Setting Of Speed Limits - Consultation

[onearmedbandit]

https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/3...edium=referral

[rastuscat]

https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/3...edium=referral

Yes, read that.

The time savings from higher speeds are often (and normally) over estimated. I do wonder how productive people are in the 3 minutes they save by going faster. Apart from ordering coffee and scratching their backside.

[onearmedbandit]

Yes, read that.

The time savings from higher speeds are often (and normally) over estimated. I do wonder how productive people are in the 3 minutes they save by going faster. Apart from ordering coffee and scratching their backside.

I've always thought the same, that the claims of time gains on most peoples journeys from a 20kmh difference would be negligible at most.

[jellywrestler]

Yes, read that.

The time savings from higher speeds are often (and normally) over estimated. I do wonder how productive people are in the 3 minutes they save by going faster. Apart from ordering coffee and scratching their backside.

maybe, but how do you quantify the frustration factor of silly limits, and the boredom factor when they go on for an hour or so, like between blenheim and nelson when you're at the same limit as trucks, and got a big white wall in front of you with not a fucking added passing lane to get past? That promotes sleep

[Gremlin]

That promotes sleep

This is the crux for me. Nothing to focus on = boredom = mind wanders = not paying attention = increased risk. Not able to overtake = frustration = more risky behaviour.

Just magically reducing the speed doesn't fix this, but it does reduce the kinetic energy in a crash. However, this argument has flaws. Why don't you make it even slower (note, I absolutely don't want this)? I mean, less energy, less chance of dying, so these people are basically saying, some deaths are OK, the speed is reasonable. Well, that's an opinion, just like those that want it higher (and effectively are happy with more dying).

The statistics show that speed isn't the biggest contributor, well, if you reduce the speed limit, I'd argue you're trying to shift the numbers to make it so it does look like a bigger contributor (ie, if crashes were occurring at 90kph, in a 100kph, that's OK, but in an 80kph zone, oooh, that's bad). The authorities keep saying that the limit is not a target, sure, but when you put the speed limit at an artificially low level, then yes, it does become a target, because you can more easily exceed it from "natural" driving/riding, meaning you need to keep more of an eye on your speed.

I've come across drivers incapable of maintaining 60kph on open (100kph) roads, reducing the speed limit is going to have absolutely no effect on their comprehension of how to turn a steering wheel to change the direction of the tyres.

[SaferRides]

Hope anyone who has an opinion (is there anyone who doesn't?) took the time to express themselves.

Yes, anyone else? I did it as a business owner and emphasised the additional costs because of increased travel time, and also how confusing the speed limit changes are in places.

The consultation document itself was very interesting. MoT could not quantify what difference changing back to the previous limits would make to accident rates.

Rastuscat may correct me, but the only study I am aware of on the effects of the lower limits is the flawed AT report carried out during the Covid period.

Basically, if the rule is adopted, all limits will revert to what they were before the 2020 Rule by July 2025 unless the regulatory authority can justify a reduction based on the criteria in the new rule.





Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[SaferRides]

https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/3...edium=referral

The poll so far overwhelmingly supports changing back to the old limit!

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[F5 Dave]

Well all that, and going faster is more fun.
Just sayin.

[Berries]

Hope anyone who has an opinion (is there anyone who doesn't?) took the time to express themselves.

I have an opinion.

After working on the development of the 2003 Rule and training people around the country in how to set speed limits based on roadside development and after writing the speed limit bylaw for many councils around New Zealand I found that 20 years later I was having to help councils implement the 2022 Rule. Hand on heart I found I was fundamentally opposed to a lot of what I was being forced to do so in the end I quit my job and ended a career that I celebrated starting by buying my first motorbike in the late 80's, a shiny black KMX125. May it rest in pieces.

I think the GP hit the nail on the head in the story linked above. Not sure why that link is subscriber only, this one isn’t - https://www.thepress.co.nz/a/nz-news...y-speed-limits. After attending and/or investigating over 200 fatal crashes in the last 20 years I have to agree with him. Every single fatal crash I have been to had speed as a factor and yet there was not one of them where speed was the only factor involved. Very few of the crash outcomes that I have seen would have been altered with a lower speed limit unless you make an awful lot of assumptions about road user behaviour which, as a short drive in New Zealand should tell anybody, is an assumption too far.

We cannot go back to 1900 and start again, we have to accept basic facts and move forward. We have to accept that we do not have the same road network as Sweden, we do not have the same vehicle fleet and we sure as hell don't have the same attitude to driving that they do. The reality is that people will die on our roads, it is the simple result of moving human bodies in metal containers at a speed above walking pace. Continuing to ignore that reality means that we will never make any real progress. Road to Zero and Safe Systems are nice sound bites but nothing substantial has been done to actually achieve them. Quality road policing seems to have disappeared around the same time that the LTSA got the arse back in 2007 or whenever and new driver training is pretty poor from what I have experienced recently. The only safety advance I can think of in recent years is the wider use of rumble strips.

I could rant for hours but it is pointless, as would have been expressing myself by way of a submission. There may be a new sheriff in town but you have the same people at the MOT and NZTA so nothing will change. The councils who didn't really buy into the way things were going have not implemented their speed management plans so will be very happy to just drop them. The councils who brought into it already have their signs up and they won't change their views either.

Thanks for listening.

Well all that, and going faster is more fun.

What she said.

[onearmedbandit]

I Not sure why that link is subscriber only, this one isn’t - https://www.thepress.co.nz/a/nz-news...y-speed-limits.

It's not. I'm not a subscriber and it works fine for me. Not sure why it wouldn't for you.

[Berries]

Very weird. I saw the article yesterday and it opened fine but clicking on your link I get the picture below. They do have different URLs.

The one I can see - https://www.thepress.co.nz/a/nz-news...y-speed-limits

The one I cannot see - https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/3...edium=referral

I always knew they were watching me.

[R650R]

Yes, read that.

The time savings from higher speeds are often (and normally) over estimated. I do wonder how productive people are in the 3 minutes they save by going faster. Apart from ordering coffee and scratching their backside.

Yes many people waste their time saved. A good average speed trip time is easiest achieved by not stopping. And that’s also how safety advocates measure trip time effects of lower limits, it’s all fine and dandy on paper.
But in real world that little bit of extra speed here and there to execute an overtake pays dividends that aren’t visible unless your in business of moving on highways instead of monitoring them.
That little bit extra gets you past that truck before last passing lane ends.
It gets you to roadworks lights stop/go while it’s still in your favour.
It gets you past the incompetent driver that will sit at major junction missing several safe opportunities to pull out.
It’s all a moot argument anyway as our population rapidly grows the shear volume of traffic becomes the defacto to speed limiter. In fact we’d do well to just do away with limits and just make a law called unsafe behaviour where if your technique or speed is significantly different to traffic flow you get fined and your visible attitude and fatigue level would be part of it too. That would really make people think about their behaviour.

[SaferRides]

I have an opinion.

After working on the development of the 2003 Rule and training people around the country in how to set speed limits based on roadside development and after writing the speed limit bylaw for many councils around New Zealand I found that 20 years later I was having to help councils implement the 2022 Rule. Hand on heart I found I was fundamentally opposed to a lot of what I was being forced to do so in the end I quit my job and ended a career that I celebrated starting by buying my first motorbike in the late 80's, a shiny black KMX125. May it rest in pieces.

I think the GP hit the nail on the head in the story linked above. Not sure why that link is subscriber only, this one isn’t - https://www.thepress.co.nz/a/nz-news...y-speed-limits. After attending and/or investigating over 200 fatal crashes in the last 20 years I have to agree with him. Every single fatal crash I have been to had speed as a factor and yet there was not one of them where speed was the only factor involved. Very few of the crash outcomes that I have seen would have been altered with a lower speed limit unless you make an awful lot of assumptions about road user behaviour which, as a short drive in New Zealand should tell anybody, is an assumption too far.

We cannot go back to 1900 and start again, we have to accept basic facts and move forward. We have to accept that we do not have the same road network as Sweden, we do not have the same vehicle fleet and we sure as hell don't have the same attitude to driving that they do. The reality is that people will die on our roads, it is the simple result of moving human bodies in metal containers at a speed above walking pace. Continuing to ignore that reality means that we will never make any real progress. Road to Zero and Safe Systems are nice sound bites but nothing substantial has been done to actually achieve them. Quality road policing seems to have disappeared around the same time that the LTSA got the arse back in 2007 or whenever and new driver training is pretty poor from what I have experienced recently. The only safety advance I can think of in recent years is the wider use of rumble strips.

I could rant for hours but it is pointless, as would have been expressing myself by way of a submission. There may be a new sheriff in town but you have the same people at the MOT and NZTA so nothing will change. The councils who didn't really buy into the way things were going have not implemented their speed management plans so will be very happy to just drop them. The councils who brought into it already have their signs up and they won't change their views either.

Thanks for listening.
.

For me, the most telling part of the consultation document was that MoT was unable to quantify the effect on accident rates from increasing the speed limits. The corollary must then be true, which is that they did not know what effect reducing them would have.

And in the meantime, the carnage on our roads continues.



Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[Berries]

For me, the most telling part of the consultation document was that MoT was unable to quantify the effect on accident rates from increasing the speed limits.

Over the last few years the MoT and NZTA have overseen a complete meltdown of their once world leading crash database. They don't even have accurate figures for the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads anymore. Any NZ based stats that use those figures should be taken with a pinch of salt.

And in the meantime, the carnage on our roads continues.

And will continue to do so regardless of which way this consultation goes.

[rastuscat]

Over the last few years the MoT and NZTA have overseen a complete meltdown of their once world leading crash database. They don't even have accurate figures for the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads anymore. Any NZ based stats that use those figures should be taken with a pinch of salt.


And will continue to do so regardless of which way this consultation goes.

Thing with CAS is the way the data is collected.

Cops who attend crashes have a variety of pressures which adversely effect the quality of the information which makes its way into the database.

Yet people drawing information out of CAS seem to think it accurately reflects the crashes that have been reported.

Its still valuable in terms of establishing trends, as long as we can feel confident thays its inaccuracy is consistent.

Alternate data sources are thin on the ground. ACC only reports those crashes that injure people. There's no consistent reporting of insurance data, or hospital admissions.

I saw a SPOT (single point of truth) report a while back which was a review of all the various sources. Its the best analysis I've seen. But its very expensive to do, so unlikely to survive budget constraints.