Kiwis reject lower speed limits
2018 is already the second deadliest year on our roads since 2010. In a Stuff series, we investigate what could be done to lower our terrible toll, and whether we have the will to change. Today, Damian George looks at speed.
There is a simple solution to eliminating many of the deaths on New Zealand’s roads but it probably won’t go down well with drivers. As New Zealand’s road toll continues its recent upward trend, experts agree there is no doubt that lowering the open road speed limit would lead to a direct reduction in deaths across the country.
But New Zealanders are staunchly opposed to a blanket speed limit reduction, and the Government has also steered away from it, preferring to look at each road in isolation and consider other measures, such as safety improvements.
It’s a method backed by the Automobile Association (AA), whose 1.6 million members have repeatedly said they do not support a widespread reduction.
Sweden is one of the countries regarded as the gold standard for road safety. Along with Norway and the United Kingdom, it has one of the lowest road death rates per billion kilometres anywhere in the world.
Yet even Sweden does not yet have an 80kmh speed limit. The Scandinavian country adopted the Vision Zero policy – a concept that zero deaths and serious injuries are an acceptable product of mobility – back in 1997.
More than 20 years later, it has set a goal that by 2025, any national road which carries more than 2000 vehicles a day will have either an 80kmh speed limit, or dividing barriers.
Swedish traffic safety expert Lars Ekman said if the speed limit on open roads without dividing barriers was reduced from 100kmh to 80kmh, road deaths would reduce dramatically.
It was the magic number, he said, and any legal speed limit above it would significantly counter all other efforts to reduce our road deaths.
‘‘When we talk to the car industry, they say [in] head-on collisions involving two cars, if the speed is above 80kmh, there will never be a safety system on vehicles that could cope with that.
‘‘But [travelling] at 80kmh or below, you could have partly safety activated vehicles, [with features] such as emergency braking and air bags, that could mean you survived.
‘‘So from a Vision Zero point of view, you should not have a speed limit over 80kmh if there is the possibility of a head-on collision.’’
Ekman’s view is shared by AA road safety spokesman Dylan Thomsen, but he notes other factors need to be considered.
‘‘There’s no doubt that if all vehicles that currently travel at 100kmh slowed down to 80kmh, we would have less crashes, and less deaths and injuries.
‘‘That would become less if we went to 70kmh, and less again if we went to 60kmh.
‘‘But there’s a question of what level of risk people are willing to accept and be happy with.’’
In 22 surveys of its members since 2013, each of which attracted an average of 1000 respondents, 86 per cent directly opposed a reduction from 100kmh to 90kmh, he said.
They preferred the Government look at a range of options including engineering safety improvements.
Sweden also has a ‘‘2+1’’ policy on many of its open roads, in which they change from two lanes in one direction and one in the other, to the reverse every few kilometres.
That created more passing opportunities, and was a method New Zealand should adopt where possible, Thomsen said.
Ministry of Transport mobility and safety manager Brent Johnston said the Government was encouraging road controlling authorities across the country to review the top 10 per cent of their riskiest roads.
‘‘As part of the new approach to speed management introduced last year, the Government does encourage 80kmh speed limits on certain rural and urban roads that are not divided,’’ Johnston said.
‘‘However, the Government is not considering the introduction of a blanket reduction to 80kmh on any roads where a head-on collision is possible.’’
New Zealand Transport Agency figures show that speed was a factor in 28 per cent of fatal crashes in the first half of this year.