Public health academics and other experts are queuing up to condemn Simeon Brown’s plan to remove blanket speed cuts. Why?

What’s the latest?

In an editorial this morning published by the New Zealand Medical Journal, a group of five health experts argue that the overwhelming body of evidence stands in profound opposition to plans to reverse blanket speed reductions. 

OK, interesting. Just how fast can blankets travel?

No. Blanket as in across-the-board. Under the previous government there had been a broad push towards reducing speed limits.

The Labour government’s Road to Zero strategy paved the way for reducing maximum speeds on selected state highways (although Chris Hipkins as prime minister did scramble to throw some of these plans on his last-gasp proverbial bonfire), while local authorities moved to cut speed limits in urban areas. 

And then what?

National pledged to throw this particular policy wagon into reverse. It won the election and so it’s doing just that. 

What will change?

As drafted, the Land Transport Rule will reverse all speed limit reductions introduced since the start of 2020 on local streets, arterial roads, and state highways. 

What about speed reductions around schools? 

Where permanent reductions have been increased they’ll be changed to variable status, reduced only for drop-off and pick-up hours. Streets outside a school will be 30km/h “during school travel times”. Rural roads outside schools will need to have speed limits during those hours of 60km/h or less.

What’s the rationale for the policy?

Speed reductions introduced by the last government were guilty of “ignoring economic impacts including travel times, and giving insufficient weight to road users’ and local communities’ views”, declared National’s “Accelerate NZ” policy ahead of the last election. It pledged to “return many state highways to 100 km/h from 80, and many local roads to 50 km/h from 30, while designing new highways for 110 km/h”.

The policy surfaced again in the National-Act coalition deal, as “reverse speed limit reductions where it is safe to do so”, into the 100-day plan as “stopping blanket speed limit reductions” and into the “Q3 action plan”, which takes us to the end of September, in a commitment to “sign the new speed limit rule to reverse the previous government’s blanket speed limit reductions”. 

And Act’s position?

Per a recent edition of Free Press, the Act newsletter: “Few things summed up Ardernism better than making us all drive comically slowly based on no evidence.”

No evidence?

A convoy of academics say there’s plenty. In an editorial in the NZ Medical Journal this morning, headlined “Speeding towards danger”, Christopher Wakeman, a leading trauma surgeon based at the Department of Surgery at the University of Otago in Christchurch, along with four other health experts, survey the available research from around the world and conclude: “There is little doubt that increasing maximum speeds will lead to more lives being lost on our roads.”

They argue that any economic benefits that might result from an increase in speed limits would be outweighed by “the costs associated with the potential increase in deaths, injuries and negative health outcomes”. 

And: “It seems that increasing maximum driving speeds has been prioritised over all other considerations, which does not reflect the balance needed for responsible decision-making about our transport system. And it flies in the face of best practice in road safety based on global evidence … To prioritise opportunities for motorists to drive at pace ahead of conditions that protect opportunities for active travel and safety of non-motorists is inherently unjust and unethical.”

Anything else?

The authors say that impacts fall inequitably. “It is well established that pedestrian and road injury risks are disproportionately borne by tamariki Māori and Pacific children, older people, disabled people, rural communities and residents of socio-economically disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods. Many of these groups have lower access to cars but are more likely to be injured by them. They are also more likely to face severe and disabling consequences, with higher out-of-pocket expenses and many unmet needs alongside barriers to accessing care. Therefore, the proposed policies are most likely to be injured by them.”

Any other objectors?

Simon Kingham, a Canterbury professor who also served until recently as the Ministry of Transport chief science adviser, has deplored “bizarre” and “madness” plans, which rest, he says, on a “complete lack of evidence”.

In a paper co-written with population health academic Angela Curl, Kingham points to “significant and wide-ranging” health impacts and environmental damage, while questioning whether time savings are meaningful. 

In January, the NZ Trauma Committee of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons wrote to the government to “urgently appeal for the maintenance of reduced speed limits on Aotearoa New Zealand’s roads”, pointing to local research that “has consistently shown that reducing speed limits significantly reduces the risk of death and serious injury in road accidents”.

How have local authorities responded?

There’s been some pushback, not least from the local body Leviathan, Auckland. The Brown v Brown standoff came as the Super City council voted 18-3 to oppose the plan to reverse speed limit reductions. The council voted by 12-1 to oppose the variable speed limit plan for schools. 

Permanent speed reductions around schools are backed by 78% of school leaders. 

Were members of the public consulted?

Yes. A consultation process ran for four weeks up to July 11. Simeon Brown came in for criticism from the opposition for an email to supporters urging them to click on a link to submit on the consultation and “make your voice heard to reverse Labour’s blanket speed limit reductions across the country”. In the email Brown noted that the Greens were asking their supporters to submit. 

What does the minister say to his critics?

Asked for a response to the the NZ Medical Journal article, Simeon Brown stressed that the government had won a mandate for the policy, adding: “The highest-income countries that have the lowest rates of road deaths – Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Japan, Denmark, UK – all have default speed limits of 50 kph or more on urban roads, with exceptions for lower speed limits. Our government’s approach is aligned with this.”

He said: “These countries have strong road safety records, targeting alcohol, drugs, and speeding. Our government has introduced legislation to roll out roadside drug testing. We are setting targets for police to undertake at least 3.3 million alcohol breath tests per year, and we are directing investment towards road policing and enforcement. We are prioritising the safety of young New Zealanders by requiring variable speed limits outside schools during pick-up and drop-off times. It makes no sense at all to make a shift worker heading to work at 4am crawl along at 30 kph with a permanent speed limit reduction.”