this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
34 points (84.0% liked)

Aotearoa / New Zealand

1651 readers
4 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general

Rules:

FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom

 

Banner image by Bernard Spragg

Got an idea for next month's banner?

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Alternative headline: National to spend $30m to sacrifice some of your lives so our trip is slightly faster.

The changes have been endorsed by transport researchers and street safety advocates as effective measures to help reduce the number of Kiwis killed and injured on the roads.

That's all there is to it.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rangelus@lemmy.nz 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I recently drove SH6 over the Whangamoas. Most areas that were once 100 are now 80 or lower (except the closest part near Blenheim). I was towing a trailer, and it did not add any appreciable time to the trip, but made the whole drive much less stressful. No more Utes up my arse because how dare I not do the full 100 on the windy as fuck road. So from my personal experience I like the change.

It also helps that 80 is right around the most fuel efficient speed, which is nice now that petrol is $3+

[–] sortofblue@lemmy.nz 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Considering how windy that road is I really don't get why the locals went so feral about it being lowered. Even the straighter bits of roads have enough of an up-and-down that you can't see oncoming traffic so you can't overtake slower vehicles.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

$100 says the locals still overtake on blind hills.

Also, going fast is manly, by lowering a speed limit you're essentially cutting off their balls.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ditto the Napier-Taupo. There's a section on the Western side that's 80 well after it needs to, and ditto at the bottom of the Esk Valley - but all of the rest of it just isn't a 100km/h road, despite what the munters in their Hilux's think.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ciaocibai@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

If it were fit for purpose each location they changed it, that would be great. But I’ve yet to meet anyone who (for example) thinks changing the road from Featherston to Masterton to 80kph is fit for purpose. Especially the Featherston-Greytown section which is probably the straightest and best maintained piece of road in the Wairarapa.

The only thing it’s done is force more traffic onto side roads which are still 100.

Also, well I appreciate the frustration of having others up your arse (ha) there could also be something to be said for pulling over if/when you are in a slower vehicle (e.g. towing a trailer) - not saying that you don’t pull over, but the amount of people that don’t, even with slow vehicle bays (or worse speeding up at passing lanes) makes the whole thing more dangerous.

[–] Rangelus@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't speak for Wairarpa so I leave that to you.

I always pull over. I have a wife and kids who all get car sick, so I take it pretty easy generally. But my point wasn't about me having people behind me doing 80 in a 100 zone - that would be understandable. My point was, previously large stretches of the road were uncomfortable at the posted limit, but even doing the limit angry locals would ride your arse only to Hoon past on a blind corner and speed off. My anecdotal evidence is the reduced limit has cooled people's driving temperament noticably. I even got two toots for pulling over, and a couple of hazard light flashes - something that hadn't happened in a long time before the limit reduction.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I personally have not noticed significant changes in travel times due to the reduction in speed limits, which may just be because of where I live (Transmission Gully and the Kāpiti Expressway have definitely cut travel times, more than offsetting any difference in speed changes on other roads).

I found it hard to get recent data, but found this interesting (vs National's claim that Road to Zero isn't working):

graph showing reduction in fatalities vs vehicle kms travelled

Deaths peaked in 2017, but really dropped in 2020 and 2021 (presumably COVID related). Then we have 2022 which was 374 deaths, the highest since 2018. But what was the rate compared to the distance traveled? I haven't found a 2022 VKT number, but it would be interesting to see. Also, one off blips in data don't mean that a programme with a 30 year plan isn't working. In fact, given COVID, I don't think you could judge the programme at all for at least another few years.

Now if someone says "we shouldn't spend this money on X because it could save even more lives spent on Y" then ok cool. But I think we all know if they cut Road to Zero it will be to pay for the lack of money they allocated for their promised road projects.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Given how many things have happened regarding our roads the last few years, such as new motorways and expressways opening and safety upgrades to existing roads, as well as modern cars getting constantly safer, I don't think we have enough evidence to say lower speed limits did anything conclusively.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'd agree, but ultimately lower speed limits aren't about reducing the number of crashes caused by excessive speed. It's about accepting crashes will happen, and reducing the damage when it does happen.

It's a broad brush and we may never be able to tie one thing to the outcome.

[–] Rangelus@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think this is an important point that is missed a lot. The reduced speed limits aim to reduce the harm of serious crashes. Any data needs to include the number of crashes to the number of crashes that have serious harm and death, then compare these to other years.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sylverstream@lemmy.nz 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Have you read the entire article? I'm absolutely not a National fan but they're not saying that they will reverse all changes, only there were it's safe to do so. Essentially what the current plan is, perhaps at less places.

Also, they want to focus on other things than speed, eg on alcohol testing.

National will encourage police to increase the use of breath testing and we will fix roadside drug testing legislation so police can effectively test drivers for drugs.

I'm from The Netherlands where we have an absurd focus on speed, and speed testing. It has got nothing to do with safety where they are testing, it's just another tax.

I've got my license 25 years or so and have only been tested for alcohol once. Never in my ten years in New Zealand. That's crazy. One in five fatal crashes is caused by alcohol.

[–] Xcf456@lemmy.nz 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I think it's generous to take what they say at face value. They often slap on this sort of handwaving away of the predictable negative outcomes of whatever they're proposing to roll back. It's not actually backed up with anything - it's just designed to let them have it both ways.

Kinda like their tax cuts they say won't be inflationary, and their foreign buyer ban relaxation that they say somehow won't lead to house prices going up.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] TwoCubed@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Im from Germany and greatly prefer driving in the Netherlands to Germany. Traffic simply flows in NL, whereas in Germany you'll always have some fanatics driving 250+ kph in the left lane, causing hiccups in traffic flow. Plus the roadrage is real in D.

[–] sylverstream@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Guten tag :) I have always preferred driving in Germany, I've found them the best drivers in Europe when we did road trips. As people can go 200+ km on the left lane, they anticipate much better. I remember Dutch people were called NL, Nur Links, as they would stick too long in the left hand lane. Also found that people were more polite in Germany.

But perhaps it's all perception then!

[–] TwoCubed@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

Goede middag!

Seems like a classic grass is greener on the other side thing :) I guess if you have to deal with traffic on a day to day basis, you'll end up hating it either way.

I'm just envious of the Dutch. The infrastructure is simply amazing. Everyone has near equal rights, be it cars, bikes or pedestrians. And the OV is just leagues ahead of the ÖPNV in Germany!

Anywho, this is a NZ community, so I should probably shut up :D

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes I did read the article, thanks for the opening ad hominem.

As I've said in another reply:

Greater speed makes every collision and accident worse.

We can save lives, already involved in collisions, by reducing the speed at which those collisions happen.

There is exactly one action you can take to mitigate the severity of someone else's mistake in a collision: reduce your speed.

How many lives, including your own, are worth taking to satiate your need for speed?

[–] sylverstream@lemmy.nz 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Yes think we're on the same page. I have absolutely no need for speed anymore (I did when I was younger, I admit), I just don't think it makes sense to limit speed on certain roads at 100km / hour like the Kapiti Expressway. It should be 120km/h IMO. Police is checking for speed there very often as it's an easy cash grab, but I hardly see them in 50km/h areas where it's much less safe to go over the limit.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 year ago

How many lives, including your own, are worth taking to satiate your need for speed?

Lol, we're talking about driving at 100 kmh here. Tad melodramatic, don't you think?

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Might be where you're living or when you're driving? I've had a few breath tests heading home from work around the times you'd expect people might be heading home for tea after an after work drink.

[–] sylverstream@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've driven at times when people are expected to drink, at night, at Friday afternoon, etc. Never tested once. And I've probably been speed tested thousands of times.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've been tested twice in the 30 years I've been driving. Both of them before I was 20.

I assume there's confirmation bias in that I'm not driving at the same times in the same places as I was 20 or so, but I've never even seen a breath stop since.

Plenty of WoF stops though, and one child seat compliance stop.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Interesting! I've never seen a WoF stop or child seat compliance stop.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Sorry, registration not WoF.

Yeah, the child seat one was a real surprise.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] evanuggetpi@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 year ago

I've had both (in the far north).

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 year ago

It's been years since I was tested for alcohol, although I'm not often on the roads at typical drink driving hours.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gazumi@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (15 children)

I've been trying to follow this story and the evidence underpinning the decision. That is based upon te published data for killied and seriously injured.(KSI). Any alternate approach at this time is not providing evidence, that I have been able to pick up. It seems more like a power / votes opportunity rather than a well founded argument. Despite it being unpopular, like when we mandated seatbels in 1983,I still suppot the reduced speed limits unti the evidece says otherwise.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

National to actually spend money on safety upgrades and road maintenance, rather than the band-aid solution of lowering speed limits.

Seriously, the evidence this actually works is tenuous at best, and that's assuming people actually follow the new limits.

There's also a number of routes, the new Kapiti expressway for example, that could handle much higher limits, and in fact frequently do handle vehicles travelling much faster.

Speaking to media today, Hipkins claimed it appeared National was simply re-announcing what the Government's stated position was.

Labour are also saying this is more or less their policy, so it doesn't sound like they will be much different at all.

[–] sylverstream@lemmy.nz 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yep totally agreed. 100 feels so slow there. Should be 120 or so.

I'm all for lowering speed limits in urban areas.

Also there should be more focus on other things like alcohol testing, fatigue, keeping distance, etc. But speed is easier to test and brings in cash.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 year ago

I can tell you from experience that 130 on the expressway doesn't feel particularly fast either.

Fortunately you rarely see police north of Paraparaumu on that road.

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

30m is nothing in government budget. It's so funny how they always mention the cost cause they know how tight we all are with money.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It would pay for quite a few teachers or nurses.

And it's never just the sticker price when the polits burble this kind of nonsense in the media.

Based on a quick search of treasury's budget publications I'll assume 2022's total government revenue to be 150b. 30m is 0.2% of that.

Holy shit! They're prepared to dump 0.2% of the whole budget on a political football.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›