Yesterday, the newly minted Minister of Transport Chris Bishop and the Prime Minister of New Zealand Christopher Luxon held a press conference to announce a tranche of 38 state highways where speed limits will be automatically increased, and a further 49 up for public consultation on whether speeds should rise.

This policy direction, set by the previous Minister of Transport, will unequivocally lead to more people dying and being injured on our roads. Moreover, it’s unusual for the Prime Minister himself to front such an announcement, where he insisted “We are literally, literally accelerating New Zealand’s economic growth.”

And it’s highly unusual to make such an announcement, as Stuff/ Three News reports, “on a corner in Wairarapa where someone had lost their life.”

So, yes, I have some follow-up questions.

Update: RNZ reports this morning that a judicial review has been lodged regarding the Setting of Speed Limits 2024 rule, on the grounds that “the decision to adopt [it] is inconsistent with the minister’s objectives under the Land Transport Act.”

A screenshot of the news report by Stuff/ Three News on 29 January 2025, showing a white memorial cross at the location where the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Transport Minister Chris Bishop announced speed limits will go back up.

This post, like all our work, is brought to you by a largely volunteer crew and made possible by generous donations from our readers and fans. If you’d like to support our work, you can join our circle of supporters here, or support us on Substack!


Don’t you reckon your timing is a bit… off?

Place and time, fellas. Place and time.

It’s not just the bad look of announcing higher speeds at a location where someone was killed on the road.

It’s also that, as Napier-based Andrew Frame pointed out, among the listed roads where speeds will automatically accelerate to ensure “productivity” are…

…two Hawke’s Bay highways that saw major crashes in the last week, contributing to a total of 32 hours of road closures on crucial access routes in the area.

Tuesday: Police urge caution after tragic week on Hawke’s Bay highways, with roads closed for 32 hours by major crashesWednesday: NATIONAL INCREASE SPEEDS ON THE SAME HIGHWAYSwww.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-t…

Andrew Frame (@napierinframe.bsky.social) 2025-01-28T21:37:03.752Z

Who on earth decides to announce speed raises in this context, and dares to claim it will improve productivity? As reported by the NZ Herald,

All four of Hawke’s Bay’s busiest highways have been closed by major crashes over the past week, prompting a top police officer to urge the region’s drivers to slow down and drive without distractions.

…on Friday evening, a crash closed State Highway 51 between St Georges Rd and Napier Rd near Hastings from 7.40pm until 6.30am on Saturday.
On Sunday, the Lowe Corporation Rescue Helicopter was called when a car left the road and rolled down a steep bush-covered ravine near Tarawera on State Highway 5. Two people were transported to hospital with minor injuries.

Then on Monday afternoon, four people were injured in a crash that closed SH5 near Waipunga, on the border with Bay of Plenty.
Emergency services and three rescue helicopters (one each from Taupō, Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne) were called just before 4pm.
All four were airlifted to Waikato Hospital, three in a serious condition and one in a minor condition, and the road was closed from 4pm to 7pm.

And as Hawke’s Bay District road policing manager Inspector Angela Hallett pointed out, speed is a key multiplier regardless of other contributing factors:

Hallett says speed is the “ultimate killer”.
“Speed is the one that determines the outcome of the crash,” she said.
“The speed limit is not a target, and we want people to drive to the conditions.”


You’re now claiming you’ll only increase speeds “where safe to do so” – so, firstly, where’s the evidence – and secondly, why is that phrase nowhere in the legislation?

At Wednesday’s press conference, Chris Bishop faced questions on speed as a major risk factor:

Asked about the impact higher speed limits could have on the road toll, Bishop said the major cause of deaths on the road was drugs and alcohol.
“Thirty per cent of deaths on our roads can be attributed to drugs.”
“It is not to say speed isn’t important, it is important,” he said, adding that speed limits were being put up where it was safe to do so.
Asked if he would be open to reducing the speed limits again if there was an uptick in serious injuries or deaths on the given roads, Bishop said: “We have been clear this will not come at the [cost] of safety.”
Reversing speed limit reductions where it is safe to do so was a promise made to New Zealanders in the National-Act coalition agreement.

So just to be very very clear: speed limits had been reduced based on evidence and local experience, and are now being raised based on policy and central government reckons…. and will be lowered again once people start being injured and killed?

You’re putting local people back in harm’s way to test a reckon? This is what passes for evidence now?

Seriously: if it’s that important to keep a coalition promise to increase speed limits (arguable), why not invest in the road improvements that would make it safe to travel at the higher speeds you’re aiming for? Be the change you wish to see! Fix the undivided rural highways, protect people in oncoming traffic from each other. Direct some of the mega-road RoNS budget towards urgent safety fixes, instead of willy-nilly lifting speed limits just because you said you would.

Update: the NZ Herald reports this morning that there’s concern about the state of the Northland roads slated for speed rises. This is eyecatching, given the government’s stated priority of “productivity”:

Northland Chamber of Commerce chief executive Leah McKerrow said reducing speed limits could make travel faster times and improve supply chain efficiency “in theory”. However, this needed to be offset with safety concerns, she said.

“We already know road safety is an issue in Northland and the cost to communities around road deaths and accidents is high.

“Most critically … is the state of our roads.

“These are not Waikato expressways; our roads are in disrepair. Higher speeds could lead to more accidents.

“Until they improve the quality of the roads, increasing the speed limit is putting the wrong priority on it.”

Moreover, the chair of AA Northland District Council says they “would rather the speed limits at SH11 Te Haumi and SH1 Kamo Bypass be retained”, citing strong local reasons (and local support) for the reduced speed limits:

“The AA supported the current speed limit [at Te Haumi] because of lower speeds being required around two bends and the pedestrian/vehicle traffic along the beach.

“The SH1 Kamo Bypass had been set at 60 to reflect the KiwiRail line and turn off at Puna Rere Drive, which the council supported.”


Why are you continuing to mislead the public about international best practice?

Yesterday the new Minister for Transport tossed out a talking point that his predecessor loved so much he read it out in Parliament, even though it’s not in the least accurate:

“Throughout the world, 50km/h is used as the right speed limit to keep urban roads flowing smoothly and safely. The evidence on this is clear – comparable countries with the lowest rates of road deaths and serious injuries, such as Norway, Denmark, and Japan, have speed limits of 50km/h on their urban roads, with exceptions for lower speed limits.“

We’ve tackled this nonsense previously… but to briefly reiterate, both Ministers are entirely wrong about:

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.

From this article in May 2020, 65% of Oslo’s road length is designated as 30km/hr

2) Denmark

These are the ‘exceptions’ that Chris Bishop is clearly referring to in Denmark’s capital Copenhagen:

Map via Twitter. For the non Danish speakers, purple = 30km/h zones and streets, orange = 40km/h.

3) Japan

Japan is literally looking to introduce ‘blanket’ speed limit reductions because its safer for people:

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.


Do ‘Kiwi kids’ exist beyond the school gate, or at weekends?

At the press conference, Chris Bishop took a moment to note what’s planned for making streets safer for children:

“We are prioritising the safety of Kiwi kids by introducing reduced speed limits outside schools during pick-up and drop-off times. We want to see these changes brought about quickly,” Bishop said.
“By 1 July 2026, local streets outside a school will be required to have a 30km/h variable speed limit. Rural roads that are outside schools will be required to have variable speed limits of 60km/h or less.”

This verbal sleight of hand masks a lethal switcheroo. The proposed variable speed limits outside schools – at limited times and limited locations – will only address a tiny fraction of children’s journeys to school, make minimal improvement to travel times, and are the least cost-effective approach. As we’ve previously pointed out from research in Auckland:

The evidence shows that in Auckland 85% of deaths and serious injuries around schools occur outside of pick-up and drop-off times – and moreover, that permanent safe speed zones are the most cost-effective.

According to Auckland Transport’s research, the travel time difference between permanent 30km/h zones around schools and temporary 30km/h limits is negligible: around 2 seconds for the average journey.

Moreover, Brown and now Bishop are committed to undoing existing safe speed zones in urban areas, lifting speeds around schools from 30km/h back up to 50km/h. This will have deadly results. Children exist and move around outside of school, and outside of school hours. Ignoring this fact – and forcing councils and communities to reintroduce unsafe speeds in neighbourhoods – is the total opposite of “prioritising Kiwi kids.”

Update: this is a point the judicial review takes on directly, as per this morning’s report from RNZ:

[Bevan] Woodward said one of the grounds for the review was that it was “unreasonable and perverse” for former Transport minister Simeon Brown to require the reversal of any speed limit reduction put in place because of the presence of a school.

“Local communities were very involved in advocating for safer speeds, they are concerned about their children getting to school and I think New Zealanders in general are really concerned about the rate of deaths on our roads which by international standards are very high.”


Why are you still fibbing about ‘Labour’s blanket speed limit’ reductions, and why is the media repeating it?

As previously covered, the last government did not impose “blanket” speed limit reductions: this is a lie that mainstream media have swallowed, and regurgitate with disappointing regularity, as in RNZ’s coverage yesterday:

Said Chris Bishop, announcing the reductions:

“National campaigned on reversing the blanket speed limit reductions at the last election, and over 65 percent of submitters during consultation on the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024, agreed.”

The phrase even made it to the Prime Minister of New Zealand’s social media.

To reiterate: the 2022 Speed Limit Rule set by Labour was so uncontroversial, it drew only 325 submissions. (Simeon Brown’s rewrite attracted 25x as many submissions, many of which were actively solicited by the Minister himself.)

Crucially, it was the New Zealand Police who asked for blanket reductions – but instead, Labour opted for reductions that were community-led, and grounded in context and evidence.

This is all plainly laid out, and has been publicly available for several years, in the 2021 Cabinet paper, which says:

Police continue to express a preference for introducing a default national speed limit for all local roads or State highways presenting most risk.

Introducing local road or State highway default speed limits was out of scope of the new speed management framework, except, to an extent, regarding schools. RCAs are expected to take a targeted, risk-based approach to speed management. This supports a flexible and appropriate framework which empowers local authorities to consider local context and conditions to support broad transport-informed outcomes, underpinned by national guidance.

[…]

Secondly, while Police strongly support the earlier timeframes for reducing school speed limits, Police recommend one consistent safe speed limit around all schools, regardless of location. This is to avoid a possible ‘blanket’ approach of RCAs applying maximum 60 km/h limits around all category two school areas.

However, officials advise that this is unlikely. Waka Kotahi is developing guidance setting out the criteria that RCAs must consider under the rule if they are proposing to set a school speed limit (permanent or variable) higher than 30km/h. Under the new Speed Rule, they then must review these school speed limits after three years. Police have acknowledged that this may mitigate inappropriate speed limits around schools being applied.

In other words, the easy phrase that the new Transport Minister and the Prime Minister of New Zealand are using to justify their lethal policy is a lie, and yet we see it again, reportedly uncritically, again.


Why are you so determined to reverse the gains we’ve made in road safety?

As Matt pointed out in a recent post, we’ve recently turned a corner: New Zealand’s appalling road safety statistics have finally started to trend in the right direction:

Last year, 292 people died unnecessarily on our roads. That is the lowest result in over a decade and only the fourth time in the last 70 years we’ve seen fewer than 300 deaths in a calendar year. Yet, while it is 292 people too many, with each death being a tragedy for the family and friends of those lost, in terms of fatalities this is also arguably the best (least worst) year on the roads that New Zealand has yet seen.

Safer speeds on risky roads are a demonstrable factor. And yet this gaslighting government wants to just focus on ‘other factors’ that lead to crashes – disregarding commonsense, experts, the NZ Police, and decades of messaging on the theme “the faster you go, the bigger the mess”.

Of course we need to tackle drink-driving, drugged driving, distractions. But it’s not an either/or: in fact it’s more effective to deal with the multiple factors that lead to road crashes.

Instead, this government has chosen to play culture wars, against advice received in Cabinet, against any evidence, in pursuit of negligible time savings (which by the way, often don’t even apply to trucks, which have a hard 90km/h speed cap).


Whatever happened to “local control” of local issues?

The government that campaigned on restoring local control is now arbitrarily forcing communities and councils to reverse speed limits outright, and re-consult on long-awaited speed reductions. This RNZ story about the Tasman District underscores the frustration. To give just one example:

Lower speeds have been sought in the rural village of Ngātīmoti for more than a decade and some residents are becoming increasingly frustrated with the delays.

Motueka Valley Association member Patrick Shortley, who supported the reductions, said the current speed limit was “very dangerous” because road visibility was poor.

“It’s a bit of a nightmare,” he said. “There’s constantly a parade of people crossing that highway.”

Speeds were poised to reduce on Monday 27 January, but the updated government rule which mandated the council re-consult residents pushed the changes out to the third quarter of 2025, and Shortley was “actually quite angry” about the additional delay.

In earlier rounds of consultation, 91 percent of submitters who mentioned the Motueka Valley Highway wanted lower speeds around Ngātīmoti.

Moreover – as with the Hawke’s Bay examples I began with – many of the speed raises announced yesterday fail to pass the local sniff test. For example, as this Bluesky post asks, why would you increase the speed limit from 60km/h to 70km/h on SH16 through Waimauku, when people have to slow down to go through the roundabout? It’s just silly.


Lastly: hey, did you know there’s an election next year?

Having nailed its grim colours to the mast, this government now must wear the results. Every crash, every injury, every death, every delay on the roads where speeds were raised… all will be tied back to this government’s insistence on continuing a lethal policy. By the time the next election rolls around, the impacts will be mounting up, and hard to hide from.

It doesn’t have to be like this. We’ve been doing the right thing, in line with peer countries around the world. Wouldn’t it be great if this government lived by the words of its new Transport Minister Chris Bishop, who said yesterday, while doing the complete opposite:

“Today provides a classic example of our government’s determination to stop letting government agencies put things in the too-hard basket, and instead to push forward for actual results.”

There will be results, just maybe not in the way you might have hoped.

But it’s not too late – this government could change tack. If changing speeds “where safe to do so” is truly what Bishop and the government want to do, then prove it.


This post, like all our work, is brought to you by a largely volunteer crew and made possible by generous donations from our readers and fans. If you’d like to support our work, you can join our circle of supporters here, or support us on Substack!

Share this

89 comments

  1. Can’t speak for all these roads, but the list includes increasing a stretch of Greenwood Street in Hamilton from 60 to 80. This despite the fact the road north of Killarney Road has always been 60 (at least in the last 20 years and likely several years earlier) and that it’s extremely difficult to make a case that 80 is a safe speed for this stretch of road.

  2. There does have to be some balance between lost time and safety. For example the Napier Taupo road speed limit change added 20 mins to that journey. Multiply that out over the thousands of people that use that road daily, and there is a lot of time/life wasted.
    With Covid we were told by experts that we had to be locked down in Auckland because of Omicron. We collectively lost months of our lives to possibly save a few lives. The experts seemed unable to balance the life lost due to their rules vs the life lost due to the disease, they wanted to save every life at any expense. They would probably have us all locked down now if they could. So you can understand why voters are sick of listening to experts.
    I am not saying what National are doing is right. But maybe instead of listening to experts, Labour would have been better off with baby steps. 90km/hr instead of 80, 40km/hr instead of 30, make sure the reduced speed limits are well sign posted and don’t change continuously all over the place. They need to do what is politically acceptable to the voting public, not what some boffin tells them.

    1. I’d much rather a govt. that does what is best for the country based on advice from people who know what they are talking about, rather than do what layman voters think is best for them in order to win votes.

    2. Labour think the experts know best. National think they know best. Neither seem to care what the average voter wants.

      1. The average voter wants people to slow down in their neighbourhood and be able go fast through everyone else’s neighbourhood.

        1. A sensible govt which cares about actually *governing* mediates between these extremes.

          A populist or ideological govt throws its hat into the ring as if it was a battle to be right, not matter what.

    3. Your 20 mins claim doesn’t stack up. There is a 76km section of the Napier Taupo with a 80kmh speed limit, travelling at the speed limit on this whole section would take 57 minutes, with a speed limit of 100kmh it would take 46 mins.

      Of course there are plenty of bits of this road where you travel at less than 100kmh anyway (irrespective of the speed limit) plus time spent behind slower drivers.

      The true difference is likely to be somewhere between 5 & 10 mins.

      1. Fair enough, I accidentally did my maths on the entire stretch of road.
        In our last return trip to Napier we had 4 people in the car. If we lost 7.5 mins * 2 trips, that is collectively one hour lost. So it is pretty significant. Worthwhile? I am on the fence… But I can see how some voters would think otherwise.

        1. If these 7.5 minutes are so important to you, why did you not fly? That would have been clearly much faster. If we calculate a Auckland – Napier trip at 5 hours (pretty fast) and allow 3 hours for the flight all inclusive (reasonable if you drive to the airport), you would have saved 2 * 4 * 2 trips = 16 hours!
          Also, one hour “lost” sounds a lot, but given that this is on a 5 hour (likely more) road trip of 4 people, that is an extra contribution of 2.5% just for the car ride – usually, your stay at your destination would be at least 4-5 times longer, reducing the percentage even further.

        2. And have you included the not inconsiderable time savings made by reducing the accident rate on the road, when full or partial road closures are required to clear the debris, and gather evidence?
          Family members who traverse regularily between Picton and Nelson say the reduced speed limits there resulting in reduced accidents has considerably improved the reliability of the road. With many less total closures, some of them for hours, as crashed vehicles were recovered from on the road, or down the bank.

        3. jimbojones I drive Napier Taupo frequently. It is much slower than it once was but this primarily due to ongoing works post Gabrielle.
          I also follow a Facebook group that post about issues on SH5 Taupo-Napier and the number of posts complaining about excessive speeding is extraordinary.

    4. The Delta lockdown (there was no lockdown for Omicron) didn’t have a lot to do with what experts thought. There are cabinet papers that show a deputation from both Treasury and the Ministry of Health saying that we need to reduce restrictions as the costs are outweighing the benefits.

      The government stuck with restrictions because the majority of the country was still convinced that we could keep it out. Auckland of course paid a heavy and unfair price so the rest of us could live a relatively normal life in late 2021.

      1. OK, not a lockdown, but there were significant restrictions in place during Omicron, and also during Delta after everyone had a chance to immunise. And every time the government reduced the restrictions, the experts said it was a terrible idea and people were going to die. I never heard an expert calculate the negative affects of those restrictions: economic, education, mental health, etc, they wanted to save lives at any cost.

        1. That’s because they were health experts, often specifically in the field of epidemiology. The government of course didn’t just listen to them otherwise we probably would have been in lockdown.

          I thought the Omicron restrictions were quite reasonable, the biggest impact actually came from people choosing to hide away.

          We went out for dinner a couple of times and had near empty restaurants even though they were open to business and also flew down to the South Island for a holiday in half empty planes.

    5. You don’t think it a false equivalence to compare time lost in many journeys across many people to an individual total loss of life or life changing injury?

      As for voters, about 20% of the public are too young to drive or vote. Of those eligible to drive, around 10-20% will have no license at all, depending on your neighbourhood.

      We demand safe systems from experts on railways and airlines. Roads shouldn’t get a hall pass just because we view driving as a participation sport.

    6. Are you factoring in the large chunk that are just going to end up at an intersection sooner and wait anyway. As well all the minutes or hours people loose when the road has to be closed to due a major crash? Also all the times there is a truck and people have to go slower anyway? Probably not. With all that factored in it would probably a rather minimal delay.

      Also, on lockdowns, they didn’t take time from anyone, with exception of level 4 most people were doing what they otherwise would have anyway. Not everyone is well-off enough to be holidaying around the country or the world. I’m sure they could live with doing what many others do most, if not all of the time, and stay put in your region.

    7. Interestingly, in 2+ years after the 80kmh limit was introduced, deaths and serious injuries on this stretch of road went from over 10 a year in the previous five years to about 5 a year afterwards. Comparing that against the adjacent parts of SH5 either side that were unchanged, the result is a more than 40% reduction in the rate of DSIs – not bad for “just” lowering the speed limit…
      The past few months, the TREC team have been working on introducing various safety improvements along the route (barriers, wide centrelines, shoulder widening, etc) and other maintenance repairs. These will no doubt improve the relative safety of the route and could make it easier to justify parts of it going back to 90k or 100k. But they do take time and money to implement; let’s not forget that it is quicker and cheaper to change speed limits in many places…

  3. What frustrates me is that absolutely no one asked the obvious question. It’s still a political left VS right football.
    The question:
    We now have DATA!!!! For both before and after speed limit reductions. Can we please simply compare the actual increase/decrease in time travel savings and costs, the actual increase/decrease injuries/deaths, etc and any other metrics that are relevant.

    I still rather err on the side of safety, but data is important. So far it’s all anecdotal evedince.

    If we do not have these metrics, can we please kick someone so we start measuring KPIs?

    1. But pandering to idiots is a world-wide trend. Maybe pandemics impair people’s brains a bit and there is an inevitable move to the right as a result. The most important thing right now is to not piss people off just because we can (yes, yes, I know, it is rich coming from me). We now live in a world where only the left is held to a standard of truth and lying on the right is seen as strength. People have lost faith in government, in institutions and in experts. The chance to use data will be once we can show this change has resulted in more deaths. After 9/11 the New York Times wrote short biographies of the victims and ran them for weeks. Some were interesting, some sad and some funny. Maybe something like would make our road death statistics more human. Maybe more people would care. The problem is that people who read newspapers already care and those who don’t care don’t read.

    2. I’m not sure we do have the definitive data, there are so many moving parts it could easily manipulated to paint a picture that suited a certain view.

      What we do have is mountains of evidence of inflection points between 100kmh and 80kmh for car occupants and between 50kmh and 30kmh for pedestrians.

      In any other field we would choose the optimum corner of this inflection but for roads we choose the worst corner of it.

    3. Who’s to say we don’t have the data? Presumably when NZTA were looking to reduce the speed limits on these roads in the first place they looked at data. The government could have done the same when deciding to increase the speed limits (although I’m less confident on that front). I’m probably going to submit an OIA request to find out.

    4. Yes, there is lots of data. For example, see the eye-catching chart prepared by Glenn Koorey at Via Strada, showing reductions in DSI of 21%-78% following specific speed limit reductions (lower reductions when limits reduced from 50 to 30, higher for 100->80): https://www.linkedin.com/posts/glenkoorey_speedmatters-roadsafety-activity-7212668725265674240-J417

      It should be possible to estimate the total impact on DSI from the present round of increases, it’s got to be significant. 50-100 deaths per year?

      1. Thanks for the plug, Robert! I’ve actually now done a more updated before/after analysis, including adding a few more areas of note – see https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7291032964438638592/ (there’s also a link on there to the background details and calcs).
        It still tells a good news story, particularly with the more recent speed limit changes introduced – all the sadder that many of these are proposed for reversing (or at least consultation on that)…

    5. Data takes time. Ideally, 5 years before and after a change to be be statistically significant. Unfortunately, many of the speed limit changes have not had enough time for verified CAS data to accumulate. But provisional statistics can be used.
      Travel time data are available, which would be much more meaningful than the simple distance vs. speed limit that we can quickly calculate, that only relates to free-flow and doesn’t account for slowing for intersections.
      It doesn’t help that Simeon decided to down-size the team who compile and verify CAS data. Like Trump, if you don’t look, you don’t see.

  4. In Japan, the open road speed limit is 60km/h, to our 100 km/h.
    Higher speed limits are only in place on motorways.

  5. Great post Connor, the speed reductions of the last term were well consulted upon with the public and local board members and it was a nuanced data driven approach. There was a place for 40kph limits in it. Great to see the data here that safety initiatives were leading to a reduction of deaths in the road. higher speeds have a chilling effect on the independent mobility of kids, seniors and the disabled. I wanted to add a measure for local boards to track the increased proportion of kids (9ish) walking or cycling to school alone. Not taken up unfortunately. We do know that the one place kids have more freedom than ten years ago is Mangere where a safer environment for them was created. How many kids and older people are stuck at home because they can’t drive and the walking environment is too dangerous? I’m so pleased that Waitemata and the city centre is bucking the trend in supporting people to get around safely without needing a car. (Which creates more relaxed places and takes the pressure of the road for those who have to drive as well).

  6. I always think that 300 – 350 deaths per year is equivalent to a full Boeing 777 crashing and everyone on board dying. Not once per year around the world, but every single year in New Zealand alone. The Boeing 737 that crashed in South Korea recently had 179 fatalities—that is a much smaller plane.

    Would we accept a full 777 crashing in NZ every single year? No. So why do we accept the same number of people dying on the roads?

    1. People seem to overestimate the level of control they have over their safety when driving. A plane crash would be unacceptable because we are all passengers and the pilot is a professional. When it comes to driving, we all think we are such great drivers and accidents won’t happen because of our driving.

      1. Yes, it’s interesting how much I hear from the average person that it’s the “bad” reckless drivers causing most of the carnage (probably because that’s all they hear about in the media). That goes against the evidence worldwide (including here) that in most cases someone just made a human mistake or misjudgment (hey, we’ve all done that on the road…) and didn’t get away with it for once…

    2. Well if the pilots of those 777s were high or drunk a small % of the time that might happen. Pilots are professionals and undergo regular testing and training. If we did the same for cars there would be hardly any road deaths. Don’t worry the greens only delayed Roadside drug testing because it might impact certain people. If you use illicit drugs you shouldn’t be on the road period even if you’re not currently impaired you should be behind bars if you go anywhere near the wheel of a car.

  7. As far as l can see,the role of PM,s science advisor remains unfulfilled, as does a science advisor for transport. Speculating that no-one wants to “risk” their reputation arguing politics over evidence.

  8. Well that was a disappointing first contribution by our new Transport Minister. Just more of the same “cars must go vroom, no matter the cost.”

    1. No thought about fuel consumption, emissions etc either. Just keep burning as much as you like, it’s not like it is a finite imported product.

  9. Yesterday I spent time with a former police officer. He attended many of the crashes on the former SH1 between Paekakariki and Pukerua Bay. There were many deaths and lots of injuries. Our local volunteer fire brigade was regularly called out to clean up the carnage. Then they lowered the speed limit and put in wire barriers. Now all we see are stretches of wire rope being repaired after another truck or car veered across towards the oncoming traffic but did not kill or injure anyone. The fire brigade now have much fewer call outs. My son in law is also in the police and regularly attends crashes, often fatal. Perhaps Simeon and Chris should go on patrol with first responders and see the results of accidents.

    1. Thanks – this is the “road to zero” billion dollar funding putting in median barriers, and safe speed initatives doing the heavy lifting.

      Not killing people sells no newspapers and driving fun is fast, speed limits are woke…

      Simeon and Chris understand the stats and the issues. They run on votes, not facts. More children will be hurt. More kids will die.

  10. Very disappointing to see Bishop repeating the same lies as Brown, “blanket”, “where safe to do so” etc. Good luck to the judicial review which seems to be our only hope now. Lots more to come here as soon we will have the complete list of local roads for which there is no possibility of community input.

  11. Even if alcohol and drugs are in fact the leading cause of road deaths (the evidence seems to be disputed), that doesn’t mean that speed is not also a major cause. Besides, do we really want drunk/drugged drivers going 100 instead of 80? Or is the government planning to eliminate drunk driving completely?

    1. Yeah, it’s not really about the “cause” of crashes anyway – lots of different factors contribute to why someone ends up in a collision. But at that point, your travelling speed becomes critical – if I’m suddenly heading towards another vehicle, person, or object, I’d really wish I was going slower (and no, that doesn’t mean the absurd conclusion that we should all just do 5kmh – it’s about having survivable speeds for different kinds of conflicts). Basically speed affects the CONSEQUENCES of virtually every road crash out there…

  12. Tremendous boost to Auckland’s economy! Based on free-flow at speed limits, not actual travel times:
    Auckland
    SH1 South of Dome Valley (to be consulted): cars save 30 sec, trucks save 22 sec in free flow, but trucks accelerating north from roundabout need to merge with cars on left free-flowing from motorway

    Waimauku: roundabout in the middle requires same deceleration and circulation, so speed increase is not over the full distance – save 12 sec in free flow
    Paerata: save 24 sec in free flow

    1. They were ordered to. Not sure how much discretion they have to push back against government policies that fly in the face of evidence.

      In this specific case they did have discretion as to which state highways should have speed increases immediately, and which should be consulted on, but they haven’t released any information as to how they made those decisions or how the consultation will be taken into account.

      1. This is also the same NZTA who spends taxpayer money advertising on Facebook to tell drivers it’s important to drive at the speed limit. /sigh

    2. Yes. Or as independent as a board that is appointed by Ministers and funded by Ministers can be. They are not under the thumb of the Ministers on a daily basis. If they were completely controlled they would put the word ‘Independent’ in front of their name like those police complaints people.

  13. Chris Bishop needs to shred the media notes left behind by Simeon Brown and ask for some serious briefing by MoT and NZTA managers and experts. Especially, Simeon should be taking his blanket with him, which he will need in hospital. I hoped we’d heard the last of the blanket fib, but no.
    Remember, the opposite of woke is fast asleep at the wheel.

  14. So the saying “If they already told you what they were going to do the first time, believe them” seems to be true so far.

    Trusting Mr I did a deal for Winton, so naive. So far

  15. Let’s not forget as well behind all this is the societal relationship between high speeds, fast cars and perceived ‘manliness’, which continues to permeate through society and culture. It’s historically ‘manly’ to promote fast driving (think James Bond and ‘Fast and the Furious’) and even big explosions, and the people in positions of transport influence within National at this time are men (in fact the vast majority of people in the transport sector are men) … as politicians, they all want to improve their public image and impress other men around them. It’s sad, but this has real influence over policy, our environments and in the end, people’s lives.

  16. NZ, as a only place in the world should give up driving in all major cities, Auckland should be the first one to give up all cars. All people should use their legs, no driving in any place, which is more environment safe, air pollution down. People and people are more close, they can talk, hands on hands to create more relations. NZ don’t want any foreign investment as N z can live by her own. NZ has everything, NZ don’t need immigrants, NZ alone can change the global temperature. NZ people want to live with trees, they can eat the leaves, roots, they can dance with the birds.

    NZ people die due to people driving, NZ want to go back to thousands years ago when vehicle not yet there.

    1. Any time someone tries to balance things and make things make sense when it comes to motoring: OH GOD YOU ARE TRYING TO BAN CARS!

      This is why driving sucks, so many drive, driving gets rolled out the red carpet everywhere, why would you bother walking, cycling or catching a bus or train when it’s made so convenient, and those other things are made so difficult to use. Meanwhile more and more drive, making driving suck more. It’s stupid, drivers aren’t winning from this stupid pro-car mentality because being pro-car is inherently anti-car, anti-human being nonsense. Its inefficient, expensive and a waste of resources, bad for the environment and the economy. Stop being a transport armchair expert and leave it to the people with some actual sense.

      More should be done to try to put buses, trains, cars, pedestrians, cyclists at the same level. This will solve everything, for everyone. Instead, we resist a sensible approach and enforce putting all our eggs in one basket, a basket than a large chunk of the population can’t even do, driving. Stupidity. Utter stupidity, based on some fanciful ideology that everyone can drive, and do so with 4 empty seats with no other cars on the road forever like a car commercial. Wake up! Go live on a private island or something where you don’t have to deal with the reality of a growing region and/or country. It doesn’t sound like society is for you.

      1. Exactly!! No car, all by foot. NZ can demonstrate to the world here WE are NZ, we can do anything! No car, no pollution, no agreement on speed, less spending on transport, than lower tax to support Transport, than lower living cost! What a place many NZ people dream of!

  17. Thank the Lord that this delusional pack of cretins weren’t running the country when Covid19 was at its worst. As a cyclist and pedestrian I will feel alot less safe once these new speed limits are imposed

  18. If the Government is truely interested in the economic benifits of saving a very few minutes per trip, how about putting some effort into reducing the station dwell times of Auckland’s electric multiple units?
    At no cost to lives, and to health, and expensive equipment replacement due to accidents.
    And the overall time savings to our population will be in the same order as reinstating previous speed limits.

  19. Japan is a terrible example of lower speed limits work lol. 60 is the urban default and in all the 30 areas everyone does about 60 and in 50 areas cars travel about 70-80. As for the lie that greater Auckland keeps repeating that it wasn’t blanket…. It sure how you can say taking all 70k limits that didn’t have safety issues and lowering them to 60 is not blanket? NZTA was even going to reduce all the town approaches on the way up north from 70 to 60 for no other reason than they didn’t like 70 even when it’s nothing to do with safety.

    1. “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.”

      1. You missed the point no one in Japan seems to take notice of speed limits they drive and ride their bike how they want. I was there last year and noticed 30 is more like 60 and 50 is closer to 80. A bit like how our 30 zones are automatically translated to 50 by 90% of drivers because they just don’t have the time to slow down to 30 it’s extreme.

        1. I accept everyone will have different experiences but that is the complete opposite of our time in Japan. We stayed with family just outside Tokyo and it was a joy to feel safe walking in an environment where drivers adhered to not only speed limits but the road conditions and gave obvious consideration to people on foot or bike.

        2. Areas I noticed were the excessive hooning were places like Ota City, Narita airport and Fuji. Maybe the slightly more industrial areas they speed and the more dense urban areas they are reasonable. I remember being shocked at the speed cars were going in Ota city actually way faster than any arterial in NZ that’s set at 50K our closest is probably Pakuranga road although this will be 60 soon anyway.

  20. What I suggest is that people drive at least another 5-10 kmh under the old limit. Put an explanation in your rear window.
    I’m am driving intentionally slower until National reverse their blanket speed increases. It will only take a few cars to slow the whole road down.

    1. Of it was 30 and they are putting it up to 50, then drive at 20.
      If it was 80 and they are putting it up to 100 drive at 70.
      If is was 60 and they are putting it up to 80 drive at 50

      1. What? I mean you’re allowed to do that but you must keep left and pull over where it’s safe to let other cars speed I meant pass. Section 2.1 of the LTA is quite clear about this. You’re not allowed to just hold the entire road up on purpose or you can expect to be spoken to by police putting the sign in your window saying you’re intentionally holding up traffic won’t go down well. Also what a way to make people support the speed increases lol.

  21. Re Highways between Napier and Hastings – most people are commuting between the two cities, one at a time, in their own cars. They should take a bus. Currently local bus network is appalling – therefore, spend a fraction of the money and drastically improve the public transport. Even put several railcars between the two cities, to take the people, and only let Trucks go on the roads (there are many trucks, taking fruit and grain to the packers and then to the Port). The answer does not have to be More Roads.

    Re Highway between Napier and Taupo – there is zero public transport and the road is very hilly and winds around a lot (three mountain ranges to cross). Most of the highway is like that, and above 80kph is almost impossible – but then it goes flat and more than 120kph is usual (with a logging truck doing 120 up your arse, you soon learn the need to do 120 also). And don’t tell me that trucks are not allowed to do more than 100 – because down here, clearly they do. Logging truck drivers want to do three return trips a day – they’re not slowing down for anyone.

  22. Does anyone know where this supposed consultation is for the other roads? I can’t find it anywhere. It’s been open since the 30th apparently but they must have made it impossible to find. The cynic in me says it’s deliberately done like that…

    1. It’s really easy to find and super easy to submit for just search NZTA consultations it’s literally the first one that comes up they have made the process so simple too it’s 3 simple steps you’re level of support for the proposal, why and how often you use the said road. Stop cooking up unnecessary conspiracies. If anything this helps keeping the speed limit as it is. Remember only submit for roads you actually use they are interested in views of road users and local communities not someone submitting for or against for the sake of it.

  23. The Government has, without any evidence, justified the raising of speed limits as a time saving measure.
    Just today a truck has rolled on SH1 north of Auckland.
    If excessive speed was not the prime cause, it certainly would have been a contributing factor.
    Merely equating faster permitted speeds with overall timesaving is eronious and intellectually lazy.
    Lower speeds lower crash rates. There is abundant evidence of this already from the roads that have already had lower speeds imposed.
    Vehicle accidents are incredibly time consuming, not only in the traffic disruption they cause, but also in the time required to arrange the resulting repairs or replacements for broken bits.
    And expenditure on replacing, or repairing damaged equipment, or people, for that matter, is an extremly poor use of our countries limited financial, and healthcare resources, compared to the costs of a few minutes, normally just seconds at most, additional road journey times.
    If not borne directly, these costs are instead reflected in higher insurance costs.
    The cynic in me, says that vehicle crash repairs, and vehicle crash replacement vehicles, form a significant part of the motor vehicle industry budgetted for, income.

    1. And today’s news
      SH1 blocked in multiple places by crashes
      https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360568101/rolled-truck-blocks-sh1-waitemata.
      Each of those crashes causing at least multiminute delays for significant quantities of road traffic.
      And the government is proud of the seconds saved by higher speeds whilst vehicles stay on the road, but irrationally overlooks the minute/hours lost when the higher speeds result in the increased accident rate totally blocking traffic.
      Delays

      1. Dash cam footage of the events leading up yesterday’s milk tanker roll over that caused the huge delays and diversions on SH1 north of Auckland.
        https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/footage-captures-truck-crossing-centre-line-swipes-tanker-before-crash-on-sh1-north-of-auckland/55LUFSMGIFDN5IA3Z3Q4HJ5LCE/
        A NZ Post branded semi-trailer out of control at 90kph caused the milk tanker and trailer to loose control taking extreme evasive action to avoid a head on with the NZ Post truck.
        It very very nearly was a lot lot worse.
        Undoubtedly safety factors would have been improved at 80kph.

    2. Well DonR you’re correct the justification for time savings is wrong…but we all know that’s not the reason for raising them. They have used the evidence that they can gain about 5-7% more swing votes at the election so who cares about the numbers. The NZ public likes to drive fast maybe you should get used to that because we are only going to drive faster this is just the beginning AT has to increase the speed limit on about 1800 roads in Auckland alone you’re evidence you speak of is merely a bit of noise compared to the publics insatiable demand for speed.

      1. There is no way there are anything like 5 – 7 % of swing votes up for grabs on speed limits. That’s more like the amount that could swing on the economy and health, there will be somewhere less than 1 % that would change specifically on speed.

        All National are achieving is getting themselves distracted from the economy and health, and risking road safety becoming a political issue for the first time in 30 years. It’s no wonder they’re sitting at around 33 % in the polls at the moment.

        1. No, they are distracting everyone else. Instead of pointing out what shit shows just the school lunches, Dunedin hospital and the cost cutting across the whole public sector is, people argue about some speed limits on rural highways. Even most people in favour of the lower speed limits will probably just be “meh, I guess it’s not too bad and it saves me 1 minutes on my way to work” (once a month when all the traffic lights align with the moon phase…)

    1. Yeah of course idk even know why they waste time advertising the time savings and all that. Just say “The NZ public is in favour of going fast and this is what we will do” “If you don’t like it suck it up and move to Australia where you can drive 60-80K down many urban arterials and 110-130 undivided speed limit roads. “At the end of the day the evidence doesn’t matter in this context as we are talking about a democratically elected govt doing what it promised”. Next election will certainly be interesting expect National to shed many votes to ACT and who knows what ACT has got planned for speed limits.

      1. Looking at the polls at the moment National are shedding most of their votes to Labour. At the moment we have the staggering situation where the polls are split 50:50 as to whether Hipkins might become PM again.

        Concerningly it looks like we might get into a tit for tat battle, where speed limits are changed every 3 years but little is actually achieved in terms of infrastructure to make roads safer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *