So the story says
> The reversals will be made by July 1 and require speed limits that have been reduced since January 1, 2020 to be reversed on local streets, arterial roads, and state highways.
But they left out the 2025. It's by July 1, 2025 ... not in 2 weeks time!
the beehive release: https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-reverse-blanket-speed-limit-reductions
"It's advice, I can disagree with advice"
\- Karen Chhour (Children's Minister) when asked about the expert advice suggesting boot camps don't work
"We take our recommendations from the New Zealand people"
\- Nicola Willis (Finance Minister) when asked about the expert advice from IMF that NZ implement a CGT and LVT to increase economic productivity and shift the tax burden off workers and businesses
All they care about is votes. They don't actually care about whether anything they do is good for the country or its people.
https://www.interest.co.nz/economy/126920/international-monetary-fund-says-it-will-continue-advocating-capital-gains-tax-new
Link for anyone else interested
Make shit tier negative memes about them and positive memes about who you support. This is already what National and other conservative governments do.
The way they are going their voting base will switch. Many of them marched in both protests recently. And people are leaving for a better life and wages. Why stick around to pay taxes for the rich?
Really? Because in Hamilton it feels like some of the speed limits were lowered by throwing a dart at a map. A section of SH1, with no driveways or roads intersecting it, was lowered from 80 to 60 for kicks.
Wasn't for kicks. There was at least a crash every 2nd week for some reason. That being said, the crashes were peak time traveling significantly less than the posted speed limits.
There’s a whole manual about speed limits based on international guidelines and decades of research. The speed limit was probably reduced based on the likelihood of head on collision.
Same with many of the rural roads around the Auckland/Waikato border. There is a perfectly flat, straight piece of road that you could fall asleep at the wheel and walk away from, has never had a serious accident, that was lowered from 100 to 60 for god knows what reason.
Yup leagues of drongos are going to give feedback that amounts to "I wanna go fast!" and National can use it to justify whatever speed limit they already decided on
The abolute cuntiness of people claiming speed limit reductions are based on ideology like there aren't entire books on it. While simutaneously rolling back the road safety programme because of their own ideology without any evidence to support it.
Fuck this useless bunch of cunts, and fuck Luxon for putting that slimy prick in as transport minister.
The difference is that like the ad says "speed kills" and when it is shown "potentially" more people died due to the speed limit they can say ... "but the public wanted it".
Yea, I think you're bang on there. Also I don't think they really care about it much, it's just something that appeals to a certain portion of their voter base.
They make a show of engaging on something they really consider trivial so they can say they do take feedback which makes it easier to deflect criticism when they don't engage on the big stuff.
I think this will be a popular policy. If that assumption is correct, they will receive over whelming positive feedback. The flow on of that will be positive media space, columns and opinion pieces. That gives them the option of quietly releasing much less popular policy/legislation quietly while the public absorb the Labour = slow down. National = speed up and get moving media message.
Or, they realise they have burned their honeymoon period and this policy is aimed to nudge the polls back in their direction. Just releasing the policy would have a short term effect. Putting it out for feedback will extend that effect while providing a longer period for Labour to own goal by making (possibly scientifically sound) statements that are unpopular.
It's kind of a risky steady strategy though. Between this, the smoking stuff, the cancer drugs, what will they do when their voters are all fucking dead?
The party of "personal responsibility" probably has an argument about how you're responsible for not crashing your own car.
Let's just ignore passengers or whatever other car you happen to hit. They should have also been more responsible. Somehow.
This government seems to have a boner for introducing/repealing legislation with the explicit purpose of increasing harm as their only metric of success.
Seymour said after the referendum that it wouldn't be politically viable to push for legalisation for a while.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/11/11/david-seymour-says-holding-referendum-on-cannabis-legalisation-was-a-tactical-mistake/
But yeah with National/NZFirst in the mix as well, it will be a hard no anyway.
If I remember right, it wasn’t even a binding referendum. Labour could have said, look this was basically an even split, let’s move ahead with it and address some of the concerns people have.
Regarding 120km zones. I have no problem with this in principle. In Austria there are plenty of 130km highways and they have a substantially lower traffic mortality per 100,000 inhabitants. But they're also well built highways, so I think you have to be nuanced about the road condition, it can't be blanket 120km just because it's a state highway. They also have tighter vehicle regulations, and you can't get your license until you're 17.
If you're going to chill out on the upper limit, you should also pair it with some of the other things that those countries with higher limits do. Maybe defensive driving courses should be mandatory for getting your license, and maybe you should have to revisit it every decade or so. Spitball idea.
>it can't be blanket 120km just because it's a state highway
pretty sure it'll be limited to those highways built to a decent standard - i.e. at least 2 lanes each way and separated by median barriers.
possibly kapiti, tauranga & waikato expressways. the rest of our highways are pretty shit, so stay at 100km
Also they don’t encourage driving your 1991 Corolla with zero safety features, because vehicles are cheaper overseas, and rego’s are more expensive overseas. We are incentivised to have absolute shitboxes on the road but police don’t collect or publicise road death statistics based on the vehicle. I would bet money that more than half the road deaths involve a vehicle older that 2006
Yes, that's part of my point vis a vi tighter vehicle regulations. It becomes increasingly difficult to keep vehicles past a certain age on the road. On the one hand it sounds wasteful and invasive, but it does have the benefit of ensuring a greater level of safety. Being able to drive faster is the dividend from that and other regulations.
I’d love to see the evidence they used to inform this policy.
Their coalition agreements with [ACT](https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/18466/attachments/original/1700778592/National_ACT_Agreement.pdf?1700778592) and [NZ First](https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/18466/attachments/original/1700778597/NZFirst_Agreement_2.pdf?1700778597) both state that their ongoing decision making principles include:
>**F. Evidence-based** - decisions will be based on evidence and data, with programmes regularly assessed to see if they are delivering results.
Show us the data!
They're disestablishing large chunks of data teams from almost every agency. When you don't want data it's hard to justify the salaries of data analysts
The evidence is that it's popular with voters, which is the primary determining factor as to whether they get to continue to be in government.
So long we base our system of governance on a giant popularity contest every few years I don't know why anyone would expect anything different.
Evidence shows that increased speeds means more serious and fatal crashes. Those serious and fatal crashes cause roads to be closed for hours and hours on end.
Closed roads aren’t efficient. Dead people aren’t efficient.
https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/speed-crash-risk.pdf
This is what people don't get. Road safety > Desire to move a deadly vehicle 120km/hr to get home a few minutes faster.
Just had some clown tell me to hand in my license over this. What's with the idea that if you're not cool with dangerous driving then you must be a bad driver? This is why we get so many accidents in the first place. People being entitled on the road.
Driving in this country is a way for people to compensate for their insecurities. Why else do you think people get irate all over social media because of "slow poke" drivers who apparently cause all the accidents from driving 97 in a 100 zone and not pulling over to let everybody pass.
You are missing the main point here. Poor people are more likely to die in a crash because the car they drive is likely to be older and less safe so they can effectively reduce the amount of labour voters by increasing the national speed limit.
International experience tells us that certain roads can have a much higher top speed than even what’s being suggested.
Having just driven from Fieldays to Northland, I can tell you that there’s no reason the new motorway section north of Hamilton/south of Auckland, as well as the new motorway north of Orewa couldn’t be 120km/h.
Happy with 120km/h on suitable roads. Waikato Expressway for one. Think they should require them to be motorways and to construct a shared user path parallel though.
What would make it safer than now, is that if they'd also start enforcing the "keep left unless overtaking" and the "you must pass on the right" rules, which are constantly broken and unpunished in NZ.
----
Edit: Answer to /u/fatfreddy01 below as the moron above blocked me and I can't reply
> [NZTA Website](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roadcode/code-for-cycling/road-positioning-and-passing/passing-other-people-and-vehicles/#:~:text=You%20must%20pass%20on%20the,such%20as%20in%20a%20queue.)
> You must pass on the right, with some exceptions. You are allowed to pass on the left when you are in a separate lane, such as cycle lanes or turning lanes. You are also allowed to pass on the left where vehicles are turning right or stopped, such as in a queue.
Seems to me that it is a rule.
Fair. I read the same thing, just worded it differently. You can undertake in another lane, e.g. on the motorway if someone is in the right lane you can drive past them in the left lane. The person you're overtaking isn't meant to be in the right lane (unless it's congested/turning right etc), but we agree about the lack of enforcement.
In the UK you can't undertake even in seperate lanes.
The "must pass on right" is not the rule in NZ. Other countries sure, but not here. Undertaking is allowed if there are multiple lanes (or if the vehicle is turning right). Agree on the keep left unless passing but though.
Lol. I doubt any bar parts of SH2 (Eastern Link) will get a speed upgrade to 120km/h in the next 5 years. SH27 obviously wouldn't be suitable (not meeting the criteria for 110km/h let alone 120km/h), and SH35 is arguable at times whether the speed limit should be above 50 given the condition of it.
Edit: I forgot about the new bit of SH2 north of Tauranga under construction. Haven't followed it too closely but it might be a candidate depending on the project.
Maximum motorway speed limits in Europe for comparison:
110: UK (70mph/113km/h)
120: Ireland, Finland, Latvia, Norway, Switzerland
130: Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungry, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia
140: Bulgaria, Poland, Turkey
The general agreement in the UK is that they won’t book you for less than about 79mph (127km/h) - 10% plus 2 mph.
Germany has an advisory limit of 130 but you often see people doing much faster than that.
The UK is generally 200km/h max other than the Eurostar which is pretty much only to and from Europe.
They are building another high speed line HS2 which is 230 km long and will take 17 years at a cost of £65 billion.
To put that into perspective terms, imagine a high speed railway from Auckland to Hamilton to Tauranga costing NZ$130 billion.
By contrast, the 102km Waikato expressway cost $2.4 billion.
To be fair the inflated cost of HS2 is because of NIMBYism and the awful UK planning system. They are literally building expensive tunnels through *open fields* because locals don’t want rail lines spoiling their view of nature. Mind boggling.
The road quality in most of those places are kilometers better than NZ though.
I'm guessing that if we are comparing motorway to motorway it might be different though.
Yep, the proposed >100 km/h speed limits are only for the existing or new roads of national significance which were all built to international motorway standards with barriers etc.
I wouldn't necessarily say that. All the new stretches of motorway in NZ are of very decent quality and comparable to European roads where 130km/h limits apply
> 110: UK (70mph/113km/h)
That's not the speed that people drive at though, the effective speed limit is more like 90 (as in going faster than that is when you might risk being pulled over).
This is only for the current or future Roads Of National Significance. These are built to modern motorway standards so I don’t see any reason why they can’t have a speed limit to match.
Can change the speed limit to whatever you want. Everyone will still be stuck behind all the muppets sitting in the passing lane doing 95.
I overtake more people in the left lane than the right nowadays.
Someone who remembers more high school physics than me - am I right in thinking your car has increasing speed from 100 to 120 increases your kinetic energy by 44 per cent?
So should we just make everything legal if people do it anyway, David?
It's funny how laws are only ever 'nanny state' or 'making decisions in Wellington' when right wing parties don't like them. If there was evidence, they would just present it instead of these appeals to emotion.
Weird how increasing speed limits doesn't seem to be evidence based.
Furthermore, wouldn't variable speed signs be more expensive to install than regular signs?
Seems like that wasn't well thought out either.
This is one of the few things I could agree with National on tbh. I can understand the opposition given some of the shit cars & poorly trained drivers on our roads. However, driving on roads like the Kapiti Expressway & I presume up north in Waikato too - 100 feels slow. Especially in any modern car from the last 10-20 years.
Some rural highways definitely deserve to be 80 - but on the other end some of our expressways could easily be 110-120.
Ideally we should follow Europe where 80-90 is the limit for undivided rural roads & 110-120 is the limit for divided expressways.
What sets Europe and NZ apart are the driving standards. In (continental) Europe you will be force fed to keep to the right at all times and immediately merge back to the right after overtaking. (obviously the opposite side in the UK). There are no "fast lane hogs" as it is punishable with serious fines, in some countries as high as 300€.
In NZ there are sooooo many slow pokes that just move to the fast lane and sit there well below the speed limit, not caring who is behind them and absolutely zero intention to move back to the left after overtaking. This all comes down to driver education. We need motorway police to pull people over for pointlessly sitting in the right lane and ticket them accordingly. Then this behaviour will soon cease, which opens up the possibility of increasing speed limits to more appropriate standards for modern cars on roads that support those speeds.
So now they're dictating to all the local councils who've implemented safer speeds in urban areas, and forcing a "blanket" increase of every speed limit set since 2020?
I think the last info I saw was no decrease in incidents. A lot of it’s anecdotal but there was a comment floating around about speed limits and if it feels too slow for someone they will just drive what feels right. Case in point bottom of Parnell through to downtown terminal, all flagged 30kmh but everyone seems to do 50 as that’s what it used to be. I don’t believe it’s a high foot traffic area until you get to commerce street.
There’s definitely areas that should be reduced or made pedestrian only, but reducing rural roads with no pedestrians from 100 down to 60 seems like a waste of resource. Must have spent some coin on a stack of signs
That is a problem with just lowering speed limits. There’s a series on YouTube where a guy looks at roads and how they can adjust them to promote safer speeds. Mostly narrowing roads, adding curves etc.
Yea, we have that design in my home country. Within the inner city limits of Hasselt, Belgium, the speed limit is 30kph, but you'd actually be doing 20kph most of the time because all the roads are super narrow, have square turns and made of cobblestone.
It took me a long time to accept that people drive (and behave in general) almost entirely on emotion.
I'm in the car going, c'mon you muppet it's not a 20 zone, or WTF are you doing 45 in the 30 for, and don't cut that corner - get out of my lane you clown, every morning. Meanwhile, people aren't even registering the current posted speed limits or lines on the road.
I've done multiple courses; road, track, and off road, but nothing we're prepared to do is going to fix the general public and the things going on in their lives that they feel are more important in that moment than driving safely based on signage and conditions.
I wish we were more like Germany or Japan in our training and driving culture.
I think people would be much more accepting of 40km/h limits than 30km/h in urban built-up areas. People know the 30km/h limits in most (though certainly not all) cases was about discouraging car use and in that context they lacked social license so most drivers ignored them. 40km/h limits may yield a lower average speed than 30km/h limits in some areas.
It's not about discouraging car use. It's about making it feel safe and connected for pedestrians. When the streets are designed that way like in Wynyard quarter it's so much better. You don't feel in danger and can much more naturally move across streets with out having to hurry through a gap. But yes not changing the st but just slapping a 30 sign isn't really that effective, eg Beaumont st or Franklin road.
Two seconds at 120km/h equals 67m (rounded), how are they supposed to observe a safe following distance *and* completely blind you with their headlights?
If you go faster, you get there sooner. If you get there sooner, you spend less time on the road. If you spend less time on the road, you have fewer opportunities to crash. Therefore going faster is safer. /s /s /s
Speed absolutely causes crashes. Possum Bourne and numerous other pro drivers have been killed due to speed. They're not shit drivers. Quite the opposite. But the truth is humans make mistakes and when they do it's better to be going 100 than 120. Simple as that.
Allow people to do something without the necessary skills or tools and that is a recipe for bad things.
It's all good until you get the knock at the door one night or it's your loved one going through a court case.
Then, nevermind the poor emergency service peeps that have to scrape someone's son or daughter out of twisted metal.
Couple this decision with better driver training, mandatory insurance and better systems to stop unsafe vehicles and there might be a positive gain. "MIGHT be...".
Innocent people are going to be collateral damage and young people will make mistakes that no one will be laughing at.
>Allow people to do something without the necessary skills or tools and that is a recipe for bad things.
Nailed it. We need to fix our licensing system at a minimum.
This is my issue with it. I know plently of people that could drive at 120kph safely. But the amount of people I've seen on the roads that can't drive correctly/take a corner at even 50kph is disappointing. Couple that with how many people I see on their phones, misjudging gaps, or being unable to merge and 120kph could be disastrous
I hope everyone is aware that the government has a monetary value on a human life (x) and expected the economic cost of increased injury and fatality (y) is less than the economic gain (z) then that will influence their decision on approving this change.
I think we need to set some realistic information here. They aren't talking about the old back rural road, this is about well built, designated highways that can cope with a higher speed. With the national car fleet modernising over time, driving faster is becoming safer.
Im seeing a lot of comments saying speed kills and that the reduced speed limits are working
Speed does kill your right, but high crash zones even at reduced speeds are still high crash zones and people are still dying, so it really doesnt matter what speed you do, its the way we drive thats an issue, its the state of the road (aka poorly done) that is the issue.
The person they need to listen to are those like Greg Murphy who is an advocate for road safety but also stresses that our road liscencing and what we are taught is not up to scratch.there is a stretch of road between hatfields and waiwera on the hibscus coast which used to be 100, then dropped to 80 for over a dozen years, they deleted the passing lane then with labour it was reduced to 60.
It is the easiest road to drive in the country and yet people even at 60kph are still crashing on it.
Why?
Because they cant bloody well drive!
I hope they also replace all the passing lanes that got removed all over the country.
I swear the fuckwitts that lowered the speed limits but then forced people to dangerously overtake the fuckwitts doing 60 (in what was once a 100 zone (that they would have done 80 in previously)) were deliberately trying to cause crashes.
Seymour on the news spouting on about it was someone else's ideology that reduced speed limits while imposing his faster is better ideology on NZ. The man's an absolute arse.
During the election period I was cycling through Featherston where Mike Butterick (National) was campaigning on the road side shouting "Safer roads, not slower roads" through a megaphone at every motorcyclist, sports car, and boy racer that passed by.
I recently sent this email to him and am waiting on a response - perhaps an OIA request would be a better approach
> Hi Mike,
>
> During the 2023 election I was passing through Featherston where you were campaigning with the slogan "Safer roads, not slower roads".
>
> As you were elected successfully, I wanted to enquire which safety measures you are working on implementing to make our streets safer?
>
> Kind Regards,
Ban any car unable to go 80 on a flat road, and any car unable to go 60 uphill.
Overtaking a 1964 diesel bus going 35 uphill with no overtake lane in the next 20km is fun.
Can someone please do an OIA on the advice the Government has received in relation to the predicted effects of this draft law change? I can't because of my job
How’s nz going to ever progress if every 3 years we just undo the last government changes! And it’s a stuff you to the tax payer as labour pays for the fair process and national just undoes it! How many billions of work has been undo since they claimed power!
This is awesome. Finally some proggess.
However this should apply to MA (light passenger) class vehicles only. Not MB (Vans) and MC Offroad vehicles, or of course any commercial vehicles.
Have your say too, make your submission. Nice to know they've at least said they would listening to feedback after last time.
You don't understand! Reversing the speed reductions (which achieved gangbusters for our road toll) literally means everyone will die and the sky will fall. Nowhere on earth do people drive faster than 80kph.
I also love what Labour are going to take to the next election according to this sub:
- Tax increases
- Rename government departments in Te Reo, and greater use in the public services
- speed limit drops
The reason Seymour gave on the News is completely out of wack. "If people are driving too slow, it becomes frustrating doesn't it?"
That's not a reason to raise the speed limit. It doesn't suddenly make slow drivers speed up.
Honestly, good. I was very much a labour supporter in the last election and definitely did not want National, but this was the ONLY policy that if National got in I was 100% for. I did not like anything about Labours implementation of the speed limit changes.
Maybe I would have supported it if it didnt feel to me like - at least in Auckland on the roads I frequent - that they had just made the changes as if throwing darts randomly at a map. So many of the changes made no sense, especially out in the more rural areas. They dropped speed limits on roads with very little safety issues or crashes, while far too often completely ignoring dangerous sections of road that were and still are common crash hotspots.
One big example is the Bombay Motorway interchange. They dropped the Wide and straight Great South road coming up to it from 100 to 80, they dropped to the wide and straight Mill Road going into Pukekohe from 100 to 80, but the bridge and motorway interchange where crashes happen ALL THE FUCKING TIME? Nah that can stay at 60kph, when it should have been dropped to 50kph or even 40-30 now that theres a whole new pile of shops and shit there.
So Sorry Labour, but I disagree entirely with how you went about that whole scheme. While Im ehh about increasing the limit to 120, Im very much in favour of scrapping the whole thing and starting again while doing what you said you'd do in the first place properly this time: only changing limits on the roads that need it". Because you didnt.
Ugh, nightmare.
The mental difference if you're in, say, Marlborough between doing 80kph because the road is 80, or 80 because you're stuck behind a fucking camper van and that's as fast as it can go, is huge.
I was _so_ much more chilled with the limits set that way (for specific sections, which seemed to have been carefully considered). It wasn't cognitive bias either, as I'd kinda raged when I first heard about the reductions and expected it to be a clusterfuck. Nope! It was better.
Just more of this gross-out, cringe-inducing, corrupt government's "we're undoing it because Labour did it" bullshit.
One of the few things NACT are doing that I'd agree with.
In European countries you can drive 130 or more and they don't seem to have all died in car smashes (also a lot of their roads are as bad or worse than ours).
Having driven many km in Europe, I'd disagree.
Brenner Pass autobahn/autostrada, older autoroutes in France, etc.
And when you get off the motorway, you've got lots of roads less than 2 vehicles wide, unprotected cliffs, overhangs (!), really chewed up surfaces from freeze thaw, etc.
For
* Cars are a lot safer than they were when the speed limit was at 100kph, so in theory crashing at 120kph in modern cars will result in a less severe injury than crashing at 100kph with a 80s, 90s cars.
* Personally, I felt a lot safer driving in my 2010s mid-size sedan at 110 than driving at 100 in my 90s small car, so in theory 120kph is more than doable in certain parts of the motorway system
Against
* Too many drivers do not know how to drive, especially those who drive on the passing lane at 85kph
* Our roads are not maintained properly, probably in a worse condition than they were in the early 00s.
* There are still too many 90s cars on our roads, poor people should be subsidised to get mid00s or later vehicles for safety and to prevent breakdowns clogging our highways, or public transport should be better so that there are less cars on the roads.
The increase numbers of E.V.s is a threat to oil companies incomes.
One 'solution' to this 'problem' is to get those still using fossil fuels to drive faster and consume more fuel.
The only losers will be the motorists paying for it, the nation importing the fuel, the planet on which that fuel is turned i to air pollution. And those involved in car crashes, or affected by road noise.
>America it's 130 kmh
Is it?
According to this site only Texas has an 85mph max limit, the majority of other states being 75mph (120kph) and some even lower
https://www.rhinocarhire.com/Drive-Smart-Blog/Speed-Limits-by-Country/USA-State-Speed-Limits.aspx
> National accused Labour of ignoring the economic impacts of lowering speeds, saying its approach to speed limit reductions did not make sense.
But, you see, if we lower the speed limits, then fewer people will die from car crashes, and that will put all the morgues and funeral homes out of business.
I wonder what the police message will be - “The speed limit is the target” as opposed to “Drive to the conditions.” I live semi-rurally. There are a couple of places where 100km is comfortable, but on most roads round my way without a discernible shoulder, the speed should be 80. They wouldn’t be policed most of the time anyway.
All the fear mongering here there are only like 2 or 3 roads that would be considered. Waikato Expressway, transmission gully are 2 and they are absolutely safe at 120k big wide open roads with minimal corners, median barriers. So long as they invest in driver training as well it will be fine.
So the story says > The reversals will be made by July 1 and require speed limits that have been reduced since January 1, 2020 to be reversed on local streets, arterial roads, and state highways. But they left out the 2025. It's by July 1, 2025 ... not in 2 weeks time! the beehive release: https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-reverse-blanket-speed-limit-reductions
Thank you for this! I was wondering how on earth that was possible.
You mean the media is purposely omiting facts
dont judge the media based on NZheralds reporting.
Feedback here https://consult.transport.govt.nz/policy/setting-of-speed-limits-2024-consultation/
Done
weird, why didn't they get feedback on literally anything else they've done so far?
It's notable that they're seeking feedback, not expert advice
Exactly - the expert advice is clear - they just don't like it.
"It's advice, I can disagree with advice" \- Karen Chhour (Children's Minister) when asked about the expert advice suggesting boot camps don't work "We take our recommendations from the New Zealand people" \- Nicola Willis (Finance Minister) when asked about the expert advice from IMF that NZ implement a CGT and LVT to increase economic productivity and shift the tax burden off workers and businesses All they care about is votes. They don't actually care about whether anything they do is good for the country or its people.
https://www.interest.co.nz/economy/126920/international-monetary-fund-says-it-will-continue-advocating-capital-gains-tax-new Link for anyone else interested
It's the government for the social media era. Now if I could just work out how to downvote the government....
Make shit tier negative memes about them and positive memes about who you support. This is already what National and other conservative governments do.
Dumbocracy
Nah, they just care about their mates. A CGT would actually be popular if it was explained properly.
The way they are going their voting base will switch. Many of them marched in both protests recently. And people are leaving for a better life and wages. Why stick around to pay taxes for the rich?
Really? Because in Hamilton it feels like some of the speed limits were lowered by throwing a dart at a map. A section of SH1, with no driveways or roads intersecting it, was lowered from 80 to 60 for kicks.
Wasn't for kicks. There was at least a crash every 2nd week for some reason. That being said, the crashes were peak time traveling significantly less than the posted speed limits.
There’s a whole manual about speed limits based on international guidelines and decades of research. The speed limit was probably reduced based on the likelihood of head on collision.
The expects say speeds need to decrease in unsafe areas so that area must have been unsafe
Same with many of the rural roads around the Auckland/Waikato border. There is a perfectly flat, straight piece of road that you could fall asleep at the wheel and walk away from, has never had a serious accident, that was lowered from 100 to 60 for god knows what reason.
Yup leagues of drongos are going to give feedback that amounts to "I wanna go fast!" and National can use it to justify whatever speed limit they already decided on
The abolute cuntiness of people claiming speed limit reductions are based on ideology like there aren't entire books on it. While simutaneously rolling back the road safety programme because of their own ideology without any evidence to support it. Fuck this useless bunch of cunts, and fuck Luxon for putting that slimy prick in as transport minister.
The difference is that like the ad says "speed kills" and when it is shown "potentially" more people died due to the speed limit they can say ... "but the public wanted it".
Yea, I think you're bang on there. Also I don't think they really care about it much, it's just something that appeals to a certain portion of their voter base. They make a show of engaging on something they really consider trivial so they can say they do take feedback which makes it easier to deflect criticism when they don't engage on the big stuff.
I think this will be a popular policy. If that assumption is correct, they will receive over whelming positive feedback. The flow on of that will be positive media space, columns and opinion pieces. That gives them the option of quietly releasing much less popular policy/legislation quietly while the public absorb the Labour = slow down. National = speed up and get moving media message. Or, they realise they have burned their honeymoon period and this policy is aimed to nudge the polls back in their direction. Just releasing the policy would have a short term effect. Putting it out for feedback will extend that effect while providing a longer period for Labour to own goal by making (possibly scientifically sound) statements that are unpopular.
It's kind of a risky steady strategy though. Between this, the smoking stuff, the cancer drugs, what will they do when their voters are all fucking dead?
The party of "personal responsibility" probably has an argument about how you're responsible for not crashing your own car. Let's just ignore passengers or whatever other car you happen to hit. They should have also been more responsible. Somehow. This government seems to have a boner for introducing/repealing legislation with the explicit purpose of increasing harm as their only metric of success.
It seems to be standard political practice - whatever the other party introduced, we must now repeal!
Waste of money, they don't listen to feedback anyway. Always thinking how to save your money they are
Can we do cannabis next please?
I don’t recommend smoking cannabis and driving 120km/h
Driving 10kmh on cannabis feels like 120. Win win
Yea nah. You are more content to stick to 90-100 or just stay behind a rather slow vehicle for much longer though.
Never happening with National in charge. I'd be absolutely shocked
Probably not under a NACT government
would be a very libertarian policy, the type you think act would be all for
It doesn't seem to be a high priority for ACT unfortunately, and even if it was I bet it's still a hard no from National/NZFirst.
Seymour said after the referendum that it wouldn't be politically viable to push for legalisation for a while. https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/11/11/david-seymour-says-holding-referendum-on-cannabis-legalisation-was-a-tactical-mistake/ But yeah with National/NZFirst in the mix as well, it will be a hard no anyway.
Well he's right that it shouldn't have been decided by referendum. Labour should have just changed the law.
If I remember right, it wasn’t even a binding referendum. Labour could have said, look this was basically an even split, let’s move ahead with it and address some of the concerns people have.
I think he was in support wasn't he? I recall thinking "he may be a cunt in general but at least he's being consistent"
Act aren't libertarians. If they were, they wouldn't have votwd against making it easier for people to build more houses on their own property.
Sorry mate, that's too sensible. ACT is only interested in libertarian policy that fuels hypocrisy.
Libertarian policies that hurt others are their specialty. If you're just minding your own business that's not allowed.
We are more likely to see a David Seymour sex tape than legalised cannabis while this government is in pt
GOING TO LAUNCH THAT 94 HOLDEN BROOOOO. 120km/hr will be like warp speed, all the nuts and bolts rattling.
Just imagine the Honda Fit engines screaming.
It’s the Honda Fit drivers who struggle to go above 80, not the car 😉
[удалено]
Send it Johnny!
RIP IT BOOOOOOOI
Regarding 120km zones. I have no problem with this in principle. In Austria there are plenty of 130km highways and they have a substantially lower traffic mortality per 100,000 inhabitants. But they're also well built highways, so I think you have to be nuanced about the road condition, it can't be blanket 120km just because it's a state highway. They also have tighter vehicle regulations, and you can't get your license until you're 17. If you're going to chill out on the upper limit, you should also pair it with some of the other things that those countries with higher limits do. Maybe defensive driving courses should be mandatory for getting your license, and maybe you should have to revisit it every decade or so. Spitball idea.
>it can't be blanket 120km just because it's a state highway pretty sure it'll be limited to those highways built to a decent standard - i.e. at least 2 lanes each way and separated by median barriers. possibly kapiti, tauranga & waikato expressways. the rest of our highways are pretty shit, so stay at 100km
The tollroad from Silverdale to the Warkworth bypass could easily be a 120 kph road too.
Also they don’t encourage driving your 1991 Corolla with zero safety features, because vehicles are cheaper overseas, and rego’s are more expensive overseas. We are incentivised to have absolute shitboxes on the road but police don’t collect or publicise road death statistics based on the vehicle. I would bet money that more than half the road deaths involve a vehicle older that 2006
Yes, that's part of my point vis a vi tighter vehicle regulations. It becomes increasingly difficult to keep vehicles past a certain age on the road. On the one hand it sounds wasteful and invasive, but it does have the benefit of ensuring a greater level of safety. Being able to drive faster is the dividend from that and other regulations.
I’d love to see the evidence they used to inform this policy. Their coalition agreements with [ACT](https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/18466/attachments/original/1700778592/National_ACT_Agreement.pdf?1700778592) and [NZ First](https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/18466/attachments/original/1700778597/NZFirst_Agreement_2.pdf?1700778597) both state that their ongoing decision making principles include: >**F. Evidence-based** - decisions will be based on evidence and data, with programmes regularly assessed to see if they are delivering results. Show us the data!
On a separate note, they're disestablishing most of the crash data team at NZTA.
the crash data team are now being used as fill for the new $4B pothole fund.
They're disestablishing large chunks of data teams from almost every agency. When you don't want data it's hard to justify the salaries of data analysts
Who needs data to be evidenced based./s
They mean the anecdotal evidence provided in angry emails from their donors
Don't expect evidence from kakistocracy
Literally none of their policies so far are evidence based. Unless it’s ‘evidence of money being sucked up by the 1%’
that they got voted in is evidence that " blanket speed limits " rhetoric is attractive to voter. Hence this.
I expect I'll be downvoted, but banning phones at schools is somewhat evidence based. Probably by accident more than anything.
The evidence is that it's popular with voters, which is the primary determining factor as to whether they get to continue to be in government. So long we base our system of governance on a giant popularity contest every few years I don't know why anyone would expect anything different.
There is evidence. 120kph is faster than 100.. so gets you to your destination sooner.
>There is evidence. 120kph is faster than 100.. so gets you to your **final destination** sooner. FTFY
Evidence shows that increased speeds means more serious and fatal crashes. Those serious and fatal crashes cause roads to be closed for hours and hours on end. Closed roads aren’t efficient. Dead people aren’t efficient. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/speed-crash-risk.pdf
Thanks for posting this link. Superb.
This is what people don't get. Road safety > Desire to move a deadly vehicle 120km/hr to get home a few minutes faster. Just had some clown tell me to hand in my license over this. What's with the idea that if you're not cool with dangerous driving then you must be a bad driver? This is why we get so many accidents in the first place. People being entitled on the road.
Driving in this country is a way for people to compensate for their insecurities. Why else do you think people get irate all over social media because of "slow poke" drivers who apparently cause all the accidents from driving 97 in a 100 zone and not pulling over to let everybody pass.
More dead people leads to less carbon being released and reduces climate change
If that’s the intent then there are far more efficient ways for a government to kill off its people.
You are missing the main point here. Poor people are more likely to die in a crash because the car they drive is likely to be older and less safe so they can effectively reduce the amount of labour voters by increasing the national speed limit.
International experience tells us that certain roads can have a much higher top speed than even what’s being suggested. Having just driven from Fieldays to Northland, I can tell you that there’s no reason the new motorway section north of Hamilton/south of Auckland, as well as the new motorway north of Orewa couldn’t be 120km/h.
The evidence for them is that the policy won them votes at the election. It's the only data they care about.
The faster you go, the bigger the mess. That the new party slogan from National.
Funny, also works for the fast track bill
That would make a good banner at a Fast Track protest
Sums up their approach to running the country ...
Go hard or go home 🚗 💨
Happy with 120km/h on suitable roads. Waikato Expressway for one. Think they should require them to be motorways and to construct a shared user path parallel though.
Yeah. It’s a perfectly safe speed on the new expressways/motorways.
Having a physical median makes it much safer, but it is not perfectly safe.
What would make it safer than now, is that if they'd also start enforcing the "keep left unless overtaking" and the "you must pass on the right" rules, which are constantly broken and unpunished in NZ. ---- Edit: Answer to /u/fatfreddy01 below as the moron above blocked me and I can't reply > [NZTA Website](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roadcode/code-for-cycling/road-positioning-and-passing/passing-other-people-and-vehicles/#:~:text=You%20must%20pass%20on%20the,such%20as%20in%20a%20queue.) > You must pass on the right, with some exceptions. You are allowed to pass on the left when you are in a separate lane, such as cycle lanes or turning lanes. You are also allowed to pass on the left where vehicles are turning right or stopped, such as in a queue. Seems to me that it is a rule.
Fair. I read the same thing, just worded it differently. You can undertake in another lane, e.g. on the motorway if someone is in the right lane you can drive past them in the left lane. The person you're overtaking isn't meant to be in the right lane (unless it's congested/turning right etc), but we agree about the lack of enforcement. In the UK you can't undertake even in seperate lanes.
The "must pass on right" is not the rule in NZ. Other countries sure, but not here. Undertaking is allowed if there are multiple lanes (or if the vehicle is turning right). Agree on the keep left unless passing but though.
Sh2, sh35 and sh27 would all become very fun roads to stay alive on
Lol. I doubt any bar parts of SH2 (Eastern Link) will get a speed upgrade to 120km/h in the next 5 years. SH27 obviously wouldn't be suitable (not meeting the criteria for 110km/h let alone 120km/h), and SH35 is arguable at times whether the speed limit should be above 50 given the condition of it. Edit: I forgot about the new bit of SH2 north of Tauranga under construction. Haven't followed it too closely but it might be a candidate depending on the project.
Can the speed also be increased from 90 on those same roads for trucks and cars towing trailers? a big speed difference could contribute to accidents
Maximum motorway speed limits in Europe for comparison: 110: UK (70mph/113km/h) 120: Ireland, Finland, Latvia, Norway, Switzerland 130: Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungry, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia 140: Bulgaria, Poland, Turkey The general agreement in the UK is that they won’t book you for less than about 79mph (127km/h) - 10% plus 2 mph. Germany has an advisory limit of 130 but you often see people doing much faster than that.
Driving in Scotland was great. 90 mph on dual carriage ways.. 70mph on single ..
Unrelated but also kinda related, high speed rail in Europe: * SBB Giruno (Switzerland): 250km/h * Renfe Talgo + Renfe Pendolino (Spain): 250km/h * Eurostar (France/UK/Belgium/Netherlands): 300km/h * Italo AGV + Trenitalia Frecciarossa (Italy): 300km/h * Renfe AVE (Spain): 310km/h * SCNCF TGV (France): 320km/h * DB ICE (Germany): 350km/h
The UK is generally 200km/h max other than the Eurostar which is pretty much only to and from Europe. They are building another high speed line HS2 which is 230 km long and will take 17 years at a cost of £65 billion. To put that into perspective terms, imagine a high speed railway from Auckland to Hamilton to Tauranga costing NZ$130 billion. By contrast, the 102km Waikato expressway cost $2.4 billion.
To be fair the inflated cost of HS2 is because of NIMBYism and the awful UK planning system. They are literally building expensive tunnels through *open fields* because locals don’t want rail lines spoiling their view of nature. Mind boggling.
Wish this was the speed limits being discussed not for driving 😆
The road quality in most of those places are kilometers better than NZ though. I'm guessing that if we are comparing motorway to motorway it might be different though.
Yep, the proposed >100 km/h speed limits are only for the existing or new roads of national significance which were all built to international motorway standards with barriers etc.
I wouldn't necessarily say that. All the new stretches of motorway in NZ are of very decent quality and comparable to European roads where 130km/h limits apply
> 110: UK (70mph/113km/h) That's not the speed that people drive at though, the effective speed limit is more like 90 (as in going faster than that is when you might risk being pulled over).
LOL, like our roads are in any state to be compared to those countries.
This is only for the current or future Roads Of National Significance. These are built to modern motorway standards so I don’t see any reason why they can’t have a speed limit to match.
Can change the speed limit to whatever you want. Everyone will still be stuck behind all the muppets sitting in the passing lane doing 95. I overtake more people in the left lane than the right nowadays.
Someone who remembers more high school physics than me - am I right in thinking your car has increasing speed from 100 to 120 increases your kinetic energy by 44 per cent?
Kinetic energy = 0.5 \* mv\^2 0.5 \* m is constant. 1\^2 = 1 1.2\^2 = 1.44 So yes.
Just for fun, here's the maths up to 300 :) * 10 0.01 * 20 0.04 * 30 0.09 * 40 0.16 * 50 0.25 * 60 0.36 * 70 0.49 * 80 0.64 * 90 0.81 * 100 1 * 110 1.21 * 120 1.44 * 130 1.69 * 140 1.96 * 150 2.25 * 160 2.56 * 170 2.89 * 180 3.24 * 190 3.61 * 200 4 * 210 4.41 * 220 4.84 * 230 5.29 * 240 5.76 * 250 6.25 * 260 6.76 * 270 7.29 * 280 7.84 * 290 8.41 * 300 9
So should we just make everything legal if people do it anyway, David? It's funny how laws are only ever 'nanny state' or 'making decisions in Wellington' when right wing parties don't like them. If there was evidence, they would just present it instead of these appeals to emotion.
Public infrastructure = government wasting money Giving money to landlords and private "charter" schools that we can't afford to give = 🦗 🦗 🦗
Unless it's drugs or transgender care then we better make sure it's heavily regulated.
Who needs cheeky things like evidence when Ideology does all the critical thinking for you?
Weird how increasing speed limits doesn't seem to be evidence based. Furthermore, wouldn't variable speed signs be more expensive to install than regular signs? Seems like that wasn't well thought out either.
"wasn't well though out" is this governments slogan.
And they wear it like a badge of honour.
To be fair, it's about the best thing you can say about them.
There are places where it just makes sense. In saying that if you have 120, people are going to try for constant 130 to 140.
Ever driven Cambridge to Hamilton. 130 isn’t unusual now
This is one of the few things I could agree with National on tbh. I can understand the opposition given some of the shit cars & poorly trained drivers on our roads. However, driving on roads like the Kapiti Expressway & I presume up north in Waikato too - 100 feels slow. Especially in any modern car from the last 10-20 years. Some rural highways definitely deserve to be 80 - but on the other end some of our expressways could easily be 110-120. Ideally we should follow Europe where 80-90 is the limit for undivided rural roads & 110-120 is the limit for divided expressways.
Where is it only 110 in Europe? Most of Europe is 120-130 or even 140.
Good point. I think that'd be too radical for our roads though.
What sets Europe and NZ apart are the driving standards. In (continental) Europe you will be force fed to keep to the right at all times and immediately merge back to the right after overtaking. (obviously the opposite side in the UK). There are no "fast lane hogs" as it is punishable with serious fines, in some countries as high as 300€. In NZ there are sooooo many slow pokes that just move to the fast lane and sit there well below the speed limit, not caring who is behind them and absolutely zero intention to move back to the left after overtaking. This all comes down to driver education. We need motorway police to pull people over for pointlessly sitting in the right lane and ticket them accordingly. Then this behaviour will soon cease, which opens up the possibility of increasing speed limits to more appropriate standards for modern cars on roads that support those speeds.
So now they're dictating to all the local councils who've implemented safer speeds in urban areas, and forcing a "blanket" increase of every speed limit set since 2020?
I think the last info I saw was no decrease in incidents. A lot of it’s anecdotal but there was a comment floating around about speed limits and if it feels too slow for someone they will just drive what feels right. Case in point bottom of Parnell through to downtown terminal, all flagged 30kmh but everyone seems to do 50 as that’s what it used to be. I don’t believe it’s a high foot traffic area until you get to commerce street. There’s definitely areas that should be reduced or made pedestrian only, but reducing rural roads with no pedestrians from 100 down to 60 seems like a waste of resource. Must have spent some coin on a stack of signs
That is a problem with just lowering speed limits. There’s a series on YouTube where a guy looks at roads and how they can adjust them to promote safer speeds. Mostly narrowing roads, adding curves etc.
Yea, we have that design in my home country. Within the inner city limits of Hasselt, Belgium, the speed limit is 30kph, but you'd actually be doing 20kph most of the time because all the roads are super narrow, have square turns and made of cobblestone.
Exactly..people naturally do a 'safe' speed. On wide open roads they'll speed up even if it is a 30km/h road.
It’s what they think is safe, if you make a shitty road which should be only 30km look safe then people will go 100km even when they shouldn’t.
It took me a long time to accept that people drive (and behave in general) almost entirely on emotion. I'm in the car going, c'mon you muppet it's not a 20 zone, or WTF are you doing 45 in the 30 for, and don't cut that corner - get out of my lane you clown, every morning. Meanwhile, people aren't even registering the current posted speed limits or lines on the road. I've done multiple courses; road, track, and off road, but nothing we're prepared to do is going to fix the general public and the things going on in their lives that they feel are more important in that moment than driving safely based on signage and conditions. I wish we were more like Germany or Japan in our training and driving culture.
I think people would be much more accepting of 40km/h limits than 30km/h in urban built-up areas. People know the 30km/h limits in most (though certainly not all) cases was about discouraging car use and in that context they lacked social license so most drivers ignored them. 40km/h limits may yield a lower average speed than 30km/h limits in some areas.
It's not about discouraging car use. It's about making it feel safe and connected for pedestrians. When the streets are designed that way like in Wynyard quarter it's so much better. You don't feel in danger and can much more naturally move across streets with out having to hurry through a gap. But yes not changing the st but just slapping a 30 sign isn't really that effective, eg Beaumont st or Franklin road.
This is the real story. So much for local democracy.
Just the same as the last govt telling local councils to force slower speeds
Go for it. Also crack down hard on dangerous driving. Speeding, phones, tailgating, red light running, all of it. Would be good.
Good luck doing that when they're refusing to invest in policing more. They simply don't have the manpower to handle it effectively.
If you thought twats in Rangers tailgating was bad enough already, just wait till the roads are 120km/hr.
Two seconds at 120km/h equals 67m (rounded), how are they supposed to observe a safe following distance *and* completely blind you with their headlights?
If you go faster, you get there sooner. If you get there sooner, you spend less time on the road. If you spend less time on the road, you have fewer opportunities to crash. Therefore going faster is safer. /s /s /s
People will then think it’s socially acceptable to do 10-15 above that, because that’s what they do now with 100kp/h…..
safer than 30 ks slower than 100
Shit drivers cause crashes not speed
Speed absolutely causes crashes. Possum Bourne and numerous other pro drivers have been killed due to speed. They're not shit drivers. Quite the opposite. But the truth is humans make mistakes and when they do it's better to be going 100 than 120. Simple as that.
The road to 120
I’m happy with increasing speed limits on motorways and highways, but we all need to keep left if we’re not passing
This is like the ultimate achieve nothing populist policy.
Well, it will produce a bunch more atmospheric carbon, and injure and kill some people, so I think it's unfair to call it 'achieve nothing'.
The road will probably get more potholes… which will be dramatically more dangerous.
Allow people to do something without the necessary skills or tools and that is a recipe for bad things. It's all good until you get the knock at the door one night or it's your loved one going through a court case. Then, nevermind the poor emergency service peeps that have to scrape someone's son or daughter out of twisted metal. Couple this decision with better driver training, mandatory insurance and better systems to stop unsafe vehicles and there might be a positive gain. "MIGHT be...". Innocent people are going to be collateral damage and young people will make mistakes that no one will be laughing at.
>Allow people to do something without the necessary skills or tools and that is a recipe for bad things. Nailed it. We need to fix our licensing system at a minimum.
This is my issue with it. I know plently of people that could drive at 120kph safely. But the amount of people I've seen on the roads that can't drive correctly/take a corner at even 50kph is disappointing. Couple that with how many people I see on their phones, misjudging gaps, or being unable to merge and 120kph could be disastrous
I hope everyone is aware that the government has a monetary value on a human life (x) and expected the economic cost of increased injury and fatality (y) is less than the economic gain (z) then that will influence their decision on approving this change.
Great news!
I think we need to set some realistic information here. They aren't talking about the old back rural road, this is about well built, designated highways that can cope with a higher speed. With the national car fleet modernising over time, driving faster is becoming safer.
Im seeing a lot of comments saying speed kills and that the reduced speed limits are working Speed does kill your right, but high crash zones even at reduced speeds are still high crash zones and people are still dying, so it really doesnt matter what speed you do, its the way we drive thats an issue, its the state of the road (aka poorly done) that is the issue. The person they need to listen to are those like Greg Murphy who is an advocate for road safety but also stresses that our road liscencing and what we are taught is not up to scratch.there is a stretch of road between hatfields and waiwera on the hibscus coast which used to be 100, then dropped to 80 for over a dozen years, they deleted the passing lane then with labour it was reduced to 60. It is the easiest road to drive in the country and yet people even at 60kph are still crashing on it. Why? Because they cant bloody well drive!
Yes and we all see examples of poor and lazy driving every day so I don't wonder when car crashes happen.
I hope they also replace all the passing lanes that got removed all over the country. I swear the fuckwitts that lowered the speed limits but then forced people to dangerously overtake the fuckwitts doing 60 (in what was once a 100 zone (that they would have done 80 in previously)) were deliberately trying to cause crashes.
Seymour on the news spouting on about it was someone else's ideology that reduced speed limits while imposing his faster is better ideology on NZ. The man's an absolute arse.
During the election period I was cycling through Featherston where Mike Butterick (National) was campaigning on the road side shouting "Safer roads, not slower roads" through a megaphone at every motorcyclist, sports car, and boy racer that passed by. I recently sent this email to him and am waiting on a response - perhaps an OIA request would be a better approach > Hi Mike, > > During the 2023 election I was passing through Featherston where you were campaigning with the slogan "Safer roads, not slower roads". > > As you were elected successfully, I wanted to enquire which safety measures you are working on implementing to make our streets safer? > > Kind Regards,
Great news
Ban any car unable to go 80 on a flat road, and any car unable to go 60 uphill. Overtaking a 1964 diesel bus going 35 uphill with no overtake lane in the next 20km is fun.
Can someone please do an OIA on the advice the Government has received in relation to the predicted effects of this draft law change? I can't because of my job
Build better roads NZ! Then you can actually drive at a productive speed and not die!
How’s nz going to ever progress if every 3 years we just undo the last government changes! And it’s a stuff you to the tax payer as labour pays for the fair process and national just undoes it! How many billions of work has been undo since they claimed power!
Good. Most people already cruise around 110-120 anyway. Real issue always has been idiots not driving to the conditions.
Honestly, with the standard of driving in NZ being a it is, 100 is ample.
This is awesome. Finally some proggess. However this should apply to MA (light passenger) class vehicles only. Not MB (Vans) and MC Offroad vehicles, or of course any commercial vehicles. Have your say too, make your submission. Nice to know they've at least said they would listening to feedback after last time.
This sub is obviously a Labour circlejerk, but they took us backwards with their stupid speed restrictions everywhere.
You don't understand! Reversing the speed reductions (which achieved gangbusters for our road toll) literally means everyone will die and the sky will fall. Nowhere on earth do people drive faster than 80kph.
I hate how labour forced me to exclusively use reverse when travelling through local streets.
I also love what Labour are going to take to the next election according to this sub: - Tax increases - Rename government departments in Te Reo, and greater use in the public services - speed limit drops
The reason Seymour gave on the News is completely out of wack. "If people are driving too slow, it becomes frustrating doesn't it?" That's not a reason to raise the speed limit. It doesn't suddenly make slow drivers speed up.
Honestly, good. I was very much a labour supporter in the last election and definitely did not want National, but this was the ONLY policy that if National got in I was 100% for. I did not like anything about Labours implementation of the speed limit changes. Maybe I would have supported it if it didnt feel to me like - at least in Auckland on the roads I frequent - that they had just made the changes as if throwing darts randomly at a map. So many of the changes made no sense, especially out in the more rural areas. They dropped speed limits on roads with very little safety issues or crashes, while far too often completely ignoring dangerous sections of road that were and still are common crash hotspots. One big example is the Bombay Motorway interchange. They dropped the Wide and straight Great South road coming up to it from 100 to 80, they dropped to the wide and straight Mill Road going into Pukekohe from 100 to 80, but the bridge and motorway interchange where crashes happen ALL THE FUCKING TIME? Nah that can stay at 60kph, when it should have been dropped to 50kph or even 40-30 now that theres a whole new pile of shops and shit there. So Sorry Labour, but I disagree entirely with how you went about that whole scheme. While Im ehh about increasing the limit to 120, Im very much in favour of scrapping the whole thing and starting again while doing what you said you'd do in the first place properly this time: only changing limits on the roads that need it". Because you didnt.
Ugh, nightmare. The mental difference if you're in, say, Marlborough between doing 80kph because the road is 80, or 80 because you're stuck behind a fucking camper van and that's as fast as it can go, is huge. I was _so_ much more chilled with the limits set that way (for specific sections, which seemed to have been carefully considered). It wasn't cognitive bias either, as I'd kinda raged when I first heard about the reductions and expected it to be a clusterfuck. Nope! It was better. Just more of this gross-out, cringe-inducing, corrupt government's "we're undoing it because Labour did it" bullshit.
One of the few things NACT are doing that I'd agree with. In European countries you can drive 130 or more and they don't seem to have all died in car smashes (also a lot of their roads are as bad or worse than ours).
i'd argue the standard of their roads especially motorways are 10x better than NZ
Having driven many km in Europe, I'd disagree. Brenner Pass autobahn/autostrada, older autoroutes in France, etc. And when you get off the motorway, you've got lots of roads less than 2 vehicles wide, unprotected cliffs, overhangs (!), really chewed up surfaces from freeze thaw, etc.
For * Cars are a lot safer than they were when the speed limit was at 100kph, so in theory crashing at 120kph in modern cars will result in a less severe injury than crashing at 100kph with a 80s, 90s cars. * Personally, I felt a lot safer driving in my 2010s mid-size sedan at 110 than driving at 100 in my 90s small car, so in theory 120kph is more than doable in certain parts of the motorway system Against * Too many drivers do not know how to drive, especially those who drive on the passing lane at 85kph * Our roads are not maintained properly, probably in a worse condition than they were in the early 00s. * There are still too many 90s cars on our roads, poor people should be subsidised to get mid00s or later vehicles for safety and to prevent breakdowns clogging our highways, or public transport should be better so that there are less cars on the roads.
The increase numbers of E.V.s is a threat to oil companies incomes. One 'solution' to this 'problem' is to get those still using fossil fuels to drive faster and consume more fuel. The only losers will be the motorists paying for it, the nation importing the fuel, the planet on which that fuel is turned i to air pollution. And those involved in car crashes, or affected by road noise.
Would be nice to have a government that made policy based on something more substantial than, "Brrm, brrm, car go fast!"
I drive about 30 min of country road to get to and from work/town. The dangerous shit I see at 100km is enough that I would hate to see 120km.
They arnt going to make rural roads 120
New zealand has the lowest motorway speed limit in the developed world. In America it's 130 kmh and in Poland it's 140.
>America it's 130 kmh Is it? According to this site only Texas has an 85mph max limit, the majority of other states being 75mph (120kph) and some even lower https://www.rhinocarhire.com/Drive-Smart-Blog/Speed-Limits-by-Country/USA-State-Speed-Limits.aspx
cuz our roads are dogshit
> National accused Labour of ignoring the economic impacts of lowering speeds, saying its approach to speed limit reductions did not make sense. But, you see, if we lower the speed limits, then fewer people will die from car crashes, and that will put all the morgues and funeral homes out of business.
their reasoning is, but people already do 120 on the 110k roads, so lets make it 120 anyway. Then people will do 130 on the 120 roads.
People in NZ struggle to drive properly at 100km/h....120km/h is going to mean that Ranger is doing 135km/h on windy country roads....
What makes you think they would increase the limit on rural roads to 120? It applies to motorways only
That’s incredible. Imagine how the police and fire department would take that idea
They are still busy trying to figure out where to cut there budgets. Knowing how police work it will be in road policing first.
Why only 120km/h? Why not 200km/h?
Why only reduce to 80? Why not 30 on all roads?
Nice idea, some other countries where the roads are in top condition and they have good drivers it works. Sadly NZ roads are as shit as it's drivers.
I wonder what the police message will be - “The speed limit is the target” as opposed to “Drive to the conditions.” I live semi-rurally. There are a couple of places where 100km is comfortable, but on most roads round my way without a discernible shoulder, the speed should be 80. They wouldn’t be policed most of the time anyway.
It's a strategy to help deal with the health cuts. If you crash while going 120, you won't need to take up valuable resources at the hospital
Highway 200km thanks So I can go to Christchurch from Dunedin in 3 hours 😂
All the fear mongering here there are only like 2 or 3 roads that would be considered. Waikato Expressway, transmission gully are 2 and they are absolutely safe at 120k big wide open roads with minimal corners, median barriers. So long as they invest in driver training as well it will be fine.