Today’s guest post is an open letter by Dr Bridget Doran, a transportation engineer, researcher, and human factors psychologist, on the question of politics and professional ethics in the context of the new Speed Rule.
It’s a timely read for our local audience. Auckland Transport is set to undo safe speeds on over 1500 streets across the city. AT believes that under the Speed Rule, it has no option but to do so, wherever a school was mentioned as one of any number of reasons for speed reductions. Tomorrow is the deadline for notifying to NZTA the streets where speeds will rise.
The scale of the impacts already makes AT the odd man out amongst urban road-controlling authorities, and it’s looking like even more of an outlier given other cities like Hamilton and Dunedin have found a way to keep safe speeds in neighbourhoods, even when schools were mentioned during consultation with communities. (This more rational approach, as we’ve previously covered, appears to have Ministerial favour.)
Yesterday, advocates reminded the AT Board that it has options, and urged AT to review its approach to the rule and work with the Minister, on behalf of communities that strongly wish to keep their safe speeds. As a result, the chair of the board, Richard Leggat, undertook to write to Minister Chris Bishop seeking clarification of what’s possible.
However, AT’s CEO Dean Kimpton did not seem prepared to reconsider AT’s approach, nor keen to review the list of streets slated for higher speeds – even though he has publicly stated that AT opposes these speed reversals. This raises the spectre of international ridicule. If AT misses this opportunity to defend safe speeds, will it have to return the global road safety prize it was recently awarded for the very programme it is about to dismantle?
Meanwhile, the same dangerous predicament is playing out across the country, to the great dismay of schools, communities, local councils and elected representatives including Government MPs. This legislation is an ethical fork in the road for every road-controlling authority and for the Minister in charge, who will have to carry the consequences. And, as Bridget writes below, the harm it causes extends to every professional involved.
Of course, this could all be resolved – and lives saved – by commonsense amendments to the Speed Rule. Watch this space.
(Header image: the cover photo from the NZTA/ Waka Kotahi Speed Management Guide 2022)
Open Letter: To the media, the Transportation Group of Engineering NZ, and Engineering NZ
This is not a formal complaint or note, rather a discussion of an emerging dangerous precedent where politics and professional integrity are clashing, with public lives at stake.
In the more than 20 years I’ve worked as a civil engineer in New Zealand, I’ve never seen so blatant a disregard for professional practice as is unfolding in our transportation sector right now.
Like thousands of my peers, I’m a member of Engineering New Zealand, an independent non-profit member organisation that exists to support and regulate the profession. Part of its regulating function is to grant and administer professional charterships. All Members, whether Chartered or not, are required to commit each year to a Code of Ethical Conduct. We tick a box in an online form that says we commit to a variety of standards including acting competently, behaving appropriately, and maintaining confidentiality.
So far, so generic. But it’s another of eight standards listed in the code – ‘Report adverse consequences’ – that has rocked my professional world recently.
Now, the Code of Ethics doesn’t come up in most engineers’ careers as something to be held to. That’s mostly because, first, professionals typically do their best to act ethically, and second, every engineering decision is necessarily a trade-off between social, environmental, economic and technical constraints. If it weren’t, then it wouldn’t need to be ‘engineered’ in the first place. Engineering is about doing a good job given constraints. There is always judgment involved. Best practice evolves, so we draw on guidance, the advice of our colleagues, and depending on the project, on the expertise of multi-disciplinary teams to reach reasonable engineering design decisions.
In my practice area of transportation, as well as technical constraints there are social and political ones, perhaps more often than there are for, say, geotechnical or electrical engineering. That’s because transport necessarily interacts with human geography, with placemaking, with land development, and with a host of other factors that are not even part of the built environment. While structural engineers can draw a bubble around their beam and its loads, discounting the world beyond their design space, transportation engineers can’t really do that. Our design loads are humans, within and outside of vehicles controlled by them – and our design spaces are not surveyed boundaries, but cities and countryside.
And there’s a human factor to the outcomes of our decisions. If snow falls on a roof in Invercargill and the roof collapses, an engineer could be asked what design assumptions they made about their building. They can be clearly held to account if the roof fails under a predictable weight of snow. But if a child runs across a street and a driver within the speed limit fails to react in time to avoid colliding with them, an engineer is not as directly accountable for the ‘failure’ of their design in delivering a safe outcome. Some would argue that they should be more responsible, but there are clearly subjective trade-offs in transportation that don’t exist in structural engineering. It’s complex.
But until 2025, I was somewhat okay with holding this balance in my head, because the bottom line has always been that we must only consider the adverse consequences that might come from design, and ‘take reasonable steps to safeguard the health and safety of people’. If those people then did irrational things – while in control of a motor vehicle, for example – then the design is not necessarily at fault.
This year however, it appears that some of my peers may have neglected this requirement to ‘take reasonable steps’ in safeguarding public health.
The New Zealand Transport Agency, under instruction from the Ministry of Transport, has stated on public record that it will increase speed limits on public roads without considering safety.* That is, even though increased speed limits lead to increased travel speeds, and even though increased travel speeds lead to increased risk of serious injury and death (with no change to infrastructure or vehicle composition or the underlying average competence of the road-using public), the Agency is not considering safety because the Setting of Speed Limits Rule explicitly prohibits it.
In this case there is not a single Member of Engineering New Zealand to be held to account.
I don’t blame anyone at the NZ Transport Agency for doing their job under duress. But this is such an unusual situation and dangerous precedent, it deserves discussion as a profession and society: how can we reasonably protest the removal of our obligation to consider health and safety in the course of our work? How can we protect the credibility of our professional peers and colleagues in this climate where dissent could reasonably have disastrous career consequences for an individual, but compliance could reasonably result in premature death of members of the public?
The murky waters of professional ethics and credibility mean that we need to find firm ground outside of them. It’s as a profession and community that we need to stand up and make our disappointment clear. Hence this strongly worded letter.
Bridget Doran
CMEngNZ, BE(hons), MET, PhD
*Gisborne clubs protest State Highway 35 speed boost. Zita Campbell, Gisborne Herald, 27 April 2025
In March, Local Democracy Reporting received an email thread between a resident and Gisborne District Council asset planning manager Tina Middlemiss, who had gathered data from NZTA’s Crash Analysis System (CAS).
There was a 64 percent reduction in crashes from the five years before to the five years after the speed limit was reduced from 100 to 80km/h on 8 September 2020, for the stretch of road that underwent consultation, Middlemiss wrote.
“So by increasing the speed limit from 80 back up to 100km/h, it would reason that there would be almost triple the risk of crashes and harm occurring.”
Minister of Transport Chris Bishop’s office was approached for comment on whether this data was factored into the decision to reverse the speed limit back to 100km/h.
The question was deferred to NZTA.
NZTA director of regional relationships Linda Stewart said under the rule, NZTA was required to undertake consultation to demonstrate “public acceptance”, defined as majority public support. This was the only factor NZTA could take into account in its decision-making.
See also:
- Disregarding safety in raising speed limits is ‘highly unusual’ – transport agency. Jonathan Milne, Newsroom, 24 April 2025
“Demonstrating ‘public acceptance’ is the only decision-making factor for retaining the existing speed limit,” [the NZTA report] says. “This is highly unusual … Other factors, including safety or technical guidance, are normally weighted alongside consultation feedback to determine the outcome of a speed review.” - Increased speed limit brings fear for New Plymouth mayor. Glen McLean, Taranaki Daily News, 25 April 2025
“Speaking to our emergency services personnel, we know that since the speed limit between Waitara and Bell Block was dropped to 80kph serious injury accidents have reduced by more than 60%,” Holdom said.
“Too many people have been killed or seriously injured on this killer section of highway, which is why Government is spending more than $80 million on safety upgrades.
“So I’m struggling with the logic of an organisation which claims to be focused on safety, making a decision which its own data shows will absolutely increase the number of serious injury accidents in our community.” - Speed limit increases on SH1 will risk safety – Horowhenua Mayor. Nick James, RNZ, 27 April 2025Horowhenua Mayor Bernie Wanden told RNZ he was disappointed.”By looking at those that submitted community voice has been largely ignored, it is road users that have held the sway.”
Wanden said the consultation was purely based on the number of submissions — not factors such as safety.
He said there had been no deaths or serious injuries on State Highway 1 between Ōhau and Manakau since the speed limit had been reduced.
“Now we are going back to 100km/h which I think is only going to increase the risk of more accidents and therefore deaths and serious injuries.”
Processing...
Surely swapping Brown for Bishop was an admission of fault. I’d have a bit of respect for national if they could just say “we got it wrong, we’ll keep the current approach”.
I think they were so happy with his unevidenced, deliberate dismantling of progress (in favour of the car and road building industries) that they put him in charge of health to do the same.
And, is there anything definite in his long-term health plan apart from building car parks?
But this post isn’t about him; it’s about the lack of professional ethics from the people tasked with putting his nonsense into effect, who could have done so much more to stop it
I think the Govt’s sweeping approach to dismantling organisations with reforms and restructures have left them with people holding onto their jobs tightly and likely only responding with ‘yes’ answers.
When the wrecking ball has finished knocking stuff down, they move it to the next job site because it has done its intended task. The next phase is managing some of the tidy-up, but the project was always about getting stuff knocked down.
I wonder how many councils have considered all their options. Palmy City Council simply reclassified two roads to a type not covered by the blanket increase, so they will not be raising any speed limits.
Yes, politicians come and go (who would have expected Brown to move on so quickly), and many professionals know how to exploit loopholes in the system. This can be a blessing, but also a curse, of course (as those who have been frustrated by NZTA’s constant objection to a bridge across Auckland Harbour would say, for example). I think therefore the professional response to the current government direction may be a little more nuanced.
Dunedin has taken a robust and also practical approach – interesting to hear it explained here: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/211-heather-du-plessis-allan-d-24837940/episode/jim-omalley-dunedin-city-councillor-on-273571496/
Basically, they make the case that the rule doesn’t require reversing safe speeds in neighbourhoods around schools, as these were implemented after extensive consultations made clear that communities supported safer speeds *beyond* just the school gate and for all sorts of non-school reasons.
(They also make the point that mass reversals would be costly and disruptive – thus contrary to the interests of communities and ratepayers – and pointless, given future governments would re-allow safe speeds.)
This just raises even more questions about why on earth AT would cling to a harmful interpretation of the rule, knowing full well the consequences for actual human beings on the streets. Which brings us back to the topic of this guest post, ethics… thanks to Bridget for laying it out so clearly.
It’s actually quite sick that the 49 speed limit increases were not decided by technical analysis or evidence, and certainly not by cost to benefit (as the National led government are demanding), but purely a numbers game. Numbers oppose vs numbers support. National MPs were deliberating canvassing the consultation in order to muster up support for speed increases.
Nelson to Blenheim (SH 6) was a much discussed topic, given that it covered multiple sections state highway between two towns over 100km apart, with much of the highway only dropping to 90 km/h, and in the windy sections, 60 km/h. However the case to keep the speed limits speak for themselves:
https://abley.com/our-insights/speed-reduction-trials-sh6
But apparently, the public know better. The only good news is 6 sections will not be raised.
I read today that deaths and serious injuries were reduced on that road by 93% since the speed limits were dropped.
Now based only on an online poll available to anyone regardless of where they live, the speed limits will all go up again.
This will literally cause the deaths of many people. It’s insane!
Can you use analysis or evidence? Doesn’t it come down to whether voters prefer time saving over risk of death? Its purely subjective isn’t it?
No. We don’t decide other complex questions this way; it’s not democratic. Democracy requires informed decision-making, after careful deliberation. Under such a system, voters can decide how much to leave to experts.
It’s frustrating this myth lives on.
If the experts applied the same level of safety to roads as they do flights or trains, the speed limit would be pretty close to zero I imagine. If they set the speed limit close to zero, then the government would be voted out.
The experts have to apply some kind of arbitrary level of accepted risk, I’d argue that level is effectively set by voters.
It’s not a case of taking it to the ridiculous extreme and assuming that we should all crawl along at 5kmh or whatever – Safe System thinking looks at what is the likely damage from different types of crashes.
– A head-on into another vehicle or roadside object? Our crumple zones and other safety features would suggest that most won’t be killed or seriously injured at 70-80kmh…
– A side-on crash at an intersection? Speeds of 50-60kmh will reduce most deaths and serious injuries…
– Hitting someone walking or cycling? A speed of 30-40kmh will greatly reduce the risk…
There are invariably exceptions to those situations, but your odds of survival are immeasurably improved at lower impact speeds.
GlenK: Voter’s don’t trust experts, and rightly so. Its very easy to find an expert that will back up your idea when you want them to or ignore them if they don’t. For example if experts did an economic assessment and found that we would be better off with higher speed limits, would you also advocate for that? God I’m sure there are some experts that would still have us in Covid lockdown if they had their way!
Personally I prefer the reduced speed limits, but if the majority don’t then I guess we are out of luck until they slowly come on board. Like all progressive policy it will no doubt happen, we just need to wait until the middle agree with it.
As I have said before, I think baby steps would have worked much better (e.g. 90kmh and 40kmh). Labour listened to the experts and ignored the politics to their peril.
Jimbo, your argument is the usual conspiracy theory statement familiar from climate change deniers and vax opponents. It has no weight and just supports uninformed popular opinion.
Streetguy I’m not denying physical facts such as climate change or that lower speed limits save lives. But in terms of lower speed limits, they need to be balanced against the increased travel times they create, and I don’t think that is science or physics but more society. 200 years ago we accepted many types of unnecessary death. The physics haven’t changed since then, but society has. Pretending this is an issue for experts and not society is nonsense.
Jimbo, read “Slow Cities” or any of the other excellent books on the topic. Society’s wellbeing, including economic well-being, is harmed by higher speeds.
You’ve fallen for a myth that higher speeds have benefits. They don’t; they are hostile, they make lives worse on every front, and they don’t even mitigate their downsides by improving economic health; they prevent economic activity.
Heidi high speeds save time for people in a car you know this that’s a benefit why don’t you explain that? They also improve mental health of people in a car as they don’t feel like they have to watch their speedo. I can honestly say the speed reversal on Te Irirangi Dr has been life changing I shave about 5 mins off the trip between Botany to Manukau! My mood is better, I have more free time to call out lies like this.
AT are behaving entirely unethically. This is shameful. Evidence of harm from these changes is certain, furthermore all lower speeds were analysed (including economic impacts) and consulted on and have wide community support. These are two reality points. The badly written ministerial dictate has no basis in reality. Neither for safety nor economic value.
Both staff and directors of AT have a greater responsibility to act in accordance with reality than with contestable pronouncements from central government, as it stands currently they are in breach of care of the population.
There should be resignations over this. They are exhibiting misjudgement, a misunderstanding of responsibilities, and, essentially, cowardice.
Yes.
+1000
Thanks Patrick. Agreed.
AT Staff and Directors are aware increasing speed limits – especially around schools will directly lead to death and serious injury, and cause reputational damage to their organisation and parent Council.
This conversation is about ethics and politics, and the observation that ethical considerations are quickly thrown aside when political masters demand it. The integrity of an organisation is tested – and in AT’s case found lacking, or at best compliant.
I would expect the AT directors to be open to legal challenge in accepting and enacting this political directive, that clearly puts their own workers in increased harm of death or serious injury, a challenge to which directors are personally liable, in the event of death or injury.
Argh.
Engineers do not contravene legal statute. We can advise managers, managers can recommend to AT board, AT board can recommend to Council and the Mayor and Councillors can lobby Ministers. Meanwhile, Engineers can reduce risk of DSI by whatever legal means we can use.
Remember that National campaigned and wrote the Rule with clear intent to target the speed limit changes that AT had been enabled to make, as well as rural State Highway changes. There is no point claiming that the speed limit increases are not what the Rule was written to require, however wrong we believe that to be.
Letting go of the comfort Blankets, some of the decreased speed limits clearly should be kept or reinstated as soon as legally permitted, others may not be needed since safety engineering improvements have been installed and some others are debatable. These should be investigated for effects, reported and the public engaged to gain support.
Speed limits only influence drivers. Speed tables, roundabouts and safety barriers ensure behaviour.
Engineers can and must do more than this.
In the structural engineering world, engineers do not put their name to an unsafe design or project. If their managers insist on using it, engineers have a duty to report unsafe practices.
I don’t understand the need to defend the discipline’s widespread malpractice.
The total lack of any form of economic and human cost analysis of the speed limit changes is a gross abrigration of responsibility. Not only from our polititions, but dirturbingly also from a range of so called professionals who have the knowledge but are too cowardly, and unprofessional to make a stand.
Whilst there are some minor timesavings achievable by higher legally attainable top speeds on a journey, these come at the cost of degraded journey time reliability due to the effects of a higher accident rate induced disruptions.
Journey time reliability is actually more important then the minor gains possible from higher peak speeds.
And then there are the massive costs of increased injury and death rates in our society. And the costs of increased fuel use, and accident damage repairs and accident damaged vehicle replacement. All monies that our society could be spending
much more effectively elsewhere.
Come on ministerial Chris’s, you would very considerably grow in statue, if you simply stated, “We have made a mistake and for the well being of the country we will reinstate the lower consulted on speed limits”
Why are you not asking the public why they are demanding higher speeds? Surely understanding why they don’t give a damn about lives or evidence first could be one way to better understand them. The consulted roads should’ve been majority in favour reading what was said in the media but only 12% of the roads they asked about had a majority support to retain the slower speeds. Again stop trying to push slower speeds onto the unwilling it just leads to costly back and forth, generate support FIRST then you can lower speeds. Just look at the recent NZTA feedback the public “spoke up” in support of higher speeds. Even a majority of Maori up north wanted faster contrary to what the media reported. https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/Safety/docs/state-highway-speed-management/Consultation-summary-report-Speed-reversals.pdf
Populism does not by itself give good decisions.
Britain got Brexit, and the US Trump.
Both decisions damaging their economy and world influence.
Right wing extremists crying “muh democracy” always seem pretty keen on punching down on anyone they disagree with. Free speech only for them, and they get their way all the time: that’s their definition of democracy.
And that tracks with the car-brained maniacs like Democracy/Mount Colah/Fassifern/Hamilton/whatever name this blatantly obvious individual troll is using, given how they cry and tantrum over the mere thought of having to drive slightly slower and get where they want to go less than a minute later than they’re used to; while pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport users readily put up with slower-than-off-peak-driving commutes when getting around. The anglosphere has made drivers spoilt brats.
Also case in point, the Parnell businesses and Mike Lee lobbying for the Parnell Railway station to be in its current location – where it has poor accessibility to the shopping street or the museum, and sees very low patronage. Sited further north and the station would have been much closer to Carlaw Park and had UoA + The Strand within its 10 minute walking catchment, while still being equidistant to the parnell shopping street compared to the current site (but with a likely less steep route uphill, and closer transfer options to the Inner and Outer Link buses)
Uneducated or uninformed populism should not be listened to, they result in subpar outcomes.
Agree, the debate boils down to the lack of Social License to push back on these changes. NZ is peak car and until that mindset changes we will drift in the opposite directions to most other countries on transport planning and safety.
This is wrong. When AT consulted in 2022, in most cases, the majority in was in favour of reducing speed limits. Where these views have been tested again recently, the a majority in favour of keeping the reduced speed limits.
In my suburb, the figures are 70% (2022) and 77% (2025), with large numbers of responses, in favour of 30km/h on 28 residential streets.
Thanks Bridget. This is a really important letter. I hope it does lead to a discussion – and big changes – in the profession and society. Your work has been consistently ethical, despite many barriers, and I hope the profession recognises you for your superb leadership.
I wonder about the idea that the ethical questions are more complex in transportation than in other engineering disciplines (due to social and political implications) though. I think these decades during which the sector served the automotive, fossil carbon and road-buildng industries instead of serving society have simply made the ethical questions more urgent, fundamental and obvious. Had structural engineers departed as far off the track of serving society as many traffic engineers have, for example, there would now be a very confused civic discussion about whether buildings really need to be built safely for all possible situations, or if it’s ok to take some structural risks in order to improve economic outcomes… If professional structural engineers were saying this for long enough, immoral politicians might now be playing on that confusion, and would act to reverse structural standards even when the evidence is 100% clear that lives will be lost and that no economic benefits would actually be delivered anyway.
The context for Simeon Brown’s actions is decades of bad messaging and practice by traffic engineers. Someone like him was bound to come to power eventually, given the misinformation from the sector.
Whatever the reasons for the current complexity, though, the fact remains that the safety problems are acute and extreme and have been obvious for a long time. You, and other ethical engineers, have been battling within a discipline that has resisted the wholescale changes needed to improve the system. Engineers in senior positions in consultancies and agencies throughout NZ have actively prevented our country from taking up new practices. This has been in stark conflict with another one of the professional codes of conduct for engineers: to keep abreast of developments in their field.
We need Engineering New Zealand to take this seriously, hold an inquiry, and create a court to investigate individuals’ malpractice.
Trucks destroy our highways, bigger and bigger suburban utility vehicles dominate our road space; and even picking up my two boys from primary school is frightening.
I only transport myself, and my kids via bus, or train and ferry if available, because these are heavier vehicles than the Remuera Tanks that have become ubiquitous upon our road space.
In the City Centre of Auckland, extended footpaths and more pedestrianised open spaces are creating a far more human experience, and you can walk for blocks without worrying about being run over by a vehicle.
Good things are arriving with the Central Rail Link, but our country needs to overcome its obsession with the private automobile. My parents cannot do it, although they consider themselves climate conscious. I am hoping that my kids will love the safety of the bus so much that they will never want to drive their own vehicle, but that is only wishful thinking at his stage of their lives.
Trains are fast, safe, and the best way to move around on land. The sooner our regional rail services are restored, upgraded, and the pressure on our roads is taken away, the better. But we are still stuck with generation automobile in this government, and they are so out of touch with reality, that it is embarrassing to be a citizen of this motu, again.
bah humbug
Speed limits decisions are science not art so there should never be any public consultation on them.
A responsible setting of speed limits rule should let traffic engineers use their skills, knowledge, and ethics to put in place the safe and appropriate speed limits for each section of road. It should keep the public and politicians far away from these technical decisions.
Unfortunately in this democracy politicians will happily use the ignorant desires of the uninformed to gain votes with sound bite policies like “faster speed limits vrmmmm vrmmmm”.
It might seem like a good idea for AT to stick a middle finger up to the Minister of Transport and refuse to do what the Rule clearly intended to force it to do. But AT is a unique experiment of a statutory body in AoNZ local government and has less luxury than councils to take a political stand in opposition to the government. The law says jump and so AT’s overly cautious legal advisers will make it jump even if it doesn’t want to.
Here’s a thought experiment…. We have a clear set of circumstances for some of these roads whereby it can be clearly shown that over the period of lower limits that the number and severity of the accidents declined. Supposing at some later date there is an accident on one of these roads where the at fault driver maintains they were above the old lower limit, but not exceeding the new limit. And suppose the victim of the accident received injuries more severe than they would have had the vehicle speed been below the lower limit.
My question is this: Does the victim have grounds to sue the Minister, NZTA, the Local Roading Authority and/or the roading engineers within those organisations for their culpability with regard to the severity of their injuries? Or does our ACC law make that all not possible?
My supplementary question is: What if they sued for greater severity of damage to property where ACC doesn’t apply?
Essentially, how can we force someone to take responsibility for the carnage that will ensue from this, and preferably how do we make it the spineless within AT and other organisations who should have stood up against it.
@JimboJones – RE Safety for roads, rail and air travel.
Strange comparison of road speed limits with the two fastest modes of travel available on the planet (100-300kph for trains, up to 900kph for commercial air travel).
That speed is enabled by rigorous regulation by both government and industry, and by exclusive rights of way. A pilot at 40,000 feet is only going to encounter other planes crossing their path.
An aircraft is at its slowest when it is at its closest to people, structures and other aircraft, walking pace and often under tow.
I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect a fraction of that caution from motorists.
Why is it a strange comparison? If everything was set by experts surely those experts would want each mode to carry the same risk, anything else is nonsensical. To get roads as safe as trains and planes the road speed limit would have to be very low indeed, significantly lower than the current reduced speed limits or the old limits I am guessing. The fact that this is not the case implies that experts do not set speed limits, voters do.
Agreed, I’d go further and say that *drivers* determine the speed limit moment to moment, as the biggest bulls in the china shop.
But they do so in response to the road environment.
It isn’t even as democratic as voting, which in itself fails to represent the interests of children and other disenfranchised or disengaged groups.
With any pretense of fair or equitable representation out the way, what’s to stop designers setting up a driving environment that reflects the function of an area?
Thanks for making such a lengthy message, per your logic, let ban all motor vehicles in the road, make NZ the first country without vehicles to protect our life due to those careless drivers. NZ is a country with many careless drivers endanger life!
Naturally petrol-huffing lead-poisoned carbrain trolls would read an article that says cars need to slow down and misconstrue it as “THEY WANT BAN CARS”.
sad how you selfish lot can’t even contemplate driving slower to make streets safer and more welcoming for pedestrians, cyclists, kids walking to and from school… all the possible active mode journeys that build community and help keep people healthy.
No. All the people here afraid of vehicles! Let ban all of them on the road to save NZ life.
I suggest we go back to 30kph residential, 50-60kph arterial and buff the state highways up to 200kph blanket across the motu.
Responsible drivers can of course be trusted to adjust their speed to the conditions when they are facing non-squishy oncoming traffic closing at up to 400kph combined.
Or maybe we’ll get to see exactly how far each car model will concertina front to back.
Still keen, Braveheart?
Even Waka Kotahi highlights this weird way of ‘consulting’. It says, “Demonstrating ‘public acceptance’ is the only decision-making factor for retaining the existing speed limit where it is subject to this once-off transitional reversals provision. This is highly unusual as typically consultation feedback is only one factor used by NZTA to help inform the outcome of a speed review. Other factors, including safety or technical guidance, are normally weighted alongside consultation feedback to determine the outcome of a speed review.” https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/Safety/docs/state-highway-speed-management/Consultation-summary-report-Speed-reversals.pdf
As far as I could tell (and there’s no mention of it in the report) any troll in the world could have responded to this ‘consultation’. There was no requirement to log in through RealMe, or verify any of the statements about being a local, or a road user. By saying it’s highly unusual the Agency just seems to have washed its hands of any attempt to make this a real reflection of public opinion. It simply achieved what their former minister wanted.
public acceptance is mob rule.
We all want negative taxes, doesnt mean it should be a thing.
Transportation engineers are not engineers.
There is civil engineering which is a clear cut engineering discipline but the issue that you are talking about are actually transport planning and road design roles not engineering roles.
In New Zealand they just end up being given to civil engineers because there is no road design specialism.
Civil engineering is completely the wrong discipline to be leading road design.
It’s like putting a mechanical engineer in charge of working out how to manage an airport because they know how planes are built.
Transportation Engineering is not engineering.
“Transportation engineering is not engineering”
you cut me real deep just now
Not the greatest analogy, Glory, and I’m speaking as someone who has spent many years teaching transportation engineering in a civil engineering department (including topics on road design and transport planning) – indeed, I’ll be back there next month to teach some guest lectures on walking & cycling, multimodal street design, and traffic signal design. One thing I always made clear to students in my introductory courses was that their engineering “material” wasn’t wood/steel/water/soil/etc – no, it was PEOPLE and they have a knack of being somewhat unpredictable or inconsistent (which is why some psychology training, like our guest poster Bridget here obtained and I’ve also gleaned over the years, is actually fairly useful)…
To the mod deleting comments could you please at least say what rules are being broken so we know how to keep our comments. You need to prove with evidence that some of us broke any rules and no just your narrative.
Maybe stop changing your name, Mount Colah/Democracy/Fassifern/Hamilton. We know you’re the same person.
I have to because the controlling mods keep banning the accounts entirely without even explaining the reason I would love to keep one name but the mods won’t allow that! Nor do they even have the guts to confront the fact they know what they are doing is wrong. Just let us keep one account please! I’m not breaking any rules or at least say what rules are being broken(noting I only have to make multiple accounts because the mods wont explain where my comments breaks the rules). If you don’t allow any truth about speed limits just say that!
Maybe reading the User Guidelines would help you?
“We reserve the right to delete or moderate comments, and to suspend or ban accounts as needed. The editors decide what is acceptable and their decisions are final. Again, if you don’t like our moderation decisions then you’re under no obligations to hang around – there are other things in life you could be doing. Moaning about editorial decisions will lead to ongoing deletion of comments.”
it’s a private blog, they can moderate comments as they please.
but thank you for admitting that you don’t actually want debate on speed limits, you don’t have an open mind, you’ve already settled on your answer and you just get a kick out of bullying anyone you disagree with.
I mean, your aggro behaviour and Trumpist cherry picking proved that already.
Maybe stop angrily insisting that uneducated mugwumps behind the wheel should have mob rule and force everyone to suffer the consequences of pollution, climate change, and car-dependant urban design (like 1950s transport and city planners did), and come to the table with humility, and then you might not keep getting banned.
So in other words Wilbert they are going to get away with spurting lies and Patrick and Heidi can just say any lie they want then delete any comments that prove with evidence they are lying. This is Nazi level control and they can’t even have an open debate to explain why a majority want faster speeds. It’s gotten worse since Jolisa joined they used to allow more open debate now any well researched rebuttal that doesn’t fit the narrative is deleted. This is not a blog worthy of donations only when you support free speech does it deserve that.
Matt said they wanted an “open forum” BUT It’s not really an ‘Open Forum’ when only carefully curated
comments survive and well
researched rebuttal that
doesn’t fit the narrative is
deleted. If you really want comments to be open, ‘fire’ you current moderators and adopt
a policy supporting free speech and open debate of your blog’s content. Sometimes that might
even involve letting criticism or alternate points of view survive in the comments section… https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2024/06/24/greater-auckland-2-0/
Godwins law has been invoked, those who want kids and pedestrians to be able to safely cross the street and feel safe walking are apparently “bad as ol’ toothbrush moustache” just because they’re sick of some bad-faith Aussie troll who has in no way provided a “well researched rebuttal”, only pathetic carbrain bleating and gish-galloping defence of mob rule by the uneducated and selfish.
Once again. Private blog. Not compelled to host content that they don’t like. They can moderate as they choose. You are not having any individual rights taken away from you, pookums, but i wouldn’t expect anyone with a trumpist attitude to facts to actually know laws.
Change YOUR debating style, Aussie. Be more humble. Be less aggressive. The onus is on you, much as you don’t want to see it.
A private blog should not be asking for public donations then and the media should never have GA on for interviews or to write pieces they are a one sided blog. To be fair I think Matt is an alright bloke and always speaks well. Have seen him a few times at Britomart so at least he practices what he preaches (I use the train all the time contrary to what you say) oh and I’m not Aussie clearly I have far too much local knowledge to be. Burrower you’re 100% correct on most things you say I just want somone on here to acknowledge that the majority wants faster speeds and how we can work to change their minds. Noting I’ve never received an infringement of any kind so I can’t properly understand the minds of people who break the law like many on here speeding through 30 zones on their bikes. I will change my debating style the minute the mods actually explain what I’m doing wrong and Heidi, Patrick or Jolisa have the guts to prove anything I’m saying is false. I replied to Patrick and linked the offical NZTA document and that was deleted simply because they didn’t like the truth.
Yeah right. I see through your lie – if you agreed with the blog then what’s all this yapping about “democracy” this and “democracy that”, or victim blaming pedestrians and cyclists when cars cause SO. MUCH. MORE. HARM.
If you (and Sarge) actually were concerned about the topics you spew about you would be presenting them constructively, not as this “haha gotcha” where you clearly have no flexibility to change your minds. You’re not proposing solutions or even compromising, no no the only answer in your head is to shunt cyclists into harms way, narrow the footpaths, and maintain the status quo for cars.
Face it, like all other carheads you’re mad at your status quo getting challenged instead of getting served your 99% of the pie and 80km/h urban speed limits on a silver platter.
Where have I ever victim blamed peds or cyclists???? Also I would like WIDER footpaths and WIDER lanes, I believe cyclists should have a separation on all arterials so we can raise the speeds however that’s a luxury Labour took away by fluttering away 100B dollars and having nothing to show for it. Burrower I’m only trying to mentally prepare you for what is coming. The moment congestion charging is implemented on motorways residential streets are going to be flooded with huge volumes of traffic even if we achieve all our PT targets nothing can stop the inevitable drivers trying to beat the toll. The public will demand Gt south road be upgraded with a 60K speed limit to give them options. Go over to Sydney to see what’s happened from putting tolls back onto motorways…. Rat running is prolific even major trucking companies are doing it, 2 lane roads are getting upgraded to 3 lane roads and banning right turns. Urban driving has increased significantly and more and more cars are using those 60,70,80k urban roads to try and save money in the tough climate. Believe me you have no idea what’s coming as Auckland grows More PT, More Cycleways, More roads but we have no money to fund any of that. Any money raised from roads is going to have to go back to maintain those roads as the ever increasing volume of traffic grows. Burrower climate change is not a big deal in GenZ and im not the slightest bit worried, still doesn’t mean I don’t support using less plastic and gas.
Bubs, I am already mentally prepared for the collapse and extinction of human civilisation within my lifetime. Hell, even if it means putting a chain round my neck and letting my body swing under a bridge over the motorway for everyone to see in a few years time.
Your petty bullying (which proves my point that you don’t give two craps about anything that isn’t cars, thank you for that btw). I sincerely hope you suffer in your ignorance, and that hunger thirst and heatstroke make you realise that saving 10 seconds on a half hour off-peak commute by upping a 50kph speed limit to 60kph is pathetically insignificant.
Congratulations, you’re a prime example of why i have less than zero faith in homo sapiens and actively wish all you speed freaks and hyperconsumerists get exactly what you deserve.
Burrower really? How is anything I am saying “bullying” you’re the one saying things like “I hope you get what you deserve”. Civilisation will not collapse for goodness sake calm down this is what happens when the media ignites fear. Burrower you are such a valuable member of society and deserve a voice stop saying silly stuff like that. I’m sorry the media fear campaign has gotten to you believe us it’s all lies no need to worry there will be a few storms here and there but overall we will be OK and certainly nothing like that will happen in your lifetime. I know it can be hard to see because YES climate change is real but the effects have never been as bad as predicted they always overestimate everything it’s all going to be fine. (We certainly won’t be affected given we are both GenZ and don’t own any property).
lmao, you believe that? the mainstream media is UNDERSELLING how bad climate change is, because they want to push their “Business a
And don’t worry, this disabled pedestrian/public transport using r*tard knows how little value they have to this ideology we live in. Your callous comments make that abundantly clear – I do not deserve safety when getting around, i deserve to spend more time walking/catching buses and recovering from that mentally and physically. if i can’t be exploited and i can’t conform, it’s very clear that your “sexting 14y/o girls” libertarian politician and his ilk want me dead. I only have value to you if I agree with you.
But don’t worry, I look forward to inconveniencing/pissing off the establishment nonces if i have to go out early to avoid suffering more. Tit for tat, fair’s fair, and I think a one off trauma of seeing my body on the news would be equal to more than 2 decades of parental and systemic abuse.
Reading is really hard for you Camellia, isn’t it:
“Again, if you don’t like our moderation decisions then you’re under no obligations to hang around – there are other things in life you could be doing. Moaning about editorial decisions will lead to ongoing deletion of comments.”
Well Wilbert I would happily go away (I would of course keep reading as I have since about 2014) if the mods would just be fair and explain why my comments get deleted rather than just secretly deleting them and not saying what in the comment broke the rules. There’s a difference between moderating offensive comments and straight up deleting a comment that doesn’t suit your narrative. That’s not “moderation” that’s dictating a certain narrative. If they want that it’s their blog but they should be honest about that. Put in the blurb about comment rules “comments must be anti car, pro transit/walking, anything that doesn’t suit this narrative even if true will be deleted and you will be given no chance to debate” if they did that I would happily go away from commenting again. I’m sorry but I am not going to let them get away with the lying and deceiving any longer, about time they were open and transparent.
You’re breaking pretty much every one of the guidelines:
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/user-guidelines/
It’s all right there on the website, perfectly transparent:
As a volunteer-run organisation, we work hard to maintain this platform as a space for accurate, respectful and informed discussion. If you notice any inaccuracies in posts, or have a concern with anything you see on the site, please get in touch.
We are not the government and we have no obligation to promote “free speech”. Enabling comments is a privilege we provide to you. If you don’t like what we’re doing here then go do something else.
To ensure conversations remain constructive, considerate and evidence-based, we ask everyone engaging with Greater Auckland to please observe these guidelines:
All comments should make a positive contribution to the discussion and stick to the topic.
Claims of fact should be evidence-based.
Don’t complain about the topic of posts or moderation decisions. If you don’t like what we’re doing there are plenty of other sites on the internet. Or get outside more.
Commenters are guests in this space. We invite you to behave accordingly, by treating other members of the community with civility and respect.
We encourage people to use their real names, especially those wishing to contribute frequently.
No insults or personal attacks (ad hominem); sexist, racist or other offensive comments.
No promotion of products and/or services.
No use of multiple anonymous identities.
We do not tolerate climate denial, conspiracy thinking, and other unhelpful flavours of misinformation on the issues we cover. None of us has time for that.
To keep conversations civil and constructive, we moderate comments as best we can. We reserve the right to delete or moderate comments, and to suspend or ban accounts as needed. The editors decide what is acceptable and their decisions are final. Again, if you don’t like our moderation decisions then you’re under no obligations to hang around – there are other things in life you could be doing. Moaning about editorial decisions will lead to ongoing deletion of comments.
Thank you Dr Bridget – i really thought ethics had taken a holiday on this issue, really pleased to read your concerns and compare them with the actions of our road controlling authorities, who it appears are giving up their moral right to be our RCA’s – clearly they are not acting in our interest, nor that of their families and friends.
I can only control my actions – and i am required by law to drive at a speed that is safe for the conditions. I have reviewed the reasons given for raising the speed limits and i find them unconvincing, so i will be sticking to speed limits agreed to post 1 Jan 2020 and before 1 Jun 2025. I see no reason to go faster especially around schools.
There is no legal reason to travel faster than the speed i determine to be safe for the conditions. I will for the safety of all, assess and manage the build up of faster traffic behind me, aware that frustration and punishment passes are even riskier to all.
Engineers have a choice when involved in a project that raises ethical concerns. Leave being an easier one. Engineering tells us kids are going to be killed due specifically because of these speed limit rule changes.
“The murky waters of professional ethics and credibility” – i disagree.
We know right from wrong.
The question only is what you are going to do with this knowledge.
Bridget – thank you again, you are making a difference.
It’s a good letter, but I sure hope people here understand how hard Minister Brown laid the law down. He actually used the GPS to eradicate more than speed limits; the GPS changes were used to eradicate every single safety feature that didn’t have construction underway.
Minister Bishop is more pragmatic thankfully, but the pressure on NZTA staff from the Minister’s office is brutally intense at the Tier 2 and 3 level where the project-by-project decisions really get made.
Just in case it’s not obvious: the new budgetary constraints coming up in May are going to make this situation far, far worse. They are not averse to killing a contract and paying the break fee, and it’s going to happen right across all councils in New Zealand.
Wouldn’t it be good if Kimpton hadn’t sacked the innovation team, who knew how to deliver on a shoestring?
Wouldn’t it be good if AT had engaged in good faith in the Innovations Streets and Streets for People programmes, and have expertise in doing things cheaply?
What part of ‘central government is way more powerful than some regional bureaucrat’ don’t you understand?
‘community support … what the majority want ….’
It’s unclear to me whether reported results are from a statistically valid poll of a *random sample* of the affected communities, or whether they’re the result of inviting submissions to public inquiries etc etc.
You can’t stress too strongly that the second approach is absolutely NOT a reliable guide to what the community as a whole wants, because of likely sample bias.