This is a guest post by Vinetta Plummer, Policy and Government Lead for Healthy Families Waitākere, West Auckland mum of two, community advocate, and school board member.
Written for Road Safety Week 2025, the post reflects on the government’s reversal of safer speed limits through a local, lived lens and explores how these changes undermine years of community-informed planning, raise serious equity concerns, and signal a broader pattern of rolling back evidence-based policy in favour of short-term economics. It asks: what do our transport decisions really say about who our cities are built for?
As a mum of two teens, I’ve spent plenty of time around schools during drop-off and pick-up. I’ve stood on school road patrol alongside young students, sometimes stepping in to deal with drivers so tamariki could simply cross the road safely. Now, as a Board of Trustees member at a school where the main entrance opens onto a busy road, reckless and thoughtless driving comes up in nearly every meeting. So does the question: how do we get people to think more carefully about the little ones just trying to get to class?
One thing is clear — when we slow down, we protect lives. When we prioritise safety over speed, our streets become more welcoming, not just for our kids, but for all of us. That’s why the recent law change reversing safer speed limits feels like more than just a transport decision. It feels like a statement about what — and who — we truly value.
That’s why Road Safety Week matters. It’s a powerful reminder of how precious life is — and how preventable many deaths and injuries on our roads are. But this year, this reminder is more necessary than ever. A recent law change is set to undo years of progress on safer streets — including outside our schools.
Earlier this year, the government introduced a new law requiring Waka Kotahi and councils to reverse most speed limit reductions made since 2020. That includes school zones, where permanent 30km/h limits will be replaced with temporary ones active only during pick-up and drop-off times. In Tāmaki Makarau Auckland, some limits will rise from 50 to 60km/h by mid-year. Implementing these changes will also cost up to $8.8 million in new signage — money that could be spent improving safety, not undermining it.
The rationale is that faster roads mean greater productivity – less time commuting means more time at work. But does this logic really hold up under scrutiny?
- Higher speeds can lead to more crashes and worse outcomes. Even small increases in average speed can cause disproportionate rises in deaths and serious injuries.
- Transport planner Bevan Woodward, part of the Movement alliance (including Grey Power, Living Streets Aotearoa, and the Cycling Action Network), disputes the productivity claim, pointing out that when crashes happen, they result in hours of road closures, a hidden cost rarely factored in. His view: the best way to ease congestion is to encourage mode shift – more people walking, biking and taking public transport. But that’s harder to achieve on roads with higher, more dangerous speeds.
- More cars travelling faster doesn’t mean fewer traffic jams. In fact, it can increase congestion and emissions, especially when active modes become less appealing or safe.
- The hyped productivity gains are slim – often just seconds saved per trip – while the costs of crashes, road repairs, signage updates, and emergency responses would offset those. Waka Kotahi’s own cost-benefit manual makes clear that safety gains often outweigh time savings.
This reversal also flies in the face of what years of community engagement and evidence-based policy have told us. Groups from Greater Auckland to Vision Zero advocates, school communities, public health organisations, and many local boards had worked together to design safer streets that reflect how people – especially tamariki, kaumātua, disabled people, and those walking, biking, or using public transport – actually move through their neighbourhoods. These efforts weren’t just box-ticking; they were grounded in evidence and guided by local voices calling for slower speeds to protect lives. Stripping back these changes dismisses the work of communities who have already spoken and undermines the principle of building streets that are safe for everyone – not just those behind the wheel.
And there’s an equity issue too: car-centric policy disproportionately impacts those without access to cars, who are more likely to be Māori, Pacific, disabled, young, or on lower incomes. In many neighbourhoods, especially in lower-income areas, people more often rely on walking, scootering, biking, or public transport to get around. These users are far more vulnerable in traffic, and increasing speed limits in such communities could further heightens the risk, especially where safe infrastructure is already lacking.
This law change is part of a broader pattern; one we’re seeing across a range of government decisions. A pattern of rolling back community-informed, evidence-based initiatives in favour of short-term economics is emerging – and road safety is just one casualty. It’s telling that this is happening even as Aotearoa is on track for its lowest road toll in a decade, much of it due to slower speeds.
Reevaluating policy is a good thing for democracy. But when change ignores lived experience, expert research, and community safety, who is that policy good for?
As we pop the hood on these speed limit reversals, the question isn’t just “Will I get there faster?” It’s: At what cost – and to whom? Speed limits aren’t just numbers on signs – they reflect what and who we prioritise. Slowing down in a school zone isn’t an inconvenience, it’s a signal that the safety of our tamariki matters more than shaving off a few seconds of your arrival time.
Header image from Healthy Families Waitākere, showing schoolgirls on Rathgar Rd, Henderson, which is home to three schools with two more nearby.
To raise your voice on this issue, you can add your name to this petition (and see more options for action here).
The dead end street adjacent to me was a 30 limit. Now it’s 50 with a tight school hours 40 limit.
There are cars parked on both sides, family townhouses, and a special school for the disabled on this street.
It makes zero sense to be more than 30. This is such a backwards policy.
I agree – but I doubt increasing the speed limit will have any meaningful effect. Normal people would already drive slow on such a street, and the idiots would ignore the 30 signs anyway as it was never policed. Its more the wider roads and arterials that need reduced limits.
I am not sure what signs AT are allowed to put as the background to the 50km speed limit? You often see the speed sign within another sign saying to slow down, can AT put it within a sign saying “Residential Area – Please slow down to 30kmh”, almost tongue in cheek?
If AT are sensible they will just replace the 30 signs with 50 ones rather than taking out the pole etc – ready to be changed back next time Labour are elected. Maybe even whack a 5 sticker over the top of the 3.
Yup, thanks for writing this.
Dystopia. Worst government ever.
What’s really sad about all this is the lack of shame from Simeon Brown when he pushed this through with basically no supporting evidence, just “we won the election, cars must go fast brrmmm brmmmm”.
The speed limit is an arbitrary setting of travel time vs injury/death/etc. I’m not convinced there is any supporting evidence for any particular speed limit, the only safe limit is 0.
Trust in any kind of evidence is low after Covid – the experts seemed to have no ability to balance loss of life vs being able to live life, particularly towards the end of the epidemic when Auckland had lockdown/restrictions for no good reason. The government had to overrule the experts.
While I don’t like this government’s transport policies, it is just part of living in a democracy, you have to take the good with the bad. Had Labour chosen 40 and 90 as the speed limits, those limits may have survived…
Democracy in action – returning the speed limits to what they were pre-Labour was an election promise. The majority voted for these changes and this Govt has kept this promise – wake up democracy is about what the majority wants, i.e. not everyone
Of course, those opposed can find people to write complaining about the return to the historical speed limits.
Did everybody voting for NACT1 vote for them because of speed limits? Would be a pretty petty thing to do but probably still better than other more or less racist reasons.
The stats posted by Ourimbah/Mt colah also showed that 66% submissions of individuals were in favour of reversing the speed limits but the vast majority of groups that submitted were against it. So if you felt represented by your local group for safer streets, you might have not considered submitting in addition to them.
Just checked the numbers: 72% of groups and 83% of Road Controlling Authorities did NOT support the speed limit reversal.
Here for more information: https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Summary-of-submissions-Draft-Land-Transport-Rule-Setting-of-Speed-Limits-2024.pdf
That works both ways – the election before, did everyone who voted for Labour do so to reduce the speed limits? With group submissions, we want them to have more weighting when they are in our favour, but not when they aren’t.
I wonder if AT were (typically) too slow to roll it out? In our area for example we didn’t get any reductions, the cul-de-sac to our kids school remained at a ridiculous 50kmh. So voters in our area had no good reason to want to keep the reduced limits, all they did was slow us down whenever we went elsewhere.
Anxiety over speed will continue until we upgrade enforcement,
Most signs are ignored by the majority of our drivers. The number on the sign is not a target it is the maximum.
“The rationale is that faster roads mean greater productivity”. If this were true, why have a speed limit at all? Clearly the government does not want to limit productivity? Do they? The intention must be to maximize productivity, which means unlimited speed. We also need a minimum speed on our roads so that slow drivers blocking others and reducing productivity can be punished for their economy damaging behaviour!
Lowering of speed limits were initially being done rather quietly, in consultation with residents and stakeholders. Somewhere along the way it turned into some huge campaign and too many naysayers caught wind.
The back seat approach should have continued. It also shouldn’t be used as the sole driver of speed reduction. A more natural approach would be to ensure the streets themselves reinforce the speed we need motorists to be limited to, such as with wider footpaths narrowing the road so people drive slower naturally.
Getting ~70% there quietly only leaves the more challenged ~30% of changes (speed bumps and the sort) to be argued over is my point.
War on Cones only gets bigger.
With the increase in speeds limits from 30kph to 50kph we are going back to see an increase in road cones and traffic management staff and trucks on these roads due to the increased safety requirements required around worksites with the higher speeds being introduced.
With this increase in traffic management comes an increase in costs for the same job per day.
This increase directly impacts all utility companies and AT contracted work with the increased traffic management costs directly passed back to the ratepayers eventually.
There are also other legal implications of gaining timely approvals from AT for work on roads at 50kph compared to 30kph especially where stop/go controls are to be implemented.