September 28, 2024 • 9 mins
Several road safety experts have voiced concern about the new batch of changes for speed limits.
Transport Minister Simeon Brown says all blanket speed limit reductions on local streets, arterial roads, and state highways will be reversed by July next year.
He says there'll be reduced variable speed limits outside schools during pick up and drop off times by July 2026.
Professor Simon Kingham co-wrote an open letter urging the Government to rethink these changes - and he's still disappointed with them.
"I'm disappointed because they are completely contrary to all the evidence about health, safety, well-being, emissions and all sorts of other things - but I'm unfortunately not surprised, because the Minister hasn't shown any apparent interest in science and evidence."
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Sunday Session podcast with Francesca Rudkin
from News TALKSEDB.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Good to have you with us. Now, the government has
signed off on new speed limit rules reversing blanket speed
limit reductions, so but July first next year, reduced variable
speed limits will operate outside schools during pack up and
drop off times, and motorists will be able to drive
at up to one hundred and twenty kilimeters per hour
on roads of national significance. But earlier this month, road
(00:35):
safety experts pend an urgent open letter to the Prime
Minister and Minister of Transport voicing serious concerns about these
changes to speed rules. Co author of that letter and
a former Chief Science Advisor to the Minister of Transport,
Professor Simon Kingham, joins me. Now, thanks for your time
this morning, Simon, good morning.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Good morning, fantastica and I've got the motel.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Hey y, you opposed the draft. What do you make
of the changes that have been announced.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
I'm disappointed because they are completely contrary to all evidence
about health, safety, well being, emissions and all sorts of
other things, But unfortunately not surprised because the Minister hasn't
shown any apparent interest in science and the evidence.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
What kind of consequence do you see these changes?
Speaker 3 (01:21):
Heavn Well, we will expect and we will see, I'm
fairly confident, unfortunately, very sadly, an increase in number of
people dying on the roads. We will see an increase
in green Huskas emissions. We'll see an increase in air
pollution and that kills two thousand people a year, so
that will go up. We'll see a decrease in people
walking and cycling because it won't feel us safe on
(01:42):
the streets, and other benefits. And we won't actually see
many productivity savings and time savings as the minister is
telling us, because they don't really exist to any degree.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Oh, I was going to say that, how do we
how do we measure that will changes improve traffic flows?
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Well, they don't really because there's two there's two parts
to it. There's the the speed limits on state highways
and where it's safe to do so, as he said,
I think you will see some time savings, but in
cities you don't really because all it does is you
still have to stop and start it every time you
get to a junction. You still have traffic that's creating
(02:19):
the congestion, and speeding the traffic up doesn't reduce the
congestion so that you won't see time savings, particularly in
the city. You'll see some at certain times a day
when the roads are very quiet, but generally you won't
see those time savings. And time savings and productivity aren't
the same as well. So you're getting home in the
evening from work faster doesn't lead to more productivity. It
(02:41):
just means you probably not you personally, but it probably
means that people have more time checking Facebook or Instagram.
The productivity savings are relatively small to a relatively small
number of people.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Simon. We know that there's a lot of things that
contribute to our road toll, from the state of our cars,
to human era, to the way we drive, to the
state of our roads and things like that. But the
one thing we do know is that the fast and
I'm sorry this is very crude, but the faster you go,
the bigger the mess.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Absolutely, And that's the sad thing is it is absolutely
very clear from all around the world that that's the case.
And we know, for instance, in cities, if your hits
very sad, if you're hit by a vehicle going thirty,
you've got to have a ninety percent chance of surviving
if that vehicle's driving at fifty to around ten percent,
So that drop from fifty to thirty is huge, and
(03:27):
it's really interesting at someone's just reviewed a number of
cities in Europe where they compared before and after fifty
went down to thirty k and they reviewed forty cities
and they saw twenty three percent dropping crashes, thirty nearly
forty percent drop inspitalities and injuries, so dramatic drops when
you reduce speed limits in cities.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
And if we look at the roads of national significance,
if we're allowed to drive up to one hundred and
twenty kilometers on those roads, does building beta roads justify
increasing speed limits.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Well, if you're going to increase speed limits, you have
to build you have to make the road safe, and
that means things like median barriers, and a lot of
our roads aren't. But it's a very expensive way to
improve productivity. It's a very expensive way to make people
feel safer. And we're a small country of just over
five million people, so we don't have the samer level
of tax as some of the other countries that have.
(04:18):
You know Germany, for instance, people talk about they have
speed limits of one hundred and twenty or no speed
limits in some cases, but they have sixty million people
paying tax to maintain those roads. So it's a case
of cutting our cloth accordingly, and low speed limits is
a really cheap way to make it safer, and it doesn't,
as I said, it doesn't lead to these great improvements
in productivity.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
I'm probably giving away a little bit of my driving
habits here, Simon, But you know, often if the if
the speed limits one hundred is a possibility, I might
go up to one hundred and five. If it's one
hundred and ten, I might go a couple of kilometers over.
But when we're talking about one handred and twenty and
we're adding a few more kilometers per hour, that could
potentially keep me something.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
That I think. So I think you're right. We know
that we don't deveay speed limits, but you bring them down,
and we know that correspondingly there are reductions in speed.
So yes, you're right. Making a speed in one hundred
doesn't mean everyone drives a hundred, but it means that
it's lower than if the speed limits one hundred and twenty,
and you're absolutely right, it will. It will be messy.
The other thing about productivity about the speed limits on
(05:19):
the state highways, my understanding is that the trucks are
still going ninety, their speed limit will stay ninety, and
this is being talked about. Then of course they are
the ones for whom those productivity benefits. True, but they're
actually not the ones who get the benefit of the
high speed limits. Ironically, of course, is if you and
I are driving one hundred and twenty, we're overtaking the trucks.
So when we then get to the town or the destination,
(05:40):
the trucks are a see a little bit further back
in the in the queue, so ironically it may actually
make them less productive.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Very good point the Minister of Transports is it's police
brief testing, not lower speed limits that is bringing down
the row toll. Would you agree with that? Would that
be the case?
Speaker 3 (05:56):
Well, the more breath testing is going to help as well,
but it's certainly not going to account for the twenty
percent reduction. So this year, it's really interesting statistic when
we've implemented some of these speed limit reductions in the
last twelve months efteen months, the number of people who
died on the road to date this year is twenty
percent down from last year. I think he's saying it's
all because of breath testing. It doesn't it's inconsistent with
(06:18):
the science. He's almost saying that the lower speed limits
in this country have had no difference, despite everywhere else
in the world they've seen the reductions of up to
forty percent in death and serious injuries. So he I
don't know if he's got the evidence to support that.
I think someone will need to actually analyze those savings.
But the reality is that I think it's highly unlikely
that it's all because of beath testing when the rest
(06:39):
of the world has demonstrated significant reductions in death and
serious injuries from lower speed limits. Can I add one
other point? As quickly he talks about blanket speed limit
under Labor, there weren't any blanket speed limit reductions. They
were targeted speed limits based on the New Zealand Transport
Agency identifying a safe speed on streets, and then they
all went through public consultation. I'm sure not everyone agrees
(07:02):
with it, but they were targeted speed limits. The only
blanket speed limit change is the one he's now proposing
and he's not asking for benefit cost analysis or aut
benefit costa ratio analysis or anything else. He's literally blanket
increasing speed limits. So I think we're going to be
a little bit careful when we use the word blanket
speed limit changes because there haven't been any, but they
are about to be them.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
What effect does us have on a local level? I mean,
should these decisions be left for local councils and communities
to make about it, especially when it comes to things
like schools.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
And totally of course in the in urban areas. I mean,
the government talks about empowering local councils to make local decisions,
and local councils have been making these decisions. They've been
given permission about the central government previously to lower speed limits,
and locally they've done that. And absolutely, and now he's
coming in saying, actually, the central government is deciding what
(07:52):
speed it is safe to drive in your community, despite
the fact that locally this work's been done. So it
is slightly strained and slightly bizarre. And I think for
speed limits, absolutely it should be the local community you
decide it is a.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Good thing to have the reduced speed limits at can't
pick up and drop off times around school. So how
much difference will it make to extend the limits beyond
those peak times.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
Well, I think I've read recently about some research in
Auckland or where they analyzed the fatalit or the injuries
to children or children being in crashes, and they actually
found eighty five percent of them we're outside school hours
because kids still go to school, they still go to
the school playing field, they still wander around and talk
to their mates. So I think the evidence is that
just having them at school hours doesn't really I mean, yes,
(08:36):
it's course, it's good, but it's not going to deliver
all the benefits of having them much wider because you
still want our children to be able to go and
see their friends. We still want them to go to
the school playing field and play. And the evidence is
that the accidents aren't all just in those hours around
school time. The other thing is it can get confusing.
People have got a sort of check what time is it?
Is it school holidays? What speeds do I go? You?
(08:58):
Then ideally you need proper variable speed signs, and I
think the Minister exit knowledge they're too expensive, so we
are just kind of guessing when we're near the school.
We're guessing what time it is. We're guessing whether it's
the school holidays as against just having a much wider
lower speed limit around schools or even in slow communities
where where people aren't driving to desk to get to
through the communities to places. They're going to their homes,
(09:21):
they're going to the places where the kids want to
be playing out on the street and people want to
be talking to their neighbors.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Thank you so much, Simon for your time this morning
and your thoughts. It was Professor Simon Kingham there, who
was the former Chief Science Advisor to the Minister of Transport.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
For more from the Sunday session with Francesca Rudkin, listen
live ton Us Talks. It'd be from nine am Sunday,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Sunday Session podcast with Francesca Rudkin
from News TALKSEDB.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Good to have you with us. Now, the government has
signed off on new speed limit rules reversing blanket speed
limit reductions, so but July first next year, reduced variable
speed limits will operate outside schools during pack up and
drop off times, and motorists will be able to drive
at up to one hundred and twenty kilimeters per hour
on roads of national significance. But earlier this month, road
(00:35):
safety experts pend an urgent open letter to the Prime
Minister and Minister of Transport voicing serious concerns about these
changes to speed rules. Co author of that letter and
a former Chief Science Advisor to the Minister of Transport,
Professor Simon Kingham, joins me. Now, thanks for your time
this morning, Simon, good morning.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Good morning, fantastica and I've got the motel.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Hey y, you opposed the draft. What do you make
of the changes that have been announced.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
I'm disappointed because they are completely contrary to all evidence
about health, safety, well being, emissions and all sorts of
other things, But unfortunately not surprised because the Minister hasn't
shown any apparent interest in science and the evidence.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
What kind of consequence do you see these changes?
Speaker 3 (01:21):
Heavn Well, we will expect and we will see, I'm
fairly confident, unfortunately, very sadly, an increase in number of
people dying on the roads. We will see an increase
in green Huskas emissions. We'll see an increase in air
pollution and that kills two thousand people a year, so
that will go up. We'll see a decrease in people
walking and cycling because it won't feel us safe on
(01:42):
the streets, and other benefits. And we won't actually see
many productivity savings and time savings as the minister is
telling us, because they don't really exist to any degree.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Oh, I was going to say that, how do we
how do we measure that will changes improve traffic flows?
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Well, they don't really because there's two there's two parts
to it. There's the the speed limits on state highways
and where it's safe to do so, as he said,
I think you will see some time savings, but in
cities you don't really because all it does is you
still have to stop and start it every time you
get to a junction. You still have traffic that's creating
(02:19):
the congestion, and speeding the traffic up doesn't reduce the
congestion so that you won't see time savings, particularly in
the city. You'll see some at certain times a day
when the roads are very quiet, but generally you won't
see those time savings. And time savings and productivity aren't
the same as well. So you're getting home in the
evening from work faster doesn't lead to more productivity. It
(02:41):
just means you probably not you personally, but it probably
means that people have more time checking Facebook or Instagram.
The productivity savings are relatively small to a relatively small
number of people.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Simon. We know that there's a lot of things that
contribute to our road toll, from the state of our cars,
to human era, to the way we drive, to the
state of our roads and things like that. But the
one thing we do know is that the fast and
I'm sorry this is very crude, but the faster you go,
the bigger the mess.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Absolutely, And that's the sad thing is it is absolutely
very clear from all around the world that that's the case.
And we know, for instance, in cities, if your hits
very sad, if you're hit by a vehicle going thirty,
you've got to have a ninety percent chance of surviving
if that vehicle's driving at fifty to around ten percent,
So that drop from fifty to thirty is huge, and
(03:27):
it's really interesting at someone's just reviewed a number of
cities in Europe where they compared before and after fifty
went down to thirty k and they reviewed forty cities
and they saw twenty three percent dropping crashes, thirty nearly
forty percent drop inspitalities and injuries, so dramatic drops when
you reduce speed limits in cities.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
And if we look at the roads of national significance,
if we're allowed to drive up to one hundred and
twenty kilometers on those roads, does building beta roads justify
increasing speed limits.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Well, if you're going to increase speed limits, you have
to build you have to make the road safe, and
that means things like median barriers, and a lot of
our roads aren't. But it's a very expensive way to
improve productivity. It's a very expensive way to make people
feel safer. And we're a small country of just over
five million people, so we don't have the samer level
of tax as some of the other countries that have.
(04:18):
You know Germany, for instance, people talk about they have
speed limits of one hundred and twenty or no speed
limits in some cases, but they have sixty million people
paying tax to maintain those roads. So it's a case
of cutting our cloth accordingly, and low speed limits is
a really cheap way to make it safer, and it doesn't,
as I said, it doesn't lead to these great improvements
in productivity.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
I'm probably giving away a little bit of my driving
habits here, Simon, But you know, often if the if
the speed limits one hundred is a possibility, I might
go up to one hundred and five. If it's one
hundred and ten, I might go a couple of kilometers over.
But when we're talking about one handred and twenty and
we're adding a few more kilometers per hour, that could
potentially keep me something.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
That I think. So I think you're right. We know
that we don't deveay speed limits, but you bring them down,
and we know that correspondingly there are reductions in speed.
So yes, you're right. Making a speed in one hundred
doesn't mean everyone drives a hundred, but it means that
it's lower than if the speed limits one hundred and twenty,
and you're absolutely right, it will. It will be messy.
The other thing about productivity about the speed limits on
(05:19):
the state highways, my understanding is that the trucks are
still going ninety, their speed limit will stay ninety, and
this is being talked about. Then of course they are
the ones for whom those productivity benefits. True, but they're
actually not the ones who get the benefit of the
high speed limits. Ironically, of course, is if you and
I are driving one hundred and twenty, we're overtaking the trucks.
So when we then get to the town or the destination,
(05:40):
the trucks are a see a little bit further back
in the in the queue, so ironically it may actually
make them less productive.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Very good point the Minister of Transports is it's police
brief testing, not lower speed limits that is bringing down
the row toll. Would you agree with that? Would that
be the case?
Speaker 3 (05:56):
Well, the more breath testing is going to help as well,
but it's certainly not going to account for the twenty
percent reduction. So this year, it's really interesting statistic when
we've implemented some of these speed limit reductions in the
last twelve months efteen months, the number of people who
died on the road to date this year is twenty
percent down from last year. I think he's saying it's
all because of breath testing. It doesn't it's inconsistent with
(06:18):
the science. He's almost saying that the lower speed limits
in this country have had no difference, despite everywhere else
in the world they've seen the reductions of up to
forty percent in death and serious injuries. So he I
don't know if he's got the evidence to support that.
I think someone will need to actually analyze those savings.
But the reality is that I think it's highly unlikely
that it's all because of beath testing when the rest
(06:39):
of the world has demonstrated significant reductions in death and
serious injuries from lower speed limits. Can I add one
other point? As quickly he talks about blanket speed limit
under Labor, there weren't any blanket speed limit reductions. They
were targeted speed limits based on the New Zealand Transport
Agency identifying a safe speed on streets, and then they
all went through public consultation. I'm sure not everyone agrees
(07:02):
with it, but they were targeted speed limits. The only
blanket speed limit change is the one he's now proposing
and he's not asking for benefit cost analysis or aut
benefit costa ratio analysis or anything else. He's literally blanket
increasing speed limits. So I think we're going to be
a little bit careful when we use the word blanket
speed limit changes because there haven't been any, but they
are about to be them.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
What effect does us have on a local level? I mean,
should these decisions be left for local councils and communities
to make about it, especially when it comes to things
like schools.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
And totally of course in the in urban areas. I mean,
the government talks about empowering local councils to make local decisions,
and local councils have been making these decisions. They've been
given permission about the central government previously to lower speed limits,
and locally they've done that. And absolutely, and now he's
coming in saying, actually, the central government is deciding what
(07:52):
speed it is safe to drive in your community, despite
the fact that locally this work's been done. So it
is slightly strained and slightly bizarre. And I think for
speed limits, absolutely it should be the local community you
decide it is a.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Good thing to have the reduced speed limits at can't
pick up and drop off times around school. So how
much difference will it make to extend the limits beyond
those peak times.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
Well, I think I've read recently about some research in
Auckland or where they analyzed the fatalit or the injuries
to children or children being in crashes, and they actually
found eighty five percent of them we're outside school hours
because kids still go to school, they still go to
the school playing field, they still wander around and talk
to their mates. So I think the evidence is that
just having them at school hours doesn't really I mean, yes,
(08:36):
it's course, it's good, but it's not going to deliver
all the benefits of having them much wider because you
still want our children to be able to go and
see their friends. We still want them to go to
the school playing field and play. And the evidence is
that the accidents aren't all just in those hours around
school time. The other thing is it can get confusing.
People have got a sort of check what time is it?
Is it school holidays? What speeds do I go? You?
(08:58):
Then ideally you need proper variable speed signs, and I
think the Minister exit knowledge they're too expensive, so we
are just kind of guessing when we're near the school.
We're guessing what time it is. We're guessing whether it's
the school holidays as against just having a much wider
lower speed limit around schools or even in slow communities
where where people aren't driving to desk to get to
through the communities to places. They're going to their homes,
(09:21):
they're going to the places where the kids want to
be playing out on the street and people want to
be talking to their neighbors.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
Thank you so much, Simon for your time this morning
and your thoughts. It was Professor Simon Kingham there, who
was the former Chief Science Advisor to the Minister of Transport.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
For more from the Sunday session with Francesca Rudkin, listen
live ton Us Talks. It'd be from nine am Sunday,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!