The same applies to the general public. PR spin on public consultation is used to guide people towards the desired outcome. Staff don’t want your opinion: they want your votes on the survey to justify their predetermined decision.
They don’t consult you: they insult you.
In Hamilton, like most other cities, council staff have an anti-car agenda. Road speed limits have been lowered over the last few years in the name of safety. Hamilton’s data has actually shown an increase in injuries as a result, so staff decided to change how they measured accidents. The National-led coalition has reversed this agenda, issuing an instruction to reinstate the old limits.
This applies to Ruakura Road, an important commuter route in Hamilton East. For decades, the speed limit was 80 km/h. As urban growth engulfed the surrounding land, the council reduced it to 60 km/h, which was reasonable. A couple of years ago, the anti-car lobby got new expensive off-road cycleways and speed bumps put in place, making it safer, yet still reduced the speed limit further to 50 km/h. What then was the point of the cycleways and speed bumps?
The government requirement is to return it to 60 km/h.
Council staff are unhappy about this, and proposed lobbying the government to keep the lowered speed limit. Key to this lobbying is public consultation with results supporting their side. To ensure that exact outcome, a draft public consultation document came before elected councillors on 11 March 2025 at the infrastructure committee meeting, complete with a nice page of important data to guide the public’s thinking.
Before the speed limit got lowered, there were five minor injury accidents. After the speed limit got lowered, there were only two minor injury accidents. The staff predicted that minor accidents would double if the speed limit was raised again.
This seems pretty clear cut. There is a serious safety risk! Who would support upping the limit at the expense of people’s lives?
A closer look reveals that the ‘before’ was a five-year period, so an accident rate of one per year. The ‘after’ was a two-year period at an accident rate of one per year. No difference. No safety risk.
I asked the staff how this data could lead to a prediction that accidents would double.
The answer was astounding. Staff used a computer program that was programmed to predict more accidents if speed increased. It didn’t matter what data were entered, it didn’t matter if there were any road changes and it didn’t matter how many vehicles used it. So long as the speed increased, the programme reported that the road was more dangerous.
Conversely, all the speed reductions throughout the city, with all the ‘traffic calming’ disruptions to our daily commute, built at great expense, would always report safety benefits, because that is what the programme was programmed to report. No wonder they justified every road project.
In computer science terms, this has a technical term, GIGO, ‘garbage in, garbage out’. My use of this technical term resulted in an accusation from the mayor and deputy mayor that I was being disrespectful of staff. In my view, staff were being extremely disrespectful to the public. The mayoral response was insulting to the people of Hamilton. She made it clear that her council has no intention of doing its job properly and there will never be any accountability.
The same programme is used by all councils and NZTA. This explains the introduction of speed bumps, in-lane bus stops and ‘innovating street’ painting simultaneously across the country.
There was more to come.
Essentially the decision to set a speed limit on any particular road is a risk-reward choice. Higher speeds arguably carry more risk (especially if the data is falsified), while reduced travel time is the reward. Sometimes, the travel time is not worth the risk and a lower speed is good.
Increasing the speed from 50km/h to 60 km/h for the 1,540m length of road would save just a 20th of a second per car – according to council staff. The direction to the public reading the consultation document is clear: it is so close to zero that it is not worth any risk at all. We may as well keep the 50 km/h limit.
When you have a speed and a distance, it is easy to work out the time. Even at a conservative 55km/h to allow for accelerating and braking at each end of the road, mathematics gives a very different answer that is 220 times larger than the staff figure. That is too big to be an error. It is deliberate and it is insulting. We, the public, are not being consulted. We are being misled.
The good news is that the councillors rejected the staff report. The speed limit will go back to 60 km/h on Ruakura Road. Unfortunately, it had nothing to do with the data manipulation I pointed out, but was part of a compromise deal to proceed with some other road ‘improvements’ to frustrate drivers. This is how your council operates, and why you need to vote for change.
Elect councillors and MPs who understand numbers, or at least understand the need to get independent advice to break staff control.
Andrew Bydder is a is a Hamilton City Councillor, a professional problem solver, a designer, and a small business owner. This article was first published HERE
This applies to Ruakura Road, an important commuter route in Hamilton East. For decades, the speed limit was 80 km/h. As urban growth engulfed the surrounding land, the council reduced it to 60 km/h, which was reasonable. A couple of years ago, the anti-car lobby got new expensive off-road cycleways and speed bumps put in place, making it safer, yet still reduced the speed limit further to 50 km/h. What then was the point of the cycleways and speed bumps?
The government requirement is to return it to 60 km/h.
Council staff are unhappy about this, and proposed lobbying the government to keep the lowered speed limit. Key to this lobbying is public consultation with results supporting their side. To ensure that exact outcome, a draft public consultation document came before elected councillors on 11 March 2025 at the infrastructure committee meeting, complete with a nice page of important data to guide the public’s thinking.
Before the speed limit got lowered, there were five minor injury accidents. After the speed limit got lowered, there were only two minor injury accidents. The staff predicted that minor accidents would double if the speed limit was raised again.
This seems pretty clear cut. There is a serious safety risk! Who would support upping the limit at the expense of people’s lives?
A closer look reveals that the ‘before’ was a five-year period, so an accident rate of one per year. The ‘after’ was a two-year period at an accident rate of one per year. No difference. No safety risk.
I asked the staff how this data could lead to a prediction that accidents would double.
The answer was astounding. Staff used a computer program that was programmed to predict more accidents if speed increased. It didn’t matter what data were entered, it didn’t matter if there were any road changes and it didn’t matter how many vehicles used it. So long as the speed increased, the programme reported that the road was more dangerous.
Conversely, all the speed reductions throughout the city, with all the ‘traffic calming’ disruptions to our daily commute, built at great expense, would always report safety benefits, because that is what the programme was programmed to report. No wonder they justified every road project.
In computer science terms, this has a technical term, GIGO, ‘garbage in, garbage out’. My use of this technical term resulted in an accusation from the mayor and deputy mayor that I was being disrespectful of staff. In my view, staff were being extremely disrespectful to the public. The mayoral response was insulting to the people of Hamilton. She made it clear that her council has no intention of doing its job properly and there will never be any accountability.
The same programme is used by all councils and NZTA. This explains the introduction of speed bumps, in-lane bus stops and ‘innovating street’ painting simultaneously across the country.
There was more to come.
Essentially the decision to set a speed limit on any particular road is a risk-reward choice. Higher speeds arguably carry more risk (especially if the data is falsified), while reduced travel time is the reward. Sometimes, the travel time is not worth the risk and a lower speed is good.
Increasing the speed from 50km/h to 60 km/h for the 1,540m length of road would save just a 20th of a second per car – according to council staff. The direction to the public reading the consultation document is clear: it is so close to zero that it is not worth any risk at all. We may as well keep the 50 km/h limit.
When you have a speed and a distance, it is easy to work out the time. Even at a conservative 55km/h to allow for accelerating and braking at each end of the road, mathematics gives a very different answer that is 220 times larger than the staff figure. That is too big to be an error. It is deliberate and it is insulting. We, the public, are not being consulted. We are being misled.
The good news is that the councillors rejected the staff report. The speed limit will go back to 60 km/h on Ruakura Road. Unfortunately, it had nothing to do with the data manipulation I pointed out, but was part of a compromise deal to proceed with some other road ‘improvements’ to frustrate drivers. This is how your council operates, and why you need to vote for change.
Elect councillors and MPs who understand numbers, or at least understand the need to get independent advice to break staff control.
Andrew Bydder is a is a Hamilton City Councillor, a professional problem solver, a designer, and a small business owner. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment