Survey 2006 | Appendix A | Appendix B
Whole 2006 survey results report (PDF, 264kb)
The New Zealand survey of Public Attitudes to Road Safety has been undertaken periodically since 1974, and annually since 1994, to evaluate attitudes to road safety issues, primarily alcohol-impaired driving and speed. From 1994 to 2004, the survey was conducted for the Land Transport Safety Authority. From 2005, it has been conducted for the Ministry of Transport.
The survey is focussed on alcohol, speed and safety belts. In addition, respondents are asked their views on more general road safety issues.
This report presents the results of the survey under the following headings:
The fieldwork for the survey was carried out by an independent survey company, National Research Bureau. Surveys were carried out in May and June of each year by trained interviewers who conducted face-to-face interviews in respondents’ homes.
The sample was chosen to be representative of the New Zealand adult population, and included men and women aged 15 and over from towns, cities and rural areas throughout New Zealand. In 2006, 1640 people were interviewed, including 1470 who held driver's licences. Further details of the sample and methodology may be found in Appendix A.
2.1 Speed and alcohol are widely acknowledged as major road safety problems. Only eight percent of New Zealanders don’t acknowledge that drink-driving is risky, with little change over the last six years. One in seven (14%) agreed that speeding wasn’t risky as long as you were careful. As Figure 1 shows, this continues a gradual improvement in awareness of the risk of speeding.
2.2 Enforcement: Public support for alcohol, speed and seatbelt enforcement continues to be high. 44% said that Police efforts to enforce road safety laws should be increased and 46% wanted it maintained as the current level. Though support for compulsory breath testing (CBT) (76%), speed enforcement (76%) and seatbelt enforcement (86%) remained high, there was a small drop in the expectation of being caught if speeding.2.3 Trends: Over the last two years there has been a decrease in the perceived risk of being caught speeding or drink-driving (see Figure 2). Several other indicators have also moved in the wrong direction. If this trend continues, the gains of the 2000-2004 years are in danger of being lost.
Figure 2: People who agreed that the risk of being caught is small when… (decreasing is good)
3.1 How safe is road travel in New Zealand? Six percent of New Zealanders described road travel in this country as ‘very safe’. A further 73% described it as ‘fairly safe’; 18% described it as ‘fairly unsafe’ and 3% as ‘very unsafe’. This perception of safety has remained relatively stable over the last decade.
3.2 Road safety enforcement. Overall, public support for Police enforcement remains high. Public demand for more enforcement effort has increased slightly after a small drop in 2004 and 2005. In mid-2006, 44% said that Police effort to catch people breaking road safety laws should be increased further (compared to 38% at the same time in 2005), and another 46% wanted that effort maintained at current levels. Only nine percent thought Police effort should be decreased.
3.3 Penalties. Support for harsher penalties for road safety offences decreased in 1999-2000, when new vehicle impoundment and roadside suspension laws were introduced. Since then it has been fairly steady. In 2006, 53% of New Zealanders said that penalties should be kept the same and 36% wanted increased penalties. Only six percent were in favour of reducing the severity of penalties.
3.4 Advertising. Prior to the introduction of an intensive advertising and enforcement campaign in 1995, 60% of New Zealand adults thought that there should be more publicity and advertising about road safety. In mid-2006, 43% thought that such advertising should be increased further. This is a return to the 2001-2003 level after a drop to 35-38% in 2004 and 2005. Fifty-one percent thought the amount of advertising should remain at current levels. Only 5% wanted to see a reduction in publicity and advertising about road safety.
3.5 Road design and standards. Only 11% of New Zealanders described the design and standard of the roads they normally used as ‘very safe’. A further 72% thought that their usual roads were fairly safe. 17% described the roads they normally used as ‘very unsafe’ or ‘fairly unsafe’. There has been little change in this perception over the last decade.
3.6 Northland residents were most likely to describe the design and standards of their roads as unsafe – 39% of Northland residents described the design and standard of the roads they normally used as ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ unsafe. Gisborne residents also reported low levels of satisfaction with their roads, with 31% rating the roads they used as very or fairly unsafe.
4.1 The last decade has seen improvements in attitudes to alcohol, but there are signs that these improvements may not be maintained without sustained effort. More people than in recent years thought that “penalties for drink-driving aren’t very severe”, and fewer people thought that New Zealand’s drink-driving laws were effective at reducing the road toll.
Figure 3: Attitudes to alcohol (increasing is good)
Figure 4: Attitudes to alcohol (decreasing is good)
4.2 Risk of crash. Recognition of the risk of drink-driving is being maintained at a high level. Only 8% of New Zealanders agreed that ‘there is not much chance of an accident when driving after drinking if you are careful’(see Fig.1 in the Overview section above). Men were less likely than women to acknowledge the risk of drink-driving. One in seven young men aged 15 to 24 (15%) said that there wasn’t much chance of an accident when driving after drinking.
4.3 Social influences. Peer pressure and social drinking are strong influences. More than a third said that it was hard to keep track of what they drank on social occasions, and the same proportion said it was difficult to ‘go easy’ when drinking with friends. These measures have changed very little over the last ten years.
4.4 Young people, especially young men and those under 20, were most likely to agree with these statements. Half of the young men aged 15 to 24 said that it was difficult to ‘go easy’ when drinking with friends.
4.5 Self-reported drink-driving. The percentage of people who said they had driven while slightly intoxicated during the 12 months before the survey, fell between 1995 and 1999, but has remained fairly static since. In 2006, 24% of drivers (31% of males) said they had driven while slightly intoxicated, compared with 30% (41% of males) in 1995. (It is possible that the public perception of what ‘slightly intoxicated’ means may have changed over this period; this survey does not attempt to assess this).
4.6 People who said that they had driven while slightly intoxicated were more likely than others to say they enjoyed driving fast, and to have had a speeding ticket in the previous year.
4.7 Drink-driving enforcement. Significantly more people than in recent years said that the risk of being caught drink-driving was small. Agreement with this statement decreased from 49% in 1995 to 32% in 2004, as New Zealanders became increasingly aware of the effectiveness of drink-driving enforcement. In mid-2006, 41% said that the risk of being caught drink-driving was small, a significant increase from 34% in 2005, and the worst result since 2001. Figure 2 (in the Overview section above) compares this trend to the perceptions of being caught speeding or without a seatbelt.
4.8 Effectiveness of law. Fifty-seven percent of New Zealanders agreed that our drink-driving laws were ‘very’ or ‘quite’ effective at reducing the road toll, a decrease from 64% in 2005. Thirty-eight percent said that the drink-driving laws were not very effective, and only 2% thought that New Zealand’s drink-driving laws had no effect on the road toll.
4.9 Penalties. The view that ‘penalties for drinking and driving are not very severe even if you are caught’ has become less prevalent over the last decade, as people have become more aware of the penalties incurred for drink-driving. In 2006, 48% agreed with this statement, compared to 57% in 1998 before roadside licence suspension and vehicle impoundment were introduced.
4.10 Agreement with this view dropped steadily between 1995 and 2001 but, since then, no significant ground has been gained.
4.11 Blood alcohol limit. Forty percent of New Zealanders favour a lower legal blood-alcohol limit for driving. Twenty-nine percent said the limit should be lowered from 80mg/100ml to 50mg/100ml, and a further 11% wanted it lowered to zero. Only 6% were in favour of raising the legal limit. The remaining 48% wanted the limit left as it is.
5.1 Figures 5 and 6 suggest that the New Zealand public has perceived a decrease in the frequency and efficacy of checkpoints over the last two years, and the last year in particular.
Figure 5: Attitudes to checkpoints (increasing is good)
Figure 6: Attitudes to checkpoints 2 (decreasing is good)
5.2 CBT lowers road toll. Just over three quarters (76%) of New Zealanders agreed that ‘compulsory breath testing (CBT) helps to lower the road toll’. Only 14% disagreed with this statement. The remaining 11% said they were neutral or didn’t know.
5.3 Checkpoints. The number of people who said that they ‘seldom saw checkpoints except during blitzes’, has continued to increase, from 58% in 2003 to 67% in mid 2006.
5.4 Forty-one percent of drivers reported having been stopped at an alcohol checkpoint during the preceding 12 months. Thirteen percent of all drivers reported that they had been stopped at a checkpoint three or more times in the last year.
5.5 Chance of being stopped late at night. Forty-eight percent of New Zealanders surveyed thought there was a good chance of being stopped at a checkpoint if driving late at night. This is a significant decrease from 55% in 2005 and 56% in 2004, and is the lowest level since 1999. 33% disagreed with the statement (compared to 28% in 2005); the remaining 14% said they were neutral or didn’t know.
5.6 Chance of being stopped, by driving situation. Results were very similar to those for the last two years. Just over half (55%) said they would expect to be stopped and tested if they were drink-driving in a large city. This is higher than the perceived risk of being caught in a small town (31%), on a major highway (41%), or on a rural road (16%).
5.7 Chance of being stopped, by time of day. Although awareness of compulsory breath testing has increased over the last ten years, there are signs that this improvement has now stalled or may be reversing (see Figure 7).
Figure 7: Chance of being stopped and tested if drink-driving during…
5.8 Fifty-three percent of New Zealanders said they would expect to be stopped and breath-tested if they were drink-driving between 10pm and midnight. Less than half (44%) would expect to be caught if they were drink-driving between midnight and 2am, and around one-third (35%) if drink-driving between 6pm and 10pm.
5.9 Avoiding checkpoints. About a third of New Zealanders (36%) said that they could tell where checkpoints would be, and about a quarter (25%) claimed to use the back streets to drive home when they might be over the limit. This has remained essentially unchanged since 1998.
5.10 On the West Coast, 60% of residents thought they could tell where checkpoints would be, as did about half those in Gisborne and Northland, compared to the national average of 36%.
5.11 Thirty-one percent said they could often avoid checkpoints if they saw them early enough, a return to the 2001 level after a low of 22% in 2004 and 25% in 2005. Half of those aged 15-19 years thought they would be able to avoid a checkpoint.
5.12 Compulsory screening. Only one in seven New Zealanders said that some people stopped at checkpoints were not tested even when they were over the limit. The number of people who held this view decreased from 23% in 1995 to 14% in 2001, and has remained fairly steady since then.
5.13 More than one third (35%) of young men aged 15 to 24 thought that some people stopped at checkpoints weren’t tested, even if they were over the limit.
6.1 Most people still support speed enforcement. There has been either an improvement or no change in the proportions who recognise the risk of speeding, who agree that ‘enforcing the speed limit helps to lower the road toll’, and who support the introduction of harsher penalties for multiple speeding tickets. However, in the last two years there has been a decrease in the perceived risk of being caught speeding, which is returning towards 2003 levels.
Figure 8: Attitudes to speed and speed enforcement (decreasing is good)
Figure 9: Attitudes to speed enforcement (increasing is good)
6.2 Risk of crash. Recognition of the risk of speeding has gradually increased over the last ten years. Only 14% of New Zealanders agreed with the statement ‘there is not much chance of an accident when speeding if you are careful’, compared with 24% before the campaign began in 1995(see Figure 1 in the Overview section).
6.3 The attitude that ‘speeding isn’t risky as long as you are careful’ is most common among men over 60 (25% agreed) and young men aged 15-24 (24%). People who said that the risk of being caught speeding or drink driving was small were also more likely to say that there wasn’t much chance of an accident when speeding as long as the driver was careful.
6.4 Like driving fast. More than one-third (39%) of drivers said that they enjoyed driving fast on the open road. This is a small but significant increase from 35% in 2005 and 36% in 2004. Overall, 44% of males and 34% of females said they liked driving fast on the open road. Sixty percent of male drivers aged 15-24 said that they liked driving fast.
6.5 Effectiveness of enforcement. Support for speed enforcement remains high. In mid- 2006, 76% of New Zealanders agreed with the statement ‘enforcing the speed limit helps to lower the road toll’; 13% disagreed and 10% said they were neutral on this issue. This has changed little since 1995.
6.6 Risk of being caught. Awareness of speed enforcement increased markedly between 2000 and 2004, but there has been a slight reversal of the trend in 2005 and 2006 (see Figure 2 in the Overview section). In mid-2006, 30% of New Zealanders agreed with the statement ‘the risk of being caught speeding is small’. People aged 60 and over were most likely to say that the risk of being caught was small (42%).
6.7 Speed limits. The great majority of New Zealanders (84%) thought that speed limits on the roads they normally use are about right. 6% said they were too high and 8% that they were too low. This has remained essentially unchanged over the last five years.
6.8 When people were asked directly whether the 100 km/h speed limit should be raised, lowered or kept the same, 76% said they wanted it kept the same and a further 5% thought it should be lowered. The minority who think the 100 km/h limit should be raised has declined from 27% in 1995 to 19% in 2006.
6.9 In urban areas, the majority were in favour of retaining the current 50 km/h speed limit. 88% of New Zealanders said that the urban 50km/h speed limit should be retained or lowered. Since these questions were first asked in 1995, there has been in a gradual decline in support for raising speed limits.
6.10 Definition of speeding. Respondents were asked ‘On the open road, what speed do you consider to be speeding?’. 54% named speeds of 115 km/h or lower as ‘speeding’. The mean speed named was just over 115 km/h. This may reflect widespread knowledge of the 10 km/h enforcement tolerance applied by Police in practice. People aged less than 25, men, people who said they liked driving fast, and those who admitted to driving while intoxicated, were more likely than other groups to name high speeds.
6.11 Automatic licence suspension. Most New Zealanders found extremely high speeds unacceptable. From 16 January 2006, the threshold for automatic licence suspension is 40 km/h over the posted permanent speed limit, or 140 km/h on the open road. Automatic loss of licence at 140 km/h was described as fair or very fair by 77% of New Zealanders. This has gradually increased over the last decade from 66% in 1995. Only 11 percent said automatic loss of licence at 140 km/h would be unfair (the remainder were neutral or said they didn’t know).
6.12 The question asked how fair or unfair it would be for a driver to ‘automatically lose their licence’. The actual penalty is licence suspension for 28 days. It is possible that the ‘loss of licence’ referred to in the question sounds harsher than a 28-day suspension, so the responses may in fact underestimate public support for this penalty.
6.13 Speeding in urban areas was also regarded as unacceptable: 92% supported loss of licence for speeding at 90 km/h in a 50km/h zone. This has gradually increased from 86% in 1995. Three quarters (76%) supported automatic loss of licence at 80 km/h, and close to half (44%) were in favour of automatic licence loss at 70 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. Again, these have gradually increased since 1995, when the corresponding figures were 66% and 35%, respectively.
6.14 Repeat offending: Sixty-seven percent of New Zealanders said that it would be fair or very fair for three speeding tickets in a year to result in automatic loss of licence. This is a return to 2001-2003 levels after a softening in opinion in 2004 and 2005. 18% said it would be unfair or very unfair, and 15% were neutral on this issue or said they didn’t know.
6.15 Self-reported speeding infringements. One in six (16%) drivers reported receiving at least one speeding ticket in the previous year. This is similar to recent years. Twenty percent of men and 12% of women reported receiving a speeding ticket in the year preceding the survey. Not surprisingly, people who said they liked driving fast were more likely (21%) to have had a speeding ticket than those who disliked driving fast (10%) or who were neutral (17%).
6.16 People living in Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay were most likely to report having received a speeding ticket (around a quarter of drivers). At the other end of the scale, only 6% of West Coast drivers in the survey said they had received a ticket.
6.17 Forty percent of male drivers aged 20-24 had received a speeding ticket in the previous year.
6.18 Chance of receiving a ticket. The number of people who would expect to get a ticket if passing a Police officer (without a speed camera), at various speeds, has decreased for the first time in six years (see Figure 10).
6.19 Just over a third (35%) thought there would be a high or very high chance of receiving a speeding ticket if they drove past a Police officer at 115 km/h, compared to 43% in 2005 and 42% in 2004 (see Figure 11).
6.20 Sixty-three percent thought there would be a high or very high chance of receiving a speeding ticket if they drove past a Police officer without a camera at 120 km/h. This is a decrease from 68% in 2004 and 67% in 2005.
6.21 Awareness of enforcement is still higher than before the advent of the State Highway Patrol, but more work will be needed to reverse this year’s decrease.
6.22 Twice as many people think they would be likely to get a ticket if they drove past a speed camera at 115 km/h, than if they drove past a Police officer at the same speed (see section 7.4).
6.23 Nearly one third (30%) said there was a low or very low chance of receiving a ticket if they drove past a Police officer at 115 km/h, and one in seven (14%) thought the chance was low at 120 km/h. Young people under 30 were most likely to say that the chance of receiving a ticket from a Police Officer was low.
Figure 11: Perceived chance of receiving a ticket if driving at 115 km/h past a...
Figure 12: Attitudes to speed cameras (increasing is good)
7.1 Effectiveness of speed cameras. The majority of New Zealand adults (56%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘Using speed cameras helps lower the road toll’. This has fluctuated around 60% for the last six years, but this year’s level is at the lower end of this range. 27% disagreed that speed cameras help to lower the road toll and 13% were neutral on this issue.
7.2 People aged 15-24 were least likely to agree that using speed cameras helps lower the road toll (45% agreed).
7.3 Cameras operated fairly. Sixty-one percent said that speed cameras were operated fairly (24% disagreed with this statement and 12% were neutral on this issue or had no opinion). This has been maintained at the same high level since 1999.
7.4 Chance of receiving a ticket. In recent years New Zealanders have become more aware of speed camera enforcement, though the improvement has stalled this year. The percentage who said that they would be ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ to receive a ticket if they passed a speed camera at 115 km/h increased from 56% in 2000 to 78% in 2004, but has remained in the mid-70s, at 77% and 74% in 2005 and 2006, respectively (see Figure 11). Only one third (32%) said they would expect to receive a ticket if they passed a speed camera at 110 km/h.
7.5 Awareness of cameras. Thirty-six percent of New Zealanders said that they often saw speed cameras on their usual roads. This is similar to the previous two years, but significantly lower than in the years 1999 to 2003 when it was around 40-42%.
7.6 Hidden cameras. A new question about hidden speed cameras was added in 2004. This replaces the earlier question, which asked respondents to say to what extent they thought speed cameras should be hidden, ranging from ‘Always in full view’ to ‘Always hidden’.
7.7 Respondents were asked ‘Do you support or oppose the use of hidden speed cameras to catch speeding drivers?’. As in earlier years, more than twice as many people supported the use of hidden cameras as those who opposed them. 59% of New Zealanders said they supported or strongly supported the use of hidden cameras, while 26% were opposed or strongly opposed to their use.
8.1 General traffic enforcement. Thirty-two percent of New Zealanders thought that a driver who broke a traffic law (other than drink-driving or speeding) was likely to be stopped by the Police. This is very similar to the results for 2005 and 2004.
8.2 Vehicle impoundment. Most New Zealanders (89%) support vehicle impoundment for disqualified or repeated unlicensed driving. This is slightly lower than last year (92%), but similar to 2000-2003.
8.3 Unmarked police vehicles for traffic enforcement: Several questions about the use of unmarked vehicles (other than speed camera vehicles), to detect offending on the roads, were asked for the first time in 2004.
8.4 In mid-2006, 83% of New Zealanders were aware of the use of unmarked vehicles for traffic enforcement. This is a slight decrease from 87% in 2005. Awareness was high across all age groups and throughout NZ, though in Auckland and Wellington this awareness was lower than elsewhere (70%).
8.5 Those who were aware of the unmarked cars were asked to list all of the ways they’d become aware of them. Most people had heard about the cars from someone else (42%) and/or had seen someone being ticketed (35%), or seen an officer in a car (33%). 14% mentioned that they’d heard about the cars through the media, and 5% had personally received a ticket from an officer in an unmarked car.
8.6 Most people thought that unmarked cars were an effective and fair road safety measure. 68% said the use of unmarked cars to detect traffic offending was ‘very effective’ or ‘quite effective’ in helping to reduce the road toll. 25% thought the use of unmarked cars was not very effective and only 3% said they had no effect. (The remaining 4% did not express an opinion).
8.7 When asked how fair or unfair it would be for a driver to have his or her traffic offending detected by an unmarked police car, 79% said that this would be ‘fair’ or ‘very fair’. Only 8% said it would be ‘unfair’ or ‘very unfair’ (the remaining 12% were neutral on this issue).
9.1 Perceptions relating to safety belts were very similar to those for previous years, and have not shown the same deterioration as was evident in the answers to questions about alcohol and speed enforcement. The responses to the enforcement questions have shown significant improvement over recent years.
Figure 13: Attitudes to safety belts (increasing is good)
Figure 14: Attitudes to safety belts (decreasing is good)
9.2 Effectiveness of safety belts. As in previous years, almost all New Zealanders (95%) agreed that safety belts are effective in reducing the road toll.
9.3 Enforcement of adult safety belt use. 37% of New Zealanders thought it ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ that they would be caught if they drove without wearing a safety belt. This is much the same as in 2005 (36%), after a high of 40% in 2005.
9.4 If travelling as a front-seat passenger without a safety belt, 36% would expect to be caught by Police. Only 16% said it was likely or very likely that they would be stopped if they travelled unbelted in the rear seat.
Figure 15: Chance that an adult will be caught if not wearing a seatbelt while...
9.5 Child restraint enforcement. The general perception is that child restraint use is more rigorously enforced than adult safety belt use. Nearly half (48%) said there was a high chance of being stopped if travelling with an unrestrained child in the front seat, but only 30% said this would be the case if the child was in the back seat. These have shown a steady increase over the last decade, from 41% and 26%, respectively in 1995.
9.6 Effectiveness of safety belt enforcement. 86% of New Zealanders agree that enforcing the use of safety belts helps to lower the road toll. This has remained fairly constant over the last decade.
9.7 Penalties. More than a third of New Zealanders (34%) said that the penalties for not wearing a safety belt were not very severe even if you were caught. People who said that ‘the risk of being caught is small’ were more likely than others to think that the penalties were not very severe (44%).
A set of supplementary questions on road engineering and design was asked for the first time in 2002.
10.1 Importance of roading improvements. Respondents were asked how important improving road engineering and design is for road safety. 67% said that improving road engineering and design would be ‘very important’ for road safety, and a further 28% said it would be ‘fairly important’. These results have remained fairly stable over the last three years.
10.2 Roading priorities. Respondents were asked a series of questions designed to prioritise the importance of safety engineering improvements to different types of road. As in previous years, open-road state highways emerged as the highest priority overall. They were followed by motorways, other open roads and major roads in towns and cities. Residential streets received the lowest priority rating for safety engineering improvements.
10.3 Pedestrians and cyclists. Respondents were also asked ‘how high a priority for road safety is making the roads better for pedestrians and for cyclists?’ Similar priority ratings were given to safety improvements aimed at pedestrians and cyclists. Making the roads safer for both pedestrians and cyclists was accorded a similar priority to motorway improvements.
Survey 2006 | Appendix A | Appendix B