Speeding toward a lethal legacy

Nov 10, 2024

A few weeks ago I wrote on how the Minister of Transport Simeon Brown had misrepresented cities overseas in his crusade to make our streets and roads more dangerous. Since then, his speed rule has been finalised and signed. Also, the summary of public feedback has been released after many months of delays.

Simeon Brown's speed rule will reverse evidence-based safe speeds on thousands of streets and roads, burdening local councils with the cost. For schools, it mandates only time-restricted speed limits on weekdays, adjacent to the school gate and no further, regardless of what communities actually want.

Over the weekend, the NZ Herald's Simon Wilson reported on what Cabinet knew, as it shaped and signed off this new policy (article paywalled). Cabinet papers obtained via OIA reveal a shocking disregard for the evidence (which shows that increasing speeds will lead to more deaths), for communities (many of which have begged for safer speeds), and a complete lack of evidence for the government's claimed benefits of blanket speed limit increases.

As suspected, Simon's article confirms that the Minister and Cabinet made a conscious choice to increase preventable deaths and serious injuries on our roads. This government has chosen ignorance.

We – and they – know this rule change will result in our cities and towns being less safe to move around in. We know this rule change will reverse the progress we've been making on lowering our already atrocious road toll. We know this rule change will result in more New Zealanders dying on our roads, whether they live in a city like Auckland, or in rural Southland.

There will be no 'economic growth and productivity' as claimed - only needless, senseless, and preventable harm.

When that harm occurs, we will point to this decision by the Minister of Transport Simeon Brown and this government, over and over again until it is reversed.

I write this post so we can direct our fury and grief towards those responsible. It is a comprehensive record of how this decision was made, how it ignored the evidence, and how that will lead to tragically predictable consequences.

The only thing the Minister and the government are speeding towards is a lethal legacy.

The Minister vs the facts on road safety in New Zealand

Simon Wilson's article is a damning record of the Minister's willful disregard of evidence and advice. Each and every bit of advice and evidence was viewed and signed off by the Minister – and only some of it was then provided to Cabinet, which rubber-stamped his policy.

For example: the Minister claims speed is less of a safety issue on New Zealand roads than drugs and alcohol. Yet all the evidence shows that speed is a vitally important factor, both alone and in combination with those other factors. Why else do all our road safety messages – like this ad from 2000 – say, again and again, that speed kills?

Were the Minister and Cabinet aware of this? Based on the NZ Herald's inquiries, yes they were:

When Cabinet agreed in September to raise speed limits on many of our roads, it did so after receiving advice from the Ministry of Transport (MoT) that this ran the risk of more deaths and serious injuries. "Speed is a contributing factor to the number and outcomes of crashes on our roads," the ministry told Cabinet in a briefing paper. "Where the average speed increases, the risk of fatal and serious crashes also increases."
The paper refers to a large body of research. The advice was supported by the NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) and came to light with the release of Cabinet papers last month.
The Herald asked Transport Minister Simeon Brown to confirm Cabinet had rejected this advice. He declined to answer.

The Minister also declined to answer when the NZ Herald put this either/or question to him:

We asked the minister why he sees this as an either/or and he stressed the value of the new approach but otherwise declined to answer.
Is he right that drink and drugs are a larger problem than speed?
The answer lies in the reports of the International Transport Forum, which collates road safety data. The latest New Zealand “country profile”, published last year with data from 2021, says, “alcohol and/or drugs were a contributing factor in 113 fatal crashes (40%)”.
The same report says “speeding contributed to 109 fatal crashes (38%)”. (The number of deaths that year was 318, which is higher than these numbers suggest because some crashes involved multiple fatalities).
All this means there’s no statistical difference: they’re both critical.

On the purported economic benefits of higher speed limits, once again the Minister chose to ignore advice, and the relevant evidence wasn't provided to Cabinet:

[On economic impacts], MoT said: “Where ... there is an increase in the seriousness of any crashes, we would expect the costs to the economy also increase.”
This is a reference to first responder costs, healthcare, road maintenance, time off work and all the other things that make up the “total social cost of road crashes”.
For 2021, the ITF report put that cost at $9.77 billion, or 3% of GDP.
Cabinet was not provided with this figure.
MoT said higher speed limits will reduce travel times “in some circumstances”, particularly “on long, uninterrupted stretches of road with low congestion, such as on state highways”.
But it expected they would be “less noticeable in urban areas where there is congestion, traffic signals, vulnerable users sharing the road, and other factors”.
That is, if you’re stuck in traffic in Auckland, a higher speed limit will not help.
Cabinet was not told this, either. Brown told his colleagues: “Reversing speed limits would likely result in reduced travel times on roads where speed limits are reversed.”
As mentioned above, no evidence has been released by Cabinet that the Government has any analysis at all of the overall economic consequences of higher speed limits.

As the article repeatedly establishes, the Minister actively chose to ignore the evidence on speed, and offered no evidence to justify the purported benefits. The truth remains that our roads aren't built for the speed limits that have operated – in 2023, Waka Kotahi/NZTA said:

Waka Kotahi estimated that more than 85 per cent of speed limits in New Zealand are above their technical definition of “safe and appropriate”, a threshold that is based on different criteria and factors, such as the design of the road, crash survivability and community wellbeing.

This post by Matt in 2023 sums up exactly why speed limits are the easy change, using the words of the Minister himself:

National’s transport spokesperson Simeon Brown said he supported reduced speed limits around schools, but not “blanket” reductions across the state highway network.
“What we have is a Government that is focused on low-hanging fruit, which is reducing speed limits rather than building better roads,” Brown said.
Since when has "focusing on the low-hanging fruit" been a bad thing? The very definition of the phrase is "the obvious or easy things that can be most readily done or dealt with in achieving success or making progress toward an objective".

This video from Auckland Transport is a great explainer of the impact of unsafe speeds:

For the record, the Minister's claims of "improved productivity" just don't stack up – or, if there's evidence to support that claim, nobody's seen it. As Simon Wilson puts it:

As mentioned above, no evidence has been released by Cabinet that the Government has any analysis at all of the overall economic consequences of higher speed limits.

It's hard to produce evidence that doesn't exist. Experts consistently state that lower speeds are also the economically beneficial thing to do, and the World Bank notes additional indirect benefits such as lower insurance costs and productivity losses from lower speeds.

An NZTA-commissioned study from 2017 found that speeding is costly: higher speeds result in higher proportional fuel costs relative to corresponding time savings. Not to mention it can produce more emissions. And heck, even our truckies say speed limits over 100km/h won't improve efficiency.

Then there's the economic cost of crashes. In cold hard numbers, in 2021 the MoT calculated the social cost of our road toll at $4,934,900 per fatality, $516,300 per serious injury, and $27,700 per minor injury – with an annual total in 2021, of $9.77 billion.

That's $9,770,000,000, per year.

Besides: how many years has our mantra for road safety been 'speed kills', the faster you go, the bigger the mess?

With road deaths and injuries currently going down, why change? As stated by Australasian College of Road Safety's chief executive Ingrid Johnston:

"We know that if you increase speed limits, you are going to kill more people and that's bad for your country's productivity and absolutely horrendous for all the families involved," she said.
Johnston said New Zealand's road toll so far in 2024 is the lowest in five years and down 20% on the last few years.
"And the one thing that we've been really looking at in New Zealand is the incredible work that has been done on reducing and reviewing speed limits, that is starting to see these statistics go down now, you are starting to see the real benefits of that.
"And just as that's happening, it's being reversed. And this is causing worldwide concern."

And while this Minister and government choose to take us backwards, cities all over the world are moving forward with safe speeds.

The Minister vs hundreds of experts (and most normal people)

Over 2024, the government chose to accelerate these changes, despite an outpouring of alarm from, among others:

And yet, instead of taking expert advice – including from former chief science adviser to the Ministry of Transport Simon Kingham – the Minister has instead referred to a popular mandate, saying "over 65 per cent of submitters supported our plan."

It's vitally important to put that figure into context, for the record. The consultation summary notes there were 8108 submissions, of which:

7997 were from individuals
138 from groups, and
45 from Road-Controlling Authorities (RCAs)

The specific proposal to reverse speed reductions drew 6802 submissions, of which 6621 were from individuals – of whom 66% supported the speed reductions.

But bear in mind that the Minister made a highly unusual decision to directly solicit responses from National Party supporters via his mailing list, likely leading to a flood of individual submissions in support.

Meanwhile, 72% of groups were opposed to undoing safe speeds (that's communities, schools, iwi, road safety advocacy organisations and experts) and, crucially, 83% of local Road Controlling Authorities were opposed (that's the councils and local authorities who mop up the impacts).

Contrast this with the 2022 rule change that introduced the ability to choose safer speed limits:

This compares with 325 submissions (over 9 weeks) for the uncontroversial 2022 speed-setting rule the Minister is seeking to overturn. (The summary of feedback on the 2022 rule is well worth reading – it was largely supportive, and the main objection was that it didn’t move fast enough to deliver safe speeds around schools).

And note that local research consistently finds a much higher level of support for safer speeds – and when people are given the facts, the more support and understanding they express. Writing for Newsroom, Dr Timothy Welch outlined a July 2024 report by Auckland Transport:

The report is revealing in many ways. It shows that 71 percent of 500 residents who took part in the survey are aware of the speed reductions implemented since 2020, which indicates these changes have registered with the public and not in the way the Government seems to think. It shows more Aucklanders support the speed reductions than oppose them: 46 percent in favour versus 38 percent against. This contradicts the Government’s claims that there is widespread opposition to speed-limit reductions, a claim used to justify the planned speed-limit increases.

Local communities want safer communities, particularly around schools. This is not partisan. National MPs themselves advocate for safe speeds in areas around schools, and safety improvements on local streets – projects that stand to be undone by their colleague's new rule.

School principals have been speaking out against the forced speed increases in school neighbourhoods that will be the result of the Minister's dictate. The evidence shows that in Auckland 85% of deaths and serious injuries around schools occur outside of pick-up and drop-off times – and moreover, that permanent safe speed zones are the most cost-effective.

According to Auckland Transport's research, the travel time difference between permanent 30km/h zones around schools and temporary 30km/h limits is negligible: around 2 seconds for the average journey. But the Minister spins stories of a mythical 4am (or now apparantly 5am) shift worker, driving on mostly empty roads for a tiny part of the day and who still has to obey all other traffic laws including red lights. If this particular journey is such a concern, why didn't the Minister proposed safe speeds only apply from 1am to 3.55am?

For the sake of that ghost journey, real human beings will face unsafe speeds leading to more deaths and serious injuries.

At first glance, it seems there may be one positive change in the final rule as compared to the draft version: it appears to suggest that schools can retain permanent 30km/h speed limits if the surrounding road is already 30km/h. However, many of these 30km/h neighbourhoods will be forcibly reverted to 50km/h, making the point moot.

And what about the cost of reversing permanent speed limits to install more expensive variable limits? The practicalities are unclear, yet the government has mandated variable speeds be implemented by July 2026. So, given permanent speed limits are safer and more cost-effective, why not just allow those to continue to be an option?

Another thing to note: in their submission on the 2022 speed rule, NZ Police sought lower speed limits, including asking for blanket/ "default" lower limits. Why can't we see their feedback in this 2024 consultation?

Regardless, the basic physics have not changed, hence the overwhelming magnitude of expert support for safer speeds. In the face of this, Simeon Brown has made a choice that will cause the death and injuries of more New Zealanders.

To quote former chief science adviser to the Ministry of Transport Professor Simon Kingham's response to these changes:

"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."

Key stats on safer speeds, from Healthy Auckland Together's scorecard.

The Minister's verbal security blanket vs the truth

Again, for the record: the only "blanket" in this whole scenario belongs to Simeon Brown. The Minister relentlessly - and falsely - claims to be overturning "blanket speed limit reductions". As outlined in detail here, this is a blatant untruth. Unfortunately, many otherwise reliable media outlets have continued to uncritically repeat this phrasing - along with reports that attack individual staff members, to undermine the credibility of evidence.

It's tedious to have to repeatedly call this stuff out. But as the saying goes, "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on". Showing how egregious the Minister's decision is, and the flimsy justifications for it, can help both the media and the public get their boots on.

Here's the NZ Herald headline on the day of the Speed Limit announcement:

The fact is, the previous government's approach was the opposite of "blanket". It took a risk-focused and evidence-based approach that gave local authorities the lead. A Cabinet paper from 2021 shows Labour steering away from a one-size-fits-all universal rule, towards local flexibility – even against the wishes of the New Zealand Police on several points.

While Police also support the new framework’s overall intent, they raised two substantive issues. Firstly, Police consider that devolving speed limit decision-making to local authority RCAs (for local roads) risks an inconsistent response to reducing DSIs on our highest risk roads.
Police noted, for example, that some regions may continue to have 100 km/h speed limits on roads with no protective barriers, whereas others may reduce limits on these types of roads to reduce DSI risk. Police continue to express a preference for introducing a default national speed limit for all local roads or State highways presenting most risk.
Introducing local road or State highway default speed limits was out of scope of the new speed management framework, except, to an extent, regarding schools. RCAs are expected to take a targeted, risk-based approach to speed management. This supports a flexible and appropriate framework which empowers local authorities to consider local context and conditions to support broad transport-informed outcomes, underpinned by national guidance.
[...]
Secondly, while Police strongly support the earlier timeframes for reducing school speed limits, Police recommend one consistent safe speed limit around all schools, regardless of location. This is to avoid a possible ‘blanket’ approach of RCAs applying maximum 60 km/h limits around all category two school areas.
However, officials advise that this is unlikely. Waka Kotahi is developing guidance setting out the criteria that RCAs must consider under the rule if they are proposing to set a school speed limit (permanent or variable) higher than 30km/h. Under the new Speed Rule, they then must review these school speed limits after three years. Police have acknowledged that this may mitigate inappropriate speed limits around schools being applied.

In short, not only did Labour's 2022 rule avoid imposing 'blanket' limits, it sought to give local authorities flexibility and control over the speed on their roads.

Compare this to Brown's draconian approach. In the draft rule, the proposed speed limit classifications impose universal (i.e. "blanket") increases on Urban Streets (to 50km/h) and Rural Interregional Connecters (to 100km/h), while reducing flexibility and increasing speeds on many others – regardless of road condition, local wishes, or local context.

And in the final rule what do we get? Blanket speed limit increases that ignore the evidence – and a spiteful ruling out of 30km/h even as an option for local streets and neighbourhoods where people live. All the evidence shows that 30km/h is the safest speed for our urban streets, and we know our rural roads are not build for fast speeds.

Let's also not forget the misrepresentation the Minister has made of what other countries are doing – skewing the facts, knowingly, to choose more death and serious injuries on our roads.

The Minister vs local aspirations (and local budgets)

Throughout the year, councils around the country have expressed consternation around aspects of the speed rule. There has been confusion and frustration at why they must now work to make their communities less safe. Moreover, central government is making councils foot the bill for reversing heavily consulted and well supported changes implemented since 2020.

These unasked for and unnecessary costs bite hard, right when councils are feeling the financial pinch – ranging from tens of thousands for smaller councils, to an estimated $25 million for Auckland:

Auckland Council is “concerned that the approach taken will compromise safety and lead to an increase in deaths and serious injuries".
The changes are “unlikely to lead to substantial improvements in travel times and economic productivity” and “if no additional funding is made available, additional cost would mostly fall on ratepayers.”

Currently, the government has allocated no funding:

Burnett told the board that no new funding was allocated from the government to cover reversing speed limits, and the cost will have to be covered by Auckland Transport.
Burnett told the board that Auckland Transport had no funding to cover reversing speed limits at present. She said there will be funding that regional authorities can bid for, but they do not yet know the details.

Slower speeds save lives, as evidenced in Auckland after the Phase 1 of the Safer Speeds programme was implemented in 2020:

In the 24 months following the June 2020 Auckland speed limit reduction, Phase 1 roads have seen a 30% reduction in fatalities. In comparison, over this same period, the rest of the network has seen a 9% increase in fatalities.
For the same period, Phase 1 roads have seen a 21.3% reduction in serious injuries. In comparison, over this same period, the rest of the network has seen a 11.8% reduction in serious injuries.

The 2024 Speed Limit Rule Change is an unfunded imposition that benefits nobody and wastes precious time and resources, against the desires of local communities, and will make our streets more dangerous.

The Minister vs the people: legal challenges to come?

As of writing this post, we do not know if this decision will be subject to judicial review. I hope there is one, just as I hope councils and communities continue to stand up to this lethal decision.

We know higher speeds result in more deaths and injuries, and the lower speed limits and work for road safety has reduced that. We know our poor road safety costs New Zealand billions. We know so many countries and cities overseas are leading the way, in the right direction. Yet this government and the Minister of Transport Simeon Brown have chosen otherwise, on our behalf.

It's really hard to comprehend the reckless disregard for facts, evidence, and people's lives. How can someone can be so consumed by ideology they can no longer see reality?

If you were employed by someone to improve workplace safety and came up with this Minister's approach, you'd be fired. If someone were to be injured or died as a result, you would be prosecuted.

In the future, this will rightly be seen as a shocking decision. There's nothing to sugarcoat here. There are not two sides on this issue. This policy will result in people being harmed, and each and every name should rightly lie at the Minister's feet.

What a legacy.