Finding road safety solutions should be more democratic

We are seeing democratic processes being eroded around the world, but we don’t want that to happen in New Zealand, do we?

This week, RTF has experienced a situation where government has chosen process over form on the very serious issue of public consultation about road safety and strategies to reduce the road toll. And we have been told, repeatedly, we must follow the process for submissions on the Road to Zero strategy.

This would be ok, but for the fact that the process is flawed and seems to ignore some basics of democracy and government engagement with the people.

There are three main flaws – internet accessibility; the ease with which the survey process they have opted for can be skewed; and the depth of the process that is allegedly looking for lasting solutions to a complex problem.

The process involves filling in a commercial online survey tool of the type you rate a hotel/airline/restaurant/shopping experience etc. To be fair, it does give you an option to attach a document. But you must fill in the online survey, or your submission is not valid – we were told by the Ministry of Transport, “we are not processing submissions outside of the tool”.

Commercial online survey tools are easily skewed by interest groups who get on line and fill out hundreds of surveys, so it is disappointing to see the government put so much reliance on them. We feel this issue is a lot more serious than a hotel/airline/restaurant/shopping experience where “95% of people rate our business as extremely excellent”. The insistence with which submitters are told to complete the survey suggests there are a bunch of nice infographics in mind to be littered across social media endorsing whatever the pre-determined policy direction is. It doesn’t feel very democratic.

Which brings us to accessibility, in a country that does not have fast internet access everywhere, and an online survey that would be daunting to some age and socio-economic demographic groups that may not have computer access.

What about the rural parents who have lost kids in road accidents, but don’t have great internet access? This survey approach excludes them.

If I want to hand-deliver a hand-written note, barefoot, having walked kilometres to do so, democracy says Wellington officials should duly note my salient points, not turn me away and tell me to fill in an online survey.

And to the third flaw – there is more to finding long-term, effective solutions than agree/disagree statements. Complicated problems such as the high number of deaths by accident on New Zealand roads, require more rigour than this.

Truck drivers who spend their working life on the road tell us the big issues impacting their safety are the condition of the roads themselves, and the behaviour and driving skills of other drivers.

We get the feeling these are not problems the government wants to know about when they can do a survey that tells them “95 percent of people want us to build more cycle ways”.

Public consultation is not a referendum and should never be treated as such. Its purpose is to provide the opportunity for anybody to have a say on an issue that is relevant to them, in the form they choose. It is a basic democratic right of any Kiwi to express the depth of their view, and it’s their right not to be herded into a tick-box exercise that merely meets the needs of those running the process.

Those in the central Wellington bubble need to get out more and speak to real people who are, at the end of the day, paying their salaries.

If you want to read our full submission it is available here.

The story behind the headline statistics

There’s an old adage: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

As this Government continues to push a negative narrative around trucks and roads, favouring its investment in rail, public transport and cycle ways, we are seeing a lot of statistics being thrown around.

The Road to Zero consultation on road safety, released this week, is a bit of a case study.

In Focus Area 3, Work-related road safety, firstly, it says: While trucks are not involved in significantly more crashes/km than other types of vehicles, these crashes are far more likely to be fatal, accounting for over 20 percent of road deaths. This is a highlighted statistic.

There are no details such as, who was at fault? What caused the crash? If a car crosses the centre line and crashes into a truck, sheer physics tells you the car will come off second best. But this does not mean the truck driver was at fault. Also, that leaves another 80 percent of road deaths caused by something else.

The discussion document goes on to say: We need to improve our understanding of the size of the challenge. To properly address the problem of work-related road safety, we need to clearly understand it. While we can piece together data from a range of sources to get an understanding of the total level of harm, we do not currently have the full picture of the key risks at play and harms that are occurring. Improving this data will help us to better target our efforts on work-related road safety, giving us a better understanding of the causes of work-related crashes, the types of vehicles involved, and the industries and sectors that have the highest levels of harm. There are also opportunities to work with the private sector to better share and coordinate work-related road safety information.

We agree with this. Let’s look at all the data before throwing stones. Let’s get the full picture behind the headline statistics.

Unfortunately, we live in an era where the headline wins and no one cares about the rest of the story.

Another case in point happened last week (12 July), with Justice Minister Andrew Little quoted as saying professional drivers who kill on New Zealand roads should be held to a higher legal standard of accountability than other road users. This is despite there being three existing laws that already allow this. The Road Transport Forum (RTF) has asked Minister Little to provide evidence to back his opinion.

While the Government stresses its focus on road safety, it rejects investment in quality roads. It’s not just truck drivers pointing out the poor design of some roads, and the dangerous deterioration of others.

The Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council says New Zealand is at an “infrastructure crisis point” and advocates for the 12 roading projects presently on hold or under review to proceed, possibly with private investment. But the Transport Minister Phil Twyford says that would be “really bad policy”. He says none of those roads would have enough traffic on them to pay for them. By that count, the Auckland Harbour Bridge, which had a 0.8 benefit/cost ratio, would never have been built.

This Government’s approach to road safety can be confusing and conflicting. It seems to be captured by the “climate emergency” agenda and a desire to get any fossil-fuelled vehicles off the roads. That’s all very well if you live in the centre of a big city and have choice. But it takes choice away from those of us who live in the suburbs, provinces and rural New Zealand and those who drive the economy by getting the exports we rely on to survive, to market.

The full suite of transport modes that don’t rely on fossil-fuels simply do not exist. And it remains to be quantified just what it will cost to run everything on electricity, and if there is even the capacity in New Zealand.

The Road to Zero name is in itself, confusing. Zero implies none, yet the strategy aims to cut road deaths by 40 percent in the next decade. This is a laudable goal and the RTF will be making a submission.

Discussion doesn’t mean we don’t fully support a road safety plan that reduces deaths and harm. It means we want to hold this Government to account on its road safety promises.

– Nick Leggett, CEO, Road Transport Forum

Delivering the right message on drugs and driving

Governments past have dealt to deaths on New Zealand roads caused by drinking and driving with a comprehensive system of testing, evidence gathering and punishment. This has been backed by extensive, and expensive, advertising campaigns that resonate through all communities. Who doesn’t remember the brilliant “you know I can’t grab your ghost chips” drink-drive campaign of 2011? It became a pop culture phenomenon. Advertising is still centred around “mateship” and a collective responsibility to stop people drinking and driving. No New Zealander can get in a car after drinking too much and not know they are doing something wrong.

It is time for this Government to apply the same principles to the serious issue of drugged drivers. The number of deaths caused by drugged drivers – 71 last year and 88 the year before – means there must be better testing to get these people off our roads. Testing for drugs is not always undertaken and so these figures will be only the tip of the iceberg and they only reflect deaths, not injuries.

The number of people being killed by drug impaired drivers is higher than by drivers above the alcohol limit. Something has got to change.

So far, a soft approach is being taken, possibly because of Government plans to decriminalise marijuana.

If decriminalising marijuana is to be seriously discussed by New Zealanders next year, the Government is going to need to act on a regime that tests road users appropriately. Employers and workers in the safety sensitive industries, such as road transport and handling dangerous goods, need a system by which they can monitor and enforce workplace safety, or they will have WorkSafe to deal with. Without consistency and standards, Kiwis might have little confidence in voting for anything other than the status quo.

It is important to note that truck drivers are in the unique position of sharing their workplace – New Zealand roads – with the public. While the road transport industry follows workplace health and safety laws to ensure drivers are not drug impaired, with extensive testing regimes including pre-employment, random and post incident/accident drug testing, there is no guarantee that those they are sharing the road with won’t be impaired by drugs as there is no adequate testing regime for them. There needs to be a standard approach to testing all drivers for impairment as a result of drug use.

In an accident where a car versus a truck, the car invariably comes off second best. Media headlines focus on the truck, but much of the time, the blame for the accident falls with the car driver. While people in cars have the misconception that trucks are dangerous, truck drivers see every day dangerous car driving.

The Government needs to change its single-minded road safety focus, which is tunnel vision on speed and getting vehicles off the road, and take a holistic look at all the other contributing factors to accidents, one of which is drivers impaired by drugs.

In this area there seems to be more sympathy for the rights of drug-using drivers than on the safety of those who share the road with them, or the rights of those they kill or injure. Time for testing, cost of testing, and “pressure on the system” to come up with any kind of punishment are being put up as barriers to doing anything.

The Road Transport Forum fully supports a comprehensive roadside drug screening policy as a first line tool for early detection of impaired, or potentially impaired, drivers. This should without question, be part of an overall aspiration to mitigate risk on New Zealand roads of injury and death caused by drugged drivers.

Roadside drug testing should include the Compulsory Impairment Test (touch your nose, walk a straight line, stand on one leg), screening with some of the new oral technology and saliva wipes, and where necessary, an evidentiary blood test. This should be backed by the same advertising attention that has been paid to telling all New Zealanders that driving while drug impaired is dangerous and results in loss of lives.

Let’s get serious about road safety.

– Nick Leggett, CEO, Road Transport Forum

Let’s tailor road safety solutions to our unique environment

Be like Sweden they say. The Government is looking at adding hundreds of speed cameras, attracting much larger fines, as part of a road safety strategy borrowed from Sweden.

For left-wing governments, the Scandinavian countries are the holy grail. With tax rates that are double ours, Sweden has plenty of cash to create wellbeing.

They are of course, selective with the Scandinavian comparisons they hold up as ideal – Sweden is the ninth largest arms exporter in the world, for example. That’s probably not something this Government plans to replicate (though they are about to have a load of guns on their hands). In fact, it is a bit like comparing apples to oranges to compare New Zealand and Sweden.

In the next few years, Sweden will have more than 3000 speed cameras, scattered across about 9000km of road.

By comparison, New Zealand Police operate 56 speed cameras throughout the country.

Sweden has more than 2000km of motorway and a further 6000km of expressway. The speed limits on its motorway network are up to 120km/h. New Zealand has 360km of motorway, with a further 124km under construction. Our poor quality roads are no comparison with Sweden’s sophisticated roading network. Sweden has a lower road toll that us, but it did go up in 2018 and there are many factors leading to death and injury on the roads other than speed.

The aim of replicating Sweden’s speed camera approach is to reduce death and injury on New Zealand roads. The Government has decided to focus on speed as the main driver for our high road toll. There seems to be a blind spot when it comes to the dire condition of some roads and other factors that contribute to our poor safety record.

Because the Swedish cameras are heavily signposted, fines are up to four times higher than they are in New Zealand.

If someone is caught driving at 11-15km/h over the speed limit in Sweden, they are fined NZ$320, compared to just $80 here. The New Zealand plan includes replicating the high fines to encourage changes in behaviour.

The theory is, if people know there are so many speed cameras and they are given so much warning of the location of those speed cameras, they stick to the speed limit and therefore, don’t need to worry about those high fines.

While the Police currently administer speed cameras in New Zealand, the plan would be to transfer this admin to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to allow a greater alignment between road planning and improvements and the placement of speed cameras. This might be a big ask given the volume of fines already generated by the speed cameras we have – more than $80 million in mobile and static speed camera fines in 2018.

The Government’s argument that more damage happens in a crash because of the speed the vehicles are going at the time, is not incorrect. However, that does not mean speeding was the cause of the accident, that the speed limit was being breached, or that the speed limits on our roads are unsafe. This view ignores the safety engineering in modern vehicles, as well as all the other factors that cause road accidents including drug and alcohol use, fatigue, distractions like using mobile phones, and poor road conditions.

The road transport industry is certainly open to an approach that changes behaviour, reduces people’s dangerous driving and improves safety. But we believe the answer to our road safety issues lies in more than this tunnel vision on speed. There needs to be a big picture view and due consideration of all road safety factors.

Kiwis love their cars; their car means freedom. So let’s see if the Swedish approach can be a fit for New Zealand, and that there is enough money for appropriate education before thousands of speed cameras are put up around the country and Kiwis end up out of pocket. Let’s also be open minded about other solutions and accept that maybe we should tailor solutions specific to our environment. We are very different to Sweden.

  • Nick Leggett, CEO Road Transport Forum

Where the rubber hits the road

One of the best parts of my job is getting out and about to speak to the people running freight companies and finding out what’s going on where the rubber hits the road. Yesterday, with the National Road Carriers chief executive David Aitken, I was able to spend time talking to five Auckland-based companies about opportunities and issues, and there were many recurring themes that line up with what the Road Transport Forum is advocating for on the industry’s behalf.

We saw a tremendous commitment to health and safety and looking after staff. Technology that detects driver fatigue is definitely life-saving and even those who weren’t so keen on it in the first place, have experienced its benefits first-hand. This technology alerts drivers who may close their eyes due to fatigue by shaking their seat, an alarm noise, and an alert to their company so someone can check they are OK. Even the best of drivers can experience fatigue, so it makes sense to invest in solutions like this.

One of the companies we visited, Mainstream, is bringing some creative thinking to health and safety and instead of the traditional high-visibility vests, they have designed their own high-vis shirts. They are made from recycled plastic, so get the environmental tick, and model a rugby league shirt because Mainstream also sponsors the Kiwis and Kiwi Ferns rugby league teams. The photo is me and Mainstream managing director Greg Haliday with one of the shirts.

Yesterday, we saw good companies, employing plenty of people and looking after their employees, and running businesses that keep New Zealand moving. If you look around you, pretty much everything that makes your everyday life tick over came to you via a truck.

So, it is disappointing to hear about some of the issues that are rooted in the anti-road ideology of the current Government. Resoundingly we heard:

  • Infrastructure – the state of some roads is unsafe due to lack of spending on upkeep, poor design and the wrong surface for the environment, and change of use (what were country roads in Auckland now major thoroughfares due to urban sprawl) – this is coming from people who have been using these roads day-after-day, year-after-year
  • Road user charges (RUC) and fuel taxes are increasing, but less is being spent on roads that need to be upgraded/improved/built and in fact, vital major roading projects have been de-funded
  • Money that should be used on roads is being siphoned off for political gain on cycle ways and rail – while rail is part of the transport network, those that use it say it is slow, expensive, unreliable, and up to 50 percent of the time, late
  • Getting the right staff – who pass pre-employment drug testing – requires better immigration pathways so drivers from countries such as the Philippines can be guaranteed a long-term career and a settled lifestyle
  • The emphasis on road safety needs to be broader than speed – professional drivers see distraction as the biggest threat to them eg. car drivers on mobile phones, and they see little policing of that and the other big threats, alcohol and drug abuse
  • Legalising recreational marijuana use and the impact that will have on safety sensitive businesses such as road transport, given the lack of any regulatory regime for road safety behind that.

The romantic notions this Government has around rail is a real concern. Rail can never match the efficiency and speed of road freight. It can’t deliver door-to-door. It’s not suitable for essential goods that must be transported within tight time frames, such as medicines and fresh food. Yet the Government plans to pour billions and billions of dollars into a rail infrastructure that is well past its use-by date. This is at the expense of roads, that all New Zealanders use to get where they need to go and receive all the goods they need to live. It makes no sense at all.

– Nick Leggett, CEO, Road Transport Forum

Road safety solutions need wider focus

There has been much debate this week about lowering speed limits on roads throughout New Zealand. In talking about the economic impact of such a move, there seems to be some belief that this means not caring about the deaths and injuries on New Zealand roads. Quite the opposite is true – at the Road Transport Forum we want to ensure a safe workplace for truck drivers, a workplace that has a positive impact on their well being, and a workplace that allows them to go home to their families at the end of their work shift. For much of that shift, their workplace is the road.

In New Zealand, debate on significant issues has taken an ugly turn. If you don’t agree chapter and verse with the Green anti-road/anti-motor vehicle movement, all manner of insults come your way, often in shouting capital letters. You are a “car fascist” or part of a “pro-death lobby”, to name just the tip of the iceberg of insults, many personal. This is frankly, ridiculous, and not healthy. It does not allow for progress, or good policy making. And if these people looked up, they would see that much of what they rely on to go about their everyday life travels to them by trucks.

Good policy and law making requires thorough and robust research relevant to the New Zealand context; a look at all contributing factors to a problem and matching the best options to those; stakeholder and public engagement; listening; and accepting opinions and advice that might be contrary to your own. Unfortunately, we are seeing less of this and more reactionary moves with unintended consequences.

To wake up on Wednesday morning and read that the Government wants to crack down on the road toll by dropping speed limits across the country is concerning. The statistics presented don’t give the full picture of what’s happening on New Zealand roads. A desktop mapping tool has been used to determine “safety” of roads. This data needs checking in the real world to make sure that what it is proposing makes sense. If decision-making rests on these maps, we are in trouble.

Of course, safety has to be the number one priority on our roads. But speed isn’t the cause of 75 percent of accidents, according to Government statistics. Let’s focus on the most dangerous 10 percent of roads, as well as all the other causes of accidents, to find the best ways to improve road safety.

To be very clear, the contributing factors to our road toll that need to be considered before hasty decisions are made include:

  • Speed
  • Road conditions and infrastructure
  • Vehicles – age and condition
  • Driver behaviour – including breaking the law by not wearing seat belts, using mobile phones, using drugs and alcohol with resulting impairment, driving without a licence, etc
  • Technology – improvements in vehicle safety; better road surfacing and infrastructure
  • Education, training and licensing
  • Enforcement – more laws and rules require more enforcement

It is concerning to see speed being the sole focus at the expense of what we believe is another critical factor in ensuring road safety – road conditions and infrastructure. This does not mean driving to the conditions. This means the conditions of the road are so poor, the road becomes dangerous even for the most sensible and unimpaired drivers. It means that no matter how well engineered a vehicle is, it hasn’t been engineered for the conditions on some New Zealand roads. It means those roads need to be brought up to a safe standard.

This does not mean the trimmings of median and side barriers, rumble strips and shoulder widening – which the Government is spending $1.4 billion on over three years – will magically make these roads safe. To quote truck driver Antony Alexander in the June issue of New Zealand Trucking magazine: “No driver ever said: ‘A rumble strip and bright white line makes me feel so much safer’.”

The New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA) Speed Management Guide, was a 10-year plan to target five percent of the highest risk roads, now all of a sudden that scope has been increased to 10 percent of roads over three years. The focus was not supposed to be on speed alone, major roads were to be upgraded to make them safe at higher speeds, but we have seen very little of that happening. In fact, in the past couple of years we have seen a de-funding of the roading budget.

In a press release yesterday the Selwyn District Council signalled NZTA funding cuts on local roading improvements could put motorists at risk.

“Vital projects which we were planning to improve the safety and efficiency of roading network, particularly our roads feeding into the Christchurch Southern Motorway, have been halted unexpectedly due to a shortfall in national transport funding. This puts our residents and other motorists at risk on main roads that are in desperate need of safety upgrades,” the Council said.

This is the big picture we should be discussing. New Zealand has 53,425km of sealed roads that are essential to our way of life and that we all share, not matter what mode of transport we choose. Can we grow up New Zealand and have a fruitful discussion about how we use these roads safely, an issue which is clearly on many people’s minds?

  • Nick Leggett, CEO, Road Transport Forum

Illegal and unsafe behaviour must be stopped

The road transport industry has been hit by some publicity recently that could be seen to put industry employment practices into a dim light and I want to address that.

There is video footage in the public domain that appears to show practices the Road Transport Forum (RTF) considers completely unacceptable in the trucking industry. We believe the behaviour on the video is not indicative of wider industry practices. The video footage relates to a matter before the Courts and I will not comment on that.

I will say, that we strongly support endeavours to weed out illegal behaviour that compromises the safety of workers and the New Zealand public, including the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) increasing its regulatory and compliance audits on the industry.

All road transport employees are employed under New Zealand law and their contracts and work conditions must reflect that. As such, employees are entitled to regular breaks, which they must be allowed to take. Employers cannot ask their employees to break the law. As part of good employment practices, employers should ensure employees are aware of what they can do if they feel unsafe in the workplace.

There’s information about employment on the government’s Employment New Zealand website (www.employment.govt.nz) and at Employment Agreement Builder to assist employers in meeting the law and getting it right. The RTF does not accept workers being employed without contracts as that is against the law.

I also want to be very clear that as an industry body, we advocate on behalf of road transport businesses to allow for workers from overseas to come to New Zealand to work for them. We want to support employing New Zealanders first, but there is simply too big a gap between the jobs that need to be filled and the New Zealanders available.

Any migrant workers are covered by New Zealand employment law. They have the same rights as citizen workers and should not be exploited.

It’s important that the trucking industry – and all industries – understand that it’s likely that sourcing migrant labour will become harder as the Government focuses attention on training and employing Kiwis as a first priority. Rules around this will likely become more evident over the next few months. As I have said above, investing in training all staff, paying them fairly, and allowing them their rest and break periods, should be non-negotiable for all trucking operators.

As an industry body we work with government regulators to ensure the road transport industry is constantly improving health and safety. We believe that technology that is available now, and will be developed in the future, will contribute to this. For example, electronic logbooks can ensure an appropriate record of hours worked and breaks taken, as per employment law, particularly if aligned with GPS information.

At RTF we are working hard to attract workers to the road transport industry and to show career pathways that are rewarding. That can quickly be derailed by bad publicity, even if that publicity is only reflective of one or two industry players. Perception is reality.

– Nick Leggett, CEO, Road Transport Forum

 

Slow road speeds, slow economy

As a country reliant on export dollars to maintain our great way of life, transporting goods on trucks, via roads, is the lifeblood that keeps the New Zealand economy moving.

Our roads are like the arteries in a human body. Arteries pump blood around your body to keep you alive, and most people are conscious of keeping those vital arteries healthy. If we want to keep our economy healthy and alive, roads must be treated as essential to that.

Road quality must be improved and maintained to a level that ensures goods can be moved in the most cost-effective way. That means, safely and without delay. This is getting increasingly important as the world wants more of our primary products, and the Government pushes for a much higher investment in forestry.

Regional roading infrastructure is critical to transporting our primary products from the farm or orchard gate to processing and markets, and the logs out of the forest to the port. While these movements can be a combination of road and rail, road will always be integral and its investment dollars should not be moved wholesale to rail.

Yet the Government is deferring significant road building and improvement and focusing on things like slowing speeds to allegedly make roads safer. Earlier this month Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter said speed limits on “the most dangerous roads” could drop to 80km per hour, as part of its road safety plans. This has some worrying implications for productivity and meeting market demands for goods.

Setting speed limits needs to be about more than safety. Mobility and the environment need to be balancing priorities in any decision making. And the environment is something we would expect this Government to focus on.

Slowing down heavy vehicles may in fact, increase their impact on the environment, with a rise in emissions at decreasing speeds. Without getting technical, this is to do with fuel and engine performance at various speeds, with that being different for trucks than for cars.

We want policy that solves problems. To do that, all factors need to be considered. At the moment it feels like the road safety focus is on the trimmings of median and side barriers, rumble strips and shoulder widening. A $1.4 billion spend over three years sounds like a lot for that. This policy was announced six months ago and despite the fact we are almost 20 percent through the period, we know precious little about the critical roads where it is to be spent. It sounds like another announcement without any detail or policy behind it.

If it is at the expense of quality road surfaces, and road building projects that could reduce travel times and congestion, as well as making roads safe, then we question that.

And if slowing down the traffic is because there isn’t money to spend on making the road surface safe and to avoid road building projects that could reduce travel times and congestion, then we question that as well. Under the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017, the Road Transport Forum, among others, is to be consulted on proposed speed limits and I look forward to that consultation.

Ms Genter refers to the “most dangerous roads” being the target for speed reductions. We need to know what determines “most dangerous”. If it is roads without median barriers, then that’s most of the South Island. If it’s hundreds or thousands of kilometres, then that will severely impact the productivity of New Zealand and our ability to export goods at prices markets will pay.

Each additional cost to transporting goods costs every New Zealander.

– Nick Leggett, CEO, Road Transport Forum

Professional road users committed to safety

During Road Safety Week 2019, I would like to acknowledge the great work many in the road transport industry are doing to ensure the safety of both their staff and all other road users.

Individual transport companies have staff and vehicles that travel millions of kilometres each year. Safety has to be a top priority when your machinery and people are travelling such vast distances. I got a first-hand run down of what companies are doing when I met with Greg Pert and Jackie Carroll from Tranzliquid (pictured) in Tauranga this week. Theirs is just one example of how companies integrate safety into their operations and their choice of investment in equipment, to ensure their staff get home safely after every trip.

Tranzliquid has combined new technologies and driver training in a commitment to safety. Staff are trained on “observation, anticipation and planning” so that they can manage risks and drive to the conditions.

We know that speed, fatigue and inattention are the big causes of accidents. To combat fatigue, Tranzliquid has designed a system that steps drivers through processes, while driving, to avoid fatigue. This includes a connection with the dispatcher at home base.

Safety features on vehicles now include:

  • Collision avoidance
  • Lane departure
  • Blind spot proximity
  • Disc brakes
  • EBS/ABS
  • Drag torque – anti wheel lock (in snow for instance)
  • Under run – side
  • Under run – front

They know of an incident where the under run on a truck proved life-saving for a car driver who fell asleep and hit a Tranzliquid truck.

Their business aim is to protect their drivers, other road users, their cargo and equipment and they are focused on happy staff and a downwards trend of accidents or incidents.

But they also say, there is only so much businesses can do and road conditions and congestion are impacting on productivity because they cannot move freight around fast enough.

If you can’t maximise the benefits of your clever trucks, there are consequences down the line, including an impact on the wider economy. For example, you might have 30 loads to get to Auckland but you can only manage to get 26 there, due to traffic and road works. The customer and carrier both incur additional costs in delays, and the loss of productivity and efficiency for the transport company reduces their ability and incentive to invest in new equipment and vehicles.

The road transport industry can only do so much to ensure safety. I am constantly being told that drivers are noticing the deteriorating condition of the roads, which will affect the safety of all people using them. Let’s not forget the behavior, skills and attention of all drivers on our roads.

As an economy that relies on goods being transported – to ports and airports for export and around the country for everything that keeps the country ticking – it is essential that the Government invests in more than just median barriers and rumble strips. Shifting the dial and reducing accidents rates and death on the roads involves focusing on many different aspects as outlined above. It will take a long time. It’s a responsibility that falls on all of our shoulders as road users.

– Nick Leggett, CEO, Road Transport Forum

Let’s take a serious look at road safety

April 2019 was the deadliest month on New Zealand roads in 10 years – 45 people dead, and many more lives impacted. It’s tragic and it brings into focus the need for something to be done about New Zealand roads and the way we drive.

It’s equally important that when tragedies occur, we don’t have a knee-jerk reaction. It’s essential to look at the “why?”. Once we understand that, we are best placed to take a strategic, long-term view to provide lasting solutions.

The Government has indicated road safety is a priority and the Road Transport Forum is encouraged by this. We certainly want to be at the table when solutions are designed, as we represent the commercial road users who keep the New Zealand economy moving by getting all the essentials delivered to your door, or your store.

In December last year, Transport Minister Phil Twyford and Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter announced a $1.4 billion, three-year programme to make New Zealand’s highest risk roads safer.

They said, the Safe Network Programme will make 870 kilometres of high volume, high-risk State Highways safer by 2021 with improvements like median and side barriers, rumble strips, and shoulder widening.

Once complete, the improvements are expected to prevent 160 deaths and serious injuries every year.

Absolutely, this is important. But we need to be careful not to think a bit of window dressing will provide long term solutions. The links between road use, driver behaviour, and road safety need to be fully explored.

A strategic look will determine things such as:

  • Statistics – what’s causing these accidents? If it is a drunk driver, no amount of road improvements will matter. If it is road design and increased use, then let’s find the best solution.
  • Is more traffic on the road causing more wear and tear that is not being addressed in time? Where’s the strategy to ensure roads remain fit for purpose, that is, to keep the New Zealand economy moving for commercial road transport users, as well as provide access for tourists and private road users.

Recently, I had the good fortune to spend a couple of hours with John Hickman, of J.D. Hickman in Taranaki. John is a legend in the road transport sector, building up from his original one truck to over 100 trucks today. John is very concerned about the state of New Zealand roads. In a quiet tour of the surrounding highways and local roads, John was able to point out to me their appalling conditions – see the photo above. He’s concerned for his drivers having to drive on sub-standard, poorly constructed roads for hours each day, and for his vehicles and the wear and tear and additional costs that are occurring. Newly built highways, such as the poor quality Kapiti Expressway, demonstrate there is something amiss in our road building. What’s of even greater concern, is a reduction in the highways budget of 15% since the Government took office. Part of the safety equation is well designed, modern highways.

The RTF urges Wellington decision makers to consider long-term strategies for a safe, efficient and sustainable transport network that meets economic realities and business growth plans. There are already many parts of New Zealand where the strain is evident and the economy is impacted by traffic delays.

We are concerned that the ongoing disruption at the New Zealand Transport Agency – currently without a permanent chief executive or a Board Chair – threatens to put the vital issue of roading infrastructure, and with that road safety, out of sights and minds.

– Nick Leggett, CEO, Road Transport Forum