of the municipalities ringing Oslo did not implement the same road changes that Oslo did. Think Auckland prior to the Supercity.
What should also be highlighted is the Scandinavian countries plus Finland have very comprehensive driving courses, it is not easy or cheap getting a license in any of these countries. Norwegians view driving as a privilege not a right, with that privilege come responsibilities, including zero tolerance and if you mess up you pay up, the fines are staggeringly high.
Conservative governments everywhere are all the same. Facts and evidence doesn’t matter – it’s all ideological and based on their own feelings. When presented with evidence they’ll just call it fake and move forward, making their countries/states/provinces/cities worse in the process and spending more money to do it.
Good post, finally read it. That 2nd to last graphic seems out of scale or in error with the 5 m bit, looking more like 10 m.