This is a Guest Post by Transport Planner Bevan Woodward from the charitable trust Movement, which has lodged an application for a judicial review of the Governments Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024
Auckland is at grave risk of having its safer speed limits on approx. 1,500 local streets automatically reversed by the Government’s deadline of 1 July 2025. Under the new Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024, Central Government is requiring Auckland to reverse limits reduced after 2020.
Editor’s note: see this map for all the streets and neighbourhoods across Auckland that will be forced to have higher speed limits.
I’ll share with you Movement’s perspective on why the Government is doing this, how they’re going about it and what we are doing in response.
The Government saw this as a vote-winning exercise. Whilst they claim it will grow the economy, they’re really appealing to voters who like to drive fast. The Government claims they are “reversing Labour’s blanket speed reductions”, but the reality is there were no blanket speed reductions nor were they Labour’s. The safer speed limits were implemented by local councils and NZTA who carried out safety assessments and undertook public consultation. Many communities had campaigning for years to have safer speed limits.
The former Minister of Transport, Simeon Brown, moved quickly to issue his new Setting of Speed Limits 2024 rule. This not only required safer speed limits since 2020 to be reversed by 1 July 2025 without any safety assessment of the consequences but also restricts the ability of roading authorities to set safer speed limits in the future.
For example: by default, interregional rural roads must be 100km/h and urban streets 50km/h. Urban street speed limits can be reduced to 40km/h – but not to 30km/h which is considered best practice internationally.
However, to justify any speed limit reduction, an economic cost-benefit analysis is required. The predicted reduction in deaths and serious injuries is monetised and must outweigh the increased travel time cost for motorists. Such an approach – of prioritising financial gain over safety – is completely rejected by Workplace Health & Safety legislation, but for some reason the Government thinks it is a good idea for setting speed limits.
So what can we do about it?
Movement has lodged a judicial review of the Minister’s decision to authorise his Setting of Speed Limits 2024 rule. We have asked the High Court to issue an interim order to freeze the reversal of safer speed limits. This will be heard on 9 April.
We hope to get an injunction to stop the speed limit reversals across Auckland and the rest of the country.
This would stay in place until our judicial review is heard and determined.
If you’d like to learn more, or support our legal action with a donation (tax deductible), please head to www.movement.org.nz
Processing...
We are adults and dont need the speed limits reduced to revenue gathering levels. The streets are ruined with speed humps, bad traffic light phasing and lower speed limits everywhere. Other then this small vocal minority most nzers want common sense to prevail.
Thanks Bevan and all who are working for safer streets for our kids.
We have a fundamental problem in ‘zild if our voting public are voting for driving fast (fun) over the lives of our vulnerable road users.
I note there was a co-ordinated media program promoting the term “blanket ban” including radioNZ news articles that used the term 7 time in one article. Our kids dont stand a chance against well funded PR campaigns aimed against them.
Movement is a breath of fresh air !
All these claims that the vast majority wanted lower speed limits is nonsense, just like we all wanted, narrower roads, road humps and cycle lanes.
No one was marching in the streets for these, their was never a huge numbers of letters to the editor or politicians calling for these, i.e. we are pleased that at least speed limits are going back up (we have to live with the misery of road humps for the rest of our lives). It was driven by a very vocal small minority (e.g. Bike Auckland) and bloated bureaucracies who believe they know what’s best for others while justifying their positions.
Auckland is a hilly LA not a compact flat Copenhagen
Ok I’ll bite.
Anything to back up your first sentence? This article literally has links to community groups who have been campaigning for lower speed limits. The evidence and even mandate from Central Government is not there and dubious respectfully.
Also “misery of road humps”? Mate maybe go outside for a walk, have a think what else is happening in the world that could better fit within the “misery” definition.
I wish the group good luck.
Poor Graham, I really hope no-one you know gets injured by a speeding driver. Everybody deserves to get home safely. Lower speeds make sense and have proven results. Is your time that precious that a few seconds or minutes off your travel will kill you? A few seconds or minutes less to get you somewhere, might kill you, or others……
“No one was marching in the streets for these”
How many were marching in the streets for faster speeds?
Oh wait, those people don’t walk.
Laughable. A bit more funny than usual, even. Also, quite a few locals DID “march” for speed reductions in their local areas. So you aren’t just funny, you are wrong too.
Check out NZTA’s Public Attitudes to Road report (from pages 22 – 43) which surveys New Zealanders attitudes to road safety & speeds..
“Although one in four New Zealanders oppose 30km/h speed limits in urban centres, twice as many support this road safety initiative at one in two.” (pg 32)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PinW6JWXaB_tiC59vGtjXWgneI2VkHDW&usp=drive_fs
That’s a 108 page document.
Do you really expect the likes of “Ben” or “Graham Alder” to read all of that?
So the same number engaging with various RW echo chambers, no wonder the Boss Baby thought he had the majority on his side
Why are you in such a rush to get from A to B? Have you not seen the differences in hitting someone at 30km/h compared to 50km/h? If motorists stuck to 50km/h then it’d be okay in places, however most drive up to 59km/h which is a serious accident waiting to happen! Aucklanders need safer options for those not surrounded by a steel box. We need more Cycling infrastructure, not less. AT provided this, not Bike Auckland. There’s so much hate for non-motorists in this city, so it’s time to have a look around you, there’s parents taking their kids to school on bikes, should they have cars zooming past so fast? Teachers, Doctors, Lawyers etc all choosing to aid the planet by using 2 wheels not 4, so can’t we promote safer options for all of these? Have you ever ridden a bicycle? In pretty much every country in the world bikes are ridden by all and having safer streets benefits many. A harbour crossing will totally change the landscape for Aucklanders! So Graham, leave earlier, be courteous and share the road with all of those around you.
Cars in Auckland do not need to go fast to get up the hills.
I look forward to the same limit being imposed on shared paths!
Most peds have more near misses with cyclists riding on shared paths/footpaths than they do cars…
Whataboutery.
Hypocrisy.
I hope you (or someone you love) is never hit by a cyclist!
If you’re hit by a motorist, everyone rallies around you.
If you’re hit by a cyclist (as I was — on a footpath), hypocrites online diminish the crime committed against you.
Being hit by a cyclist is scary and can be very damaging. So you have my sympathy if this happened to you. I have in the past asked for, among other things, maximum power limits for e-bikes to reduce the risks, and I have pushed for separated paths, not shared paths, exactly because of the risk and unpleasantness for pedestrians.
But the pure fact is that the amount of injuries caused by cyclists is a fraction of the damage that cars do, even accounting for the low mode share. We had some two deaths in NZ *caused* by cyclists in the last *decades*, AFAIK. We have several *hundred* of deaths caused by cars every *year*.
So yes, car speeds are more important than bike speeds. Concentrating on the worst and outsized issue is not in itself minimising anyone else’s issue.
Shared paths are a poor compromise because they mix different velocities and momentums. Lumping all the “not cars” modes into the same space is a cop-out.
Separated areas for walking and cycling are a better engineering decision and nicer for all users. Here’s a good four-minute video that summarises the principles, from a real-life transport professor:
d0b6498c1b
You’re right George, it’s a terrible idea (on main routes at least).
However, until separate infrastructure is built, something is needed to protect peds.
There’s never any safe way to ride more than 25 km/hr on a shared path — so a nationwide speed limit at this level wouldn’t impact any responsible riders anyway!
OK. I take your point. There should be speed limits on shared paths. And in fact shared paths aren’t a very good idea at all. No arguments here. But you were bringing it up in response to something else, which sounded like ‘but what about the cyclists’ as a way of diminishing the point about road speed limits. E-scooters also present issues for pedestrians. So do loose paving stones. Those stainless steel tactile pavement markers at roadsides were extremely dangerous in the wet. But one doesn’t need to bring them all up for context when the article is about the danger of cars. I guess you weren’t doing it for that reason, so I take it back.
Reading your arguments, I think the best solution for that bridge in particular would be to reduce the road speed limit to 30kph and filter bikes on the street for that stretch. That would make pedestrians even safer, as they don’t have to worry about cars hitting the curb going 50.
What do you think?
Whilst I agree there should be safe speed limits for shared paths, who do you think injures/kills more pedestrians.. cyclists or motorists?
And how many deaths were caused by people going between 30 and 50 km/hr (at 2 am in the morning, when these limits now apply)?
You can’t compare nationwide values against local values, due to
different traffic volumes. What do you think poses a greater risk to pedestrians — cyclists illegally riding on Purewa Bridge in Orakei (with 100’s of peds every day), or motorists going 50 km in a new zone at 2 am in the morning (with 1’s of peds every day).
By the logic of ‘Follow the most risk’, we should impose U-Bend barriers on Purewa Bridge. I look forward to that Greater Auckland Campaign!
After all, I know Greater Auckland supports enhanced safety for all vulnerable users — and pedestrians are amongst the most vulnerable! Again, we can pick a speed limit that no responsible cyclist would go above…
If there was a 30 km/h limit on shared paths then I would probably stop riding the NW motorway one. Or at least would make the most of the 10 km/h tolerance
Sounds like you’re unwilling to ride to the conditions.
Yet you demand motorists do that for you.
Hypocrites like you give the rest of us a bad name.
You don’t need any help getting a bad name.
Agree Ricardo — us cyclists already have a bad name!
I suffer, because of hypocrites like you and Teacher, who think rules only apply to other people.
Why do think it’s okay to endanger me?
Not sure why this comment was seen as being so aggressive – I was really just pointing out that I would rather ride on an urban road with a 40/50 limit than a shared path where the speed differential between users is actually much greater.
> maximum power limits for e-bikes to reduce the risks
I’ve never had much issue with e-bikes. Try standing on the *footpath* on Purewa Bridge in Orakei — a lycra clad commuter will hit you before an e-bike does.
> car speeds are more important than bike speeds.
This has the same energy as:
“Why are you focusing cars? A truck is way more dangerous!”
“Why are you focussing on someone going 52? Most people go way faster!”
Too many advocate against groups they don’t like, and fail to apply the same standards to their group (e.g. Why didn’t any cyclist organisation support RCANZ?)
Personally, I support many of the lower speed areas — they’ve definitely made my bike commute safer. However, what’s good for one side is good for all — especially from an optics perspective…
(Meant as a reply to Max…)
The Purewa Bridge setup is just temporary anyway (and obviously that shows) until the nice wider boardwalk around the coast solution is built.
https://at.govt.nz/projects-initiatives/east-auckland-projects-and-initiatives/glen-innes-to-tamaki-drive-shared-path
“Latest updates:
March 2025
Our contractor will start work at the end of April to build the 870m long boardwalk in Hobson Bay. This is the last section to complete the 7-kilometre-long shared path.
Enabling works start at the end of April. We expect to complete and open the boardwalk by the end of 2026.”
I agree that the complete reversal of all the recent speed reductions should be questioned in some cases. Maybe next time the consultation needs to be more honest / less predetermined. i.e. most people would agree that speed should be reduced around schools. But if you asked the same people whether they they agree with 30kph zone covering a wide area over of a 1km away from the school and 24/7 365 days of year, not just school times, then the result would likely be different [BTW, if that is not “blanket” what is?]. The good news is the default speed actually around schools will be 30, not 40 like now.
sorry Stu, you need to go back and find out about the speed increases around schools, and the level of consultation on reducing the speeds vs the put the speeds back to 2020 edict.
Stu, check out NZTA’s Public Attitudes report (from pages 22 – 43) which surveys New Zealanders attitudes to road safety & speeds.
“Although one in four New Zealanders oppose 30km/h speed limits in urban centres, twice as many support this road safety initiative at one in two.” (pg 32)…
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PinW6JWXaB_tiC59vGtjXWgneI2VkHDW&usp=drive_fs
Bevan – the same report actually backs up what I was saying. Most people (91%) rightly agree with the headline question re lowering speeds around schools. Looks like they were asked about preferred lower speed limit. But were they asked whether that was just during school times or 24/7? That is the problem with the consultation process and surveys in general. The questions are often purposely general and leading to support what is being proposed. I remember one survey asked “do you walk or cycle”. Most able bodied people responded yes. This was taken as high support for the project.
“The misery of road humps.” I guess things are tough all over.
@Sarge – We absolutely apply different standards for pedestrians, bikes, cars and trucks, because a runaway bike won’t demolish your house, but at the same time it could break your neck.
An appropriate focus on the safety of one activity needn’t get in the way of looking into the safety of another.
I had a few close calls on shared paths, I agree they could use some traffic calming in places to honestly reflect the limits of their design.
Beware unintended consequences, as such measures in my area have rendered the footpath impassable for mobility devices, prams and the large or unsteady pedestrian.
For anyone who didn’t see GA’s more detailed analysis of the speed limit changes on 21 March, here’s a link: https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2025/03/20/pressure-'grows-for-commonsense-correction-on-safe-local-speeds/
In 2005 I studied Photography and asked the head of the school why there wasn’t any bike parking? Her reply “we’re Aucklanders, we drive.” was her response.
Forward on 20 years and unfortunately this is still the case for the majority, we still can’t cross over to the North Shore by bike unless we use a ferry or ride the much longer route around the Harbour.
Cycling in Auckland is one of the least safe cities in the modern developed world. Poor cycling infrastructure means the motor vehicle really is the quickest & cheapest option for getting from the North Shore to the city, so there’s so many of them.
They do need to understand that the safer speed zones really count. I recently hit the ground at 26km/h & got pretty injured. Had I been moving faster, I might’ve killed myself! Motorists need to understand that the 30km/h speed limit is to lessen the impact when a motor vehicle collides with a pedestrian or cyclist. 50km/h = 59kmh for most, I very rarely see drivers sticking to the 50 limit, so if 30 = 39 then that’s much safer. Most of the areas that are 30km/h, very few if no drivers go that speed. I travel on my eBike and cars zoom past!
Unfortunately Auckland is very much so a motorists dream. The days are changing as more & more cycling infrastructure appears. A harbour crossing & a path from the harbour bridge up all the way to Albany would be a game changer for many; tons of motorists would trade their steel boxes for 2 wheels, help do their part to save our planet, get fit doing so and arrive at worked pumped for the day ahead.
So Aucklanders let’s unite as one, join together and stop hating on each other. Leave earlier and arrive in plenty of time whatever speed you have to travel 🙂
Well said, and yes, leaving too late is probably quite a big factor in people speeding to try and make up the lost ground…been guilty of this in the past.
I find it entertaining that the comments quickly polarise to cars vs bikes. What gives me another chuckle is shared path/cycleway speeds are set by the nearest road. In practice the arterials are so congested due to eons of under investment PT. No matter what anyone thinks about speed limits driving is just going to get slower and slower. We may as well have low speed limits where they improve safety. We may be able to save a few minutes rat running but overall a driving journey is slow. This is due to more and more cars and lack of congestion free alternatives.
> What gives me another chuckle is shared path/cycleway speeds are set by the nearest road.
This is the problem — they should be set by what conditions are safe. Why aren’t (many) of us cyclists unwilling to show the courtesy we demand from other people?
Blaming a lack of investment/infrastructure is just an excuse to justify bad behaviour — we all have the ability to ride to the conditions. Why are you diminishing your own power? I believe in you!
Thanks to everyone who’s made a donation on Movement’s Givealittle page to cover our legal expenses. It all helps and we are buoyed by your support.
Bevan could you just explain for a second how dropping every single 60K arterial down to 50 isn’t blanket? Just noting AT couldn’t even justify safety as the reason for a lot of them.
Obviously your repeated reasoning “Safer Journeys” gets your comments deleted, and you keep using different names. One point about consultations is not a vote or popularity contest, so even if 80% apposed a speed drop doesn’t mean they have to follow that. Consultations are only meant to bring out local or expert etc knowledge they may have not have otherwise known about.
“every single 60K arterial”
Lol, you mean all five of them. Four of which are in Simeon Brown’s electorate.
Grant but the community did use local knowledge to tell AT that the lower speed was a bad idea as shown by literally no one following it.
John D why are you a pathological liar? Cavendish Dr, Roscommon Rd, Lambie Dr, GSR, Wiri Station rd, Te Irirangi Dr, Ti Rakau, Avimore, Pakuranga rd, Botany rd, Smales Rd, East Tamaki Rd, Chapel Rd, Accent Dr, Stancombe Rd, Murphys rd, Ormiston rd, Favona Rd, Walmsley rd, Oteha Valley rd, Ian Mc Kinnon Dr. I could go on and on AT took a BLANKET approach and decided all 60K roads will drop to 50 because they felt like it. BLANKET BLANKET BLANKET.
Travelling at 60km/h instead of 50km/h reduces stopping distance by a third, reduces cars hitting pedestrians by 16-25%, reduces the risk and severity of side-on collisions by 60%.
Sorry, troll, but you’re wrong. These aren’t arbitrary choices, they’re rooted in evidence and in reducing harm. 50km/h where the greatest risk is side-on collisions at intersections and driveways; 30km/h where the greatest risk is hitting pedestrians.
Blanket 50km/h on urban roads is good, actually, and shame on the petrol-huffing NACTs for reversing it for their mad agenda.
moving the goalposts eh? just a few comments ago you were spouting “average joe knows better” BS and that there was “no evidence slower speeds increases safety”. At least you’re halfway to admitting you were wrong.
and AT were right to do so. There is no good reason for anything above 50km/h in a built up area. 30km/h, 50km/h, 70km/h, and 100km/h should be *the* four speed limits in this country if you ask me.