Over the past five years, an average of seven people were killed on New Zealand roads every week, and another 46 were seriously injured.
Since the beginning of this year alone, more than 120 people have lost their lives in crashes on our roads.
Our road safety performance is abysmal in an international context.
On a per capita basis, three times more people die in road crashes in New Zealand than the best performing European countries, such as Norway and Sweden.
The death rate is 50% higher than countries we should be comparable to, like our trans-Tasman cousins and Canada. We do perform better than the United States, but that’s a very low bar and not something we should consider a success.
So what is the answer to solving our road safety crisis? The debate rolls on, in government and the court of public opinion, about how best to target this harrowing issue.
The discourse grows not only in the aftermath of fatal crashes, but also when our transport agencies promote safety initiatives that are new and challenge our existing behaviours and beliefs.
Everyone seems to have an opinion on road safety, and there are lots of myths and misconceptions thrown around in public debate.
Many people, including some prominent commentators in the media, are quick to play the blame game citing poor driver behaviour as both the cause and solution to our issues.
There is some truth in that; however, the reality is that most high-severity crashes involve law-abiding people who simply make a mistake.
A study by the AA Research Foundation found that deliberately reckless behaviour, such as driving drunk or at extreme speeds, was a factor in 49% of the fatal crashes studied and 29% of serious injury crashes.
This shows that changing driver behaviour is important, but is only part of the solution.
Others blame the nature and quality of our roads. Again, there is some truth in that too.
The AA study found that 41% of serious injury crashes involved a vehicle crossing the centreline on an undivided 100kmh road. Figures like that should come as no surprise given 90% of our state highway network is undivided (i.e, does not have a median barrier).
Very rarely is the blame directed to the other parts of our transport system, such as our speed limits or the safety of the vehicles we drive, despite both playing a big role in the severity of crash outcomes.
In 2019, Waka Kotahi launched the national road safety strategy “Road to Zero”, with an ambitious target of a 40% reduction in deaths and serious injuries on our roads by 2030.
The strategy is based on a system-wide approach that focuses on improving the safety of our road network through safer infrastructure, safer speeds, safer vehicles, better road user choices and overall management of the transport system.
If we are to achieve the 40% reduction target, then a step change is needed across all parts of the system. Incremental enhancements will not cut it. The evidence of interventions that work and those that don’t are well-established.
Take median barriers as an example. We know your likelihood of being involved in a fatal or serious injury crash on a high-speed road with no median barrier is nearly three times that of a road with a median barrier.
It is that evidence that is driving the delivery of some great transport infrastructure projects, like the Waikato Expressway, Transmission Gully and expanded motorway networks in and around Christchurch.
Existing roads are also being retrofitted with median barriers to make them safer, such as State Highway 2 Waipawa to Waipukurau, and SH58 over Haywards Hill. Whilst it would be amazing for our entire state highway network to be median-divided, the simple reality is we could not afford it. The cost would be astronomical.
That’s why the setting of safe speed limits is also needed. Again, the evidence is clear that lower speeds save lives.
In late 2020, lower speed limits were introduced on 120km of SH6 between Blenheim and Nelson. The 100kmh speed limits were replaced with a combination of 80 and 90kmh limits, as well as a 60kmh speed limit in the tortuous sections.
In the five-year period prior to the change in speed limits, 52 people were killed or seriously injured on that stretch of state highway – more than 10 people per year.
In the last two years (2021 and 2022), that number has decreased to five. Injury crash numbers had reduced too – down 35%.
Despite this sort of evidence, lower speed limits are still unpopular with many, especially when it comes to lowering speed limits on our rural roads.
I’m not exactly sure why this is. Perhaps it is the feeling of something being taken away, some loss of freedom, some loss of time?
Perhaps it is a feeling of change being imposed on everyone against a belief that road trauma is the fault of a few others – not me?
Whatever the reason or reasons, we need to do a better job in communicating with the public about the reasons for and the benefits of lower speed limits. Be direct, share the facts.
I find it strange that most people find it acceptable that our road network operates with relatively few safety mechanisms to protect users from death and serious injury.
Building regulations require balconies to have railings so you don’t fall and hurt yourself. You can’t even build a pool in New Zealand without it being fenced – because accidents happen, and we have to plan for that.
Many more people are killed or seriously injured on our roads than from falling off balconies or drowning in swimming pools.
So, why do we have such a blasé approach when it comes to our roads? The same doesn’t apply to our other transport networks like air and rail.
Just two weeks ago, the Wellington train network was crippled because KiwiRail had failed to complete scheduled track assessments, forcing trains to travel at significantly reduced speeds until the assessment deemed the tracks safe.
Road safety is about saving lives. If we know what works to save more lives on our roads, why aren’t we doing it?
The evidence is clear and the message is simple: reducing speed limits saves lives......The full article is published HERE
Paul Durdin is technical director – transportation engineering and a board member for road safety consultancy Abley.
The death rate is 50% higher than countries we should be comparable to, like our trans-Tasman cousins and Canada. We do perform better than the United States, but that’s a very low bar and not something we should consider a success.
So what is the answer to solving our road safety crisis? The debate rolls on, in government and the court of public opinion, about how best to target this harrowing issue.
The discourse grows not only in the aftermath of fatal crashes, but also when our transport agencies promote safety initiatives that are new and challenge our existing behaviours and beliefs.
Everyone seems to have an opinion on road safety, and there are lots of myths and misconceptions thrown around in public debate.
Many people, including some prominent commentators in the media, are quick to play the blame game citing poor driver behaviour as both the cause and solution to our issues.
There is some truth in that; however, the reality is that most high-severity crashes involve law-abiding people who simply make a mistake.
A study by the AA Research Foundation found that deliberately reckless behaviour, such as driving drunk or at extreme speeds, was a factor in 49% of the fatal crashes studied and 29% of serious injury crashes.
This shows that changing driver behaviour is important, but is only part of the solution.
Others blame the nature and quality of our roads. Again, there is some truth in that too.
The AA study found that 41% of serious injury crashes involved a vehicle crossing the centreline on an undivided 100kmh road. Figures like that should come as no surprise given 90% of our state highway network is undivided (i.e, does not have a median barrier).
Very rarely is the blame directed to the other parts of our transport system, such as our speed limits or the safety of the vehicles we drive, despite both playing a big role in the severity of crash outcomes.
In 2019, Waka Kotahi launched the national road safety strategy “Road to Zero”, with an ambitious target of a 40% reduction in deaths and serious injuries on our roads by 2030.
The strategy is based on a system-wide approach that focuses on improving the safety of our road network through safer infrastructure, safer speeds, safer vehicles, better road user choices and overall management of the transport system.
If we are to achieve the 40% reduction target, then a step change is needed across all parts of the system. Incremental enhancements will not cut it. The evidence of interventions that work and those that don’t are well-established.
Take median barriers as an example. We know your likelihood of being involved in a fatal or serious injury crash on a high-speed road with no median barrier is nearly three times that of a road with a median barrier.
It is that evidence that is driving the delivery of some great transport infrastructure projects, like the Waikato Expressway, Transmission Gully and expanded motorway networks in and around Christchurch.
Existing roads are also being retrofitted with median barriers to make them safer, such as State Highway 2 Waipawa to Waipukurau, and SH58 over Haywards Hill. Whilst it would be amazing for our entire state highway network to be median-divided, the simple reality is we could not afford it. The cost would be astronomical.
That’s why the setting of safe speed limits is also needed. Again, the evidence is clear that lower speeds save lives.
In late 2020, lower speed limits were introduced on 120km of SH6 between Blenheim and Nelson. The 100kmh speed limits were replaced with a combination of 80 and 90kmh limits, as well as a 60kmh speed limit in the tortuous sections.
In the five-year period prior to the change in speed limits, 52 people were killed or seriously injured on that stretch of state highway – more than 10 people per year.
In the last two years (2021 and 2022), that number has decreased to five. Injury crash numbers had reduced too – down 35%.
Despite this sort of evidence, lower speed limits are still unpopular with many, especially when it comes to lowering speed limits on our rural roads.
I’m not exactly sure why this is. Perhaps it is the feeling of something being taken away, some loss of freedom, some loss of time?
Perhaps it is a feeling of change being imposed on everyone against a belief that road trauma is the fault of a few others – not me?
Whatever the reason or reasons, we need to do a better job in communicating with the public about the reasons for and the benefits of lower speed limits. Be direct, share the facts.
I find it strange that most people find it acceptable that our road network operates with relatively few safety mechanisms to protect users from death and serious injury.
Building regulations require balconies to have railings so you don’t fall and hurt yourself. You can’t even build a pool in New Zealand without it being fenced – because accidents happen, and we have to plan for that.
Many more people are killed or seriously injured on our roads than from falling off balconies or drowning in swimming pools.
So, why do we have such a blasé approach when it comes to our roads? The same doesn’t apply to our other transport networks like air and rail.
Just two weeks ago, the Wellington train network was crippled because KiwiRail had failed to complete scheduled track assessments, forcing trains to travel at significantly reduced speeds until the assessment deemed the tracks safe.
Road safety is about saving lives. If we know what works to save more lives on our roads, why aren’t we doing it?
The evidence is clear and the message is simple: reducing speed limits saves lives......The full article is published HERE
Paul Durdin is technical director – transportation engineering and a board member for road safety consultancy Abley.
7 comments:
"The evidence is clear and the message is simple: reducing speed limits saves lives."
What evidence? Something dreamed up by a bureaucrat with a predetermined agenda, and a barrow to push?
Cannot compare kiwis with fully civilised northern European countries. There, even though they have far less of, parking scarcity and insurance rules keep vast numbers of young irresponsibles from vehicle ownership. I suspect many accidents are due the disconnect of the modern vehicle driver from the external world. And on in car distractions. Buiding boring roads then adopting a low speed limit encourages lack of concentration and distraction so gains are reduced. And making main roads foolporoof renders secondary roads very hazardous. Crash barriers incur huge cost in repair and write off for what would otherwise often be negligible incidents.
How often do you read about fatal crashes very late at night. Any amount of speed restriction won't stop a drunk driver running off the road into a tree!
Just a stray thought or three: wonder how many bicycles the author owns? Does he cycle to work? Perhaps he also votes Green? Perhaps I’m getting too cynical. Just seems like practically every transport organisation has become heavily infested with the same ideologically driven people. None of them give a royal continental about consequences for things like freight or national productivity. Slow the transport network and the price of everything increases while productivity decreases. Modern cars are much safer, our roads could be too. How about a true cost benefit analysis and a more balanced approach?
WW
Paul your ‘evidence’ around the Blenheim Marlborough road stats is superficial and incomplete. You say the average number of people killed or seriously injured over five years before the speed restrictions came in was 10 per year but now it is 5 per year.
Do those stats still hold if you look at numbers killed, alone, not mixing it with numbers seriously injured?
Are these numbers statistically significant?
And most importantly, since 2020 this road has been closed for MONTHS. NO traffic at all. First through lockdowns and then through storm damage repair. Months and months where noone was leaving their local late at night to wend their merry way home.
Same stretch of road, yes. But that’s about all. You and I both know we are not comparing like with like here and if you want to be seen as truthful you must address this ( before you are pushed to).
On top of that, mind numbingly slow tourists in campervans making unexpected moves in unexpected places have almost disappeared, also due to lockdowns. You haven’t even alluded to these massive changes in traffic flow and pattern in your ‘analysis’.
Where can the public access the raw data on the crashes on this stretch of road so that we can see for ourselves if what you say is the ‘truth’ is in fact really the truth. From where i sit right now your truth looks well and truly massaged.
Paul, maybe you are right, but you certainly haven’t convinced me.
As a regular driver on Nelson - Blenheim road my observations are that the driving is a lot worse. There are those that drive per the limits and lunatics that simply see them as an obstacle. Especially where there are no passing lines which is simply an invitation to the lunatics to pass because they know the slow law abiding drivers will stay in their lanes. And now there is not even the chance of a pleasant coffee break at the Pelorus cafe.
Incidentally I also note that the size of commercial vehicles on this road is absurd - way, way too big and heavy for the roads.
Judging by the responses, none are too happy nor convinced with the speed reductions. It's not aided by some of the inane advertising campaigns, nor by the ridiculous speed limits on some 'tight' country roads where the posted 80kph is patently excessive, and yet others where 110kph would be perfectly reasonable, but posted at much less. Much of the carnage is caused by drunk, distracted or incompetent drivers, or those just falling asleep, which won't be improved by lowering speed limits, which will ultimately be a what cost to the economy?
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.